GOP losing NASCAR dads and Security Moms! Cracks appear in NASCAR voters' Republican loyalty http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060817/pl_nm/nascar_dc Republicans losing the 'Security Moms' http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle...nt/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701484_pf.html
This is too funny... RNC Making An Issue Out Of...A Blogger? Can this really be true? NBC's blog First Read reports that the Republican National Committee is planning to make a major midterm-elections issue out of...Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of Daily Kos. RNC aides tell First Read that the recent detailed press release they put out about him "is one part of laying the groundwork to tie Democratic candidates around the country to Kos." Whaaa? We'd love to hear from you on this. Can the RNC really be trying to make an issue out of a guy whose name recognition has gotta be in the low single digits, if that -- and also, does anyone think the fact that he's got a foreign-sounding last name was a factor in the RNC's decision? http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/
The Rothenberg Political Report http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-print-edition-house-outlook-for_25.html House Outlook For 2006 By Stuart Rothenberg Our latest race-by-race review of Congressional districts around the country convinces us that a Democratic wave is building and that the party is poised to take control of the House of Representatives in the fall. The only question now is the size of the November wave. The national mood remains bleak for Republicans. President George W. Bush’s job performance ratings are terrible, and the public still gives Congress low marks. A majority of Americans continue to tell pollsters that the country is headed in the wrong direction. That’s a recipe for a GOP disaster, and there is no reason to believe that things will change dramatically between now and Election Day to improve Republican prospects. At the district level, voters are more critical of Republican incumbents – and supportive of even unknown Democratic candidates – than they usually are at this point in the election cycle. GOP candidates are running behind where they would be in anything approaching a “neutral” year. While some firming of the Republican base is likely over the next ten weeks, that alone may not be enough for the party to retain the House. Strong fund raising by the DCCC should mean that some Democratic candidates won’t face the huge financial discrepancy that they have in the past, though RNC money should boost the Republican ground game nationally. To hold the House, Republicans must retain at least a handful of districts that now appear likely to go Democratic, probably by discrediting Democratic challengers and open seat hopefuls. Unlike previous cycles, when the burden was on Democrats to create upsets, the onus is now on the GOP to save at least a handful of seats before Election Day. Therefore, we are raising our estimate of likely Democratic gains from 8-12 seats to 15-20 seats, which would translate to between 218 and 223 seats – and a majority – in the next House. For our full ratings and anaylsis of each competitive race...subscribe now.
More from the Rothenberg Political Report An Anti-Incumbent Election? This Year? Of Course Not By Stuart Rothenberg September 18, 2006 Over the past year or so, I’ve heard more than a few people talking about 2006 as an anti-incumbent election. Well, those people are wrong. We are not going to have an anti-incumbent election in November. We are going to have an anti-Bush election. First, let’s get our terms straight. If “anti-incumbent election” means anything, it is that voters are so dissatisfied with the status quo that they vote against all incumbents, regardless of party. The term highlights one, and only one, quality of embattled candidates: their incumbency. This kind of election is not about party or ideology or how Members voted on a particular piece of legislation. If it were about any of those things, it wouldn’t simply be an “anti-incumbent” election. An anti-incumbent election is a referendum on the “ins,” and voters, for whatever reasons, are so unhappy with the performance of those “ins” — all the “ins” — that they throw them out. All of them. I’m sure 2006 won’t be an anti-incumbent election, for two very different reasons. First, history strongly suggests — and “suggests” actually is far too mild a word — that we don’t have anti-incumbent elections in this country. I’m not saying that we’ve never had one or that we never will have one, but I’m hard-pressed to identify one during the past 50 years. Over the past 26 Congressional elections, going back to 1954, there have been only three elections when at least a half-dozen incumbents of both parties were defeated — 1956, 1990 and 1992, according to “Vital Statistics on Congress, 2001-02,” edited by Norman Ornstein, Thomas Mann and Michael Malbin. By contrast, we have had eight elections in which one party knocked off at least 20 of the opponent’s incumbents and lost fewer than a half-dozen of its own. Virtually all midterm elections are a referendum on the party of the president, so it isn’t surprising that when a political wave hits, it damages one party much more heavily than it does the other. The worst bipartisan election since the mid-1950s was in 1992, when a total of 24 sitting House Members — 16 Republicans and eight Democrats — were defeated. While there was a strong anti-Washington, D.C., mood developing in this country at that time, that year also was a redistricting election in which some incumbents didn’t possess the normal advantages of incumbency. That fact undoubtedly explains so many incumbent losses. Otherwise, over the past 50 years, the closest we’ve come to an anti-incumbent election was in 1990, when six Democrats and nine Republicans lost in the general election, and in 1978, when 14 Democrats and five Republicans were defeated that November. Second, there is very little evidence that the environment in the current cycle is heavily stacked against incumbents in general, even though a handful have been defeated for renomination. Looking toward November, there is no indication that the two major parties both are facing significant incumbent losses. I suppose Democrats could lose an incumbent or two if things go poorly for them, but right now there isn’t a single Democratic seat that ranks in the 25 most vulnerable House seats in the country. Not one. Not a single one. The vulnerability is entirely on one side of the partisan aisle. How could we possibly be having an anti-incumbent election if one party loses 10, 15 or even 20 incumbents and the other party loses none, or one or two? Instead, what is developing is a classic political wave of voter dissatisfaction about the direction of the nation and the performance of the president. Congressional candidates from the president’s party are about to bear the brunt of voter dissatisfaction, because President Bush isn’t on the ballot. Republican incumbents are in trouble not because they are incumbents, but because they are Republicans. This election isn’t really about agendas. Sure, Democrats have something called their “New Direction,” but most voters aren’t regarding November primarily as a choice between two visions or two ideologies. No, it’s about sending a message to the president and to Congress that they aren’t happy — specifically with the Iraq War, but more generally as well. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman is quite correct when he says Republicans will do better when the election is a choice rather than a referendum. Unfortunately for him, that’s not likely to happen until 2008. So what about the defeats of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Reps. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) and Joe Schwarz (R-Mich.), and even Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski (R)? The answer is simple. Each lost for specific reasons, not because of a trend. It isn’t their incumbency that unites them. They lost because of their own voting records and style. While it is true that voters are not particularly impressed with Congress in general or either of the two major parties, the midterm elections have developed into a referendum on the president. Republicans may well succeed in minimizing the damage in November by localizing elections and re-electing incumbents, but there is no indication that voters will send a message of dissatisfaction with all incumbents in the fall. That means that all but a handful of Democratic House incumbents can rest easy. http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2006/09/anti-incumbent-election-this-year-of.html
yes, and we can all agree that the democrats haven't a clue as to how to do better, and would sell their souls to the islamo fascists to beat bush.
No we can't really agree to that, and you are spouting baseless insults out your ass again. Do you just wake up and decide to accuse democrats of not wanting to fight terrorism because of what? You have no evidence to back your claims. It is only your opinion that the Democrats ideas on fighting terror are worse than the GOP's ideas, you've never shown any evidence to the contrary. Yet you persist coming in here and spouting off the insulting BS.
LOL, I love how you post this crap when Bush is in the middle of a push to legalize torture in another needless power grab. Talk about selling our souls.......
in fact, he's not, and if you got your news from someplace other than nytimescnndemocraticdailykosunderground.com you would be aware of this.
I want my sign that says: "Make Bush a lame duck, vote Democrat 2006" or "Support our troops, bring them home, vote Democrat 2006"
Yeah the NYT was so liberal with Judith Miller leading the cheerleading for the Iraq War. The NYT was so liberal and or Democratic when they held the news of Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping till after the last presidential election. CNN's Wolf Blitzer is just a pacifistic Arab lover on the Middle East. Joe Scarborough another CNN host is no longer an ex conservative GOP Congress member, but a pinko now that he is in the mainstream media.
Joe Scarborough is on MSNBC. The only cable news channel you should watch... if you have to watch cable news.
Sorry, I was busy listening to the so-called moderate republicans like Sens. Graham, McCain, and I guess a guilt-tripping Colin Powell. But now that you shot the messenger I'm really convinced of the merits of your position.
you're confusing, purposfully, a debate about the president's specific proposal on how to try detainees, w/ condoning torture. bush has specifically, on multiple occassions, said he and his admin do not condone torture. coercive interrogation techniquies are not torture. but perhaps we need a discussion fo what constitutes torture.
He has said that, but won't put action to his words. He blustered against McCain's legislation against torture, and then signed it after making sure that he had a loophole to get out of it. For someone who is supposed to show such strong leadership in the WOT why is he being so wishywashy? He is deciding to try and make his own convenient interpretation of the Geneva convention again to provide as much wiggle room as possible. Bush also said he was against nation building. Bush also said that we would get Osama Dead or Alive. Bush has said plenty of things that don't match the actions he has taken.
Bush has his own ,definition of "torture". He then says that he does not condone torture. According to his eccentric definition which is at odds with the Geneva Convention and generally accepted standards, torture only involves complete organ failure or some such. Sorry, Basso, Bush has very little credibility on the torture issue. This is hurting the hell out of the United States in world opinio. Despite the bluster of Bush and conservative supporters, this makes our country weaker and more prone to terrorism.
Bush "I don't support torture" and then hides behind the definition of torture. Clinton "Blow jobs are not sex" and then hides behind the definition of sex. Politicians.....lie......but I chose sex over torture every day of the week. DD
