« Taking the Congress--An Update | Main | Back To A Failing Iraq »

September 19, 2006


if typepad would work, I'd add this from Gallup:


In essence, both the Samplemiser and three-poll rolling average procedures adopt a "wait and see" approach, discounting the influence of the most recent poll taken by itself, and instead emphasizing longer-term trends using larger numbers of interviews.

Has anyone seen the new republican attack ads? Gross misreading of the public spawned by recycling their own urine and feces has led to inbred idiocy. They are drunk with their own stewed juices. Consultation and objecitive insight are merely facades to these people. The will continue to melt down like the radioactive fuel they are.

It's been so long now I forget the exact number, but I know Gallup had an outlandish Bush-over-Gore margin ten days out from the election 2000 (my tarnished memory says 7 or 8%). Rasmussen I take with a grain of salt (knowing but disagreeing with his "Repubicans are undersampled" theory); Gallup I flat don't trust, and haven't since 2000.

But, easy prediction: this poll number will be heralded everywhere as the unquestionably correct reading, and a sign of Bush triumphalism; the Rasmussen conclusion -- to say nothing of Harris' 38% yesterday -- will be media no-shows. Dems, steel yourselves for seven weeks of psychological warfare; keeping the faith will require an ability to shut out lots of what you hear on TV.

Buchanan et. al. are also pushing the immigration front, which is another thing the Bushies have failed to handle, at least according to many. Now that Il Duce has effectively rebuffed Iran's president, we can be fairly sure his approval rating is going to slip more, I think. You'd have to be a pretty committed Jesus Bush freak to stick with him now.

Via the Rasmussen link, I noticed that they, in fact, have Bush down another point today, to 40%. IMHO, the momentum, such as it was, already has begun to reverse.

did he (supposedly) do something to get this bounce, or are polls just bouncy? Usually a bounce implies some event that causes a temporary shift in opnion (until people forget about it). Surely not his recent speech? 9/11 pageantry?

it's (supposedly) the concentration on the WoT as an aggregate.

The Harris link demtom metioned is here from 9/15.

"Among registered voters, 35 percent say they are going to vote for the Republican candidate, while 45 percent say they will vote for the Democratic candidate. The race is similar if we look at likely voters, (i.e., registered voters who say they are very or somewhat likely to vote) as 35 percent choose the Republican candidate, while 46 percent say they will vote for a Democrat. Thirty-seven percent of interested voters (i.e., registered voters who say they are very or somewhat interested in the upcoming election) say they are voting Republican while 47 percent say they are voting Democratic."

IOW, Harris doesn't agree with Gallup.

It was all the 9/11 talk and the terror talk that boosted him, but the Senate and even the House are having qualms about the torture bill. If there are not the votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate, will they bring it to a vote in the House? I think the R's risk overplaying their hand on this one. Torture really doesn't appeal to everyone, and I suspect the number of Indies who would take Colin Powell over Bush is rather large. The intensity of anti-Bush sentiment is at least as strong among Indies as Dems. But we'll see. And it won't have any impact on the Governors' races, where, except for CA, the Dems are poised for several pickups, some by very wide margins.

I have said before that there was a trend (upward) though the big poll looker DemFromCT seemed to be in denial.


This recent polling data tells me that voters have a clear perspective on the war in Iraq...perhaps more cogent than either Party. They feel it is being handled poorly, they know what a civil war looks like, they believe Congress has failed to do its part in guiding and overseeing the executive branch, and they realize that the notion of exporting democracy to the Middle East is a Bush Doctrine that fails to recognize the realities in the region. Finally, they believe that Middle East stability is important and that a withdrawal that leaves Iraq in chaos may well be detrimental to the United States.

That, my friends, is one spot on analysis and suggests that voters have discerned fact from fiction with an impressive demonstration of acuity. Perhaps both parties will someday learn that the truth is, in the final analysis, the most powerful campaign strategy available. Don't hold your breath.

Read more here:


The Dems aren't sitting on their hands on the torture debate. The only reason that the 3-5-8 Republican Senators have any clout is that close to if not over 40 Dems are ready to filibuster the bill, and the R's don't have the votes for cloture. In fact, if there are really 8 R Senators against the bill in its WH form, that means there are not enough votes to pass it on an up-or-down vote. Granted, the media isn't discussing this, but it is evident to anyone who understands the Senate.

though the big poll looker DemFromCT seemed to be in denial.

LOL. Jodi, let's try again slowly.

Gallup says 5 point bounce. Rasmussen says 6 points, and now dissipated. AP-Ipsos, Pew and Harris say no bounce at all. WSJ/NBC says 2 as does Dr. Franklin's aggregate. Over at Mystery Pollster, there's a debate about Gallup and it's inaccurate LV model.

I say 2-6 (if it's that) is not important and won't last. That's not denial, and until we see more polls,a trend is not established.

"Whether the Farrells, Courtneys and Murphys (CT-4, CT-2 and CT-5) of the world win or lose locally based on it is now in their hands." I saw a little of a Nancy Johnson ad posing the bogus "do you want us to be able to wiretap somebody calling Al Qaeda or lose them while we fill out three days' worth of paperwork" question. With the torture issue looking like a loss for the Reps (knock wood), the main thing they have left in their terror toolkit is the disinformation campaign on NSA's warrantless wiretapping. And it works -- even Robert Reich (on Stephanopoulos a few weeks ago) didn't seem to realize that the issue is not the wiretapping but the oversight.

Does anybody know if the Dems have gotten it together on this issue yet? While I agree that Iraq is likely to be voters' overriding concern, Dems should -- and easily can -- defuse the impact of the one (albeit weakened) straw the Reps still hold. We all know the potential for the well-timed "leak" of a "terrorist plot" on, say, November 2; I'd feel a lot better about that possibility if I heard the Dems (in ads and otherwise) making a few simple points over and over again: 1-what party, or court, wouldn't approve listening in on a call to Al Qaeda?; 2-FISA allows for retroactive warrants; therefore, 3-why are these guys yet again fighting simple oversight?

I'm hearing more and more from the Dems (and in the media!) that Iraq has in fact made us less safe in the overall "WoT"; it'd take very little at this point to completely neutralize the terror issue. That means not letting them get away with any of their propaganda anymore, on wiretapping or anything else. So I hope Murphy has an answer to that dishonest Johnson ad, and I hope that answer is replicated in every contest.

The AP: "In a further hint of problems for the administration, House officials said their chamber was postponing a vote planned for Wednesday on a bill mirroring Bush's proposal. Republican officials... said they have encountered resistance and were no longer certain they had enough votes to push the measure to passage through the GOP-run House."

That was from NBC's First Read, and it also notes that the judiciary committe has 3 bills but hasn't been briefed on the program... intelligence has to review the bills for judiciary. It's tough for Dems to argue about it when they haven't been briefed.

That's on the spying bill? Good news if they can't even ram that through the House. But my point still stands. The stuff in that Johnson ad is demonstrable crap, which they continue to use to fuzzy up the issue and make Dems look like they don't want to eavesdrop on the bad guys. So as soon as the topic is terra they get a blip in the polls. Admittedly just a blip, and almost certainly fleeting; but again, timing can be everything. It's really easy to slap that garbage down in a way that lets people understand both the (general) issue and the Republicans' (typical) dishonesty and contempt for checks and balances (and in a non-defensive way that can allow us to ridicule them to boot). I wish the Dems would start doing it already.

rj, I agree with you it's frustrating this GOP advantage on general terrorism is based, in many cases, on false information. There are two reasons why it's hard to break through: 1) After the Trade Center attacks, the Dems opted to play good loyal Americans, and didn't challenge "Bush is a strong leader protecting us", even though there were lots of reasons to argue otherwise. It's hard to change a public perception that was allowed free reign for so long. 2) As you yourself imply, the GOP has promulgated so many falsehoods, it becomes difficult to fend them all off. I imagine many in the public would think, It can't all be lies -- even though you and I know it is. It's a variation on Hitler's "big lie" policy -- there, the premise was, if you told a lie so monstrous and outsized, people would, paradoxically, assume no one would lie to that extent, so it must be at least partly true. Here, it's the multitudinous quantity of lies that will persuade many that there must be some truth in it somewhere.

I do understand demtom, on both points. But the environment is so different from what it was for so long that I've found that people who couldn't hear me two years ago are very receptive today. And on the second point, demolishing a few choice falsehoods is not an insurmountable task, and I'd argue that the NSA "program" offers the perfect opportunity. It actually lends itself to simplicity (what's so hard about "it's not the spying, it's the oversight"); and I'd argue that it's a political necessity for the Dems not to cede the terror turf, and to go straight at what's seen, illegitimately, as Republicans' strength. (Not to mention the constitutional urgency...)

``Whether the Farrells, Courtneys and Murphys (CT-4, CT-2 and CT-5) of the world win or lose locally based on it is now in their hands.''

And on who does the counting, how voting machines are allocated between D leaning precincts and R leaning precincts, &c. Maybe in CT this won't be the kind of problem that it was in other states in 2004, but the D's had better be ready, esp. in Ohio, to do whatever they can, (in Ohio, perhaps even including tarring and feathering the abominable J. Kenneth Blackwell and riding him out of town on a rail), to make sure the kind of hanky-panky that happened in 2004 is minimized.

Legal challenges are fine, but I would suggest that sit-ins, and other forms of nonviolent direct action be considered in extreme cases. At least in Ohio, for example, you want ads, preferably multiple ad buys, pointing out the basic conflict of interest in having the R candidate for Gov be the person administering the election in which he is a candidate.

Note: I haven't seen much on TNH about this as a factor for the election: perhaps we could have reporting on efforts in key states to prevent the R's from stealing this one?

[See Marc Crispin Miller's book Fooled Again for a polemical---but as far as I can see truthful---account of what went wrong two years ago.]

We at TNH do not agree the election was stolen, though we all have major concerns about electronic voting and voter suppression (which is different than voter fraud). There are many more doubts about 2000 than 2004.

``though we all have major concerns about electronic voting and voter suppression (which is different than voter fraud).''

So far as the result goes, what is the difference between setting up conditions that keep voters from being able to vote---as with the long lines in Cayuga County in Ohio in Nov, 2004---and add votes for Bush electronically in some other county in Ohio? One more vote for Bush vs. one less for Kerry seem
to add up to pretty much the same thing in the final count. So far as I know, every apparent anomonly favored Bush-Cheney. That's not what one would have expected assuming no fiddling---direct or indirect---of the vote.

Also bear in mind also that the preliminary recount in Ohio (a 3% sample of precincts) may well have been fiddled to prevent a full recount. [If the 3% sample was okay, then the law in Ohio, if I understand correctly, says that no full recount need be done.]

As a born Akronite (Entering Class at Siberling in 1943, Goodyear Heights Native, and with cousins who worked the last election and know what an honest one looks like) Yea, Kerry was whopped. Portage Path School off West Market, 400 folk in line, in the rain, who were denied the right to vote because the doors were locked on them at poll closing time even if they were in line to vote. And virtually all of them were Kerry votes. Siberling School stayed open an extra half hour -- but then Goodyear Heights is mostly White. Look -- the election system in the state is corrupt and the need is for someone to take it into court.

I don't know what got into the polls but Amy Klobuchar just moved into the 60% range against Mark Kennedy who is apparently stuck in the 30's. This is the Minnesota Poll which the Republicans claim is totally biased, but which pretty clearly predicted the DFL outcomes last election. The Republican reaction to the Minnesota Poll was not to invest in Kennedy -- no, they posted more ads for their congressional candidates.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad