« The Coming GOP Civil War | Main | More Polls: Bush At 34% in The NYT/CBS, 39% in ABC/WaPo »

October 09, 2006

Comments

I have said before.

The Dems should win the House.
The Dems have a slight edge on the Senate, but too close to call.

See DemFromCT, you only need ask me.

:)

The Foley/Hastert scandal was a crystalizing moment like Schiavo and Katrina. Simple images that are easy to grasp of everything that is wrong with GOP rule. They are there when you don't want them and not there when you do. They are cowards and grandstanders and always out for themselves, even if they are tone-deaf in judging what would play well. They won't take responsibility, won't make hard choices and won't tell the truth.

The big beneficiaries are going to be (Dem) women candidates, especially former prosecutors, as we have seen in recent polls showing a massive lead for Amy Klobuchar (MN-Sen), big jumps for Granholm in MI-Gov and Stabenow MI-Sen, and, hopefully a jump for Claire McCaskill in MO-Sen. Look for Dem women HOuse candiodates to jump as well. Women don't play around as much, have more compassion and more sense.

And I think we will see as the fundraising reports come in just how crippled the GOP is without Abramoff and DeLay and the prospect of easy victory.

Yes, Jodi, I listened. You were right. ;-)

Mimikatz, the grandmother and mother who will be Speaker will definitely benefit.

Dem, my "convention" reference was to the souffle-consistency of numbers gathered from polling on the last night -- which tend to deflate on their own, even without an offsetting convention. I just think it's possible this polling -- done while reports on Foley are running in the background 24 hours a day -- might overstate our case a little.

But I'd be deliriously happy to be wrong. If these numbers were true...we'd be talking about every Dem who currently leads a poll winning their race (lucky you, Sen. Memendez -- plus Sens.-to-be McCaskill, Ford, etc.); anyone in error-margin having an excellent shot at crossing the finish line; and even some seeming long shots making more decent showings than now seem likely (as I recall, Pataki and Bush were considered underdogs at this point in '94).

29 days. Can we just freeze the ball?

Am I right to see in the shape of the curve of the polling one of the lessons of a 'battlegrounds' strategy vs. a '50-state' strategy?

As the Republican party has narrowed its ability to identify a few strategically key races, I imagine it has left itself open to the kind of rapid collapse the poll numbers (I think) indicate. Their party machne has been optimized to deal with, what, like 15 critical House & Senate races? Once they start needing to play defense in 30 or more, it seems like they don't have the resources to keep that many balls in the air -- and the thinner they spread themselves, the worse each one gets, and the more races come into play.

Obviously there is a lot more going on, most of it reflecting voters' awareness of real matters of policy and integrity (or lack of each). But I'm wondering if the Republican party campaign machinery is passing a 'tipping point' in this season of its own creation -- the point where the number of campaigns in trouble passes the number they can supply help to, and the fires start to exceed in number the fire-putter-outers.

Or maybe I'm just in a good mood because the Yankees got knocked out.

maybe this story will slow the tide.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20061009/cm_weeklystandard/sexscandalsanddoublestandards

the mud party is pretty good at finding it and slinging it... lets see how far this goes..

'pockets: it's a false dichotomy. In fact, it's not a dichotomy, it's just reported that way. My personal take is that widening the field made excellent sense in 2005 and early 2006. But now's the time to tighten up and not spend money where it won't result in sets retained or gained. What it's probably doing right now is spreading the resources out too much. We don't have a chance to win seats in every state, so we shouldn't be diverting too many resources to those places where the balance of power will almost certainly be exactly the same on January 1, 2007.

And why does everyone have to talk only about the Yankees getting knocked out, and not about the Tigers advancing??? ;-)

flat out, friggin' REFUSE to allow myself to feel the tiniest bit optimistic... not with karl rove in the west wing... nosirreeee... which also reminds me, i need to get my absentee ballot in the mail this week...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

Marshall says NYT/CBS has Bush at 34%. His link is funny,

'Pockets: What happened this year, and properly so, was spreading the field, which is a different strategy than the 50 state strategy.

Dean's 50-state model is building state parties and being in a position to make a showing everywhere.

The Battleground strategy involves contesting 11-20 states in the presidential, and pouring most of your money into an equal number of contested House seats.

Spreading the field is being able to challenge seriously in 50-60 seats, while adequately protecting endangered incumbents, of which one would normally expect 10-25. Fielding a candidate in as many House races as possible, but still to some extent concentrating on the seats with the most potential, and being flexible enough to take advantage of scandals (OH-18, FL-16) and poor GOP candidate selection (ID-01, CO-05).

At this point enough has probably been spent in the top races. Now is the time to look at second tier candidates who are in areas with only a slight, if any, PVI advantage for the Repubs, and a good Dem candidate. Preferably in smaller markets. In these races another $100,000-$200,000 would go a long way, whereas Diane Farrell (CT-04) and Patsy Madrid (NM-01) and some of the other Dem candidates have saturated the airwaves already. The marginal value of more resources in some of those races is less than the marginal value of more money in a lower-budget race. Not improbable long-shots or vanity races, but solid candidates within 5% or so. NH-02, NJ-07, NY-25, CO-04 and the like.

I liked the Braves, but maybe because I was based in Atlanta (hub) for a few years and went to some games. Then the Yankees because my oldest brother roots for them.
But congratulations to all the other teams that now have a chance to advance.

By the way the Yankees are a lot more palatable(?) without George Steinbreimer(?) making so much noise.

DemFromCT,
NBC tonight looked at the Religious in Tenn, and found the same results and attitude there as was found in VA among the Religious there..
Essentially that ~Foley's homosexual problems are an individual thing, and the Democrats in their very platforms encourage this kind (legal of course) of activity, so it shouldn't affect their vote except to shore up their beliefs that it would be worse with the Democrats in office.~

Emptypockets,
some of your posts have indicated you might have a technical background of sorts.
You should then know that if you have budgeted for 30 events and then you get 50, your plan doesn't totally collapse. You can make adjustments very quickly based on simple rules of allocation.
In other words DHinMI has it essentially correct.

Yeah, i saw it, Jodi. But the polls say different. Oh, not everyone, but enough. And I do believe that when the evidence accumulates that hastert was negligent, it will break through even with the conservative evangelicals.

So now here we go. When all else fails turn on the lie machine. Rawstoy has links up to an American Spectator article accusing CREW of being Democratic operatives that set this whole Foley matter up as an October Suprise. They also have CREW's response to the allegations posted, point by point. What a weak bunch of people that must rely on lies over and over again. Now, what will main stream media pick up. It's such a shame that so many people still don't understand the Repubs lie machine. Just astounds me. Seems like it should be illegal.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad