nimh wrote:And: Arizona - really??
More surprising news from Arizona: a new poll has Kyl up by just 4,5% against Pedersen - and that comes on the heels of another poll (by a separate pollster) in which his lead had already been cut to 6%.
Pederson narrows Kyl lead, poll says
But Tennessee is slipping away.
Corker has now had over 50% in three of the last four polls out - whereas he hadnt gotten over 50% in any of the previous polls - ever - in this race.
Another example of what this year is a trend in the candidates the two parties pit against each other: Incumbent Republican armchair hawks, trying to call the Democratic war veterans who challenge them unpatriotic or soft.
Quote:Calif. Roundup: Brown Works His Way Into Contention in 4th District
California's 4th District: Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Charlie Brown has faced obstacles in shedding his underdog image as he bids to unseat eight-term Republican Rep. John T. Doolittle in northeastern California's 4th District ?- one of the state's most conservative-leaning and traditionally Republican constituencies.
But Brown's dogged effort has combined with the cloud of ethics controversy hanging over Doolittle to turn this into one of the year's surprise hotly contested races. CQPolitics.com has changed its rating on this race to Leans Republican from Republican Favored. [..]
Recently Doolittle centered his attacks on the pivotal issue of the war in Iraq, with the aid of key national Republican Party proxies. [..] House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter of southern California's 52nd District ?- who this week announced he is exploring a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 ?- publicized an e-mail authored by Brown in 2004 that characterized the war in Iraq as a "war of occupation/aggression." Hunter demanded an apology from Brown, charging that his statement was unpatriotic.
Doolittle's campaign also reported that a group called "Veterans Opposing Charlie Brown" revealed an article written by someone they describe as an "anti-war radical" that identified Brown as sympathetic to his plight. Doolittle's release said the group cites Brown's alliance as a piece of mounting evidence that Brown "doesn't stand with our troops."
Brown responded to this criticism in an ad this week that contrasted his own military background ?- including service during the Vietnam War ?- with Doolittle's lack of a military record. "While John Doolittle rode out the war at [University of California] at Santa Cruz, Charlie Brown was decorated for valor. Doolittle became a career politician. Charlie Brown a career Air Force officer," says the announcer. "Shame on John Doolittle for attacking a man of honor."
Good evening to yall. Two days and a wake-up until Tuesday.
I thought I read that there will be no more major polls done. I could be wrong about that though. I would have thought the newspapers and networks would have done one more ending Friday, Nov 3rd, in order to have something to talk about on Sunday.
I browsed around the various source threads this afternoon and was surprised to note that the NY Times, since my last visit yesterday, had moved New Jersey and Montana from Toss-up to Leaning Dem. NJ I can understand. But Montana? One day after the President came to campaign for Mr Burns?
According to the Times, only Missouri and Virginia are Toss-ups
In Missouri, my thinking is that the stem cell research issue on the ballot (and Michael J Fox) may help McGaskill by a critical % or 2.
And in Virginia (my state) Allen's succession of self-inflicted wounds (along with his whole-hearted support of Mr Bush) may have piled up against him.
realjohnboy wrote:I browsed around the various source threads this afternoon and was surprised to note that the NY Times, since my last visit yesterday, had moved New Jersey and Montana from Toss-up to Leaning Dem. NJ I can understand. But Montana? One day after the President came to campaign for Mr Burns?
Odd indeed. The very last poll out, by Mason-Dixon (end date 11/2), has the two candidates tied for the first time, at 47% each.
Ha! By Sunday morning The Times had moved Montana back into the Toss-up category.
The final Mason-Dixon poll in Virginia shows Webb (d) at 46%, Allen (r - incumbent) at 45%, Norton (i) at 2% and Undecided at 7%.
It is the first time that a Mason-Dixon poll has shown Webb leading (and I read somewhere that Mason-Dixon tends to lean a bit towards Repubs but I can't prove that allegation) and the margin of error of 4% makes it somewhat meaningless by itself. But...
In the "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" thread, I have moved Virginia into the Dem category.
Here is why:
1) Allen has run a terrible campaign, with a series of gaffes that have made him a bit of a laughing stock. True, Webb has also stumbled and is seen as very wooden. But I would give a point to Webb.
2) Allen has been virtually 100% supportive of everything Mr Bush is doing. His loyalty to a President with a low approval rating may cost him dearly.
More significantly, in my mind, are these little nuggets from the Mason-Dixon poll and anecdotal things.
3) The so called "Marriage Amendment" that is on our ballot this year (I wrote about that, I think on this thread, earlier) is sinking in popularity:
52% supported it but it is now down to 49%
42% opposed it but it is now up to 48%
Allen is in favor or it while Webb is opposed. But neither has wanted to become too closely associated with it. Conservatives will vote for it and for Allen. Liberals will vote against it and for Webb. But the middle? It might bring them to the polling booth to vote on that issue, and that favors Webb, in my mind.
4) Why would that favor Webb? Because African-American voters support the "Marriage" amendment and, as long as they are there, they are going to punch the button for Webb vs Allen, who has this shadow of racism chasing him around.
5) And women, and folks who are in urban areas? Virginia is no longer the old South. The demographics are changing so rapidly. Even since 2004.
Johnboy will, fortunately, end his career in the old South, where a true Virginian would give his promise to another true Virginian that something good would happen for their mutual benefit. A firm handshake was good enough to seal a deal.
Thank you for reading this. -rjb-
Hey rjb, interesting, and I sure hope you're right.
There is some reason for doubt, though - see
this post..
TWO MORE DAYS!!! JUST TWO MORE DAYS!!!!!
Sorry, it just hit me. It's been such a long time coming. Sooooooo curious what'll happen...
Quote:POLL CLOSINGS
All times Central
States with key races
6 p.m.
Georgia, Indiana*, Kentucky*, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia
6:30 p.m.
Ohio, West Virginia
7 p.m.
Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida*, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire*, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee
7:30 p.m.
Arkansas, North Carolina
8 p.m.
Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming
9 p.m.
Iowa, Montana, Nevada, Utah
10 p.m.
California, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, North Dakota, Washington Midnight Alaska*
* States where polls close at different times; the last closing time shown.
sources: Chicago Tribune, 06.11.2006, page 11 and
online
Watch Kentucky and Indiana (South Bend, in particular) for an early glimpse of how this may all end up. The polls close pretty early. There are some competitive House races. Watch the trend in those contests.
I am fearful about something. Something we really haven't touched on much here, if at all. And that is the credibility of the election process itself.
Tomorrow, for four hours, Johnboy (a volunteer) will sit behind the poll workers (also volunteers) who check folks' ID's and verify their status as registered voters and then send them on to someone (also a volunteer) who directs them to the next available voting machine. Most of the volunteers are older than Johnboy (60). I will be watching for any behavior that might appear to be biased.
I am very concerned that, in what may be many close elections around the country, there will be charges of vote fraud or voting machine malfunctions (many people will be voting on new machines for the first time). This could get ugly if any of that happens.
And, oh yes there is this. I vote at an elementary school a half of a mile from my house. The kids have tomorrow off. The Parent/Teacher Association has a table where they sell baked goods just before you leave (Johnboy votes at 7 am). It used to be a solidly Repub area but now we are pretty closely divided.
I used to spend $10 buying homemade baked goods that my neighbors had brought to raise money for the school. But they can't do that anymore, evidentally. Terrorism, sanitation. I don't know. Instead they sell Krispy Kreme donuts.
Yeah, I'm worried about that too. I decided that what I would most like to have happen is:
1.) Democrats do great tomorrow.
2.) Republicans cry foul.
3.) Various commissions are established to get to the bottom of things.
4.) It's discovered that in fact the victories are legitimate BUT
5.) These commissions officially uncover all kinds of ridiculous irregularities and weaknesses in the system and
6.) The voting process is overhauled.
We're a first-world country, our voting process should reflect that.
sozobe wrote:Yeah, I'm worried about that too. I decided that what I would most like to have happen is:
1.) Democrats do great tomorrow.
2.) Republicans cry foul.
3.) Various commissions are established to get to the bottom of things.
4.) It's discovered that in fact the victories are legitimate BUT
5.) These commissions officially uncover all kinds of ridiculous irregularities and weaknesses in the system and
6.) The voting process is overhauled.
We're a first-world country, our voting process should reflect that.
I agree with the whole scenario you cited as what would be a great outcome of tomorrow's happenings Sozobe, but I'd go one further...
I would put at number '6'-
6) The irregularities uncovered were found to be mostly perpetrated by the republicans, and they still weren't enough to steal the election.
snood wrote:6) The irregularities uncovered were found to be mostly perpetrated by the republicans, and they still weren't enough to steal the election.
There are a couple of dozen Democrats who've been indicted for election fraud from 2004. I imagine we'll see more of the same this year.
Annoy the media. Vote Republican.
SierraSong wrote:snood wrote:6) The irregularities uncovered were found to be mostly perpetrated by the republicans, and they still weren't enough to steal the election.
There are a couple of dozen Democrats who've been indicted for election fraud from 2004. I imagine we'll see more of the same this year.
Annoy the media. Vote Republican.
Couple dozen, huh? That's like - you know of 24 democrats already indicted for election fraud?
You want to admit you're pulling that out of your butt now, or should we waltz some, first?
From today's NYT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"November 7, 2006
Editorial
The Politics of Frustration
Ever since anti-taxation zealots in California rediscovered the populist frisson of the ballot initiative a generation ago, American politics has gone off on a binge of ballot proposals. Today is one of the busiest, with 81 citizen initiatives before voters in more than 20 states. Pity the poor voter who has to wade through a list of sometimes contradictory, sometimes misleading proposals, doing work that should be the responsibility of elected officials.
We always watch with interest ?- and sometimes with concern ?- to see how people exercise this peculiar power. Will Alaskans stop aerial hunting of wolves and bears? What happened in Oklahoma to impel the proposal to stop paying the salary of state legislators doing jail time? Arizonans will have to decide whether they want the state to randomly award $1 million to one lucky voter in future elections, in order to encourage turnout. (A better inducement, in a state where voters have to come up with opinions on 19 questions today, might just be to cut down on the initiatives.) Citizens in some states are being asked to stand up to the tobacco industry's national clout by approving higher tobacco taxes at home and greater restrictions on public smoking, while others are being asked to do the opposite.
The initiative movement was bad enough when special interest groups used it to encourage voters to believe they could get lower taxes and more services just by voting to make it so, encouraging a government-by-proposition lunacy that made it impossible for state governments to divide up their resources rationally. Lately, political parties have tried to insert hot-button social issues to lure their base to the polls. Thus the raft of anti-gay proposals that are a standard thrust of right-wing election strategists, with eight states asking voters to define marriage as strictly a heterosexual union. This year Democrats in six states have retaliated with proposals to increase the minimum wage.
The ballot questions getting the most national attention undoubtedly include the South Dakota proposal to overrule the Legislature's passage of a draconian ban on nearly all forms of abortion, and a Missouri constitutional amendment aimed at banning restrictions on stem cell research. As much as we approve the sentiments behind each one, we still can't help clinging to the idea that the best way to protect abortion rights or stem cell research is to elect sensible lawmakers and appoint judges who believe in the Constitution.
Scattershot initiative is no way to run a democracy; rebuke is no substitute for effective representation. In this crazy-quilt of vox pop, an initiative to make it easier to propose future ballot initiatives is reported to be in trouble with Colorado voters. This is small comfort for any voter imagining the ballot is about choosing responsive politicians more than panaceas."
