WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Bush makes gains in NW, as another poll in the same paper says:



Especially GOP supporters backed him again: up from 73% in late August to 81% now.

The polls are controlled by the media which is owned exclusively by the capitalists and the oil cartel. They try to dupe the people with polls that show that the Democrats will defeat Bushie's forces, but in the end, Diebold will defeat the Democrats. Look at the polls in 2004. Many of them predicted that Kerry would win. He did not since the election was stolen especially in Ohio. People in Europe- wake up! The Elections in the USA are fixed!

Conservatives wonder: Will evangelical voters show up?


Chicago Tribune: Evangelical voter turnout in doubt

Krugman feels that the right may finally be losing its grip on the country.


^10/2/06: Things Fall Apart


By PAUL KRUGMAN

Right after the 2004 election, it seemed as if Thomas Frank had been
completely vindicated. In his book "What's the Matter With Kansas?
How Conservatives Won the Heart of America," Mr. Frank argued
that America's right wing had developed a permanent winning strategy
based on the use of "values" issues to mobilize white working-class
voters against a largely mythical cultural elite, while actually pursuing
policies designed to benefit a small economic elite.

It was and is a brilliant analysis. But the political strategy Mr. Frank
described may have less staying power than he feared. In fact, the
right-wing coalition that has spent 40 years climbing to its current
position of political dominance may be cracking up.

At its core, the political axis that currently controls Congress and the
White House is an alliance between the preachers and the plutocrats --
between the religious right, which hates gays, abortion and the theory
of evolution, and the economic right, which hates Social Security,
Medicare and taxes on rich people. Surrounding this core is a large
periphery of politicians and lobbyists who joined the movement not
out of conviction, but to share in the spoils.

Together, these groups formed a seemingly invincible political coalition,
in which the religious right supplied the passion and the economic right
supplied the money.

The coalition has, however, always been more vulnerable than it seemed,
because it was an alliance based not on shared goals, but on each group's
belief that it could use the other to get what it wants. Bring that
belief into
question, and the whole thing falls apart.

Future historians may date the beginning of the right-wing crackup to
the days immediately following the 2004 election, when President Bush
tried to convert a victory won by portraying John Kerry as weak on
defense into a mandate for Social Security privatization. The attempted
bait-and-switch failed in the face of overwhelming public opposition. If
anything, the Bush plan was even less popular in deep-red states like
Montana than in states that voted for Mr. Kerry.

And the religious and cultural right, which boasted of having supplied
the Bush campaign with its ?'shock troops' and expected a right-wing
cultural agenda in return -- starting with a constitutional amendment
banning gay marriage -- was dismayed when the administration put its
energy into attacking the welfare state instead. James Dobson, the
founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, accused Republicans of
"just ignoring those that put them in office."

It will be interesting, by the way, to see how Dr. Dobson, who declared
of Bill Clinton that "no man has ever done more to debase the presidency,"
responds to the Foley scandal. Does the failure of Republican leaders to
do anything about a sexual predator in their midst outrage him as much
as a Democratic president's consensual affair?

In any case, just as the religious right was feeling betrayed by Mr. Bush's
focus on the goals of the economic right, the economic right suddenly
seemed to become aware of the nature of its political allies. "Where in
he hell did this Terri Schiavo thing come from?" asked Dick Armey, the
former House majority leader, in an interview with Ryan Sager, the author
of "The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle
to Control the Republican Party." The answer, he said, was "blatant
pandering to James Dobson." He went on, "Dobson and his gang of thugs
are real nasty bullies."

Some Republicans are switching parties. James Webb, who may pull off
a macaca-fueled upset against Senator George Allen of Virginia, was
secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. Charles Barkley, a former
N.B.A. star who used to be mentioned as a possible future Republican
candidate, recently declared, "I was a Republican until they lost their
minds."

So the right-wing coalition is showing signs of coming apart. It seems
that we're not in Kansas anymore. In fact, Kansas itself doesn't seem to
be in Kansas anymore. Kathleen Sebelius, the state's Democratic governor,
has achieved a sky-high favorability rating by focusing on good governance
rather than culture wars, and her party believes it will win big this year.

And nine former Kansas Republicans, including Mark Parkinson, the former
state G.O.P. chairman, are now running for state office as Democrats. Why
did Mr. Parkinson change parties? Because he "got tired of the theological
debate over whether Charles Darwin was right."

Yes, as Walter says, the evangelicals have given up on Bushie. The bigoted evangelicals wanted Bushie to crack down on gay people, allow the Ten Commandments to be placed in school rooms and press for the teaching of Creationism in the Schools. Luckily, we have a constitution which bars Bushie from doing that so the evangelicals could not have their agenda put into place. They are indeed dispirited.

In yesterday's Washington Post....fears that the Foley scandal will boost Democrats chances of taking both the house and senate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100201463.html

It would be interesting to see if the President would be elected to a third term which I suspect would be the case given the dismal candidates the Democrats seem to produce.

However, I wlll point out that neither George W. Bush nor anybody else is running for president in 2006.

This was not exactly the "October surprise" I was expecting... but what the hey... I like a good surprise.

That wasn't questioning in that quoted poll nor did I intend to point at such.



As said above: that wasn't a topic in my source nor did the Albuquerque Journal (I've just re-read the complete report) mention anything like that.


I did neither intend to imply that.
Sorry that my response gave you that idea. (Although my English test's results were good enough to go any of the leading US-universities, unfortunately I can't meet your demands.)

You mean you can't love George W Bush with all your heart and all your soul and never criticize him? How UNAmerican of you.

Ehem, yes, I am an un-American :wink:

Just because George W. Bush isn't running doesn't mean that Candidates can't be very effective running against Bush (or in the case of Republicans run from him).

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

I made no demands. I only responded to your post. Do you think my comment was inaccurate?

Bob Woodward is back with a new book and says that the Bush administration is trying to conceal how bad things are going in Iraq. Let me tell you - if the Bush administration is concealing things in Iraq they are doing a bad job of it!
--Jay Leno

I believe it was Woodward who said that Bush and the other neocons don't really get upset with bad news concerning them. Rove determined that there are really few people in the middle and, thus, concern need only be for what those on the right learn. Rove concluded, correctly I think, that the right doesn't read the NYTs and other mainstream media that reports on bad news regarding the administration.

Well,if you believe the left,the repubs will win at least 40 seats in the house.


Now,having let the uproar die down,I will explain.

According to many on the left,the repubs stole the Presidential election or cheated to win in both 2000 and 2004.
Now,since it is much easier to rig a local election (which is what a house race is) then it is to rig a national election,the repubs should find it extremely easy to win all of the house races.

The American people are moral people. After they get a good look at the attempts of Mark Foley to seduce scores of under age teen agers and know that the Republican leadership has done absolutely nothing to try to stop these child rapes, the Republicans will lose many more seats in botht the House and Senate than has been predicted.

I don't think the Foley uproar will make much of a difference MarionT. I doubt that many voters will walk into the booth and say to themselves "Well, that Foley guy was some nasty fellow. My Representative Smith should have known, so I'm not voting for Smith. Instead, I'm voting democrat." Do you really think that will be the attitude of the average voter? I don't. So other than losing Foley's seat, I don't see this as a big issue for other incumbents.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I doubt it. :wink:

How many won't vote at all because of it?

As I said in the other thread, as little as 2 or 3 percent could make a big difference in a lot of races. So I'm sure it will have some effect, just as Iraq has some effect, just as overwhelming spending by the gov't has some effect, etc.

Cycloptichorn

If it turns out that the whole Foley matter was known to the Democrats and, rather than "protecting the kids' they held the the information to be an October surprise to skewer Republicans as Drudge suggests, will Democrat voters stay home and not vote?