WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Just saw Cook himself on MSNBC and he said that he didn't think much has changed during the past week. He doesn't think that the Repugs are inching up in overall numbers and is still looking toward a gain of 20 seats in the House. He thinks the best bet for an in the Senate is for the Repugs to take NJ. He doesn't think that the Dems can take control of the Senate.

The Congressional Quarterly one is by far my favourite. Also quite conservative in its rating changes, and a long-standing and non-partisan reputation. And solid updates on both a race-by-race and state-by-state/region-by-region level. By far the most informative resource I know for local-level updates.

The NY Times one has by far the coolest - and most interactive! - maps though. By clicking a checkbox here and there you can configure maps with selections of where Bush and/or the Republicans won last time, with what margins, where blacks/whites/Hispanics are in the majority, where people are poor/rich, etc., all combinable with current ratings.. Great stuff. But yes, its ratings seem on the optimistic side.

Pollster.com is great both for race-by-race graphs of the development of opinion poll averages (at least for the Senate, the House is coming up). Its also a great source for meta-articles about polling, the risks and quirks and pitfalls involved. But it was when making this table here that I realised that they were clearly the most optimistic rater out there, which makes me take their ratings with a grain of salt ("mystery pollster" Blumenthal, who is behind it, is a Democratic pollster).

Oh, and eh - no offense but - "Repugs"? Is that the leftwing version of "DemoKKKrats" etc? I cant wait till the political climate becomes a bit more sane again..

Yup, I guess it is. I had not heard or seen it used until just recently on a different forum. One poster's idiosyncratic way of expressing disdain about Republicans, I guess. As in repugnant.

I prefer "dummycrats" personally.

su

The "repuglican" derogation/pun has been around for a long time. My notion of such terms is that they serve no purposes and achieve no ends other than bad ones. They tend to act as substitutes for thinking and for argument. I understand that was sort of an experimental use, but I'd beg ya to refrain.

I would prefer de-majority-crats.

Yes, this one would be allowable.

No problem, Blatham. Consider it ceased.

I love you and want to have your baby.

It has been stated, rightly so, that all politics are local. IS this election the exception to that rule? Is it perhaps a referendum on George Bush, his policies and performance.
With that in mind will your opinion of the Bush administrations performance influence your upcoming vote? Will it change your normal voting preference.

Local voters will by election day realize that the psychotic Democrats are a far greater threat to our security than the neurotic Republicans. Early local voters have already realized this.

Or, so you suspect.

Cycloptichorn

Won't influence my vote. I already knew the truth, and jerk at the knee anyway.

Another good sign.

It is usually the Democrats who are pinning their hopes on the ability of the voting public to be smart enough to realize the obvious.

Bush Says 'America Loses' Under Democrats
White House Talk Heats Up As Polls Show Tight Races

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 31, 2006; Page A01

SUGAR LAND, Tex., Oct. 30 -- President Bush said terrorists will win if Democrats win and impose their policies on Iraq, as he and Vice President Cheney escalated their rhetoric Monday in an effort to turn out Republican voters in next week's midterm elections.

Bush Says 'America Loses' Under Democrats
White House Talk Heats Up As Polls Show Tight Races

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 31, 2006; Page A01


SUGAR LAND, Tex., Oct. 30 -- President Bush said terrorists will win if Democrats win and impose their policies on Iraq, as he and Vice President Cheney escalated their rhetoric Monday in an effort to turn out Republican voters in next week's midterm elections.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000530.html?referrer=email



Could it be that Bush thinks we are winning now?

Former Republicans campaign as Democrats
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 31, 2006



Call it the year of the former Republican.
At a time of widely expected Republican losses in both chambers of Congress, a new breed of politician has emerged: former Republicans challenging Republican incumbents.
Most famous is James H. Webb Jr., who served as Navy secretary under President Reagan and is challenging Sen. George Allen in Virginia. Mr. Webb wears combat boots on the campaign trail, loves his guns and chews tobacco.
Then there's Tim Mahoney, a Florida Republican-turned-Democrat running for the seat of disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley. Mr. Mahoney lists Ronald Reagan as a political hero, opposes the "death tax" and calls himself a "conservative Christian."
In New York, former Republican Jack Davis is giving Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds one of the biggest challenges of his career. Mr. Davis, a multimillionaire businessman, says he wants to end illegal entry without granting amnesty, opposes higher taxes and wants to kill the death tax.
In Florida's 13th Congressional District, former banker and former Republican Christine Jennings is running as a Democrat for the seat being vacated by Rep. Katherine Harris. She, too, is running on tax cuts and greater fiscal responsibility in Washington.
All are the kind of Democrats that Republicans have a difficult time hating. Hearing them explain why they left the Republican Party is like listening to voters today talk about why a growing number of them are tired of Republicans in Washington.
"Congress has run up the national debt to an astounding $8.4 trillion, mortgaging our future and saddling our children and grandchildren for endless years," said Mrs. Jennings, who promises to balance the nation's checkbook.
Mr. Mahoney, an investment banker and cattle rancher, said he got fed up with the Republicans' out-of-control spending, scandals and poor handling of the war in Iraq. He calls himself a "common-sense businessman who reflects the values and morals of Florida's families."
Mr. Webb left the party in large part out of disgust over the Republican response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and over the war in Iraq.
"He's a Vietnam veteran, and these guys were politicizing the war," said campaign adviser Steve Jarding, who has long argued that Democrats must appeal to a broader audience to survive as a political force.
Just a few years ago, Mr. Jarding said, a conservative candidate such as Mr. Webb would not have been welcomed by party leaders unless he or she submitted to the party's entire platform. This year, winning trumped ideology

"They're more accepting of people with different ideas, and that's a difference," Mr. Jarding said. "We're not going to be having all these litmus tests because they were killing us."
Mr. Jarding said that had Democratic primary voters sided in the primary with Harris Miller -- a longtime politician who is ideologically more in tune with national Democrats -- "we would be 40 points behind George Allen right now."
"Democrats are finally wising up," he said.
As a result, Senate Democrats will move rightward if candidates such as Mr. Webb, Bob Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania, Jon Tester in Montana and Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. in Tennessee win their general elections.
Republicans in the chamber, meanwhile, stand to lose some of their most conservative voices. Among the incumbents in the tightest races are Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Conrad Burns of Montana and Jim Talent of Missouri.
Strategists from both parties expect Democrats to gain 10 seats or more in the House. But the strategists note that since pickup seats by definition come from districts held by the other party, the new Democratic lawmakers likely will be more conservative than the current Democrat caucus.

Well its certainly been interesting to see the Republican spin on this sway back and forth.

Back in August, the Republican strategists of the RNC e.a. were all peddling this line: all politics is local, the Democrats are trying to make this into a national referendum but that won't fly, people will vote on the basis of local issues and the qualities of local candidates.

But then orders apparently came from up high: Bush and his people wanted to agressively defend the national Republican record. In fact, Bush made it a point to actively steer the conversation back toward Iraq, whenever the opportunity arose, at press conferences and public events. National security would win the day again! And so we saw a relentless nationally-coordinated drumbeat on that in September, culminating around the Sept 11 commemorations.

But that ended up backfiring too, and after a short-lived Republican lift collapsed again and things were worse than back to square one after Foley, the local Republicans massively turned away from the national agenda again, with most of them campaigning on local issues solely whenever they could. Practically each of them emphasising how "independent" they were and how often they had not voted the Bush line in Congress..

That kind of drift of message and focus is also something we normally know best from the Democrats (like in John Kerry's disastrous changing tack from theme to theme, soundbite/slogan to soundbite/slogan, never settling on one that said it all). It must be a good sign to see the Reps doing it now.

John Kerry should be taken out to the woodshed for his poor choice of wording, and manner of presenting them.

Actually he should be awarded for stating an opinon (however unusual that seems to be for a democrat)

LOL