KD in CA Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Maybe RCow will come back and post his projections for us.
UConn James Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 The macrocosm view of 'Which party would you like to see win' means next to nothing.
KD in CA Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 The macrocosm view of 'Which party would you like to see win' means next to nothing. 707008[/snapback] Very true. Those polls always reflect a 'throw the bums out' mentality, but it never translates to the voting booth when it comes to throwing YOUR guy out. What is the reelection rate in Congress? 90%? It will come down to success on a case by case basis for the Dems.
KRC Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Very true. Those polls always reflect a 'throw the bums out' mentality, but it never translates to the voting booth when it comes to throwing YOUR guy out. What is the reelection rate in Congress? 90%? It will come down to success on a case by case basis for the Dems. 707014[/snapback] It also depends on who they polled. If they skewed towards larger cities, it will of course skew the results towards the Democrats. Rural areas will skew towards Republicans. We heard about how the special election to replace "Duke" Cunningham in California was to be the first wave of a Democratic revolution. The Republican won.
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Very true. Those polls always reflect a 'throw the bums out' mentality, but it never translates to the voting booth when it comes to throwing YOUR guy out. What is the reelection rate in Congress? 90%? It will come down to success on a case by case basis for the Dems. 707014[/snapback] Absolutely. If either party is running a bad or unsupported candidate against the incumbent, things become extremely difficult for the challenger. The desire for wholesale change doesn't reflect how one will choose the person who 'represents' them and their district.
UConn James Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Very true. Those polls always reflect a 'throw the bums out' mentality, but it never translates to the voting booth when it comes to throwing YOUR guy out. What is the reelection rate in Congress? 90%? It will come down to success on a case by case basis for the Dems. 707014[/snapback] This is exactly the mentality that's had Lieberman re-elected how many times? I mean, watch his latest ads now that he's facing someone in the primary. The man basically comes out and says, 'I know I don't represent the views of the majority of the voters of Connecticut, but vote for me anyway!' Any rational person might think it's a stupid strategy, but hey, it's worked.
Johnny Coli Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 We heard about how the special election to replace "Duke" Cunningham in California was to be the first wave of a Democratic revolution. The Republican won. 707026[/snapback] That race had a three-term Republican congressman running against a 55 year old school board member in a district heavily dominated by registered republicans. The RNCC spent almost $5 milion dollars in that race and won 49% to 44% (for a seat that is up for re-election again in seven months, I might add), and they needed the benefit of an 11th hour blunder on the part of Busby to do it. If the GOP needed to spend $5 million to get a Rep elected in a district with a huge lean toward the Red, how much will they have to spend in races in moderate districts around the country? Maybe they can tap into Tom Delay's election defense fund?
KRC Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 That race had a three-term Republican congressman running against a 55 year old school board member in a district heavily dominated by registered republicans. The RNCC spent almost $5 milion dollars in that race and won 49% to 44% for a seat that is up for re-election again in seven months, I might add), and they needed the benefit of an 11th hour blunder on the part of Busby to do it. If the GOP needed to spend $5 million to get a Rep elected in a district with a huge lean toward the Red, how much will they have to spend in races in moderate districts around the country? Maybe they can tap into Tom Delay's election defense fund? 707050[/snapback] You can try to spin it anyway you want. The Republican won. Maybe the Dems can tap into the William Jefferson re-election "keep my azz out of jail" fund.
KD in CA Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 This is exactly the mentality that's had Lieberman re-elected how many times? I mean, watch his latest ads now that he's facing someone in the primary. The man basically comes out and says, 'I know I don't represent the views of the majority of the voters of Connecticut, but vote for me anyway!' Any rational person might think it's a stupid strategy, but hey, it's worked. 707042[/snapback] Funny you mention that. I just saw the first "BUSH BAD = LIEBERMAN BAD!" commerical from his primary opponent.
Wacka Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 That race had a three-term Republican congressman running against a 55 year old school board member in a district heavily dominated by registered republicans. The RNCC spent almost $5 milion dollars in that race and won 49% to 44% (for a seat that is up for re-election again in seven months, I might add), and they needed the benefit of an 11th hour blunder on the part of Busby to do it. If the GOP needed to spend $5 million to get a Rep elected in a district with a huge lean toward the Red, how much will they have to spend in races in moderate districts around the country? Maybe they can tap into Tom Delay's election defense fund? 707050[/snapback] Another "even though we lost, we won" statement from the dems
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Another "even though we lost, we won" statement from the dems 707129[/snapback] They can keep their moral victories, while the Republicans continue with real victories. Nothing will lead to quicker loss of credibility than accepting close losses as wins.
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Nothing will lead to quicker loss of credibility than accepting close losses as wins. 707143[/snapback] I don't know...I thought accepting Cindy Sheehan as the moral voice of the party was pretty effective in that regard, as well...
OnTheRocks Posted June 12, 2006 Author Posted June 12, 2006 looking at the general election poll results from that site.....whether they are accurate or not, just looking over the names on either party,.....this country is in deep caca. and the '08 election is gonna be U-G-L-Y! General Election '08
cromagnum Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I live in new hampshire and newt gingrich has visited quite a bit, I expect for him to run... Say what ever you want about the guy, he is pretty smart and would be great to watch him in a debate with mccain.
KRC Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I live in new hampshire and newt gingrich has visited quite a bit, I expect for him to run... Say what ever you want about the guy, he is pretty smart and would be great to watch him in a debate with mccain. 707293[/snapback] It looks like an almost certainty that he will be running.
SilverNRed Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 From "Polling Report" 706995[/snapback] The November elections basically boil down to which brand of dumbass do you want in Congress for the next two years.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I don't know...I thought accepting Cindy Sheehan as the moral voice of the party was pretty effective in that regard, as well... 707151[/snapback] I stand corrected!
/dev/null Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 It looks like an almost certainty that he will be running. 707294[/snapback] On Newt: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6060901444.html but back to the original topic of that poll. 1 national poll means bubkus. its the 435 individual polls that matter
Recommended Posts