Tomorrow, Tuesday, November 7, 2006:
VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS FOR CONGRESS!
and then stay tuned, it's gonna be a bumpy ride, but a ride to victory for the Democrats.
Posted by CLK at November 6, 2006 12:23 PMBoy are you guys getting busy or what, desperate. NY's Schumer has already folded the senate tent. Last month he was saying the senate is ours. Now Rahm Emanual is "nervous" about the House.
Again, "It's we win or you cheated". Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wants a fair count. We've had fair counts for most of our history.
Posted by peter at November 6, 2006 12:55 PMWe've had fair counts for most of our history.
Aren't you an immigrant? That's what you're always saying here.
What "history" are you referring to? In what country?
Posted by Christopher at November 6, 2006 01:11 PMI'm not, my father is. America, land of the free, home of the brave. America has had many votes with many fair counts. Most of them have been, even many in the last six years. You've got to gat away from this "either we win or you cheated" mentality. That's very third worldly.
Posted by peter at November 6, 2006 01:55 PMHey, peter, whaddaya think about the RNC robo calls in 46 close races that keep dialing Dem supporters 7-8 times in succession, offering (without identification) "information about Dem X"? Pretty cool, eh?
Just more "fair elections" in America......
Posted by euzoius at November 6, 2006 02:45 PMYou've got to gat away from this "either we win or you cheated" mentality. That's very third worldly.
No doubt where Karl Rove took a page from the playbook.
My own speculation is that the race isn't as close as the four oldest polls indicate but the Democratic advantage isn't as large as the three most recent polls would suggest. I've always suspected some narrowing of the Democratic lead as unsatisfied Republicans come to the conclusion that they will hold their nose and support the GOP candidate...primarily based upon fears that Democratic control of the Senate might jeopardize future Supreme Court appointments...which better explains the close Senate races in contrast to the growing evidence of Democratic strength in House races.
I can't recall a time when concerns about the make up of the Supreme Court were more prevalent and I cannot find a better explanation for the disparate polling information that seems to show Democrats doing very well in contested House races while the Senate races seem to be tightening...and some of these Senate races actually appear to be trending Republican. Supporting the possibility that the Supreme Court consideration can explain voter differences between the House and Senate races would be the argument that there is clear voter opposition to the war in Iraq and a desire to impose some accountability on the Bush administration...and that would be in the form of a Democratic House.
Historically, in elections where the House switches control from one party to the other, the Senate also follows suit. Current polling in the individual Senate races seems to indicate that this election could defy that historical trend. I would argue that this may well happen based upon voter concerns about Supreme Court appointments which may lead enough swing voters to vote against their GOP House candidate while still supporting their GOP Senate candidate.
After all, it is the Senate that must approve Supreme Court appointments and voters may still favor conservative appointments...especially if one considers the opposition to same-sex marriage and a general belief that the Democratic Party is against any limitations on abortion rights. In other words, if voters want their unhappiness with the war in Iraq to be heard while still endorsing the social issues they seem to favor, the best solution would be to elect a Democratic House and maintain a Republican Senate.
Read more poll analysis here:
Posted by Daniel DiRito at November 6, 2006 04:50 PM