Building a Landslide in 2006, Part II

Part One: Building a Senate Landslide

So, right now, Bush's approval ratings are pretty poor. However, his approval ratings weren't really that great in late October, and yet he was still able to eek out a victory over Kerry. Accoding to Pollkatz, two days before the election, the Bush index stood at 47.1, and yet both in the House and in the Presidential election Democrats lost the popular vote by around 2.5%. Given this, how low do Bush's approval ratings have to stay over the next year for Democrats to really make some big gains in 2006?

In order to make big gains in either house of Congress, we are going to need Bush's approval rating to remain low. This is because a nation unhappy with the current regime is a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition for a shift in power in DC. Specifically, I think the sure-fire number is 42.0 or lower in the pollkatz Bush index. 42.0 means a shift of at least 5 points against Bush since the 2004 election, which is more than twice the shift needed to create a Democratic majority. In other words, this is basically an outside of the margin of error shift in favor of Democrats. We simply cannot feel comfortable or confident unless Bush is at or below this number.

So, for 2006, I think 42 is the magic number to look for. Any poll that shows Bush at 42 or lower is good enough for our side. Anything at 43 or higher, we still have a lot of work to do. According to pollkatz, Bush first came in below this number in late August, and has remained below it ever since. If he stays below this level for an entire year, then we really, really have a good shot at 2006.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)



Y'all have a lot of work to do regardless
of his numbers.
by bruh21 2005-10-24 10:06AM | 0 recs
Are you including the "Diebold factor" in your margin-of-error calculations?
by The Spoiler 2005-10-24 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Handicapping...
and the DLC/NDN "Middle of the Road" KILL factor... which will wipe away a good chunk wins off the books for the Dems.
by Parker 2005-10-24 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Handicapping...
Ur right the Demos. have to ralize they need a super-majority now to win anything Nat'lly. The Rethugs own the machines lock stock and barrel.
by Blutodog 2005-10-24 11:51AM | 0 recs
I know this is a tin-foil topic, but seriously, what is being done to ensure that votes are counted and added up correctly?

I still find it funny that Bush won with the approval numbers he had and the exit polling numbers that were given. How do we know the vote count is not being manipulated? I don't mean, how do we prove Bush stole the election here. Simply, how do we know the numbers are not being tampered with? Diabold's word?

by michael in chicago 2005-10-24 01:38PM | 0 recs
Simple solution
Celebrate all of the alternatives available. This means stopping the Party establishment in the states from preordaining candidates.

Celebrating the alternatives left, middle and right will attract reasonable voters from each of those constituencies.

Let's see conservative Democrats talk about social issues as knowledgably and passionately as left wing Democrats converse about economics and national security issues.

by aahpat 2005-10-24 10:20AM | 0 recs
Naderite sighted!
You're a Naderite hack trying to employ the same old divide-and-conquer routine: "Let's see conservative Democrats talk about social issues as knowledgably and passionately as left wing Democrats converse about economics and national security issues. "

Go get your own blog, and get out of here.

by NeoLiberal 2005-10-24 10:32AM | 0 recs
Umm ... is there any basis for this conclusion?
From what I can tell, in making the "margin of error" analogy, you are assuming that everyone who thinks Bush is doing a poor job will vote Democratic, and vice versa. This of course is crazy, since there will be plenty of uncompetitive Senate races in which loads of people unhappy with Bush will still vote Republican, and loads of people happy with him will vote Democratic. And then there's Rhode Island.

Senate races are almost never about a national theme or wave (House races occasionally are, but rarely). Senate races are about the candidates. And that, by the way, is our biggest advantage in 2006, not Bush's standing.

by ColoDem 2005-10-24 10:49AM | 0 recs
Yes, generic measures have more impact on House seats generally, that's entirely reasonable. But do you have any data to support your claims?

Frankly, I'm inclined to think that no one probably has good enough data about this, simply because the data set is too small compared to the variability factors.  But I could be wrong. Possibly there are reasonable means for data analysis that can overcome this.

So I'm asking. Got data?

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-10-24 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Data?
Nope. None whatsoever. But that doesn't seem to be a requirement to post on this site ...
by ColoDem 2005-10-24 02:17PM | 0 recs
Why Not Try To Raise The Bar?
The front material here is really top notch. Some of us regular diarists and commentors try to respond to that. Others do not.

Data is not always required to do this, of course.  Specific news, logical analysis, even well-aimed snark all have their place. But in this case some data would clearly be useful.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-10-24 05:43PM | 0 recs
God the negative responses to this thread
are making me sick.  With all this fucking negativity, we'll never accomplish shit.  The original post should have elicited confident and "can-do" posts.  Instead, people shit all over it.

Here's one.  If the election were held now, we'd win the Senate but probably still be in the minority in the House, but not by much.

I wonder how the people who run this site put up with all these fucking party-poopers.

by jgarcia 2005-10-24 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: God the negative responses to this thread
There is a difference between negativity, and keeping one's eye on the ball. The ball is winning Congress, not misconstruing negative poll numbers.
by bruh21 2005-10-24 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: God the negative responses to this thread
>>I wonder how the people who run this site put up with all these fucking party-poopers. <<

Your comment is in the same ballpark as faith-based reality.  Let's not count the chickens before they are hatched, yes?  Let's keep both feet planted firmly in reality before we all start drinking the happy happy joy joy kool aid and proclaiming victories.   Personally, I still see the junta slithering out of its current mess because 'MurriKKKans are that stupid and easily led.  All he has to do is roll up his sleeves and keep giving aw shucks speeches and all these indictments that have yet to materialize won't mean squat.  THAT is how profoundly ::::DUMB:::: most Americans are.

by Zen Warrior 2005-10-24 12:59PM | 0 recs
chnage parties
Why not try to pursuade some of the scorned moderate Repub senators to change parties?

Seems like conservative Dems don't have any problem doing this, so why not go the other way. The moderates are frozen out of the decision making process anyway, so what do they have to loose?

Promising them some sway in a Dem majority might be enough for them.

Look at what happened to Spector when he showed the slightest independence, for example.

by rdf 2005-10-24 11:07AM | 0 recs
As much as I want to be blindly optimistic...
I have to point to The Spoiler's post and ask the question again: Are you including the "Diebold factor?"

This isn't an unrealistic caveat to add to any discussion about whether or not Dems can win the next election.  

I am quite optimistic that we would win overwhelmingly in any fair election at this point; what tests my outlook is the lack of confidence I feel in anything resembling "fair elections" into the foreseeable future.

I am busting my ass as the Democratic Party Chairman  for my county, but if we don't get electoral reform soon we'll never know whether our losses in '06 and '08 were our fault, the DLC's fault, or the ultimate in Neo-con Machiavellian maneuvering.

The conspiracy may or may not be real, but the danger of it IS very real.

by Randy Morris 2005-10-24 11:10AM | 0 recs
What was the Kerry index on election day, 2004?
I'll bet it was lower than 47.1.  That election was "Vote for the guy who sucks the least" to many voters.  Unfortuantly, enough people thought Kerry was worse than Bush that they voted for the (in thier minds) the least of two bad choices.
by Geotpf 2005-10-24 12:27PM | 0 recs
Bush's approval ratings
You state that we need to keep Bush's approval ratings low in order to make big gains in the house.  The only way to really do that is to advance progressive candidates that have high approval ratings, not the same old tired wimpy Democrats.
by Kate Stone 2005-10-24 12:35PM | 0 recs
If the indictments
come down as expected Bush co. will be busy making a mess for itself. The more suicidal Republicans will support him and obstruct congressional oversight.

Don't worry about Bush and the loyal Koolaid evangelicals so much since they will be busy digging their own collective grave.

Coming up with 1. alternative candidates that span the spectrum rather than only right wingers and 2. a congressional agenda is the trick for Democrats.

by aahpat 2005-10-24 12:59PM | 0 recs
It's worth noting that last year's
47 percent was in the face of tens of millions of dollars in ads against him.

That's not the case now. He's earned every point of disapproval.

That's saying something.

He needs a last-second, off-balance, turn-around jumpshot from mid court to win this one.

But he's just evil enough to do it.

Keep after him.

New on EWM: The Twelve Days of Miers: An inappropriately early holiday motif song parody/commentary.

by The Muse 2005-10-24 02:31PM | 0 recs
Competitive US Senate Races
Competitive US Senate Races in 2006.

  Kyl(R)vs Pedersen(D)
  Nelson(D)vs Harris(R)
  Cardin(D)vs Steele(R)
  Stabenow(D)vs Butler(R)
  Klobuchar(D)vs Kennedy(R)
  Talent(R)vs McCaskill(D)
  No Clear Favorite -1R
  Burns(R)vs Morrison(D)
  Nelson(D)vs Ricketts(R)
9)New Jersey-(Corzine-D)OPEN
  Menendez(D)vs Kean(R)
   DeWine(R)vs Brown(D)
   No Clear Favorite -2R
   Santorum(R)vs Casey(D)
   Casey(D)favored -3R
12)Rhode Island-(Chafee-R)
   Chafee(R)vs Whitehouse(D)
   No Clear Favorite.-4R
   Corker(R)vs Ford(D)
   Sanders(I)vs Tarrant(R)
   Cantwell(D)vs McGavick(R)
Democrats will gain 4 seats.(PA,RI,OH,MO)

by CMBurns 2005-10-24 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Competitive US Senate Races
I think if Pederson runs a good race, he beats Kyl in Arizona.
by jgarcia 2005-10-24 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Competitive US Senate Races
Besides Arizona,
potential upsets for the Democrats are
Montana and Tennessee.
by CMBurns 2005-10-24 04:22PM | 0 recs
A March Caucus is already in the work!
Democratic Congressional candidates will meet in DC March 14, 15, & 16.  The first one was in Sep.  All candidates are welcome & encouraged to attend in March.

There's also an online discussion group for Democratic candidates.   The candidates' landslide needs national communication.  Everyone needs access to everyone else.  This group does just that.

If you're a Democratic Congressional candidate, consider signing up for the NovemberVictory online discussion group.  Also, think about attending the caucus in March!

by Philosophe Forum 2005-10-24 04:45PM | 0 recs
Focus on what matters not on the distractions
Instead of focusing on the numbers why not focus on what we are offering as a party? The numbers only mean people will look at Democrats--without a message, without a vision and without any reason to vote for us--they won't. This way of thinking--its all in the numbers--help us lose elections. Even if the President had a 80% approval rating we could still win if we were offering better--but keep focusing on the numbers if all goes the way the Republicans plan we can invade friggin Syria next and we will still be walking around with the head of the DNC calling us Merlot Democrats--god I wish my party could get its head out of its behind
by Chris1458 2005-10-24 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Focus on what matters not on the distractions
You are so right. The "Merlot" comment was the worst. On one level, it sounds like something the RNC would accuse us of "latte-liberals."

More to the point, it betrays a way of thinking that will be death for us as a party. If we try to build our party around "affluent and secular in their cultural values, and not particularly anxious about "pocketbook" issues" (as the Washington Post describes it)

 is a recipe for failure. And perhaps this is why we have been failing. until we build our agenda around economic policies to improve conditions for the working class we are dead as a party.

by jschiffer3 2005-10-27 05:53PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads