Well, there are roughly 324,000 votes total in the Maryland senate race right now. So if the 66% is roughly accurate in terms of total votes and not just precincts, you should have maybe 165,00 votes remaining. If the other canddiates swoop up the same percentage, 16%, that would be about 26,000. Leaving 139,000 for Cardin and Mfume. So that would mean Mfume needs to defeat Cardin roughly 84,500 to 54,500 to make up this gap. That would be almost 61% of the two-man total.
We are behind at GOTV. Whatever they are doing, in terms of neighbor to neighbor contact instead of calls or direct mail, I suggest we emulate it and soon.
I had hopes for Laffey but two friends who are very sharp and I've learned to rely on told me more than a month ago that Chafee was a cinch in the primary. They also think he will take the general election. I know I mentioned that on DU but perhaps not here.
I've noticed that candidates who do much better than expected in a competitive primary tend to follow that up by surpassing the polls in a general election. Some examples would be Tester, Sarah Palin and probably Chafee.
His campaign thought they had a secret weapon, an old clip where I think Jeb made a speech calling McBride "a great American."
When I heard about this ad, that was the first thing I thought of. I'm sure the Webb campaign was giddy to locate this tape but no doubt they overplayed it's signficance. I understand the strategy of playing it in Southern Virginia, but how do you know it won't remind Republicans how much they liked Reagan, and inspire them to vote in higher numbers this year? In that case, the net advantage among the group would go to Allen.
IMO we need more implosion from Allen to win this race. I believe the incumbent rule will be strong in gov races but we can all but ignore it in federal races like this, especially in a state that is still red, by probably 4-5 points at base instinct.
The telling number is Allen's favorable 41-31 approval rating, despite the recent problems. You're not going to knock out an incumbent unless the challenger is considered exceptional and likable, and/or the incumbent is mired in horrid approval ratings. I guess Webb has a good chance if that 28-7 indeed translates to 55-35 once his name ID zooms.
That is successful NFL football in a nutshell. I wouldn't be so giddy if I were an Eagles fan. Your coach still has a powderpuff approach that leaves the team vulnerable and less than it should be. Philly had 8 rushing attempts at halftime today. That is base ignorance and will not work against the top teams.
By far the two most significant stats are number of rushing attempts and yards per pass attempt. Pittsburgh led the league in both categories last year so it was hardly a shock they were able to succeed even as a #6 seed. Big Ben has by far the best 2-year start in NFL history in yards per attempt, 8.9 both years.
Just because the mainstream media never mentions things like that doesn't mean they know what the hell they are talking about. They love to focus on the comparatively flawed and insignificant overall QB rating.
And every year 82-85% of the games are won by the team with most rushing attempts. Last year it was 203 of 243 games, in which a team won if they had more rushes than the opponent. So far it's perfect this season, Thursday night and the early games today. Rushing attempts, not yardage, is the surest way to determine who is controlling the game. And don't fall into the convenient rationalization that a lead late in the game determines that stat. Chart a few games and that will be immediately dismissed as a myth. If you have huge number of rushing attempts at halftime that almost always translates to victory, regardless of what the score was at the time.
The short passing game is death in the NFL since it violates both aspects of run the ball often, pass the ball well. Pretending a dinky pass is the equivalent of a physical running play lessens your number of rushing attemps, plus it naturally diminishes your yards per pass attempt. My friends and I always thrill to wager against a new head coach who doesn't run the ball and loves to throw short. Unfortunately, they don't keep their jobs very long.
If we had prioritozed our party favorables for the past year. I get tired of pointing that out. If for the past six months the public could recite one or two phrases that Democrats stand for, the GOP could spend three times the money on attack ads and they would have far less benefit.
It's hysterical but predictable that we have descriptions like pollyanna approach from posters above. You aren't going to fool the people in a presidential year. Either they like your nominee or they don't. And versus an incumbent that is an absolutely critical inherent factor. So there was no use trying to pump up Kerry as something he wasn't.
But in a midterm the overall view of your party cannot be understated. We'll win this year since that impression of the GOP is horrid, but going all negative is their successful playbook, not ours. When will we stop being jealous of their tactics and actually handicap the situation? We need white women, generally the married suburban type, or the unmarried type who vote in low percentage. They are not going to be swayed by relentless negativity. Every study screams that. You need to address the issues they prioritize.
I've mentioned before that group of unmarried women stayed home in increasing percentage every cycle for a decade after '92, when they decided their concerns were being ignored. That group votes Democratic in higher percentage than virtually any group other than blacks. I'm sure post November I'll read a report they stayed home again, then we'll wonder why it happened.
But carry on with your all negative, all Iraq approach. It will lead to two feel good months, if not optimum results.
on behalf of Kerry. Actually, they were never on behalf of Kerry. Virtually every 527 ad was a pointless attack against Bush. His approval rating is, and always has been, solely determined by outside events and impressions of them. Nothing we say influences the approval number in the least. Katrina came a year late for Kerry.
You defeat an incumbent via an exceptional charismatic challenger, or if the incumbent is stumbling with a pathetic approval rating, similar to Santorum's. If Casey wins, are we really going to use him, or his campaign, as an example of how to defeat a senatorial incumbent? Based on the handicapping on liberal blogs, most likely we will.
I posted on DU in early 2003 that John Kerry was just good enough to get you beat. That was the line Bill Walsh used about Steve DeBerg, the 49ers QB before they elevated Joe Montana. It was always remarkable lunacy to think an ideal resume was the secret to ousting a presidential incumbent, as opposed to basic likability.
But the 527s didn't get that so they flubbed the analysis and which cycle to emphasize. They would be of huge benefit now, boosting funding in all the local races and allowing our candidates to campaign on many issues.
Again, let's use QB as an example. Obviously that's the most important position on a football team. But does a coach draft nothing but QBs? That would be moronic. Especially if the position was already the strength of your team. But that's essentially what we are doing by focusing so heavily on Iraq. Newsflash: that issue is already in our favor. By hammering it so heavily it makes us feel great to rip the hated Bush and the GOP, but it does nothing to shore up the areas of our "team" that need help and could put us over the top in November. We are basically deciding we want to be like the '80s-'90s Marino Dolphins, a pantyhose passing team that relies on the one obvious strength and ignorantly thinks that will be plenty, instead of the grunt work in annoyances like drive blocking.
I know that will be greeted with, huh? And I expect that. All I can do is handicap ahead of time and stick my opinions on the line. I supported John Edwards in 2004, the only option we had with a chance to knock out an incumbent with fear as an ally. In 2006 we need heavy emphasis on the economy and homeland issues, if we're going to make the most of this otherwise friendly environment. We already forfeited any chance to bump our party favorables, which is what I posted we should have been doing a year ago. In 2008 we better toss out the progressive idiocy in a nationwide race and understand Mark Warner is the surest ticket to the White House via Virginia's 13 electoral votes. An open race is completely different than knocking out an incumbent, and 2008 figures to be a coin-flip popular vote, based on one party holding the White House for exactly two terms.
I post on a couple of balanced sites and the conservative posters who know all the candidates and all the issues are the ones most solidly in Rudy's camp. It's not even close. We will dismiss Hillary based on electability. The GOP will choose Rudy based on electability.
I took 10/1 on Rudy winning the Republican nomination two months ago. And I mentioned that on many websites when the 10/1 was still available. Now that number has plunged. More lousy handicapping on my part.
Every Democratic strategist should be required to spend 5 or 10 years minimum betting in Las Vegas, where your financial well being is dependent on your instincts and how much you absorb from sharp people. If you just sit around and collect a normal paycheck and think this makes sense or that makes sense, you end up with the handicapping ability of a Bob Schrum. Notice he always talks about Iraq.
Hasn't it dawned on anyone that all the networks talk about Iraq every day? And it's not exactly positive. That's the definition of free publicity. Yet our commercials focus on what, Iraq? If it weren't so idiotic I'd want to cry. Do we really believe we're telling the people anything? :"Wow, honey, the Democat in our district thinks Bush has done a bad job on Iraq! Let's vote for him!"
Ha! Providing a list of options is hardly being prompted. I suppose when someone is asked who they will vote for in these head-to-head races that is being prompted also.
And I'll continue to point out when people are asked what their vote will be based on, the economy comes out on top. If we want to pretend otherwise, it's just more example that we want to condemn and not win elections. The Iraq issue is already included in the poll numbers and mood of the electorate. We are gaining nada by continuing to recite it like clapping seals. I feel sorry for us for not understanding that.
Meanwhile, my handicapping looks somewhat decent, with 4/1 on the GOP winning the Alaska gov race and Lieberman -120 and -135 to win the senate seat. Palin is up by 17 points in yesterday's poll. Amazing that I get things like that correct but I'm dead wrong about our November strategy being flawed.
Democrats hate Bush and Iraq is a quick and memorable word and issue to use when expressing that. There is nothing singularly inept about the economy for people to point out. That's why nothing else polls higher than 5%.
That was my immediate thought when I read this diary, when was the last major emphasis on Katrina, here or anywhere else?
It's probably due to fear, no focus on Katrina since we dread it will deflected to Nagin and Blanco instead of Bush.
The irony is we lack memorable short themes and sound bites on our side, yet Katrina provides one of the great ones, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." If we ever nationalize things before November with an anti-Bush commercial you could use that clip along with goodies like, "I'm the decider," and quotes about progress in Iraq, and especially the many positive comments he made regarding the economy.
I loved the goofy picture of Sweeney. That should have been onscreen far more often. Otherwise it was a cliche and unmemorable ad that had me looking away before it was 60% complete.
The back to school ad was excellent, by far the best. That's what people will vote on, whether we want to understand that or not. The emphasis on children and middle class familes was very effective.
Iraq is a built-in edge in our favor. And in many races that will be enough. But in other districts/campaigns you only get over the top if you boost your favorables and emphasize the issues that people actually cast their vote for, things that impact their every day lives.
Democrats have been pissed off since December 2000 and we'd rather attack with negativity than comprehend what wins elections for our side, not theirs. But it is hysterical to watch it unfold at times, same as when the guy next to me is handicapping a football game based on a passe statistic or theory.
A comment above had it correct, that Gallup should have broken it down into competitive districts, as the other thread does.
I was just stunned to see the GOP numbers soar in the last few samples, from down 51-40 to up 54-40.
This is my concern: the preference is shifted in our favor nationwide due to the political climate, but all that does in many House races is turn a typical 6-8 point Republican edge into 2-4 points. Similar to the Hackett and Busby races. That means we lose a flock of close races and the liberal blogs scream Diebold and fix for two years. Wont't happen on MyDD but as a handicapper I'd bet that way in regard to other sites, and it will pointless and sickening.