I wouldn't call it steadily climbing as much as we weren't fortunate enough to catch the election at the exact time of Bush's low point. Those numbers in the low 30s were incredibly weak based on what the natural support should be, for either side.
I predicted on other sites and perhaps here that his approval would be 45% on election day and I hope I'm wrong, but based on a natural uptick and that gas prices figure to go down steadily for the next two months, I think I will be close. We need an outside event to knock him down again. Mostly, we needed to prioritize our favorable numbers and not waste time and cash worrying about Bush's ratings, which we have absolutely no control over, no matter how much we thrill to pretend otherwise.
Too damn bad our candidates and party leaders don't frame the debate and issues 10% as well as Olbermann does.
Historically it's the other way. I've looked at thousands of poll cross tabs and a tiny fraction have more male undecideds than female.
I'll take it as a very good sign, that white women who have wavered between us and them since 9/11 are fed up and booked firmly with us. However, I would be very careful to assume the undecideds will break our way, if they are majority male. There is probably a significant group who typically lean Republican but now are disillusioned and listing themselves as undecided. I know the numbers say 41-35 party ID edge but I'll trust my instincts over that. If the majority are male we can't expect much, if any, net among undecideds. You know damn well the African American males aren't undecided.
Also, regarding minorities it's critical we inspire the lower income and lower educated Hispanics to show up. That didn't happen in the last midterm in 2002. Hispanics who voted that year were significantly higher in income and education than the Hispanic electorate as a whole. Hispanics who identify themselves as independents are actually likely to vote Democratic, but they stayed home in 2002 also. The GOP gains among Hispanics since 2000 are partially Hispanic males who drifted Republican due to national security concerns, but it looks like more a case of their natural Hispanic base getting to the polls in higher percentage than ours.
Our leaders should be reasonably well known. But that's not going to happen if all we do is attack the other side.
I guarantee we would have a better chance to take back the House if we had started a campaign a year or six months ago to portray Pelosi positively, some commercials focused strictly on her, along with talk show appearances. You don't even worry that she will be attacked by Republicans or not come across well. That's fear, and loser handicapping.
The voters are looking for a reason to side with us this year, and if they know the leader of our side it's much more likely to give them impetus and comfort level. And again, we desperately need the women's vote and she would likely help in that regard. I doubt many of the voters even realize a woman would lead the House if we take over.
It's basically a recitation of facts with a logical conclusion, one that others can relate to. If all so-called attack ads were in this mold I wouldn't dismiss them as not the best option from our standpoint.
But why does she say, "Vote Democrat?" At first I thought that might be the preferred or standard usage in that part of Texas, but at the same time the screen says, "Vote Democratic."
I've mentioned several times that Ensign was guaranteed to highlight his veterinary background and comfort a sick puppy. On other sites some posters have scoffed at that, but let's say I would have loved to bet against them. Already a winner, as you can see in that commercial.
The MyDD emphasis on elections and campaigns is much appreciated. Yesterday was a perfect example, the lack of Steve Irwin focus, as someone mentioned earlier. Frankly, it was disgraceful on other liberal blogs, virtually cheering about his fate. I kid you not. Many people on DU mentioned they were going to leave that site and disgusted by their fellow Democrats for the comments regarding his lifestyle and death.
Patrick Thompson's comment was excellent, IMO. I talk to apolotical people all the time, in casino sportsbooks, outside movie theaters, at 7-11, you name it. When I ask them what Democrats stand for, and that's a quick question I use frequently, there is inevitably a blank stare for several seconds. Then they either say they don't know, or "they hate Bush" or "higher taxes." Seriously, there's almost nothing else, and if we ignore that we earn the disappointing election results. You've got to put something simple and effective into the public vocabulary, even if it has no weight in day to day politics.
This year voting against will allow us to win, but no chance it reaches the victory numbers that a high Democratic favorability level would allow. And it's why I get so furious when people want nothing but tunnelvision assault on Iraq. That is not a foundation. The GOP benefits from negativity to fire up the angry white males they depend upon. Our fate is based on white women and they are not impressed or swayed by relentless negativity.
I completely disagree that only media experts can understand or handicap these commercials. That reminds me of when I moved to Las Vegas in the '80s and some old timers were stuffily announcing what the most vital sports statistics were, and dismissing anyone who disagreed. The problem was they were relying on very old conventional wisdom that hadn't been checked for years if not decades, and they were completely ignorant of the new ideas in the field. Once some of the younger guys got on the radio shows and detailed the new findings, the old guard shut up and fled. Their themes would be laughed out of the city if mentioned today.
Good ad overall but some definite problems. I though the second half was too crowded, trying to cram everything in.
The worst part in that regard was three sentences basically jammed together, in terms of stop Bush's blank check in Iraq, start bringing the troops home, and focus on the war on terror.
Didn't anyone else think that was very poor order, the lousy handicapping I'm always talking about? The last issue that is stuck smack in your face before the ad ends is "Focus on the War on Terror."
Uh, I don't think we want that. You'll see that in GOP ads the next two months. Far superior order would be to mention the war on terror first, as a priority not related to the war on Iraq, then talk about bringing the troops home and end with a powerful stop giving Bush the blank check in Iraq.
This is an incumbent in a light blue state in a blue year. The one thing she doesn't need is to be is negative and controversial and blow the race. Sounds like you guys are the type who want to run triple reverses with a WR throwing the ball while up 6 points with a minute remaining,
And finally someone stresses the economy! The second word out of her mouth.
Sorry, as I've said it all along, we need more positive emphasis to boost favorability ratings and increased emphasis on the economy. Debbie Stabenow and her ad campaign get that. I was hardly surprised when someone said it was Tester's firm.
The incompetent handicapping on liberal blogs never fails to crack me up. We want nothing but Iraq and attack and we're dead wrong. Does anyone honestly believe people are going to vote based on what they see on their TV screen as opposed to their daily lives? Big hint: don't move to Las Vegas where your opinion can actually be evaluated in terms of net dollars.
I realize the Michigan economy has been poor but this is a senate race. A senator is not going to be directly associated with a poor state economy. If Granholm had run this ad some of the critcism would have been valid, but for a senatorial incumbent ad I'm extremely pleased by it.
That the economy is the number one issue. Also that people have an increasingly negative view of the economy, as opposed to earlier in the summer or any time this year. That's been popping up in every recent survey. I hope some of our forthcoming commercials seize upon it.
We chose our path early, attack mode. Meanwhile, the political climate was already anti-Bush and anti-GOP. Newflash: that's why we had the generic poll lead and increasing party ID advantage to begin with. It was perfect opportunity to allow that displeasure to simmer while we worked on boosting our favorable numbers. Instead, we piled on, to almost no benefit. Certainly no long term benefit.
If we had positively defined the Democratic belief system and party image, Democrats would identify as Democrats. Which also would have significantly diminished viability for things like the "Defeatocrat" crap.
I'll repeat the famous line I saw atop a diary here, from one of the major players: "We do stand for something. We stand against Bush."
How can anyone here assert it's unfair if the public has that view, that we have no coherent party vision other than attacking Bush, when a righthand man emphasized if not bragged about it himself?
Again, it's like shopping for a car, or any major purchase. You only stop the process in midstream and say "wow, that's it!" if a choice strikes you as outstanding. If it's merely a horrible option you unenthusiastically move to the next dealer. You might not buy anything at all. That's where we are as a party, hoping the voters reject the GOP candidate and reluctantly identify the Democrat instead of staying home. We should have spent the past year providing at least some eagerness to side with our party, with a comfort level that the hostility toward Bush would still be there.
Remember when Doug Forrester ran against Bob Torricelli in New Jersey senate 2002, then when we creatively replaced Torricelli with Lautenberg all of a sudden the basis for Forrester's campaign -- "I'm not Bob Torricelli" was all but shot? That's essentially the path we identified: "Bush and Iraq are a disaster." No doubt it will work to some degree, especially in a second term midterm, but you can't wonder why we're not shouting, "We're Democrats," when all year the theme is, "The other side sucks."
Again, I view the white female vote as the entire key to our fortunes. Chuck Todd pointed that out in 2004 and when I researched it that summer, he was actually understating it. Kerry lost that block 55-44 while Gore had only a 1 point deficit, 49-48. It was the reason for Bush managing a 3 million vote victory and not half million vote defeat.
It's great news those white females have returned to our camp. That's why we have the party ID edge now, security moms drifting back to their previous tendency. But if you look at the interviews with them and other anecdotal evidence, the switch is almost entirely due to dissatisfaction with the GOP. We haven't spoken to the issues that normally decide their vote and there is no guarantee they remain with us beyond 2006. It also follows that they possibly won't vote in significant percentage, or for us, in 2006 unless we highlight homeland concerns like health care, economy and jobs, and education, in the final two months of this campaign.
I was looking for a YouTube button to click. When I realized it was merely a flyer, my first thought was there had to be an agenda or a bias.
How many examples do we have, "that uniforms don't convince people that Democrats make good Republicans?" Be very careful about making faulty evaluations based on a tiny sample. Even if those Democrats in uniform didn't win, they might have come closer than they would have without it. And in a year like this when the natural advantages are ours, as opposed to against us, a little boost may be just what it takes to put a candidate over the top.
There's far too much comparison to 2002 and 2004 on liberal sites. Cutting both ways. Much of it is skeptical regarding the results, due to inflated expectations that weren't fulfilled. But we are also improperly applying strategy conclusions based on 2002 and 2004. Those years featured a party ID tilt toward the GOP due to 9/11 and national security concerns. It was screamed in surveys by PEW and others in studies prior to those elections, even while liberal bloggers tried to dismiss security moms as a myth, while embracing genius like hidden cell phone users for Kerry.
In 2006 the gender gap has been restored as those women have returned to our side, and we can win even more of them if we emphasize the economy as opposed to so much on Iraq. Right now on CSPAN I'm watching another finding in that regard, released by Fingerhut. They said Democrats by 57-32 want less emphasis on Iraq and more talk on the traditional Democratic issues.
I looked at that PDF carefully a couple of days ago. You left out by far the most important aspect: we're morons if we don't put more emphasis on the economy.
It indicates the economy is at its highest point of significance all year, with 23% identifying the economy as the most important issue to determine their vote for congress. The gap between the economy and Iraq is now 9% (23-14), previously not greater than 3%. The economy has been listed as the top issue in the FOX polling all year, but it was never higher than 20% until the August survey.
For some reason there is no party breakdown in the PDF, but the article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2115
61,00.html) indicates, " For Democrats, the top issues are the economy (26 percent) and Iraq (17 percent). Republicans pick terrorism (22 percent) and the economy (19 percent), with only a few citing Iraq as the main issue deciding their vote (7 percent)."
And here's something I've taken note of this year. When surveys ask questions like, "What issue is most important for politicians to concentrate on right now?" or "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?," the top two are generally Iraq and terrorism, with the economy or economy/jobs in third. However, if you ask it differently and more relevant to November, like "What will be the single most important issue in your vote for Congress this year....," the order switches and the economy is much higher, often on top, like in the FOX poll.
I guess we'd prefer to use subjective judgment instead of what the voters are telling us. Then we'll look back and wonder why the gains weren't as high as anticipated.
Also, the same poll has this overlooked nugget: a significant majority of respondents in all three categories -- Democrats, Republicans, Independents -- list "Problems in the United States" as "more important in deciding your vote for Congress this fall," as opposed to "Problems around the World." In fact, the numbers barely shift based on partisanship. Democrats prioritize problems in the United States 65-19, for Republicans it's 60-19, and most dramatic of all for Independents at 68-11.
What's wrong with holding Bush accountable for the economy? Yet in reviewing the commericals here and elsewhere, I'm not sure I've heard the word economy a single time from a Democratic candidate.
I guess screaming about Iraq makes us feel tougher and meaner, more like Republicans. Meanwhile, our fate is determined by women and studies always indicate women are much more concerned than men with issues like health care, economy and jobs, and education. Bundle those together and they far exceed concern about Iraq. But is that how we're playing it? Not from what I can sense. The unmarried women stopped showing up at the polls after '92, declining every cycle for a decade, when they decided their issues weren't being addressed. And every recent poll I've seen indicates women have a much lower opinion of the economy than men, in fact more than 10 points lower in a Los Angeles Times poll from June.
I'm not saying de-emphasize Iraq. But put some focus on the damn economy.
The CA-50 study from MyDD indicated Francine Busby failed in the special election largely because independents didn't turn out, in fact "independents barely showed up at all." In a Newsweek poll from August 10-11, which was the exact point of the London revelations and should have provided terrorism and probably Iraq with their highest numbers, independents chose the economy as the top vote-determining priority at 22%, with Iraq next at 19% and terrorism well back at 12%.
If independents think the economy is the most important issue yet we don't talk about the economy, how can we complain if independents again fail to show up and vote for the Democrat in November?
Two years ago the conventional wisdom was we were playing defense this cycle. And remember, we netted +5 from this exact block of seats in 2000. To pick up +6 would be a net transfer of 1/3 of the seats in two cycles, which would be incredible. A couple months ago I hoped for +3, now that's up one seat due to the Rhode Island situation which I thought was an unlikely pickup previously.
The key race is Missouri. If we can somehow pull that one off it means a huge night, in senate and everywhere else. Via all traditional criteria McCaskill should not have a chance.
I'm serious. A mustache is the kiss of death in major statewide or national politics. One of the reasons I'm rooting for Cardin in the primary is he doesn't have the hairy handicap above his upper lip. If it's Cardin vs. Steele we have the no-mustache advantage. Otherwise, it's a masochistic draw.
I know this will be dismissed but it's been demonstrated time and again. In 2002 there were four major senate or gov candidates with a mustache, two Democrats and two Republicans, and all four lost with none of them threatening their poll numbers. Strickland in Colorado was the glaring example. I was posting for months on DU that he would fail and I made a chunk of money betting against him. Many women posters replied to my thread on DU, including one who worked for the Strickland campaign, saying that she and many girlfriends had been saying for months Strickland would win if he just shaved the darn mustache.
That race is often cited as poor polling but I'm convinced part of it was the damn mustache. Women do not trust or prefer men with mustaches and will not vote for them in typical percentage, even if subconsciously. That was Jimmy The Greek's theory in '48 when he made a ton betting on Truman over Dewey.
"Jimmy the Greek realized that a larger number of women voters were going to vote in that election than ever before. He surveyed a large number of women. His question: Do you like a man with a mustache? A majority of the women said no. Based on that information Jimmy the Greek bet $100,000.00 that a clean-shaven Harry S. Truman would win over the favored, but mustachioed Dewey!"
I posted a link to the political odds on Bodog a couple of weeks ago. I mentioned I gave -120 and -135 on Lieberman, because it was a bargain and I would be able to come back at a scalp price on Lamont if I wanted to.
Now that's an obscene cut, 85 cents. It should be 60 cents tops at that range but sites like that aren't comfortable with things like political odds, so they give themselves absurd margin for error.
But I hope someone here got down on it. Like I wrote at the time, successful gambling is a matter of anticipation as much as picking the correct side. Right now I can bet the other way and guarantee a profit no matter who wins.
Obviously I hope that's Lamont. I make more than a thousand wagers a year so when they conflict with my rooting interest it's no problem at all to root for the side above the cash.