NBC News Poll

It is 6:30 on the East Coast, which means evening news.  NBC just released their poll #'s, which show very good news for us.  Bush is at 39% approval.  59% think we are on the wrong track.  Most Americans believe that Frist and DeLay probably broke the law.  And the big one, 48% want Democrats to win Congress next year.  
The tide is changing in America.  The Democratic Party is united and the GOP is falling apart.  I am willing to now say that Democrats will control at least one house of Congress after 2006.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

13 Comments

Tip Jar
Thanks.
by Max Friedman 2005-10-12 02:47PM | 0 recs
The big one
Only 2% of African Americans approve of the Bush Administration.  Welcome home.
by Demo Dan in Dayton 2005-10-12 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The big one
If by home, you mean the democratic party then we're not home, we're just very, very disatisfied.
by Mylie 2005-10-14 04:47PM | 0 recs
I got it winning the House...
Our timing is always bad, either too early or a bad thing happens too late for us to recover.

The Senate will be really tough.

Have you heard the latest?

Dr. Phil to Intervene in Troubled Republican Family

by The Muse 2005-10-12 03:00PM | 0 recs
Prediction:
Win the House and lose the senate on Vice Presidential tiebreaker, 50-50 split in the Senate counting Bernie Sanders.
by Painter2004 2005-10-15 04:20PM | 0 recs
A few weeks ago
I was saying there was no chance the dems would take back the senate.  But now, I can easily see how democrats would swing six even seven seats and lose none.

The House is a different story, and I highly doubt we will take it back, but with New York and Pennsylvania victories in both the gubernatorial and senate races, at least a handful of seats should go our way.

by jkfp2004 2005-10-15 06:59PM | 0 recs
It all depends on secure election process

The GOP has a lot to lose, including control of a possible impeachment. No way are they going to let Democrats take the House. They will stop at nothing, and I mean nothing- voter suppression, voting fraud, allowing terrorist attacks or a pandemic- to retain control of Congress. The GOP has shown time and again that it is willing to step it up a notch beyond what we think is the furthest they will go. They are willing to destroy our democratic institutions if it will allow them to stay in power.

In 2002 we got the drumbeat for the war in Iraq as a way to regain control of the Senate. Almost 2000 American troops dead, thousands of others maimed, and countless tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, all so that they could win the 2002 election. What will they do for an encore? Expect the worst.

by TrainWreck 2005-10-16 05:18AM | 0 recs
Really, what's the difference?
Ok, I'll take some heat for this, but who cares? What difference will it make? I don't know of a single anti-war candidate in any house or senate race anywhere. If the party of opposition is not opposing a war that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS NOW THINK WAS A MISTAKE, then what difference does it make if the candidates have a "D" or an "R" after their name? When the presumed democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination is asking for an increase of 80,000 troops in Iraq, what is the difference? For me, on the local level, (Washington state), the "democratic" incumbent in '06, Maria Cantwell, voted for Iraq, Cafta, Bankruptcy "reform", to confirm Rice... how would her losing to a "republican" make any difference? I am not trying to be snotty, petty, reactionary, revolutionary, elitist or anything else... I just don't honestly see any difference. As a working class single parent, the electoral process is completely meaningless to me. As far as I can see, it is irrelevent to anyone who makes less than roughly $250,000 a year. If someone can give me one reason to care, I am all ears. I used to care, and I miss it.
by samdinista 2005-10-16 07:33PM | 0 recs
I think we will take both houses
We might even get a substantial majority in the House.  The Senate will be tricker.  We will definitely gain, but a majority, while possible, is certainly not guaranteed.  A tie is also possible.
by Geotpf 2005-10-17 08:14AM | 0 recs
I am actually not that optimistic about 2006
It's not enough that the Republicans are polling badly in 2005. We also have to field acceptable candidates, and not just policy statements as an alternative. Therefore, I predict no change unless leadership starts to do more than they are doing to recruit for even less than top tier races.
by bruh21 2005-10-17 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I am actually not that optimistic about 2006
I'm inclined to agree we are still recruiting Liberal professors and Lawyers and shunning anyone else who wants to run in really red areas
by orin76 2005-10-18 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I am actually not that optimistic about 2006
please don't piggy back off of my comment with something that wasn't my point. I don't think that's the issue- the real issue is that we aren't willing to take risks- what background the candidate comes from on a certain level is irrelevant so long as they have the rare talents needed for the job. it's not about policy- it's about personality. that's a risk that this generation of democrats seems to have lost- which is bizzare considering we event personality politics.
by bruh21 2005-10-19 06:00PM | 0 recs
Fair Elections
I voted that we would lose seats.  Not because of the votes, but because of the count.  As far as I can tell, we will still use the unverifiable, unauditable electronic voting system in most of the elections.

Then nobody in a position to do anything about it will pay attention to the obvious glitches that occur, or all the evidence of fraud that will appear.

by John M 307 2005-10-19 08:36PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads