Full Version: Is the Tide Turning?
Tuesday a Democrat reclaimed the sole house seat in South Dakota from a GOP incumbent in a special election. Additionally, the Democrats claimed another victory earlier this year by taking the governor's seat in Kentucky in another special election. Both of these were "Red" states in the 2000 election.
Finally, you have the lackluster job approval ratings for President Bush which have been trending downward all year and some polls place as low as 42%, but none higher than 48%.
Some Democrats are claiming that the national tide is indeed turning their way for the upcoming election.
The facts I have seen seem to support that claim, and afterall the Republicans did take control when people tired of Clinton and the congressional Democrats.
Question for debate:
1. Given all of the facts, do you believe this is the start of a national trend or are these isolated cases? Using current polls and/or historical information, why do you hold this belief?
Finally, you have the lackluster job approval ratings for President Bush which have been trending downward all year and some polls place as low as 42%, but none higher than 48%.
Some Democrats are claiming that the national tide is indeed turning their way for the upcoming election.
The facts I have seen seem to support that claim, and afterall the Republicans did take control when people tired of Clinton and the congressional Democrats.
Question for debate:
1. Given all of the facts, do you believe this is the start of a national trend or are these isolated cases? Using current polls and/or historical information, why do you hold this belief?
I'll see your Kentucky governor and raise you a California governor. 
Given all of the facts, do you believe this is the start of a national trend or are these isolated cases? Using current polls and/or historical information, why do you hold this belief?
There is an old saying that "all politics are local" and generally speaking, that's true especially in House races. My own Congressman is a Democrat, pretty moderate Democrat and I supported his opponent in the last election. But, this time around, I'll probably support him. He's done a good job. All politics are local and there is a tremendous advantage to incumbancy, so I think you need to look at what seats are really up for grabs this year due to retirement, etc. Offhand I think there are more Democratic seats in the Senate and House that are open than Republican ones are and I think that works to the Democrats disadvantage.
The one historical exception to this was in 1994 when the Republicans under the leadership of Newt Gingrich were able to "nationalize" the elections for the House with their "Contract with America". It was a brilliant stategy and it worked. Not because people were so disaffected with Clinton, but rather they were tired of the status quo and the contract offered them a change of direction. I don't see anything like that from the Democrats this time around. So, I think it's going to be same old same old and under that scenario, I think the Republicans will maintain control of Congress.
Given all of the facts, do you believe this is the start of a national trend or are these isolated cases? Using current polls and/or historical information, why do you hold this belief?
There is an old saying that "all politics are local" and generally speaking, that's true especially in House races. My own Congressman is a Democrat, pretty moderate Democrat and I supported his opponent in the last election. But, this time around, I'll probably support him. He's done a good job. All politics are local and there is a tremendous advantage to incumbancy, so I think you need to look at what seats are really up for grabs this year due to retirement, etc. Offhand I think there are more Democratic seats in the Senate and House that are open than Republican ones are and I think that works to the Democrats disadvantage.
The one historical exception to this was in 1994 when the Republicans under the leadership of Newt Gingrich were able to "nationalize" the elections for the House with their "Contract with America". It was a brilliant stategy and it worked. Not because people were so disaffected with Clinton, but rather they were tired of the status quo and the contract offered them a change of direction. I don't see anything like that from the Democrats this time around. So, I think it's going to be same old same old and under that scenario, I think the Republicans will maintain control of Congress.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 2 2004, 12:47 PM)
1. Given all of the facts, do you believe this is the start of a national trend or are these isolated cases? Using current polls and/or historical information, why do you hold this belief?
I think these are isolated instances.
Recent polls have me very optimistic about Bush's chances in November.
Remember that despite 2 months of bad news after bad news, Bush is still even with Kerry. Kerry, in fact, gained no new voters in that time frame while Bush lost support of some.
The race remains a statistical dead heat : Gallup Poll
QUOTE
With independent Ralph Nader in the race, Kerry receives 47% and Bush 46% support among likely voters, while Nader gets 4%. Among registered voters, the pattern is similar: Kerry 46%, Bush 44%, and Nader 6%.
I think this election will hinge on the economy, and not Iraq. The numbers regarding the economy have been astonishing over the past several months. Of course, there is little mention of this good news in your nightly newscast, but thems-the-breaks, I guess
.Look at this recent Harris Poll which has 56% of Americans saying that they are better off now than they were 5 years ago. That's up from 49% last year.
QUOTE
A new Harris Poll finds an increase in personal optimism since last year, and that more people also say that their personal situation has been improving.
-In April 2003, 49% of adults said that their personal situation had improved over the previous five years. In April 2004, 56% gave this answer.
-In April last year, 21% said their situation became worse in the previous five years. In this year’s survey, only 16% felt that way.
-Last year, 63% expected their personal situation would improve in the next five years, while in April of this year, fully 68% expected their lives to improve.
These changes since last year almost certainly reflect improvements in the economy and are probably good news for President Bush. The better people feel about their personal situation, the more likely they are to vote for an incumbent.
-In April 2003, 49% of adults said that their personal situation had improved over the previous five years. In April 2004, 56% gave this answer.
-In April last year, 21% said their situation became worse in the previous five years. In this year’s survey, only 16% felt that way.
-Last year, 63% expected their personal situation would improve in the next five years, while in April of this year, fully 68% expected their lives to improve.
These changes since last year almost certainly reflect improvements in the economy and are probably good news for President Bush. The better people feel about their personal situation, the more likely they are to vote for an incumbent.
Americans remain confident in government institutions, including the military and the Presidency:Gallup Poll
QUOTE
According to the new poll, conducted May 21-23, three in four Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. This is down from 82% in June 2003.
How much of this decline can be attributed to the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal that the U.S. military is currently embroiled in is not clear. Last year's 82% confidence level, as well as the 79% recorded in June 2002, was quite elevated compared with the average rating of 65% recorded between October 1991 and June 2001. This increase was most likely related to the general rally effect produced by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, combined with public support for the military's performance in Afghanistan in 2001 and the early military success in Iraq in the spring of 2003.
Even without the prisoner abuse scandal, one might have expected public confidence in the military to have declined over the past year now that the major combat in Iraq is over -- just as public confidence first spiked, then descended around the time of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. At the conclusion of that war in March 1991, the military's confidence rating reached 85% (up from 68% in August 1990), but by October 1991 it was back down to 69%.
How much of this decline can be attributed to the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal that the U.S. military is currently embroiled in is not clear. Last year's 82% confidence level, as well as the 79% recorded in June 2002, was quite elevated compared with the average rating of 65% recorded between October 1991 and June 2001. This increase was most likely related to the general rally effect produced by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, combined with public support for the military's performance in Afghanistan in 2001 and the early military success in Iraq in the spring of 2003.
Even without the prisoner abuse scandal, one might have expected public confidence in the military to have declined over the past year now that the major combat in Iraq is over -- just as public confidence first spiked, then descended around the time of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. At the conclusion of that war in March 1991, the military's confidence rating reached 85% (up from 68% in August 1990), but by October 1991 it was back down to 69%.
QUOTE
The current rating of 53% confidence for organized religion puts it on par with the presidency and banks in the public's confidence, but still below the police, which enjoys the number-two position. In fact, the current reading for confidence in the police, at 64%, represents an all-time high for this institution. Confidence in the police has been gradually rising since June 2000, and now exceeds the previous high of 60% recorded in May 1996.
Even the gas situation is not being blamed on the White House, despite John Kerry's wishes: The Harris Poll® #37, May 26, 2004 : Oil Prices
QUOTE
As gasoline prices have soared this spring with many motorists now paying more than $2 a gallon, it will be interesting to see if this becomes a political issue in this election year. A new Harris Poll brings good news for the White House: only 23% of the public thinks that the U.S. government is mainly to blame for high gas prices. Most people blame either OPEC (37%) or foreign oil producers (35%) rather than the government.
Bush is tied or leading in several battleground states, including Ohio and Michigan. Battleground states in play for Bush camp
QUOTE
Sen. John Kerry is trailing or tied with President Bush in many of the battleground states Democrats won in 2000 and that will likely decide the outcome of this year's elections, according to a survey of polls across the country by The Washington Times.
With six months to go before the November election, Mr. Bush is surprising political pundits and Democratic strategists in key Democratic-leaning states in the Northeast and Midwest.
For example, the president is leading in Michigan and Pennsylvania, two of the nation's largest industrial states that carry a combined 38 electoral votes, and he is in near-ties with Mr. Kerry in New Jersey, Oregon, Maryland and Iowa — all states that Al Gore won in 2000 Campaign officials for the Massachusetts senator blame their candidate's erosion in the battleground states on
With six months to go before the November election, Mr. Bush is surprising political pundits and Democratic strategists in key Democratic-leaning states in the Northeast and Midwest.
For example, the president is leading in Michigan and Pennsylvania, two of the nation's largest industrial states that carry a combined 38 electoral votes, and he is in near-ties with Mr. Kerry in New Jersey, Oregon, Maryland and Iowa — all states that Al Gore won in 2000 Campaign officials for the Massachusetts senator blame their candidate's erosion in the battleground states on
Kerry still has a long fight ahead of him to beat Bush.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 2 2004, 11:47 AM)
Tuesday a Democrat reclaimed the sole house seat in South Dakota from a GOP incumbent in a special election. Additionally, the Democrats claimed another victory earlier this year by taking the governor's seat in Kentucky in another special election. Both of these were "Red" states in the 2000 election.
Finally, you have the lackluster job approval ratings for President Bush which have been trending downward all year and some polls place as low as 42%, but none higher than 48%.
Some Democrats are claiming that the national tide is indeed turning their way for the upcoming election.
Given all of the facts, do you believe this is the start of a national trend or are these isolated cases? Using current polls and/or historical information, why do you hold this belief?
Finally, you have the lackluster job approval ratings for President Bush which have been trending downward all year and some polls place as low as 42%, but none higher than 48%.
Some Democrats are claiming that the national tide is indeed turning their way for the upcoming election.
Given all of the facts, do you believe this is the start of a national trend or are these isolated cases? Using current polls and/or historical information, why do you hold this belief?
The democrats are wishing this were true. So they won a Govenor's seat and a house seat. Big deal! Until i see the Dems retake all of Congress, i will say this is an isolated incident
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 2 2004, 12:13 PM)
The one historical exception to this was in 1994 when the Republicans under the leadership of Newt Gingrich were able to "nationalize" the elections for the House with their "Contract with America". It was a brilliant stategy and it worked. Not because people were so disaffected with Clinton, but rather they were tired of the status quo and the contract offered them a change of direction. I don't see anything like that from the Democrats this time around. So, I think it's going to be same old same old and under that scenario, I think the Republicans will maintain control of Congress.
I believe that Aquilla has put forth eloquently the argument as to why recent democratic gains are more of an isolated occurance rather than a general trend. I doubt that anyone can argue that the GOP rode anti-incumbent feelings to power in '94, which increased from the same discontentment that arose in '92. This was a time in which Perot and the Reform Party had some serious support and you had democratic stalwarts like Dan Rosentowski thrown out of office after embarrassing revelations about corruption and the like. I doubt that people suddenly saw the light with the GOP as much as they were tired of a democratically controlled legislative branch that appeared to be dead in the water.
South Dakota has always been kind of quirky-that is the state that gave us McGovern, they tend to be a little different up there.
I'll admit this will be a hard fought battle the Democrats might not even win, but it is within the realm of possibility now. This article makes some interesting points.
Seems to me that an outright win, while a long shot, is possible. It also looks like the Democrats may be able to make kind of a hail mary type of play here as well. Given Bush's approval rating, even if the country re-elects him, they might go for something like this.
Interesting theories, I suppose.
QUOTE
A few months ago, it was hard to find even Democrats who would argue with that scenario. But with recent polls showing a majority of Americans convinced the country is heading in the wrong direction and the president's popularity slipping, Pelosi and other Democratic Party leaders believe the voters are looking for a change.
Also fueling her optimism, which still isn't shared by most independent political analysts, are recent polls that ask people if they will vote for Republicans or Democrats for Congress in November. The Associated Press/Ipsos Poll gives Democrats a 9-point margin. A recent poll conducted for Time and CNN shows the Democrats ahead by 13 points.
Pelosi said that even a 3- or 4-point margin in such so-called generic polls would put the Democrats back into the majority for the first time in a decade.
Also fueling her optimism, which still isn't shared by most independent political analysts, are recent polls that ask people if they will vote for Republicans or Democrats for Congress in November. The Associated Press/Ipsos Poll gives Democrats a 9-point margin. A recent poll conducted for Time and CNN shows the Democrats ahead by 13 points.
Pelosi said that even a 3- or 4-point margin in such so-called generic polls would put the Democrats back into the majority for the first time in a decade.
QUOTE
That's not necessarily so, said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California.
"In 1996, when it was very clear that Clinton would win re-election, the Republican National Committee ran an ad suggesting that the nation needed a Republican Congress to check him,'' Pitney said. "You can bet that blank-check argument will come up again if it's clear early on who's going to be the next president.''
"In 1996, when it was very clear that Clinton would win re-election, the Republican National Committee ran an ad suggesting that the nation needed a Republican Congress to check him,'' Pitney said. "You can bet that blank-check argument will come up again if it's clear early on who's going to be the next president.''
Seems to me that an outright win, while a long shot, is possible. It also looks like the Democrats may be able to make kind of a hail mary type of play here as well. Given Bush's approval rating, even if the country re-elects him, they might go for something like this.
Interesting theories, I suppose.
I think one of the wildcard problems that the Democratic party may have in the various house races this year is the person they chose to lead in the House, Nancy Pelosi. I know if I were a Republican candidate for the House in the midwest, I'd be running against her as well as my opponent. She is a hardcore San Francisco liberal, even you have to admit that, CJ. And that may work in some areas, but it "don't play in Peoria". I'd be putting up her statements and voting records and asking people in my district, "Do you really want her to become Speaker of the House? Second in line for the Presidency?" I have some friends who consider themselves liberal Democrats and even they aren't thrilled with that prospect. Might be a wildcard that could play out in some districts. 
Sorry Aquilla, but I'll see your Nancy Pelosi as a San Francisco chardonnay-sipping Lefty and raise you a Tom "The Exterminator" DeLay, a nasty piece of work out of Texas and every bit as much as a right-wing boogeyman as Newt Gingrich, minus the personality and snow-white mullet. DeLay is as much an anathema to the Democrats as Pelosi is to the Republicans. Yeah, technically, Denny Hastert is the Speaker of the House, but DeLay picked him to replace Gingrich.
Or am I really supposed to take comfort at the idea of a non-entity like Hastert being in the line of succession to the Presidency? I think NOT.
Just because the GOP is pooh-pooing Stephanie Herseth's taking of South Dakota's single seat in the House, doesn't mean it is lacking in national signifcance.
Special elections results, especially when they follow upon one another and begin to form patterns, mean a great deal in American politics. In the last two election cycles where Democratic challengers defeated Republican Presidents, those wins were preceded by patterns of Democratic wins in special elections for House seats vacated by Republicans. Before the 1976 presidential election, Democrats swept a series of special elections in traditionally Republican districts--even winning the Michigan House seat vacated by Gerald Ford when he accepted the vice presidency in Richard Nixon's collapsing Administration. In 1976, after assuming the presidency, Ford was defeated by Democrat Jimmy Carter.
During the contest that preceded Herseth's election by a 51-49 margin over Republican Larry Diedrich in Tuesday's statewide voting, the Democratic and Republican Congressional campaign committees poured more that $2 million into television advertising that targeted fewer than 300,000 South Dakota voters. Vice President Dick Cheney and First Lady Laura Bush swept into the Plains state to campaign for Diedrich. And, after Herseth won, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi was declaring early Wednesday morning that "Stephanie Herseth's win to tonight sends a clear message to President Bush and Congressional Republicans: Americans are ready for change."
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=1472
Oh, I agree it is going to be uphill all the way for the Democrats to reclaim the White House and one or both houses of Congress. However, six months ago that wasn't even a fathomable concept.
Five months from now? Well, it could get verrrrrry interesting.
Or am I really supposed to take comfort at the idea of a non-entity like Hastert being in the line of succession to the Presidency? I think NOT.
Just because the GOP is pooh-pooing Stephanie Herseth's taking of South Dakota's single seat in the House, doesn't mean it is lacking in national signifcance.
Special elections results, especially when they follow upon one another and begin to form patterns, mean a great deal in American politics. In the last two election cycles where Democratic challengers defeated Republican Presidents, those wins were preceded by patterns of Democratic wins in special elections for House seats vacated by Republicans. Before the 1976 presidential election, Democrats swept a series of special elections in traditionally Republican districts--even winning the Michigan House seat vacated by Gerald Ford when he accepted the vice presidency in Richard Nixon's collapsing Administration. In 1976, after assuming the presidency, Ford was defeated by Democrat Jimmy Carter.
During the contest that preceded Herseth's election by a 51-49 margin over Republican Larry Diedrich in Tuesday's statewide voting, the Democratic and Republican Congressional campaign committees poured more that $2 million into television advertising that targeted fewer than 300,000 South Dakota voters. Vice President Dick Cheney and First Lady Laura Bush swept into the Plains state to campaign for Diedrich. And, after Herseth won, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi was declaring early Wednesday morning that "Stephanie Herseth's win to tonight sends a clear message to President Bush and Congressional Republicans: Americans are ready for change."
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=1472
Oh, I agree it is going to be uphill all the way for the Democrats to reclaim the White House and one or both houses of Congress. However, six months ago that wasn't even a fathomable concept.
Five months from now? Well, it could get verrrrrry interesting.
I think you guys need to watch a very important to the GOP Senate race right here in ol' Alaska- Lisa Murkowski ® vs Tony Knoles (D) - without debate the (usually) most impregnable stronghold of the GOP and conservatism. Both houses controlled by the GOP, governers mansion, all federal legislative seats, all GOP. For the first time in Alaska's short history, an incumbent Republican Senator is very likely to lose her seat to a Democrat! Of course, this is of special interest to both parties since it could be one of those seats to determine a majority.
Now, granted, 2 things play against Lisa M very hard- she is not conservative enough on some issues, such as abortion, and she was appointed by her Dad, the governer, which is nepotism defined, a tactical error on her fathers part I believe.
I think Alaska is the true harbinger of the shift away from extreme right wing policies, as they have failed so miserably here, with uber-conservative politics being the order of the day for almost 16 years here.
Now, granted, 2 things play against Lisa M very hard- she is not conservative enough on some issues, such as abortion, and she was appointed by her Dad, the governer, which is nepotism defined, a tactical error on her fathers part I believe.
I think Alaska is the true harbinger of the shift away from extreme right wing policies, as they have failed so miserably here, with uber-conservative politics being the order of the day for almost 16 years here.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 3 2004, 02:42 PM)
I think one of the wildcard problems that the Democratic party may have in the various house races this year is the person they chose to lead in the House, Nancy Pelosi. I know if I were a Republican candidate for the House in the midwest, I'd be running against her as well as my opponent. She is a hardcore San Francisco liberal, even you have to admit that, CJ. And that may work in some areas, but it "don't play in Peoria". I'd be putting up her statements and voting records and asking people in my district, "Do you really want her to become Speaker of the House? Second in line for the Presidency?" I have some friends who consider themselves liberal Democrats and even they aren't thrilled with that prospect. Might be a wildcard that could play out in some districts.
After reading your positive comments on Nancy Pelosi, I could help but give my 2 cents worth.
QUOTE
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) noted that senators held three committee hearings on the prison abuses before House leaders summoned Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to the Armed Services Committee last Friday -- a day the Senate was meeting but the House was not. DeLay dismissed the idea of a full-fledged congressional investigation, which he likened to "saying we need an investigation every time there's police brutality on the street."
I don't know about you but I would rather have Nancy Pelosi look after my interest than Tom DeLay. After all it was only torture and death in some cases but what the heck. I am sure that "people in Peoria" may be smarter than you give them credit for.
I think the Democrats have a chance to gain seats in the House and Senate if this adminstration keeps shooting theirself in the foot. In fact the best strategy may be to not run any ads and let Bush keep talking.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Jun 3 2004, 03:22 PM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 3 2004, 02:42 PM)
I think one of the wildcard problems that the Democratic party may have in the various house races this year is the person they chose to lead in the House, Nancy Pelosi. I know if I were a Republican candidate for the House in the midwest, I'd be running against her as well as my opponent. She is a hardcore San Francisco liberal, even you have to admit that, CJ. And that may work in some areas, but it "don't play in Peoria". I'd be putting up her statements and voting records and asking people in my district, "Do you really want her to become Speaker of the House? Second in line for the Presidency?" I have some friends who consider themselves liberal Democrats and even they aren't thrilled with that prospect. Might be a wildcard that could play out in some districts.
After reading your positive comments on Nancy Pelosi, I could help but give my 2 cents worth.
QUOTE
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) noted that senators held three committee hearings on the prison abuses before House leaders summoned Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to the Armed Services Committee last Friday -- a day the Senate was meeting but the House was not. DeLay dismissed the idea of a full-fledged congressional investigation, which he likened to "saying we need an investigation every time there's police brutality on the street."
I don't know about you but I would rather have Nancy Pelosi look after my interest than Tom DeLay. After all it was only torture and death in some cases but what the heck. I am sure that "people in Peoria" may be smarter than you give them credit for.
I think the Democrats have a chance to gain seats in the House and Senate if this adminstration keeps shooting theirself in the foot. In fact the best strategy may be to not run any ads and let Bush keep talking.
You wanna run on Nancy Pelosi, that's fine by me. Fact of the matter is that whether or not the Republicans win the House, Tom DeLay isn't going to become the Speaker. Pelosi would if the Democrats win and that's an issue I think that "plays in Peoria". I'd run on that and let the people decide.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 3 2004, 11:42 AM)
She is a hardcore San Francisco liberal, even you have to admit that, CJ.
True, and to be honest I am ashamed to admit I'm not overly familiar with her voting record. However I intend to be before she is up for reelection.
But, I have always told people that if the rest of the country were more like San Francisco, we'd all be a lot better off
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 3 2004, 03:36 PM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 3 2004, 11:42 AM)
She is a hardcore San Francisco liberal, even you have to admit that, CJ.
True, and to be honest I am ashamed to admit I'm not overly familiar with her voting record. However I intend to be before she is up for reelection.
But, I have always told people that if the rest of the country were more like San Francisco, we'd all be a lot better off
No WAY I'm gonna touch this one. Instead, I'll put on my diplomatic hat 
and say that I have always enjoyed my visits to San Francisco, and there have been many. I love the cable cars and the trolleys and BART is totally cool. The food is fantastic, the view spectacular and Lombard St is completely crazy! I once drove a television satellite transmission truck down that street, only to be met at the bottom by one of San Fran's finest. 
I didn't leave my heart there, but I did leave a major chunk of my wallet. 
In any case, it's a great city to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.
Edited after Jaime's well -deserved admonition......
I was trying to be a diplomat, obviously not something in my in skill-set. But, the point on topic in this thread was that even though San Fransico proper is a wonderful place, there is still the perception across America that is is a bastion of liberalism. I believe that perception to be based in fact and Nancy Pelosi is a shining example of that. She's no Dick Gephardt, she's far to the left of him, and I think that plays into Republican hands.
Sorry Jaime.
Aquilla - save that stuff for PMs. You're taking this thread off-topic.
DEBATE:
Given all of the facts, do you believe this is the start of a national trend or are these isolated cases? Using current polls and/or historical information, why do you hold this belief?
DEBATE:
Given all of the facts, do you believe this is the start of a national trend or are these isolated cases? Using current polls and/or historical information, why do you hold this belief?
Sorry Jaime, I have to take a little responsibility too...
Ran across this site in the course of looking for something else. The "Latest Polls" section to the right is particularly interesting. It has polls for major races and links to press releases containing analysis.
The polls for battleground vs. non-battleground states are also very interesting.
I'm hoping they keep this site updated regularly so we can all track progress.
Ran across this site in the course of looking for something else. The "Latest Polls" section to the right is particularly interesting. It has polls for major races and links to press releases containing analysis.
The polls for battleground vs. non-battleground states are also very interesting.
I'm hoping they keep this site updated regularly so we can all track progress.
I don't know anything about the Kentucky situation, but the South Dakota situation is an exceptional occurence.
First, the victor wasn't a babe in the woods, as this makes clear:
Second, the circumstances of the vacancy may have played a significant role, especially after South Dakotan's realized how the downside risk of charging a man that hundreds of thousands of motorcyclists (think STURGIS, the biggest single economic event in SD) consider to be a murderer with manslaughter and then giving him a mere 100 days in the county lockup. Those are the sort of shoes another Republican doesn't really want to be filling.... (Of course, to SD credit, Janklow WAS charged, was convicted, and is out of politics, unlike a certain better known Senator with blood on his alcohol laden breath.) (( yeah, cheap shot!
))
When a vacany occurs due to disgrace, its tough for the former incumbent's party to fill it in a special election, unless the state is functionally a one party state. South Dakota ain't.
First, the victor wasn't a babe in the woods, as this makes clear:
QUOTE
Herseth is a 33-year-old Georgetown-educated lawyer and a member of one of South Dakota's most distinguished political families.
Everybody who bemoans the "Bush Dynasty" or "Kennedy Dynasty" or "Gore" or... has cause for concern on this one.Second, the circumstances of the vacancy may have played a significant role, especially after South Dakotan's realized how the downside risk of charging a man that hundreds of thousands of motorcyclists (think STURGIS, the biggest single economic event in SD) consider to be a murderer with manslaughter and then giving him a mere 100 days in the county lockup. Those are the sort of shoes another Republican doesn't really want to be filling.... (Of course, to SD credit, Janklow WAS charged, was convicted, and is out of politics, unlike a certain better known Senator with blood on his alcohol laden breath.) (( yeah, cheap shot!
))When a vacany occurs due to disgrace, its tough for the former incumbent's party to fill it in a special election, unless the state is functionally a one party state. South Dakota ain't.
An interesting bit of news today, Rumsfeld fears U.S. losing long-term fight against terror.
In this article he basically says that we aren't being successful and we aren't sure how to be successful to win the war even though we may be inflicting some casualties.
His full remarks can be seen here about 3/4 down the page. It does not appear that he was quoted out of context. The article doesn't list some of the things he said we have been successful at, but I suppose that doesn't really mater if he feels we are losing the war.
Seems to me this is a major blow to the administration to admit something like this. I wonder if the Bush administration is just setting him up to be let go so they can bring in a new guy that "has a plan". Hopefully the Democrats will capitalize on this opportunity. Thoughts?
In this article he basically says that we aren't being successful and we aren't sure how to be successful to win the war even though we may be inflicting some casualties.
His full remarks can be seen here about 3/4 down the page. It does not appear that he was quoted out of context. The article doesn't list some of the things he said we have been successful at, but I suppose that doesn't really mater if he feels we are losing the war.
Seems to me this is a major blow to the administration to admit something like this. I wonder if the Bush administration is just setting him up to be let go so they can bring in a new guy that "has a plan". Hopefully the Democrats will capitalize on this opportunity. Thoughts?
Polling update: Kerry leads Bush in LA Times poll by 7 Points.
Still believe the tide isn't turning? It is now mid-june and things are looking more dismal for Bush. The worst news for this administration is that a lot of people don't even know what Kerry stands for but they don't care, they just want a change. The debates haven't started yet, and I think that stands to do nothing but help Kerry as voters are able to get to know him.
Have there been other instances in recent history where a challenger is this far ahead before he even receives the nomination from his party? I couldn't personally remember anything, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
QUOTE
Kerry would lead Bush 51 percent to 44 percent in a two-way presidential race and 48 percent to 42 percent in a race that included Ralph Nader, according to the national poll of registered voters.
QUOTE
Dissatisfaction with Bush Administration policies seemed to be working in Kerry's favor. Nearly 60 percent of those surveyed said they believed the nation is on the wrong track -- the highest level a Times poll has recorded during Bush's term.
QUOTE
By a 10-percent margin, more people disapproved of Bush's performance in Iraq than approved, down from the slight majority that favored his approach in a Times poll in March.
QUOTE
More than half of voters felt that the president's policies had hurt the economy while fewer than a quarter felt they had improved it.
QUOTE
Though the poll showed that voters may favor Kerry, it also found that they lack knowledge about him and are less sure about his stance on issues. More than a third of those surveyed said they didn't know enough about Kerry to decide whether he would make a better president than Bush.
Asked who was more likely to flip-flop on issues, Kerry was the 2-to-1 choice.
Joseph Rechtin, a retired postal worker from Cincinnati, said Kerry had made little impression on him but he wanted a change.
Asked who was more likely to flip-flop on issues, Kerry was the 2-to-1 choice.
Joseph Rechtin, a retired postal worker from Cincinnati, said Kerry had made little impression on him but he wanted a change.
Still believe the tide isn't turning? It is now mid-june and things are looking more dismal for Bush. The worst news for this administration is that a lot of people don't even know what Kerry stands for but they don't care, they just want a change. The debates haven't started yet, and I think that stands to do nothing but help Kerry as voters are able to get to know him.
Have there been other instances in recent history where a challenger is this far ahead before he even receives the nomination from his party? I couldn't personally remember anything, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 10 2004, 04:47 PM)
Still believe the tide isn't turning? It is now mid-june and things are looking more dismal for Bush. The worst news for this administration is that a lot of people don't even know what Kerry stands for but they don't care, they just want a change. The debates haven't started yet, and I think that stands to do nothing but help Kerry as voters are able to get to know him.
Have there been other instances in recent history where a challenger is this far ahead before he even receives the nomination from his party? I couldn't personally remember anything, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Have there been other instances in recent history where a challenger is this far ahead before he even receives the nomination from his party? I couldn't personally remember anything, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
As much as I want to believe the news, I don't think that's the case. Bush is going to get the bump from Reagan's passing and (possibly) from recent unanimous approval of resolution on Iraq by the UN. Besides, somehow Bush managed to come across well during 2000 debates (still amazes me... is it because Gore was so bad?)
and Kerry is not Clinton when it comes to public speaking, so I don't expect a stomping victory there.I don't think there will be a "tide" as long as there're people like Jeremy Tuck:
QUOTE
During the Clinton years, Jeremy Tuck said he had been selling mobile homes in Tuscaloosa, Ala., and at $45,000 a year, making good money. Last year, he was assembling mobile homes, earning $15,000 and living hand-to-mouth. But Bush has his vote this November. Had Gore been elected in 2000, Tuck said, "we would've been taken over by Saddam Hussein or [Osama] bin Laden."
"You make more money in plain terms when Democrats are in office," Tuck said with a shrug, "but Republicans are stronger on the military, and that's why I'm voting for President Bush."
"You make more money in plain terms when Democrats are in office," Tuck said with a shrug, "but Republicans are stronger on the military, and that's why I'm voting for President Bush."
Here is some recent news to ponder. Poll: Sending troops to Iraq a mistake. I'll just let the article speak for itself.
QUOTE
Most Americans now say that sending U.S. troops to Iraq was a mistake, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. For the first time, a majority also says that the war there has made the nation less safe from terrorism.
The survey taken Monday through Wednesday shows a turnaround in views toward the war in less than a month. Continued violence in Iraq and questions about the war's justification apparently are eroding support even as the U.S. moves to turn over sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government next week.
It is the first time since Vietnam that a majority of Americans has called a major deployment of U.S. forces a mistake. When the war in Iraq began last year, the public by three-to-one said sending troops wasn't a mistake. Just three weeks ago, 58% still held that view.
Now, 54% say it was a mistake.
The survey taken Monday through Wednesday shows a turnaround in views toward the war in less than a month. Continued violence in Iraq and questions about the war's justification apparently are eroding support even as the U.S. moves to turn over sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government next week.
It is the first time since Vietnam that a majority of Americans has called a major deployment of U.S. forces a mistake. When the war in Iraq began last year, the public by three-to-one said sending troops wasn't a mistake. Just three weeks ago, 58% still held that view.
Now, 54% say it was a mistake.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.