Election News: Better Than We Could Have Hoped

Not good, mind you. Just not awful. Hope is still alive, which is critical.

Dems lead comfortably (or so the polls say) in 210 House elections, with eighteen more polled as true toss-ups. That means they'll have to take all of the races they lead in (they'll maybe lose one or two of those) and then the lion's share of the toss-ups just to squeak a majority in the House.

Can they do it? Yes, they can. Is it a certainty? No, not hardly. No better than 60-40 at this point.

40% isn't exactly a longshot.

Republicans claim their GOTV efforts are on pace with 2004, if early voting is any indication. Which it may not be -- Allah suggests it's possible that the "diehards" are responsible for most of the early voting, and that those less determined to retain GOP control will be far less likely to vote on Election Day.

It's a plausible scenario. But it's also plausible that rumors of the death of GOP motivation have been greatly exagerated.

Meanwhile, Julia Corker's dad is up by eight over Ford in one poll.

The delectable, deliciously saucy Ms. Corker promises "Elect my Dad, and I promise I'll 'accidentally' let my sex video with Lauren Bush get put onto the Internet."

Fair news from New Jersey, Viriginia, and Missouri -- polls show them as tossups, which means the Republican has a better-than-even chance of winning, I think.

Dems Have A Massive Get-Out-The-Poll-Respondants Drive Going... and yet it's not poll respondants which determine elections. It's actual voters.

Has Tennessee -- a border state, though Southern and heartland in leanings -- really gone from an eight point GOP lead in voter identification to a one-point deficit?

In just two years?

I suppose it's possible-- after all, Republicans now trail Democrats in terms of public confidence on every single issue except terrorism, and even there, it's a tie.

On the other hand, those reports come from polls which also have Democrats leading in party identification by five to twelve points.

There's a hard number that would suggest this massive change in party ID is real, isn't there?

Changes in official party registration, right? Not "polling." Just actual counting of how people are now signed up, politically.

True enough, people often don't bother to change their actual official party ID as often as their real party leaning changes. And yet, one would think that if there were such a massive change in party ID, that would at least be partly reflected in the hard nunbers.

And if that's the case -- the media sure is being pretty quiet about it, aren't they?

Correction: I'm informed that no one really calls Tennessee a "border state," as it was part of the Condfederacy.

Which just makes my point stronger. Have eight percent of all Tennesseans given up their cross-burnin', fag-bashin', Jew-hatin' ways?

I doubt it. So many of them are stupid and uneducated that they actually join the military.

They're simply not smart enough to now be plurality-Democratic.

posted by Ace at 04:38 PM

| Access Comments