Quickhits - Saturday reading
The NYTimes has an interesting editorial on the novel, restricted definition of sexual abuse in the "compromise" torture bill.
David Lindorff at the Nation thinks we're going to war with Iran in the next month. (I'm not yet sold on the short timetable.)
Charlie Cook has an interesting column on the outlook for the 2006 midterms. Short version: Despite the big swing in pundit opinion from a meager +2% for Bush, very little has changed in the actual Congressional outlook. (It's a little old, Sept 19.)
David Lindorff at the Nation thinks we're going to war with Iran in the next month. (I'm not yet sold on the short timetable.)
Charlie Cook has an interesting column on the outlook for the 2006 midterms. Short version: Despite the big swing in pundit opinion from a meager +2% for Bush, very little has changed in the actual Congressional outlook. (It's a little old, Sept 19.)
posted by mikevotes at
3:14 PM
5 Comments:
Check out Stu Rothenberg's updates to his Competitive House and Senate Races list. All the movement is toward the Dems. The Cook Report update looked good for Dems a few days ago too. And Rasmussen shifted his Balance of Power in the Senate from 50 R, 45 D, 5 Toss Ups to 49 R, 48 D, 3 Toss Ups back on September 18th.
I bet that's why Cook, Rothenberg, and Todd are reluctant to read anything into the so-called "GOP surge." So far, the movement at the district and state level remains slightly in the Dems favor.
Todd said dems have only gone up w/ their anti-Bush, anti-incumbent ads in the last week and the effect those ads have won't be felt for three weeks or so. So I suppose if Bush is still getting 44% or 45% approval in mid October, maybe that's a sign. But for now, given we're just coming off the 9/11 anniversary and the admin has been using every excuse in the book to have him out there talking about terrorism, the way the numbers are right now isn't so bad.
Still, I hope Dems are going to engage on Iraq and not just talk about domestic issues. They spent their radio address on social security today, and while that's definitely improtant, I hope they just hammer the mess the admin has made in both iraq and Afghanistan over and over again throughout October.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 5:58 PM
Working backwards.
Social Security is a good issue. "The Republican Congress wants to take your social security away." If you properly plant that now, no amount of nuanced explanation is going to change that perception before election day.
The movement on the local level to the Dems is what I'm reading, too. I'm not an expert on election/politics, so I don't really know who to take as definitive. Beyond the polls, they generally seem to be artistically painting to explain what they see. It's valuable, but like an English major filling in the context of an engineering equation, I wonder how much is really there.
And, I also think very little is being said about the depth of the feeling in this election. Certainly there was going to be a slight bounce in Bush #'s after the 9/11 exploitation, but it was only a couple percent. I'm seeing that as pretty hardened opinion.
If you asked me my gut, it's that Republican turnout will be down because nobody except the most right wants to vote for them. I would expect, because of that, that we'll see alot more "scare" to try to get people out to vote against the Dems. I don't think negative local against Dems is going to have as big effect as normal, except in extreme cases where there's a picture of the guy taking a bribe.
The opinions seem very hard to me, and from that, I see strong inertia working against a Republican movement.
Sitting here today, I do think the Dems will claim the house, and as long as Lieberman doesn't switch, will very possibly take the Senate. The Republican math didn't take into account Allen sliding or Burns.
So, that's just my guess. I'm not at all an expert and haven't sat down race by race.
OH, and I think that Iraq is going to hammer it's own way into the debate. I know it doesn't get coverage, but I really do see it getting much worse in the near future. The long collision between Sadr and US forces is beginning to happen, and the Federalism legislation is still sitting on the table. That could collapse the government.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 6:34 PM
The NY Times reports that a National Intelligence Estimate "has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."
That should put Iraq back into the spotlight for the short term.
Menendez is going to be a problem when it comes to Dems taking back the Senate. If you count the seats, Dems should take back Penn, Ohio, Montana, and Rhode Island. That's four, they need six. Missouri is much trickier. McCaskill is running just a little behind in most recent polls or ahead within the MOE. But let's say she wins a close victory there. That's five. Now they need either Tennesee, Arizona or Virginia. I'm not convinced macacagate is going to finish off the ham sandwich eating Jewish cowboy. I'm also not convinced white southerners aren't lying to pollsters when they say they're open to voting for Harold Ford Jr. And I know polls have shown Kyl only up by 5 or 7 in Arizona and Pederson has made up a lot of ground, but I wouldn't want to bet the house on Kyl losing that Arizona seat.
Take all that into account and then think about Menendez's ethical problem (political though it no doubt is) and it seems to me a bit of a stretch for Dems to win the Senate. Can Menendez come from behind, even with his superior resources, if Kean's ahead in the final week and the RNC throws in enough money to match Menendez's camapaign war chest? Keep in mind the sleazy feeling McGreevey left in Jersey too and remember the gov't shutdown of all but essential services last month for a few days as Dem lawmakers and the Dem governor fought. Voters could very well take all that out on Menendez. In addition, can McCaskill win in Missouri? Can Dems knock off either Corker, Allen or Kyl?
I think a 52-48 Senate is what we're looking at come November 8th (Santorum, Burns, Chafee, Dewine and Menendez lose their seats, Talent, Allen, Kyl keep theirs, Corker wins Frist's seat.) And that's WITHOUT Lieberman splitting for the Republican side - if he goes, it's 53-47 (I know Sanders is running as an Independent in Vermont, but I've just included him in the Dem figures.)
I haven't followed the House as closely, but judging from the updates at the Cook Report and Rothenberg's site and the predictions Chris Bowers has made at MYDD, that's in better shape for Dems.
I dunno - I hope I'm wrong about the Senate. Hell, I hope Dems knock off the big five (Missouri, RI, Montana, Ohio, PA) and take two out of three from the ancillary races (maybe Tenn and Virginia?) while Lamont beats Lieberman and Menendez holds onto his seat.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 7:08 PM
Again, I haven't really done comprehensive counting. I don't have a strong feeling about Missouri, I don't have a read on that race, although I do think that Virginia's in play if Webb can find something to put him over the top. (All the racist stuff got him into the race, but he's going to have to close it somehow.
And, I'm pulling hard for Ford. I don't know the demographics of Tennessee, so you may well be right, but I really like his energy.
I think the whole thing is going to come down to overall voter mood in the last week or so, because this will be a turnout election. That's the unstated goal of the local negative Republican ads. It's to drive down turnout.
I really think the mood in that last week will be the decider.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:45 PM
Oh, and I was going to do the NYTimes article later when I had a chance to pick through it. The headline's big, but I'm betting there's more there.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:48 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home