JUSIPER
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
26% lead among likely voters?
Don't count on it, but it is Charlie Cook. We can always dream before Election Day.
3:42 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Monday, October 30, 2006
Senate polling
Latest polls showing signs for hope in the three toughest pickup states.
Particularly good news in VA, where both an internal poll and Rasmussen suddenly show Webb with a four and five point lead, respectively.
MD seems to be off the table once again, and even NJ is beginning to look up.
Democrats will end up with 47-52 seats in the new Senate. Running the table no longer seems to be an impossibility; polling, in fact, is beginning to suggest it could happen. My guess is that TN/NJ/MO/VA polls will remain highly volatile till election day. I don't think we'll know who owns the Senate till Wednesday morning.
8:57 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
More GOP porn news
Surprisingly, this time it's straight, depending how you categorize Mary Carey.
In related news, the "Mark Foley investigation is going to widen."
12:30 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Drowning in Republican hypocrisy
The head of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, is gay. The RNC has accused Harold Ford of taking money from "porn movie producers."
But the RNC, it now turns out, has been taking cash from "Nicholas T. Boyias, the owner and CEO of Marina Pacific Distributors, one of the largest producers and distributors of gay porn in the United States." Click here to learn the titles of Ken's buddy's recent releases.
12:49 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Friday, October 27, 2006
Two views
Rothenberg: 22-45 seat pickup:
With the national environment being as it is - and given the last round of redistricting, which limits possible Democratic gains - Republicans probably are at risk to lose as few as 45 seats and as many as 60 seats, based on historical results. Given how the national mood compares to previous wave years and to the GOP’s 15-seat House majority, Democratic gains almost certainly would fall to the upper end of that range.
The paucity of competitive districts limits Republican risk, but how much? Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer. But if redistricting cuts that kind of wave by half, Democrats would gain between 22 and 30 seats next month. And if the new districts slice Democratic gains by a smaller but still significant one-third, Democrats would pick up from 30 to 45 seats.
Dangerously big waves can be very strong and very unpredictable. They can bring widespread destruction and chaos. Republicans now must hope that this year’s midterm wave isn’t as bad as national poll numbers suggest it could be, because those national numbers suggest a truly historic tidal wave.
Barone: 15 tops:
My predictions would produce an almost evenly divided House: 219 Democrats, a net gain of 16, and 216 Republicans. Such a result would raise the question of whether Mississippi Democrat Gene Taylor, who declined to vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker in this Congress, would do so again, and whether another Democrat might do so—which could produce a Republican majority for speaker. My predictions also suggest, correctly, that I do not see this, at least yet, as a "wave" election. In a "wave" election, the winning party—Democrats in 1974, Republicans in 1994—win about half the districts they seriously contest, while the losing party wins about 10 percent of those they seriously contest (since the Republicans seem to be seriously contesting only five seats, this would give them at best one offsetting gain). If you count all these 45 Republican seats as seriously contested, this would mean that Democrats would gain only 36 percent of them. A "wave" result, which some are forecasting, would give Democrats a net gain of 22 or 23 seats, enough for a 225-210 or 226-209 majority.
One reason I do not see this election as a "wave" is that I think Republicans have a superior turnout program. The samples in most recent polls show a Democratic advantage in party identification—quite different from the 2004 exit poll that showed party identification at 37 percent Republican and 37 percent Democratic. I think there probably has been some shift in party ID since November 2004, but I doubt that it's as great as those polls suggest. In any case, polls are not good at predicting turnout. Some but not all polls show Democrats to be more "interested" or "certain to vote" or "motivated." But responses to those questions have not done a good job at projecting turnout in the past, including November 2004. To get a really good idea of turnout, I think we have to wait for elections—or, rather, for the vote to be counted.
By the way, if Democrats do end up with a majority of the magnitude of 219-216, we probably won't know it on election night. There will be some races too close to call, others where the absentee votes remain to be counted, and, as John Fund has suggested, others where the result will be litigated.
3:50 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Senate predictions
As of today, and this is somewhat pessimistic: Democrats hold NJ, MD and take over PA and OH. This brings Democrats to 46 plus Lieberman (counting independent Sanders as a Democrat). If we assume takeovers in MT and RI (likely), this brings them to 48 plus Lieberman.
But can they win MO, VA, and TN, blue states in which the Republican candidate is slightly ahead? We don't know. TN and VA both have gay marriage referenda, which, following yesterday's New Jersey decision (couldn't they have waited two weeks?) may increase evangelical voters' intensity both for turnout and Republican candidates. Therefore, at this point, I would say the GOP is likely to hold the Senate 51-48-1. If the Democrats are able to pick one (or two) of those races off, Lieberman then becomes kingmaker.
11:21 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Why winning the House matters II
It's not just the radical shift in the demographics of committee chairmanships. These incoming chairman are savvy, progressive, and angry.
In the entire history of the country only fifteen black representatives and one senator have ever chaired congressional committees. [...]
But even this is misleading. Most of those committee chairs were for select, or temporary, committees or they were for relatively insignificant committees. By way of demonstating this I will just show a sampling.
Yvonne Burke was the chairwoman of the House Select Committee on the House Beauty Shop in the 94th and 95th Congress. William Clay was the chairman of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee in the 102nd-103rd Congress. Ronald Dellums and Charles Diggs chaired the House Committee on the District of Columbia for years. Dellums did serve one session as chair of Armed Services (probably the most significant post ever held by an African-American in Congress). Some other members served as chair of the House Standards of Official Conduct Committee. Mickey Leland was chair of the House Select Committee on Hunger. Robert Nix served one session as chair of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee. Charlie Rangel was chair of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. You get the idea.
In the entire history of the country, blacks have held only three significant chairs. Adam Clayton Powell chaired the Education and Labor Committee for three sessions. Augustus Hawkins also chaired that committee for a session and a half, plus he chaired the House Administration Committee. And, as I mentioned above, Dellums spent a session as chair of Armed Services.
All of this is about to change dramatically if we can win control of the House in November.
Charlie Rangel is the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. John Conyers, Jr. is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. Bennie Thompson is the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee. Juanita Millender-McDonald is the ranking member on the House Administration Committee. And Alcee Hastings is the second ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and is rumored to be favored by Pelosi for the chair of that committee. That puts five African-Americans in line to be chairs of House committees. That's a third of the total from the last 230 years. And, more importantly, these are not minor committees. Judiciary, Intelligence, Homeland Security, and Ways and Means are MAJOR committees. House Administration is in charge of all the voting procedures in this country. This is a revolution of black power unseen previously in the halls of Congress.
As an added bonus we can add Nydia M. Velazquez, who is the ranking member on the Small Business committee and Barney Frank, a homosexual, is the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.
By way of contrast, right now there are 21 congressional committees chaired by 21 white men. In the Senate, Susan Collins chairs Homeland Security and Olympia Snowe chairs Small Business. They are the only non-male chairpersons in either chamber of Congress.
As I have noted elsewhere, this too could change if the Democrats take the Senate. For example, Diane Feinstein stands a good chance of getting the chair of Rules. Boxer has a shot at Environment.
I have worked in the inner city registering voters and doing GOTV. I know that the Democratic Party has been taking the black community for granted, and only showing up at election time. But that was largely because the Democratic leadership did not represent the inner city. That could be about to change. It may make Republicans nervous, but I am tremendously excited about it.
11:18 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Sunday, October 22, 2006
House GOP to become more conservative
That's what happens when you clean out the Republicans from moderate districts, says Bob Novak:
The House will be less Republican and perhaps Democratic-controlled because of the Nov. 7 elections, but it may be more conservative. The Republican Study Committee, the conservative caucus, will gain a higher percentage of House Republicans.
Three committee members are leaving the House to run for higher office, while eight more are seriously threatened for re-election, though some may survive. Against that, seven new Republican candidates who are heavily favored to win and five with a good chance are conservatives who probably will join the committee. In addition, several non-committee moderate Republicans may lose, possibly including all three GOP members from Connecticut.
7:50 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Daddy to the rescue
In the closing days of the campaign, Jimmy Carter's presence in Nevada would have really mattered. Sadly, he'll be in India and Nicaragua over the next two weeks. Let's hope he at least taped a few ads before he left.
7:24 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
What Would Victorious Democrats Do?
Newsweek on the stakes. Dingell, Conyers, Rangel, Waxman and many others would make a triumphant comeback.
12:58 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Weller and girl page
CapitolFaxsays it looks like the second October surprise won't come to pass.
Details on the rumor that wasn't at Kos and Wonkette.
Meowoman, meanwhile, provides her own defenseof Weller:
I knew it wasn’t true that he had an illicit affair with an underage female page. My gaydar dinged so loud it drowned out the sound of my “not wife”’s snoring coming from the other room. After I saw his picture on his site I just knew he was another GOP screaming closet case.
3:45 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Friday, October 20, 2006
The Bushes: America's dumbest presidents
JUSIPER reader M points us to the evidence.
12:51 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Headline of the month
"Foley scandal no excuse to tear holes in Republicans' 'big tent'"
12:48 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Defeat is an orphan
The blame game begins, two weeks before defeat.
Christian conservatives began complaining last year that the Republicans had put proposed Social Security changes and tax changes ahead of issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, risking the support of social-issue voters.
Over the summer, Congress held a rush of votes on just those issues — an election-year ritual intended to motivate those voters — and in an interview last week Tony Perkins, president of the Christian conservative Family Research Council, said he believed it had begun to revive some grass-roots enthusiasm.
“But the Foley scandal just let the air out of the tires,” Mr. Perkins said.
Others dismissed the Foley scandal as largely irrelevant outside of Mr. Foley’s district. Several conservatives said Republican incumbents were using it as a scapegoat.
“It will make you feel better to say, I didn’t lose the election; Foley lost it for me,” said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform. “Your wife and kids will believe it.”
Mr. Norquist said the Iraq war was the biggest drag on Republican candidates even before their big wins in 2004.
“Some people think we did it just to prove we could do it, like people who go running with weights on their ankles,” he said.
Many blame neoconservatives who argued most vocally for the invasion of Iraq. “The principal sin of the neoconservatives is overbearing arrogance,” Mr. Keene said. Neoconservatives, in turn, blamed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s insistence on holding down troop levels for the fouling up of the war
“There is a bit of a battle between people who say, Hey, your tax cuts wrecked our war and people who say, Hey, your war wrecked our tax cuts,” said David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter who was among the war’s proponents.
Mr. Frum argued that the problem with the Iraq war was in its execution, not in the idea behind it. “The war has to be seen through the prism of Hurricane Katrina,” he argued, “because conservatives will support a tough war if they are confident in the war’s management.”
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard and another prominent advocate of the invasion, said he doubted that soaring spending was turning off as many voters as tax-cutters like Mr. Norquist or Mr. Armey suggested.
11:47 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
"During National Character Counts Week, Bush Stumps for Philanderer"
Headline courtesy of the Washington Post's Dana Milbank.
So it has come to this: Nineteen days before the midterm elections, President Bush flew here to champion the reelection of a congressman who last year settled a $5.5 million lawsuit alleging that he beat his mistress during a five-year affair.
President Bush's approval rating is just 35 percent, but that would be a step up for some. Such as Rep. Don Sherwood.
President Bush's approval rating is just 35 percent, but that would be a step up for some. Such as Rep. Don Sherwood. (By S. John Wilkin -- Associated Press)
Washington Sketch
A national political reporter for the Post, Milbank writes Washington Sketch, an observational column about political theater in the White House, Congress and elsewhere in the capital. He covered the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns and President Bush's first term. Before coming to the Post as a Style political writer in 2000, he covered the Clinton White House for the New Republic and Congress for the Wall Street Journal.
"I'm pleased to be here with Don Sherwood," a smiling president told the congressman's loyal but dispirited supporters at a luncheon fundraiser Thursday. "He has got a record of accomplishment."
Quite a record. While representing the good people of the 10th District, the married congressman shacked up in Washington with a Peruvian immigrant more than three decades his junior. During one assignation in 2004, the woman, who says Sherwood was striking her and trying to strangle her, locked herself in a bathroom and called 911; Sherwood told police he was giving her a back rub.
At a time when Republicans are struggling to motivate religious conservatives to go to the polls next month, it is not clear what benefit the White House found in sending Bush to stump for Sherwood -- smack dab in the middle of what Bush, in an official proclamation, dubbed "National Character Counts Week."
The president encouraged public officials "to observe this week with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs" -- but public officials responded with some unusual ceremonies and activities: The House ethics committee is holding hearings on the page sex scandal; the FBI raided buildings as part of a probe involving Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.); and Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), the eighth person convicted in the Abramoff lobbying scandal, is refusing to vacate his seat in Congress.
11:42 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
GOP's gay hypocrisy
"Some of them are nice to us in private," whimper pathetic Republican Hill staffers.
"You have to separate the marketing from the reality. The reality is, these members are not homophobic. For the most part, they're using this marketing to play to our base and stay in power. They have to turn out the votes," said David Duncan, once a board member of the Lesbian and Gay Congressional Staff Association and a former top aide to Rep. Robert Ney (R-Ohio), who last week pleaded guilty to corruption charges linked to the Abramoff scandal.
Andrew Sullivan, the openly gay conservative columnist, calls the Republican leadership "closet-tolerant."
"They're tolerant of gay people but they have to keep quiet about it because their base would go crazy if they ever express it. That's the bottom line," Sullivan said. "They have this acute cognitive dissonance, which is a polite way of saying hypocrisy."
In their day-to-day dealings, even the most conservative Republicans can display an ease with normalizing relations with gay people. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) ranks No. 3 in Senate leadership and has likened homosexuality to bestiality. A rumor erupted in summer 2005 that his chief spokesman, Robert Traynham, was gay. When Traynham confirmed the rumor, Santorum promptly rushed to his defense, issuing a release calling his aide "a trusted friend . . . to me and my family."
After a breakup with his boyfriend, Duncan got "some relationship advice" from Ney over dinner at Morton's with other staffers. Ney told him "how difficult it is to find the right match," recalled Duncan.
At a State Department ceremony last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swore in Mark Dybul, the new global AIDS coordinator and an openly gay man. With Laura Bush and Dybul's partner, Jason Claire, looking on, Rice introduced Claire's mother as Dybul's "mother-in-law," a designation that made evangelical leaders howl in protest. "Morally provocative," chided Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, in a mass e-mail.
11:35 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Split among evangelicals
Despite their worship and praise for a victim of the death penalty, evangelicals are splitting over the issue.
Evangelical Christian leaders are tackling a growing list of domestic and international issues, such as genocide in Darfur and global warming, despite dissension in their ranks over whether this broader moral agenda will dilute their political power just before crucial elections. [...]
Today, another broad coalition of evangelical leaders will begin airing advertisements on Christian radio stations calling for action to address climate change. Among them is the new president of the Christian Coalition, who has said he plans to "rebuild and rebrand" the conservative lobbying group.
These initiatives do not sit well with some grass-roots religious conservatives, who prefer to keep the focus on a tighter range of issues, principally opposition to abortion and same-sex unions.
"This new vision, taking on these liberal issues, was the straw that broke the camel's back for us," said John W. Giles, president of Christian Action Alabama, which was the Alabama branch of the Christian Coalition before it broke away from the national organization last month.
"When we heard the new president talking about his opposition to the death penalty and support for raising the minimum wage, we decided it was time to say, 'Hi-ho, Silver!' " Giles said. [...]
Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., pastor of Hope Christian Church, a 3,000-member congregation in Lanham, was among the signers of the Darfur appeal. He said he knows that some evangelicals are concerned that their clout will diminish if they take on too many issues. But, like Combs, he pointed to the need to address subjects that matter to young Christians.
"I think you could call this a PR problem, because young people who are very involved in their churches understand the passion for these two issues," he said, referring to abortion and same-sex marriage, "but in the culture at large we can come across as wild-eyed bigots to some because we have only emphasized these things."
Broadening the agenda, "not to 99 things but to five or six core things," such as fighting poverty and providing aid to Africa, "helps improve our image and more accurately reflects the full panoply of our beliefs," Jackson said. "It's hard to say that those two things -- abortion and gay marriage -- are the only things God had in mind in the Bible."
11:36 AM | Post or Read Comments (1)
| |
Bush losing the Bill Bennett Republicans
Seems a sizable proportion of the party has a gambling problem, according to Charles Murray, better known for his racism problem.
11:26 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Warning to Dems: MD may not be in the bag yet
The latest SurveyUSa poll has the race tied at 46. On the bright side, most other polls have Cardin at least seven points ahead.
11:10 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Barone: Democratic House "likely"
If the highly conservative dean of American political analysts thinks so, Democrats are in very good shape indeed.
11:07 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Veterans' families depend on canned food drives
Amazing, from the San Diego Union Tribune, via Kos:
As the Iraq war marches toward its fourth anniversary, food lines operated by churches and other nonprofit groups are an increasingly valuable presence on military bases countywide. Leaders of the charitable groups say they're scrambling to fill a need not seen since World War II.
Too often, the supplies run out before the lines do, said Regina Hunter, who coordinates food distribution at one Camp Pendleton site. [...]
The base's list of recipients swells by 100 to 150 people a month as the food programs streamline their eligibility process, word spreads among residents and ever-proud Marines adjust to the idea of accepting donated goods.
At least 2,000 financially strapped people in North County qualify for food and other items given out at the center and a Camp Pendleton warehouse run by the Military Outreach Ministry. [...]
Also present were food-line veterans trying to make ends meet. Michelle Rankins counts herself as a reluctant regular.
“I do this for the kids,” said Rankins, whose husband is a corporal deployed in Iraq. “They need the protein from the bread. For me and my family – for a lot of the families at Camp Pendleton – this (program) is a necessity. I come every week.”
The president Christians elected started an unnecessary war. Now evangelicals get to have it both ways and "defend" the troops with donated food. One would hope Military Outreach Ministry doesn't slip Christian election literature in with the cans. But don't count on it.
10:50 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
K Street courts Dems
Dems should say no or ask for $20 million in cash as a down payment (not $20,000)... before the elections. Either way, there should be few compromises in governance as a result.
10:42 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Tidal wave?
The Wall Street Journal seems to think so after its poll.
With just 19 days until the midterm elections, a new poll shows both President Bush and his party in worse shape among voters than Democrats were in the October before they lost control of Capitol Hill a dozen years ago.
Support for the Republican-led Congress has eroded to its lowest point since the party's watershed 1994 victory that brought it House and Senate majorities.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll illustrates the political toll Republicans are paying for rising discontent over the Iraq war, as well as a spate of scandals including the disclosure that Republican House leaders knew of inappropriate emails to House pages from Florida Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned late last month. Voters' approval of Congress has fallen to 16% from 20% since early September, while their disapproval has risen to 75% from 65%.
That 16% rating statistically matches Congress's lowest point in the 17 years the Journal and NBC have polled, set in April 1992 when Democrats were in control and suffering from a scandal involving lawmakers' overdrafts from the House bank. The latest results set other records for the Journal/NBC surveys, all ominous for Republicans -- "a harbinger," in the words of Journal/NBC pollster Peter Hart, "of what's ahead for the incumbent party. It's as simple as that."
They include:
By 52% to 37%, voters say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress. That 15-point advantage is the widest ever registered by either party in the Journal/NBC surveys. Also, the result marks the first time voter preference for one party has exceeded 50%.
Half of independents say they want Democrats to take charge, while only a quarter of them back Republicans. "It's very unusual to see a majority of independents pick one political party," notes Bill McInturff, the Republican pollster who conducts the surveys with Mr. Hart, his Democratic counterpart.
Two-thirds of the electorate rates this year's Congress "below average" or "one of the worst" -- the poorest showing on that question since it was first asked in 1990.
Mr. Bush, who in the past typically drew high ratings personally even when his job-approval scores sagged, now is viewed negatively by a 52% majority -- essentially tying the worst rating of his presidency.
As for the Republican Party, 32% of voters rate it positively but 49% negatively -- the highest negative ever in the surveys for either party. On the other hand, the Democratic Party's reputation improved. After months in which it had a net negative rating only slightly better than Republicans', the party now is viewed positively by 37% and negatively by 35%.
[George Bush]
Along with other findings favorable to Democrats, Messrs. Hart and McInturff see a potential turning point for the party. For months, the Republican pollster has espoused "McInturff's Thesis: If there's a decisive election, it's because the other party becomes a credible alternative." Until now, he has argued, voters' doubts about Democrats were standing in the way of the party making significant gains. But yesterday, the Republican pollster agreed with Mr. Hart that voters now see Democrats as at least "a marginally acceptable alternative." [...]
One solace for Republican incumbents: National polls are decidedly imperfect predictors of local election outcomes, particularly given voters' historic penchant for saying they loathe Congress but like their own representative. While only 16% of voters approve of Congress, more than twice that many -- 39% -- said in answer to another poll question that their own representative deserves to be re-elected.
But 45% say "it is time to give a new person a chance." And by other measures in the poll, Republicans are at a greater disadvantage heading toward Election Day than Democrats were 12 years ago just before voters ended their 40-year reign in Congress.
[Tough Crowd]
In October 1994, with the public fed up with scandals and the failure of President Clinton and his party's lawmakers to deliver in key areas such as health care, voters said by a nine-point margin -- 46% to 37% -- that they wanted Republicans to take control. That compares with the 15-point margin today in favor of Democrats' taking the reins.
This midterm, like 1994, is shaping up as a referendum on an unpopular president who isn't on the ballot, leaving his party to bear the brunt of voters' wrath. Mr. Bush, however, is even less popular than Mr. Clinton was as Election Day approached. Back then, 45% disapproved of Mr. Clinton's job performance, compared with Mr. Bush's 57% disapproval rating.
The new poll also suggests the advantages that have helped Republicans sustain their majority in Congress -- gerrymandered House districts, a well-oiled turnout machine and the national-security issue -- all have been somewhat neutralized by the political winds buffeting the party. Democrats need to gain a net 15 seats for a House majority, and they now have polls showing leads in about 40 Republican-held districts from New England through the Mountain West -- with none of their own in serious jeopardy. [...]
Democratic rank-and-file voters continue to appear significantly more eager to show up on Election Day, a sign that Republicans' get-out-the-vote efforts may not provide the political insurance they are banking on. Some 60% of Democratic voters express the highest possible level of interest in the election, compared with 48% of Republicans. Similarly, 53% of Democrats call themselves more enthusiastic than in the past about voting, compared with 38% of Republicans.
10:34 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Lula
Now 19 points ahead in the decisive second round. Let's hope he wins. A decisive victory may end up making for a far greater mandate than a wafer-thin first round victory. This could have profound implications for progressive politics in Brazil for decades to come.
Lula's lead over Alckmin, of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party, rose to 19 percentage points in a poll conducted Oct. 16- 17 from 11 points in an Oct. 10 survey, the pollster said on its Web site. Lula gained support after he successfully stepped up his criticism of Alckmin and claimed the former Sao Paulo governor would cut federal aid and try to privatize government assets, said David Fleischer at the University of Brasilia.
"By saying that Alckmin would privatize state assets, Lula touched on a point that the Brazilian electorate is very sensitive about," said Fleischer, a political science professor. "Alckmin is making a mistake by not talking down those points because he's still lecturing to a more educated and affluent population and not talking in the language of the common Brazilian." [...]
Lula's backing in the Southeast, which accounts for 44 percent of the country's voters, rose to 52 percent from 45 percent in the previous poll, while backing for Alckmin fell to 41 percent from 45 percent.
"Lula's chances of winning the run-off election are now 70 percent, especially because he surpassed Alckmin in the Southeast region, including the state of Sao Paulo, where he lost in the first round," Fleischer said in a phone interview.
The survey of 7,133 voters in 348 cities in the country had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
5:24 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Yikes
45% of white evangelical voters in Ohio disapprove of Bush.
Seventy percent said that both Ohio and the nation were on the wrong track, a number that often spells doom for the party in power. [...]
Only a third of Ohio voters approve of the job Mr. Bush is doing as president or the way he is handling the economy, and they seem poised to take their discontent out on Republican candidates up and down the ballot. Republican officials at the national level said this week they had all but written off the Senate and governor’s races in Ohio and were diverting resources to other states where they believed they had a better chance of winning.
“In Ohio we’ve seen nothing but our manufacturing jobs cease to exist,” said one poll respondent, David Stuck, 59, of Miami Township, who said he had voted twice for Mr. Bush. Mr. Stuck, a Republican, blamed inaction at the federal level for the evaporation of jobs in Ohio and said he planned to vote for the Democratic candidate for United States Senate, Sherrod Brown, over the incumbent, Mike DeWine, a Republican.
“Call it a protest,” Mr. Stuck said in a follow-up interview. “I haven’t seen anything done in the last six years. To be honest, I’m truly thinking about voting Democratic across the board because I’m tired of Bush.”
5:21 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Yet another page scandal?
Now it's the girls' turn. Hey, a handful of Republicans prefer them.
5:14 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Will Ohio elections be hacked?
I don't know whether to buy this or not, but stranger things have happened.
4:09 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Robertson the weathervane?
Interesting, via the Hotline.
Pat Robertson: "What David Kuo said is not all that out of character. I've been involved in the political process for a long time. ... I haven't seen any great change in the nation because of evangelical involvement. ... Our primary job is building the kingdom of God not building the kingdom of Republicanism or Democratic politics. ... I think it's important to participate in politics but at the same time it's important to keep our eyes fixed on Jesus Christ" ("700 Club," ABC Family, 10/16).
4:08 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
CBN goes gaga over Harold Ford
"He's hip, young, articulate, and he's talking about Jesus." Damn. Don't miss some excellent political Q&A on Ford between CBN's excellent David Brody and Pat himself (he's always been better at politics than religion) at the end of the video.
If Harold Ford wins, he could be on a national ticket very soon.
Check out Brody's exceedingly sympathetic interview with Ford here.
3:47 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Call for Change
Let's get to work. Every little bit of help in marginal House districts may be decisive, and this is something all of us can do.
3:26 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
More Republican family values
The sad story of Republican congressman Ralph Hall.
A Texas congressman is denying charges he slandered a foreign sex slave at the behest of Jack Abramoff. But documents obtained by TPMmuckraker contradict the Republican's claims.
3:23 PM | Post or Read Comments (1)
| |
"Oh yeah? Well Democrats do it with girls!
The latest Republican defense on the Foley matter, posted by someone named "Scrapiron" on the ABC News website:
I hope the FBI has expanded the questioning to include those other than Foley. Foley has already admitted (by his actions) guilt so the invertigation is a waste of time unless they 'know' of someone other than Foley. How many democ'rats are now in hiding or will be when they start questioning the young ladies. Democ'rats haven't been known for waiting until 'legal' age.
3:20 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Ken Blackwell strikes again
He may rule his opponent Ted Strickland, ineligible to run for governor. I think he ought to do it. Strickland would win handily as a write-in, and it would be the end of the Republican Party in Ohio for a generation.
3:25 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
"Handicapping the House races"
Mark Blumenthal's informative post about the difficulties in polling individual congressional races.
2:22 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Monday, October 16, 2006
"But then again, you like the taste of boot, don't you?"
Trex of the once relevant Firedoglake nails Andrew Sullivan.
3:44 PM | Post or Read Comments (1)
| |
41 v 43
I always thought 41 was the most pathetic excuse for a president in the modern era. Until now. Now the 41 camp vents its disgust.
1:23 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Sunday, October 15, 2006
The New York realignment
The state is on the verge of one more dramatic than Texas' in 1994. Let's hope it actually happens and that the rest of the Northeast (in particular Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island) soon follows suit.
7:24 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Frank Rich
On "The Gay Old Party." One of those three times a year you wish you had Times Select.
3:09 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Clinton for CA oil proposition
Now here's a man who knows how to write a soundbite:
If oil companies "really thought you were going to pay for this, would they be spending all that money trying to convince you to vote against it?" Clinton asked.
2:11 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Cook's national overview
"without question the worst political situation for the GOP since the Watergate disaster in 1974."
I think a 30-seat gain today for Democrats is more likely to occur than a 15-seat gain, the minimum that would tip the majority. The chances of that number going higher are also strong, unless something occurs that fundamentally changes the dynamic of this election. This is what Republican strategists' nightmares look like.
Whether one looks at national or district-level polling data, or a survey like the new Democracy Corps survey that covered the 49 most vulnerable GOP districts, the conclusion remains the same: it is very ugly for Republicans. [...]
On a conference call today, James Carville suggested that the Democratic Party should expand beyond just the top targeted races. He believes the party should help fund previously ignored Democratic challengers in second- and third-tier districts--the next 30 to 50 Republican-held seats--to fully capitalize on this environment and help those candidates maximize their chances of winning. Carville went as far as to suggest Democrats go to the bank and borrow $5 million. If I were them, I'd make it $10 million and put $500,000 each of these 20 districts.
For Republicans, it is a time to defend every seat, no matter how secure those seats appear. If things don't change, GOP incumbents, who never even contemplated having a difficult race, may well lose this year. And if I were a Republican, I'd start praying that something happens to take the spotlight away from Iraq and scandals, because this current issue mix is lethal.
1:42 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Friday, October 13, 2006
Oprah and Frank Rich
Oprah has a lot of bad karma for her role in bringing Bush close to victory in 2000, so let's hope this is a down payment.
11:01 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Those Gallup numbers
Josh Marshall takes a crack at them:
Whites tend to vote Republican as a group, if by not that great a margin. And strong religious identification/church attendance is a very strong indicator of Republican party affiliation. So "white frequent churchgoers" should be -- and through most of my adult life -- have been the sweet spot of the electorate for the Republican party.
Yet, according to this latest Gallup survey, Republicans are only coming in even with this group. If that number is even close to on the mark and remains so for the next four weeks you can be next to certain that the Democrats will blow the Republicans out in the House and very likely win back control of the senate too. [...]
As I think I've made clear a number of times in recent weeks I am very much in the 'believe it when I see it' campaign when it comes to November. But this is the core of the modern Republican party. And they can only split the votes evenly with Democrats in this core group, election day will really be a disaster.
1:53 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
A freeper evangelical wakes up
And realizes that the GOP isn't as hateful as Jesus might wish.
Evangelicals (and our Catholic brethren) need to understand that we are allowed in the Republican Party only because we forced our way in. For several years I worked in politics and dealt with this on a daily basis, so I speak from experience.
The elite of the Republican Party are comfortable talking about dollars and cents, taxes and spending. Many of them at one time were business owners. Most of them see it as their job to create a good environment for business to expand and grow. That is just fine as far as it goes, but that is the extent of their worldview.
We Christians have forced to them to consider questions that "polite" people don't talk about at parties. We make them immensely uncomfortable by asking questions like the article alludes to; it forces our officeholders to think about God, man, sin and redemption, and in choosing to adopt our positions they set themselves at odds with the entire political establishment, from whom they draw political and (often overlooked) social relevancy. They risk making themselves outcasts, and being made the subject of a Mawreen Dowd column. Most of them just want to raise enough money to hold off potential challengers back home. Most of them have only a dim idea of what they believe and why when they enter office.
I have thought for a long time that the Republican Party is inherently unstable. Unlike the radical left, we have never taken full control of the party from the top down. We are vital for the Republican Party, but they listen to us only to the extent that they have to.
12:40 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Bush-Rove-Cheney: Christians are nuts
Evangelicals' reaction to David Kuo's book? We don't know yet, but most likely they'll bend over and ask for more. Fools.
A new book by a former White House faith official is causing shockwaves, even before it is released, with reportedly explosive allegations that President Bush's aides have been duping religious conservatives for political gain.
The allegations were first reported by MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on Oct. 11. They are found, according to the show, in a new tell-all memoir by former White House official David Kuo. Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction is set to be released on Oct. 16.
From 2001 to 2003, Kuo served as the number-two person in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. According to MSNBC, the book includes charges that high-ranking White House officials referred to prominent conservative Christian leaders as "nuts" behind their backs, used the faith-based office to organize ostensibly non-political events that in reality were designed to boost Republican candidates in tough elections and favored religious charities friendly to the administration when doling out grant money.
"National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy,'" Kuo wrote. He added that top political officials in White House aide Karl Rove's office referred to the leaders as "the nuts."
He described conference calls and meetings that White House officials regularly held with conservative Christian leaders, such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals. While Bush officials would assure such leaders that the White House was pushing their concerns, Kuo said, the advice the leaders gave was rarely followed.
There's evidently, a whole lot more, if today's excerpts on Olbermann are any indication. The section on the faith-based initiative outlines its deeply disturbing use in battleground elections as well as serious violations of the First Amendment in its implementation:
Kuo also reportedly alleges that Bush officials administering grant programs under the initiative favored faith groups politically friendly to the administration -- even going so far as to discriminate against non-Christian groups.
He quoted an unnamed member of a review panel who rated grant applications for one such program: "When I saw one of those non-Christian groups in the set I was reviewing, I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero…a lot of us did.'"
12:31 AM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Thursday, October 12, 2006
South turns against the war?
Fascinating polling from the Institute for Southern Studies.
9:16 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
An alternative to AIPAC?
Very interesting.
A top staffer for billionaire philanthropist George Soros met recently with senior representatives of the dovish pro-Israel community to discuss setting up an alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, JTA has learned. [...]
The meeting focused on how best to press Congress and the Bush administration to back greater U.S. engagement toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how to better represent American Jews who don't buy into AIPAC's often hawkish policies.
6:10 PM | Post or Read Comments (1)
| |
I don't buy it for a moment
But it's worth watching. Gallup:
An analysis of USA Today/Gallup poll trend data indicates that while Democrats have made gains across the board on the generic Congressional ballot in the latest Oct. 6-8 survey, the change has been greater among religious whites than among less religious whites and among non whites. At this point, religious whites are equally as likely to say they will vote Democratic as Republican, a marked change from their strong tilt towards the Republicans in surveys conducted June through September.
6:09 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Mark Warner bows out
The next Vice President? Some excellent analysis from Markos, including the rather exciting possibility of a big pickup in 2008: Senator Warner.
I never really thought Warner (or, for the same reasons, Evan Bayh) had much of a chance: Hillary's right wing candidacy would have left him voteless on the right, and the left would never warm to him. Edwards is a more attractive Southern candidate, policywise and otherwise. Which meant he would have been battling with 7 other candidates for a tiny proportion of the Democratic primary vote. So he was smart to quit. Credit his brain for a good businessman's instinct and his heart for the lack of hubris.
5:30 PM | Post or Read Comments (0)
| |
Wednesday, October 11, 2006