American Politics XXI

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

This from CNN:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...e-for-congress/

From the article:

According to a Gallup survey released Wednesday morning, 48 percent of registered voters questioned answered that they would vote for the Republican candidate if the 2010 election for the House was held today, while 44 percent said they would back the Democrat in the race. The GOP's 4 point advantage is within the poll's sampling error.

The Republican Party's lead is a switch from a Gallup poll released a month ago, when 46 percent said they'd back a Democrat, a two point advantage over the GOP. Republicans trailed the Democrats by 6 points when Gallup questioned Americans in July.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released last week indicated that 50 percent of registered voters would vote for the Democratic candidate, with 44 percent saying they would back the Republican candidate. The 6-point advantage for the Democrats was within that poll's sampling error.

Other polls conducted over the past two months also suggest a division among Americans when it comes to the generic ballot question, which asks a respondent if they would vote for a Democrat or Republican in their congressional district without naming any specific candidates.

According to the Gallup poll, Democrats said overwhelmingly they would vote for a Democratic candidate, while Republican voters said they would overwhelmingly back the GOP candidate. Independents broke 52 percent to 30 percent for the Republicans. That 22 point advantage for the GOP among Independents is up from a 9 point margin last month.

I'm not giving this a whole lot of weight as it's a generic ballot without individuals being named. Nor do I think the Republicans are any better in control than the Democrats. They want to do the same things, just slightly more slowly. It is a switch from the last few years though.

[alguien]

I read that article this morning too. Though its Ticker headline was Bad News For Democrats, to me it just showed that at the moment the country is incredibly divided.

While the Gallup indicated that it favored Republicans, CNN's own poll indicated Dems last week. Since both fall within the margin of error, I'm don't see the Big Trouble for Dems, rather just a polarized voting public.

I think what the state of the nation is in another year could play a huge part in how well both parties do.

[alguien]

Obvious breaking news:

Fox News's Sean Hannity uses deceptive footage to exaggerate size of protest.

Daily Show points this out. Hannity to respond tonight. Will see how it plays out.

[DanteGabriel]

Let's not forget that at this point before the 2008 election, Obama was a lightweight, McCain's campaign was dead in the water, and Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani were the presumed favorites.

Lots can change in a year.

[Annelise]

A repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" will be included in 2010's Defense Department authorization bill, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said.

“Military issues are always done as part of the overall authorization bill,” Frank told The Advocate in an article published today. “'Don’t ask, don’t tell' was always going to be part of the military authorization.”

The Hill previously reported that leaders planned to move on DADT early next year. The Defense authorization bill would come up for a vote in spring or possibly summer, so that's a small delay.

This would be the second time within a year that a Defense authorization bill had been used to further gay rights. Last month, Democrats tacked on a hate crimes proposal to the Defense authorization bill.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...-reauthoriztion

Also read about FOX News fact checking Sarah Palin: http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...coin.php?ref=mp

[Sariel]

I know it's still a while off yet, but ignoring the obvious hilarity of Sarah Palin, are there any Republicans who've as of yet shown signs of aiming for the 2012 nomination?

Surely they must've started already?

[The Marquis de Leech]

ETA: Yes, the polls are looking a bit discouraging for the Democrats, but yes, it's way early. I actually can very much envision the GOP taking back a lot of seats in 2010 but Obama still winning re-election a lot like 94 and 96.

The chances of a re-run of 1994 in 2010 are near-impossible. There are fewer competitive seats available today (due to incumbency advantages) than pretty much ever before; it is worth remembering that the only House elections since 1994 that have seen more than ten seats change hands were 2006 and 2008 - and even then the Democrats only made a net gain of 30 and 24 seats respectively (the Republicans need a net gain of 41 seats to re-take the House). Plus, unlike 1994, there isn't much in the way of vulnerable Southern seats that would kill the Democrats if they lost them (the current Democratic majority relies on the North, where the Republican brand is radioactive).

[Andriy Czarchenko]

I'm not giving this a whole lot of weight as it's a generic ballot without individuals being named. Nor do I think the Republicans are any better in control than the Democrats. They want to do the same things, just slightly more slowly. It is a switch from the last few years though.

Actually IIRC the last time republicans held the generic edge in Gallup was in September 2008.....That turned out sooo well for them. :thumbsup:

[Peter Irving]

I see the republicans pulling a 98 for themselves possibly in 2010 but anything like 94 would require appealing to moderate voters and as long as their allowing the Tea baggers to call the shots I don't see that happening at the moment. Right now their allowing the radicals to run the party.

[Shryke]

The chances of a re-run of 1994 in 2010 are near-impossible. There are fewer competitive seats available today (due to incumbency advantages) than pretty much ever before; it is worth remembering that the only House elections since 1994 that have seen more than ten seats change hands were 2006 and 2008 - and even then the Democrats only made a net gain of 30 and 24 seats respectively (the Republicans need a net gain of 41 seats to re-take the House). Plus, unlike 1994, there isn't much in the way of vulnerable Southern seats that would kill the Democrats if they lost them (the current Democratic majority relies on the North, where the Republican brand is radioactive).

This is very important actually. The GOP is still quite popular ... in some areas. Most polling shows the GOP leaning more and more towards a Southern Regional Party.

Also, their brand is down right Hitler-esque with anyone under about 30.

[The_BlauerDragon]

I've heard some people saying that "economists" (I use quotes because no-one's given me a specific name yet) have predicted that things are going to get really, really ugly within the economy right after the Christmas season this year (say around early January). I haven't been able to find any news relating to this... Has anyone seen anything on it, or am I just allowing the "Nay Sayers" to pull my leg again?

Also, that begs the question. What do you all think it would do to the political climate if things do take a sudden turn for the worse?

[TrackerNeil]

I know it's still a while off yet, but ignoring the obvious hilarity of Sarah Palin, are there any Republicans who've as of yet shown signs of aiming for the 2012 nomination?

Surely they must've started already?

Believe it or not, Pennsylvania's own Rick Santorum has been trolling about Iowa, and he won't rule out a run in 2012. I think this is hilarious. A guy who lost his Senate seat by 18 points, in an important state the Republicans would definitely want to win, is actually hoping he can be president. Love. It.

[Reek]

Also, their brand is down right Hitler-esque with anyone under about 30.

[rant]What is the point of saying something like this? Sure people under 30 don't like them... I don't like brussel sprouts, but does that make them Hitler-esque? Jeeze, you take a perfectly valid observation and Godwin the f* out of it. You lose credibility for your argument and make your own side look like simpletons with comments like this.[/rant]

[TheLoneliestMonk]

[rant]What is the point of saying something like this? Sure people under 30 don't like them... I don't like brussel sprouts, but does that make them Hitler-esque? Jeeze, you take a perfectly valid observation and Godwin the f* out of it. You lose credibility for your argument and make your own side look like simpletons with comments like this.[/rant]

overreact much? I think he was being hyperbolic. you lose a lot of credibility by having no grasp of figurative language.

[potsherds]

[rant]What is the point of saying something like this? Sure people under 30 don't like them... I don't like brussel sprouts, but does that make them Hitler-esque? Jeeze, you take a perfectly valid observation and Godwin the f* out of it. You lose credibility for your argument and make your own side look like simpletons with comments like this.[/rant]

I don't know that it was the best choice of words, because I don't think the under 30's are anywhere near uniform in opinion, but I do find Repubs to more and more be the party of authoritarian thinking, corporate welfare, religious zealotry, and blind obedience. So I don't personally find Shryke's statement far off.

[Shryke]

The last poll I saw showed them at about 7% (+/- 4%) with the 18-30 crowd.

I think Stalin gets better numbers.

[Reek]

overreact much? I think he was being hyperbolic. you lose a lot of credibility by having no grasp of figurative language.

What's figurative language mean?

Seriously though, I know he was being hyperbolic but that doesn't change the fact that I think it cheapens his argument to have to resort to pulling the Nazi card... YMMV.

[DanteGabriel]

What's figurative language mean?

Seriously though, I know he was being hyperbolic but that doesn't change the fact that I think it cheapens his argument to have to resort to pulling the Nazi card... YMMV.

I'm not a fan of cavalierly deployed Nazi references, but there is a wide space between "the Republicans are like Hitler" and "the Republicans are as popular as Hitler." Your anger at Shryke would have been proportionate if he'd actually compared their character or policies to Hitler, but he was making an analogy in reference to their popularity.

[Starkimus]

OK, I am going to post this here, since this is where it occurred.

Apparently some of the things I post are viewed as inflammatory. Now, I am not going to disagree with this. I know I can come off a little harsh, but hey it usually is only after harshness has been introduced in the topic. Now, personally, I have a pretty thick skin, and just like to fire away sometimes, figuring anyone else who posts in this manner can take it as well as give it out. I guess at one point, I was wrong about this.

However, in the interest of goodwill and having civil discussions, I will try to refrain from being 'harsh' or 'inflammatory' in the future. I can't promise to be good all the time, because sometimes, some of the things I see posted in this thread just make me want to scream "wtf are you thinking?" or “how can a sane person think this way?”. ‘You’ being a general you of course and not aimed at anyone in particular.

So in closing, if I truly offended anyone, I apologize. I am pretty sure that the people I offend the most skip over my posts anyway so pass it to them as well :).

Onward and upward.

Hasta!

Stark Out!

[TerraPrime]

Daily Show points this out. Hannity to respond tonight. Will see how it plays out.

Any follow-up?