Nov 06 2006

Who Are They Kidding?

Published by at 12:59 pm under 2006 Elections,All General Discussions

Ace of Spades has news of CNN coming to the rescue of Liberals frightened by all the latest polls coming out. The left and CNN are only fooling themselves! Reps and Cons are going to the polls no matter what CNN broadcasts.

So what is the point of this now one day before the election? Oh, yeah. It is the Democrat base, which is so fragile the smallest indication of failure will send them into a protective fetal position – and they won’t come out to vote. CNN knows there is a serious risk of the left simply crumbling in the face of bad news. The same way they crumble in the face of Terrorism and challenges in Iraq. Democrats, are rapidly becoming the ‘Panic!’ party.

25 responses so far

25 Responses to “Who Are They Kidding?”

  1. crosspatch says:

    Fox News also has a poll out showing Dems gaining ground.


  2. Carol J says:

    I told you things in Illinois might get interesting…Barack Obama apologizes today for his questionable real estate deal in Illinois…AND…(just after extricating his foot from his mouth he puts it back in) introduces Dick “Durtbin” as the next Senate Majority Leader! That’s a good one Barack!

    Dickie and Rocky will be lucky if their next mailing addresses aren’t Leavenworth Kansas…maybe they can even be roomies (er, cellies)!

    Stay tuned for more “fun and games” from the Land-o-Lincoln. LOL.


  3. For Enforcement says:

    Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, nobody watches CNN anymore anyhow.
    But a RCP read a post by Dick Morris that says The GOP will be massacred on Tuesday. I think he’s believing CNN.
    I like Morris sometimes, but think that most times he’s just a political wh**e. Well, we’ll see.

  4. Carol J says:

    Uh oh….John Kerry’s “magic hat” (Lucky Charm my butt!) is making a campaign appearance:



  5. Limerick says:

    Baltimore chance of rain, 50%. Philadelphia chance of rain 50%…….awwwwwww too bad. Don’t want to get wet voting you know.

  6. PMII says:


  7. clarice says:

    ******”The generic-vote question persistently underprojected Republican vote share from 1994 to 2002. It did a better job of projecting Democratic vote share but missed the important thing: Republicans trailed on the generic vote every time except 2002, when they were tied, but Republicans won the popular vote for the House every time. The current WaPo numbers look like the average of 1996 and 1998, when Republicans won the popular vote 49 to 48 percent. As you may recall, they were on the defensive in the campaign dialogue in both cycles, in 1996 because of the backlash against the highly unpopular Newt Gingrich, in 1998 because of the backlash against the impeachment of Bill Clinton. They won the popular vote, and they won most of the seats anyway.

    That’s not to say they necessarily will this time. Scandals and other unforced errors seem sure to cost them 10 or more seats, and a loss of 15 seats produces a Democratic majority. But there are some other interesting numbers in the WaPo poll. Was it worth fighting in Iraq? Registered voters say no by a 44-to-53 percent margin. But that’s not statistically different from the margin among registered voters in the WaPo’s September 2004 poll: 46 to 51 percent. And the current WaPo’s likely voters split, just barely, the other way: 49 to 48 percent. Similarly, on which party is better at handling Iraq, the WaPo has likely voters at 42 to 42 percent. Not a great endorsement of the president’s party. But not the stinging rebuke that so much of the MSM coverage suggests.

    Last summer, I wrote that the voters had decided that the Republicans deserved to lose but had not decided that the Democrats deserved to win. Sometime in October, as we spent our two or three weeks mulling over the Mark Foley scandal, one of Charlie Cook’s ace staffers said that the voters had decided that the Democrats were an acceptable risk. Now I wonder whether that was right: whether in fact voters in the past week or so have been considering whether the Democrats deserved to win. The movement of independents in these polls to somewhat smaller anti-Bush margins and the apparent greater motivation of Republicans than Democrats to get out and vote suggest voters have been mulling over that question and that the Democrats, with their pounding anti-Bush rhetoric but their absence of much in the way of positive policies, might not be passing the test. And then along comes John Kerry. Voters may want to see George W. Bush checked by his opposition. But maybe not all that much.

    All this said, I have been looking at three polls, and others may come along and point the other way. Republicans are plainly on the defensive in Senate and House races, and if they lose all or almost all the close Senate races and if they forfeit as many House seats as they seem likely to, Democrats could end up with majorities in both the House and Senate. On the House side, Republicans, even while holding most of their seats that have long been recognized as seriously contested, could lose overwhelmingly Bush ’04 seats where Democrats are running attractive candidates and Republicans nominated by plurality candidates with serious liabilities (Idaho District One, Nebraska District Three) or where Republicans who have never had to campaign much have been caught unawares (New York 25). Many outcomes are possible. But those possible outcomes include some that seemed unrealistically optimistic for Republicans only a few days ago.

    Posted at 01:33 PM by Michael Barone
    « Iraq Did Have WMD Programs ”

  8. Dc says:

    Anything can happen and as noted turnout is going to be the deciding factor. There is nothing new in that statement…since 2000, the electorate has been fairly evenly divided and races have been close on the national level since then.

    The local level was always different. The DNC has run election 04 all over again, trying to make this a “national” election referrendum on Bush and the war in IRaq. Basically saying…it doesn’t matter if you like your local rep or not…don’t vote for them if they are republican. Vote to put the DNC in power…send a message, etc.

    Anybody who is dumb enough to fall for that, to throw away their own best interest to give Pelosi and these nuts control of the house and senate….deserves what they get. But, the truth is…even with the core of the party and the revolution in 04..etc…they simply didn’t turn out the vote like they needed to and were WAY off from predictions. And it wasn’t because they weren’t motivated. It’s because young people..have other things to do, are fickle and tend to feel like going to a party might be more important that particular day..than voting ( can always vote in the next election).

    The DNC lost in 04 on the same platform/agenda they are trying to run now. They somehow feel running the same thing will be different this time..given time has passed and their biggest point about anything is…it has failed, Bush has failed, admin has failed, it’s Bush’s fault and Rumsfeld’s fault. They are baseing their optimism on the fact that people are unhappy with the situation in IRaq. This is true. A lot of people are unhappy that the news out of IRaq is not any better at this point in time. But, the trick for them is..does that translate into automatic votes for them? And does people being unhappy automatically therefore mean..people would vote to put Rangel, Pelosi, etc..into leadership? I mean..that’s what they are running on. For all their “complexity” and nuanced thought..I think the DNC is being plain simplistic and ignorant and stubborn and using faulty logic here.

    I think it’s a lot more “complex” and nuanced question than the dems are giving thought too — for people who enjoy nuance. Anyway..there are any number of ways to look at this:
    On the one hand, if DNC pollling and enthusiasm is high, some of their people might decide..hey..we got it in the bag or it’s covered, and decide to have a victory party instead of voting (I kid you not).
    As someone else wrote somewhere…listening to Dems talking points is like listening to someone try and convince themselves that they actually can pick up a turd by the “clean” end.

  9. Karig says:

    My attitude is basically just: “Screw the damn polls. Vote.”

    And hope it rains tomorrow. We rightwingers won’t be deterred by a little rain.

  10. Ken says:

    Strata find nothing wrong with the Bush conspirators manupulating “juries” in Iraq but everything wrong with CNN
    reporting the demise of Bush’s approval rate.

    And AJ, “challenges in Iraq” are the direct result of illegal immoral and botched, to boot, actions of Bush himself, actions which,along
    with his sellout of conservatives on immigration, largely account for the difference between, say, a 35% and a 50% approval rate.

  11. For Enforcement says:

    This interesting little bit of info about poll watchers:

    “Many of the groups share liberal roots, their members smarting from the narrow Democratic losses in the last two presidential elections. But they also share in Ms. Kuznik’s assurances — and the tax and lobbying status that requires them to remain nonpartisan — that they simply want to see a clean count.”

    That’s the LAST thing they want. They still want all the illegal immigrants, dead people and felons voting Democratic. They just don’t want them voting Rep.

  12. For Enforcement says:

    Ken, are you really sure you want to say that the only way Saddam got convicted was that the US fixed the jury. ……..O000Kayyyyy.

  13. Ken says:

    I was referring to the timing, FE, but then to a Bushbot everything is coincidental , from no WMDS being found, on…

  14. Retired Spook says:

    We rightwingers won’t be deterred by a little rain.

    Karig, it’s supposed to rain tomorrow in northeastern Indiana where I live, and it was announced on the local news today that rain on election day has historically translated into a 2.5% advantage for the GOP. Gee, I wonder why that is, heh.

  15. Dc says:

    Well, I guess we can all admit our mistakes, give up our ideals and humanity and etc.. and go back to supporting brutal, oppressive, secular dictators in the ME/Gulf for “stability” eh? Only one thing…if we do…will you shut up?

  16. For Enforcement says:


    from no WMDS being found, on…

    So that article in the NYTIMES last week about posting Iraq’s plans for an A bomb within a year was? A lie? A mistake?

    All those artillery shells found with toxic gas in them? would you be willing to inhale some of that chemical if you don’t think it was a WMD.

    You are truly in Oz.

  17. Limerick says:

    Here is vote fixing for you Ken….Texas style…….on my sample ballot here there are elections for 37 judges………….only TWO…that’s right TWO of the 37 have Democrats on the ballot. The other 35 you’ve got one choice and one choice only….REPS!!!!!!!!!

    God Bless America!!!!!!!! God Bless Texas!!!!!!!!!!!

  18. Carol J says:


    “We rightwingers won’t be deterred by a little rain.

    Karig, it’s supposed to rain tomorrow in northeastern Indiana where I live, and it was announced on the local news today that rain on election day has historically translated into a 2.5% advantage for the GOP. Gee, I wonder why that is, heh.”


    Kinda makes you wonder what they would do if, on their way to the polls, they were being threatened or shot at, doesn’t it?


  19. Limerick says:

    That early counting of the Ohio early voting smells rotten……..especially since it was OKd by a judge. Since it is in the biggest county I wonder if the Dems will know just how many ballots they need to stuff tomorrow. ACORN to the rescue!

  20. Ken says:

    We see that For Enforcement has still not learned the military defintion of WMDs. And Saddam’s having “plans” are no excuse
    for lying about extant reality, simply an indication he was a
    ruler who wished to protect himself against the second most
    dangerous country in the world,according to the latest
    world polling, Israel.