Gallup: Democrats Stretch Lead In Vote For Congress

[Mark E. Smith]

March, 07, 2006
Gallup News Service

Fourteen-point Democratic lead is among the widest since 1994

PRINCETON, NJ -- The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, conducted Feb 28 to March 1, finds the Democrats holding a substantial lead over the Republicans as the party more registered voters currently support in this fall's elections for Congress. More than half of registered voters (53%) favor the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House in their district; only 39% favor the Republican.

Gallup's recent trends on this "generic ballot" question -- from October 2005 through early February 2006 -- found a smaller six to seven point lead for the Democrats. However, the current 14-point Democratic lead is similar to a 12-point Democratic lead recorded last August. It is also among the highest seen since the Republicans came into power more than a decade ago.

http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21793

[acmavm]

1. If this is true, it's gonna be harder for them to steal this one.

.

[opihimoimoi]

3. Ya jus know they gonna try...no other choice

[Jackpine Radical]

4. OK--Ya want some paranoid thinking?

If I were going to steal the election, I'd booger up the exit polling. Create my own exit polling firm or something, & just lie about the numbers.

[formercia]

25. you can call it Mitofski?

damn, someone already has a polling firm by that name.

[mom cat]

26. Better yet, we mobilize to have exit pollers ta every precinct and record

the truth. We could exit poll every voter, count how many voters there are, and make sure that the numbers match up. We should be filming at every polling place. Every single one. If the people of Haiti could expose election fraud, then we should be able to do a far better job with all our resources. We need to have a million eyes on the process and document everything.

[PATRICK]

87. New Independent polling

somehow not up for sale, not prone to pressure, relegated to exit polls and not ephemeral pre-polling murk and attitudinal crystal balling. Then, where does the money come from? What are the public trust mechanisms? Total transparency plus better and more sampling, improved professionalism. It seems apparent, unlike the feisty Ukrainians, that Democrats really don't want to do anything about questioning the system. Whatever the reasons are, they are backfiring in every way, including a decline in public trust. The GOP is even allowed to frame the public distrust and use it selectively to their advantage!

I have wondered at the supposed inner party polls(that likely use the same firms as the national ones) not being used to even make a squeak about wide discrepancies. The trouble is, that is is a party sponsored poll and crying wolf using that poll has not enough weight and can be even counter productive. On the other hand, not a peep from most party regulars that they ever have been swindled. A newbie like the guy who ran against Hagel is more likely to dig deep and speak out when he finds Democratic districts suddenly falling in love with Conservative GOPism suddenly on election night and that guy owns the voting machines.

Maybe someone can counter the major arguments or passivity of the party? If you manage to throw enough numbers against a crooked system it cannot stand- BUT you lose the proper mandate and still risk losing. That kind of despairing passivity is part and parcel of the very approach that dampens the necessary turnout and worse- when one wins big like Schumer the rigged system and the non-response to fraud is affirmed to the point of making accountability invisible. In that case winning is NOT everything and being still passive, the other side retains fake strength and can use you very 'victory" against you.

But nothing is as damaging as giving a bad impression. In the past it was that common people don't donate with the exception of reasons why they DO for the GOP. In the past it was that the GOP always has the money advantage and certain issue advantages. Disastrously, in love with issue framing for which they have no favorable media access to overcome forum fraud, they figured that being like the winners across the aisle was better than having to deal with concrete strategy and real people. Today, the bad impression is that the Democrats will not act on fraud and some help promote it. That the sudden influx of people donations and grassroots, separate from the wheezing traditional core money and volunteers, is being taken for granted even more than the loyalty of voting blocs that interfere with the disastrous Third Way issue strategy. Worse, that the new in-pouring of support is suspicious because it is perceived as an upstart competitive progressive wing that flies in the face of their previous road-map to Third Way victory. The circular illogic of that is worse than the traditional circular firing squad of old. In fact, as always occurs, they are creating what they fear and the only solution they see is simply to win and hold on to power. The trouble is, the GOP does that better out of necessity. By becoming more like the GOP(in supposedly neutral or "good" ways) they unnecessarily adopt their fear of the masses and the clarity of truth. On a given day in a given speech one can see bromides for all positions, but the national actions by the Congressional party and often down the line
gives a very bad impression.

Someone posted, unbelievably, that we can't expect "representatives" to be leaders, making a total oxymoron out of the DLC- which it was before he went that extra philosophical mile. In real life apparently there is some merit in the sordid evidence, but not to the need or responsibility demanded of our elected Dems by the times more than by any progressive wing.

[mom cat]

88. I want you to chech out this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x416192

Thanks
I think that there is a good discussion forming there where your ideas might fit in!

[Kurovski]

30. There will still be all those polls out there prior to Election Day.

But then, they can always release another video of George's pal Osama bin Laden a day before elections and then say the change of heart was due to the Boogy Man.

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. They've already established, in the last two elections, that

exit polls cannot be trusted. That's what they said after 2002, in Georgia, then again in Ohio in 2004. It was the exit polls that are wrong -- there's something terribly wrong with the exit poll methodology. The proof is that the actual votes were so different from the exit polls.

They don't need to touch the exit polls. Just rig the vote, and lie.

[FatDave]

83. They said it in 2000 too

Funny how exit polls were always completely accurate and trustworthy until Shrub came along.

[sheelz]

13. steal a little=recount if recountable

steal a lot=ignored :mad:

[electropop]

34. The most they've managed in the past (not counting OH state-level) is 6%.

That was dicey, but they got away with it in 2004. Fourteen points is gonna be pretty hard to 'splain away.

[Kurovski]

41. It looks like it might have been more than that in some cases...

"The 2002 Georgia races for governor and U.S. Senate are highly instructive. Both Barnes and Max Cleland enjoyed significant leads in pre-election polls right up to Election Day. Cleland lead 5 to 6% and ended up losing the recorded vote by -- a stunning 9 to 12% reversal from the poll just days before the election. Barnes had a similar experience with a swing from leading to losing of 16%."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=578479

[electropop]

45. Ouch.

What'll it take, 40-point leads?

[Mithras61]

46. From what I've seen...

even that won't be enough. Several propositions in Ohio in 2004 were swapped from 60-40 in favor in pre-election and exit polls, and the results were 40-60 against in the "official" count. I truly believe that the only "fix" is to get back to paper ballots. I don't care if they are created by a machine when I vote or pre-printed and I mark it with a pencil, but we HAVE to get back to real, tangible ballots (no more of this electronic DRE with no paper ballot crap).


And don't give me any of that "paper receipt/paper trail" crap either. If what is printed out isn't the actual ballot, it isn't good enough. A receipt isn't acceptable because it doesn't hold a higher place in the law than the ballot does. On a challenge, the receipt would be defeated by the electronic ballot.


And would someone please explain to me why our republic will collapse if we don't know the results of the election by midnight of election day? What's the rush here? Why can't we slow it down a bit and make sure the numbers are right before ANYTHING gets reported?

[Higans]

61. Well said

[Tiggeroshii]

47. As long as there are electronic voting machines still

...it's gonna happen. Remember the lead the referendums in Ohio had before the 2005 elections? 40 to 50% leads, right? They ended up losing by that much. It's gonna happen if the electronic voting is as widespread in November as it is now. We're going to lose(as well as the Repugs that aren't liked by those in control) if we don't keep up the pressure on the states to switch back. We need a far more honest system back then we have now, and we need to keep focusing on that goal.

[libhill]

59. But but but -

they have to steal elections. It's the only way they can "win", and they damned well know it.

[LuckyTheDog]

62. Diebold to the rescue!

Expect a few "terra lerts" as well.

[McCamy Taylor]

66. That wont stop them from trying: check out my new 'toon link below

http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/Flash/PayForDemocracy/PayForDemocracy.htm

"What would you pay for a used Democracy?"

[lakeguy]

76. no it won't, if you read further down in the article it

clearly states that dems ALMOST ALWAYS lead republicans in these types of polls. then they go on to add that more republicans go out and actually vote so dems lose.

right.

that is how they will explain any lead away. they've done it before with significant swings between polls and the outcome and they will do it again. it will be a coup for the right wing "moral" voter who stood up for his "moral" way of life.

[MissMillie]

2. This looks promising

I hope it still looks promising when the ballot is less generic.

[still_one]

5. unless we win a majority in one of the houses it will be for nothing

[Orlandodem]

6. We must work like we're down by 14 points.

We can't get overconfident. We must recruit at the grassroots level. We must reach out to family, friends, and neighbors. We must organize in the neighborhoods. We will fight them on the land, we will fight them in the air....oh wait never mind.

You get the point.

[calimary]

36. I would vote for this post to be THE post of the YEAR.

We've gotta work like we're down A HUNDRED AND 14 points.

This is NO time to get complacent, OR overconfident.

Yes, they could still steal. Power is an awfully big plum to have to give up. Especially all-encompassing, we-own-it-all power. They won't go quietly. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see measures brought up, in anticipation of a wholesale overthrow of republi-CONS - to try to lock IN STONE whichevery committee chairmanships are currently in republi-CON hands because, oh, maybe whoever was chosen chair in a presidential election year gets to keep it for the term of that president, regardless of which party is in power in the House and/or Senate. I tell ya, it wouldn't surprise me ONE BIT.

They'll also try to steal, I'm sure. After all, once they got a taste of success, they certainly weren't adverse to wanting more, were they? We'll need to watch SEVERAL states this time, not just Florida and Ohio. All the more important to work like we're WAY down, because the better the numbers, and the more lopsided the vote for Dems, the harder it'll be to steal. Besides, people are a LOT angrier this year, and if an election IS stolen, I suspect there'll be a much bigger stink about it.

We NEED to focus on getting the House back this year. THIS YEAR. And protecting John Conyers AT ALL COSTS. He'll ascend to chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee, and his appetite is already Thanksgiving turkey-sized for IMPEACHMENT. We simply NEED TO TAKE THE HOUSE BACK. At that point, the juggernaut will be OURS. And we NEED to keep talking about the RUBBERSTAMP republi-CONS - SELLING OUR PORTS TO THE ARABS. Get the visceral reaction going and it'll carry us all the way to January '07.

GREAT post, Orlandodem. Welcome to DU! Mighty glad you're here, especially if you're posting like this. We've got our work cut out for us. We DO get the point. But this year, unlike in earlier years, the prize is actually within reach. EYES ON THE PRIZE, GUYS.

Visualize IMPEACHMENT!!!
Then go DO something about it.

[Orlandodem]

60. Thanks, Calimary. I got chills by reading your post.

We've gotta take back America! To do so we must fight. This election is not about cons. It's about us. We can overcome Diebold, stolen elections, and the corporate media. We can and we must.

[brer cat]

63. Good post, calimary. We just need to call on Jimmy Carter..

about time he monitored an election here!

[motocicleta]

68. I'm trying. I continually target my repuke inlaws, with much more

equanimity than I use here, and yet I seem to be getting nowhere. I'm bent. I've tried the nice approach, the smart approach, but nothing works. Should I feel bad if the only pukes I know won't respond to reason?

[Higans]

70. we could have it at 100% and the repugs would still fix it 51% to 49%

and call it a mandate.

[9119495]

7. Doesn't fucking matter--the districts aren't close.

Dem's have bigger districts than republicans do (because urban areas have more votes per district than rural ones). We may win all of our current seats plus 14 percent more votes nationwide and win only a couple of seats. In the last election for House, there were only 30 races considered competitive among the 435 seats open.

Until polls come out by district, we've got nothing to be happy about here.

[Mithras61]

11. Maybe you need to review Redistricting 101...

The districts are required by law to have the same number of votes. Rural districts are physically larger than urban ones because the urban population is more densely packed than rural populations, but they all have the same number of voters in them (within a certain tolerance - 3% I think, but I could be mistaken). That is the whole point of redistricting, in fact... changing the district lines to accomodate vatriations in population growth & shrinkage (not to ensure the supremacy of your party no matter what, like the 'pukes would have you believe).

[9119495]

42. Nope. Wyoming has 500,000 for one district. CA has about

1,000,000 due to WY's constitutional right to a seat. Thus, Democratic CA and NY lose out to a combination of all those deep red Western states with smaller aggregate populations.

Search the New Yorker for a great article on redistricting...really eye openning.

[Mithras61]

44. So what you're telling me is that...

with 435 seats and a minimum of one per state, that we can't take the majority of the districts in this country because Wyoming has a single seat, but California doesn't?

If we allocate one per state, that leave 385 that are doled out according to population distribution. Yes, it isn't exact because of situations like you describe, but it isn't as bad as you paint either.

States that get more than one representative are required to divide the districts in a manner consistent with one person, one vote. That's what I was speaking about when I said the districts have to be approximately the same headcount. I'll concede I didn't say it was within a state, but I had supposed that would be obvious because of how representative seats are assigned. After all, this is at least PART of what the TX redistricting case in front of SCOTUS is about!

The only way to "fix" things like what you describe is to have national districts that cross state boundaries, which would violate one of the first articles of the constitution (I'm not sure which one applies here), and would therefore require a constitutional amendment. How do you suppose that would fare?

[readmoreoften]

64. And if we do win back the house and senate...

We need to hold torches to the bottom of the Democrat's feet to force them to go after this administration. Winning won't be enough. We will have to put pressure on these career politicans to take a stand.


On edit: sorry, misplaced post; meant for OP.

[9119495]

77. No way would that amendment pass. You're right on that.

Here is what I would like to see...and it takes only a change in LAW, not an amendment. Simply add seats to the House of Representatives. We could start with 50. This would help those states that are a bit underrepresented by district. Right now, republicans have made a pwerful winning formula by appealing to regions and rural areas. More seats would better refect the concerns of urban (and thus more cosmopolitan) areas.

Best yet, the senate would still keep representation in line for small states.

[VirginiaDem]

52. And Dems have controlled the House in the past.

These rules weren't created by DeLay. Dems can retake the House despite the systemic barriers you've described on this thread.

[9119495]

78. As said above...

Things are different now. Dems used to carry the South. Is that likely to happen again? Not the way the right has framed the debate. Considering the concerns of people in the deep south, we're never getting those votes back if they keep there current attitudes. Example: Gay marriage is a bigger issue than economic development. And I don't want a democrat that agrees with that sentiment.

Again, I'm not saying there is no chance, it is just that winning more votes as democrats may not lead to more seats, agreed?

[BlueManDude]

8. theses polls are meaningless

yes i'd rather be up than down and yes the polls are a manifestation of the dis-satisfaction with bush and the gop goons - but they have no bearing on most congressional districts. what the gop has done in texas is an example of making your party almost immune from defeat regardless of how badly you fuck things up.

read this week's new yorker on the texas redistricting case just heard by the ussc.

[Captain Hilts]

9. But people will still vote for their incumbent.

The problem in Congress is with everyone else's member of congress. Not their own.

[Mithras61]

10. Actually, you might be surprised...

Tom "Bugman" DeLay is in a fight for his political life here. He's facing both a well-financed Republican opponent today and a better financed Democrat opponent in November. I haven't seen any polls in quite a while, but the last one I saw showed him loosing to an un-named Democrat and things have gotten worse for him since then. If the same thing holds around the country, the R's may be in DEEP doodoo...

[NMDemDist2]

15. yeah but what's the story on his R foe? can he take the seat if he wins

the primary?

[Mithras61]

18. It's looking unlikely...

DeLay was loosing to an un-named Dem by nearly 20 pts. when the R opponent entered the race. Currently, Nick Lampson (the Dem) has $1.4million in the bank, and DeLay has $1.3million (probably why he's at the fundraiser tonight instead of glad-handing his district, no matter WHAT he says)...

[BR_Parkway]

21. Somehow I don't see Delay being magnaimous enough to support

the R that defeats him in the primaries - assuming he's not in a prison cell by then.

One thing you can always count on with RePugs - it's all about them and they will screw anyone over who gets in their way. I don't see Bugman coming out in support of another R primary winner for the good of his party.

[Captain Hilts]

16. The re-election rate in congress is in the 90s.

I was in political polling.

[Mithras61]

19. Yes, but how often has the congressional approval rate...

been as low as it currently is, with the Presidential Approval rate as low as it is? Last time that happened was in '94, right?

[Captain Hilts]

27. The numbers aren't really related.

People's attitudes towards 'congress' are not directly related to how they feel about their own member of congress.

It's best to count how many open seats there are, and so forth.

[Mithras61]

28. Would it be best to use locally generated numbers?

PREFACE - I'm looking for information, not trying to stir things up.

Could we use local polling data like what I cited for the Bugman to compare races?

Is there any consolidated location where that sort of information is available?

I would think that any time the numbers are being presented that there would be an effort made to control for locality, because it seems possible that support may be eroded in some areas or regions and not in others. Is there (to the best of your knowledge) any effort made in that regards?

[Captain Hilts]

29. The Cook Political Report used to list them all.

I don't know what's available from them online. But it's key to look for the open seats.

C-Span might have something on their website too.

I'm heartened by DeLay's problems and by Thomas's decision to retire. So, I'm feeling fairly good about 2006.

[Mithras61]

31. I'm feeling pretty good about 2006 right now, too, but...

I'll have to reserve overall judgement on it until later (maybe tomorrow). If the Bugman gets his dose of insecticide, I'll be happy, but I'll have reservations about November (unless Lampson gets >50% of all the votes cast in total for the primary for that seat).

[Captain Hilts]

32. Wow! My polling firm had some stuff in The Woodlands!

You're at the forefront of 2006 in your district.

Good luck!

[Mithras61]

33. Thanks! I don't think Brady is facing anyone too tough, but...

we can always hope for divine intervention, I suppose.

Most people don't realize that in TX, many of the races are pretty competetive, but that the 'pukes hold about a 6 point advantage in most of the races (as the districts currently stand). Of course, if the SCOTUS tosses out the current map, that may change. From what I've read, it is actually a fairly real possibility because the political appointees over-rode the advice of the lifers at the DoJ on this map...

[Lasher]

74. 34 Incumbent House Democrats were defeated in 1994

We only need to pick up 16 seats to take control of the House.

[electropop]

37. (53%) favor the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House in their district.

The way it's worded, this poll is district-by-district, so it is definitely good news.

[endarkenment]

12. Vile Media Counter Offensive Imminent

Expect attacks such as 'Democrats have no message', 'Democrats are just angry', 'Democrats are corrupt and incompetent too'. The talking points are being prepared. The usual suspects are memorizing their lines. Our Vile Media annointed Democratic Spokesmen are busy too, figuring out how to not respond to the talking points, conniving about how to internalize the bullshit and make it their own.

[Lasher]

14. Thanks for the news!

We do have a chance to regain controll of Congress this year, let's go for it!

Here's the latest from Real Clear Politics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

Their generic congressional vote average of 7 polls is 10.3% in favor of Democrats. This is good, and I have a feeling it will get even better as we get closer to November.

[Mark E. Smith]

20. Nice to see someone taking this good news well

I was getting worried. A bit up the thread it was starting to sound like I'd announced the death of their dog.

[VirginiaDem]

24. Exactly! n/t

[Lasher]

35. Heh heh, I know the feeling

LOL! Some of our friends here are more pessimistic than others of us. But they have good reasons to feel that way, and I respect their sentiments. Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean everyone is not out to get you. And you know what? I do get a little carried away at times, and don't mind help getting my feet put back on the ground if that is called for. Sometimes it is not, though.

This news about the polls is good. It has meaning. Yes, it needs to translate into a November victory - that is why it is good, it gives us hope that this might occur. We do need to work just as though we were behind at this point, to give us a better chance at victory. It does f**king matter - everything does. Yes, people do tend to vote for incumbents most of the time, but this is not always the case, and does not gurantee our defeat. Yes, the potential for vote fraud exists, but don't give up on account of this!

Disappointments are more bitter, and victories are sweeter, if we allow ourselves to hope. Some peoples' nature is to be cautious, and that's OK. I'm wishing for a great victory in November, and I've got my hopes up.

Lasher

[deadparrot]

17. May the trend continue. nt

[jwirr]

22. Also as more repub get caught in the scandals and retire it

should continue to look better.

[FatDave]

86. That's what I'm thinking

Abramoff and Plame scandals may be completely blowing up around election time. Libby's threatening to talk, and even though he's executive branch, it will still reflect poorly on republicans in general. As of right now, Democrats are energized and Republicans are just trying to stay afloat. Let's hope the current mood strengthens or at least carries to november.

[VirginiaDem]

23. For anyone wanting a shot of hopelessness, come to DU

You guys are downright silly sometimes. The article is about a 14-point lead for the Dems, for goodness sakes! There have been a number of overly pessimistic responses above that demand attention:

First, generic congressional preferences are a pretty good indicator of trends. Of course, they do not tell you who is going to win in the individual races, most of which are quite lopsided, but they do correlate well traditionally with congressional contests. If we win the national race by anything greater than 7 percent nationwide, we'll retake the House.

While it's true that many experts have said there are only 30 or so competitive races in the House, they are quite possibly wrong. They're not seeing the forest for the trees: if Dems hold a 7 percent or greater lead, this will most likely make many more seats competitive. Cook has famously been one of the only-30 guys but Cook has also been one of the many experts who rarely predicts the big, national shifts that do in fact happen from time to time.

Yes, Texas and a few other states have made our job harder by redistricting but in most states this is not the case and in places like Texas, we have gotten a few unintended benefits, like DeLay's seat becoming much more competitive.

Yes, 98% of incumbents win. But if we hold 99% of our seats and Republicans hold 90% of theirs, we take over the House and then some.

Then there are all of the good signs: last year's off-year victories in Virginia, etc.; our relatively good fundraising; our relatively great candidate recruiting; their relatively bad recruiting; their potentially high retirements; our relatively good memes; etc.

If things continue more or less as they are and we don't get complacent, we're going to win big.

[9119495]

43. I know what you're saying but...

the system is broken right now. My district is Democratic and we have a republican rep--why because he is a liberal republican. Still he votes for the leadership everytime. The Dem running against him probably won't knock him off.

As for competitive district, my state tries to group the same number of each party into each district--this means competitive races generally. We had five of the 30 competitive districts last time in my state. Still, this is not the case in most places. Dems could get 14% more votes nation wide and still loose deep-red districts by 5+ percentage points...and they might hold the deep blue ones by 45+ percentage points. In the end, Dems could get MORE votes than republicans and still look at a 10 seat deficit in the house.

Don't worry, I'm still going to work hard. I'd be happy to eat my words and see a blue house.

[VirginiaDem]

51. I disagree

First, I'd say the system is bent, not broken but that's a quagmire of a debate I don't want to get into.

As to your worry that "Dems could get 14% more votes nationwide and still lose deep-red districts by 5+ percentage points", yes that's right but we don't need to win deep-red districts. We're not trying to go 435 and 0. We're trying to knock off the 15-20 most vulnerable Republican seats. That's about the 6.5-9% most vulnerable/least red. Less than 1 out of every 10 seats.

And, yes, "Dems could get MORE votes than republicans and still look at a 10 seat deficit in the house" but only if they only win by 2,3,4, percent or thereabouts. There are a lot of Republican candidates with less than a 7-percent natural advantage.

This is not meant personally and is aimed generally at the pessimists but I'll put it here anyway: Most of the pessimistic arguments are Republican/MSM talking points. Those making them deserved to be called out. Neither the MSM or Republicans want to take seriously the possibility that the Dems are going to clean up. DU is where we should be debunking these charges, rather than propping them up.

[Texacrat]

72. Flashback: 1996 and 2000

No more needs to be said.

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. Fine. It does point that way.

So when we lose, big time, this fall are you going to finally buy into the notion that there is massive election fraud being perpetrated against us, and no matter what we do, and no matter what our lead in the polls, it is the counting of the votes that matters, and THEY COUNT THE VOTES.

This is not pessimism. This is reality.

[VirginiaDem]

84. Please point me to your posts acknowledging

that our 2005 off-year election victories are evidence that the elections might not be rigged. And yes, IF we lose big time (or lose at all in terms of net seats in either chamber), I'll come in here and admit that I was wrong and consider the fraud meme. Until then, I'll spend my time working to get Dems elected and you spend your time working to get the machines fixed and we will both have spent our time well.

[Lori Price CLG]

38. Diebold will take care of that, and once again the Democrats...

will lay down and accept a third coup d'etat.

Lori Price
www.legitgov.org

[bnk]

67. you know he is right.

Until we adress diebold we are all screwed. I mean come on why can not we deal with and demand a paper trail like in EU.

The dems must demand this, screw the politics of it, it is your existance.

From a former bush supporter in 2000 unknowingly glad, but wised up by 2004.

I am a conservative. Neocons and the puppet bush have disapointed me to the point of no return.

Dems in 2006.

Impeachment in 2007.

Give me my country back please.

BTW I am a first time poster.

I have alot of respect for you all. Esp. that man who uses the pic of the representive from MI. Conyers?

Give us hell!

[Raksha]

73. Welcome to DU, bnk!

:toast:

It's always good news when a former kool-aid drinker sees the light...and around here we NEVER get tired of hearing about it!

[Hobarticus]

39. But you actually have to #@*!! show up for it to count, folks!

Registering to vote is easy....going out of your way to do it is altogether different, for some bizarre reason.

[EVDebs]

40. Register to vote by mail. Absentee ballot may be more difficult to farkel

farkel up processing and avoids (hopefully) the Diebold etc machines. Let's hope county governments hand count the absentee ballots then !

[Sgent]

49. Illegal in some places

[Talismom]

48. There were plenty such stories about record democratic

registration in most states just prior to the 2004 robbery. Until I see the vote carried off with some integrity--matching exit polls in all areas, not only those with a verified paper trail--I'm not gonna feel comforted by such polling. These thugs lives are on the line this year as never before and they are gonna stop at NOTHING to maintain power. Look for the dirtiest election ever seen.

[Sgent]

50. The trick is to nationalize the election

People usually like their own congressman -- but dislike everyone elses.

The trick is to nationalize the election like the R's did in '94. Otherwise we will lose all but empty seats and competitive districts.

[against all enemies]

58. I agree 100%. Put the blame on the entire Republican Party.

They deserve it.

[AtLiberty]

53. As long as there's Diebold, Republicans have nothing to fear...

!!!

How many more elections will Dems need to lose before catching on?

[edbermac]

54. Polls don't win elections...

It ain't November 7th yet...

[Bucky]

55. am I cynical to think that the Dems could still blow it?

But look at that statistical bowing dip in the middle of the poll tracking period.

See how the Pubs snapped back over the winter? The scandals didn't exactly let up during that time. But the Pubs got back into the game, hammered some bonehead issues, and closed the polling gap a bit. Did our guys let up during that time? Or did the Republicans just go out and play a smarter hand for a while. I'm convinced they'll have something in the hopper waiting to pelt us in late october, just enough uptick in the polls to make the old Diebold bait'n'switch look plausible.

The question is, will we have something in the hopper ready to return fire? I doubt it. That Jon Stewart line from last week is still haunting me... "If you're going to use the Star Wars analogy, be real. Republicans, you are the empire. The Democrats are, at best, the Ewoks." I wish to God we did have a "Darth Nancy" on our side to go after their Darth Cheney.

[DemFromMem]

56. Watch the retirements

In realignment years, there have been substantial numbers of retirements by incumbents in the majority party in the first quarter of the election year. There have been a few so far (including Bill Thomas in California just yesterday), but not as many as we really want to see to give us the boost it's going to take to get back both houses of Congress. But these kinds of polls are probably getting some thinking. Nothing is worse for these guys than going from committee chairs to ranking members and if they see their big dog roles diminishing, then walking away on top will look all the better.

[Clarkie1]

57. WHY is the Democratic Party not Capitalizing on this????!!!

Is simply watching the other side implode the best strategy?

[kevinbgoode]

65. I intend to volunteer. . .and I haven't done much of that since 2000

so you can bet there is going to be some people coming out of the woodwork to get the Taliban out of office.

[father_of_hope]

71. irrelevant, I am sorry to say

Republicans have already fixed the elections of November of 2006.

They must not (they WILL not) lose power. Losing means subpoena, indictments and impeachment. Game over.

A general strike is the only solution, I've been saying it for years.

[freedomburn]

75. We need to take back the Congress this year, and start

working on the Senate. I sure hope womeone is strategizing on this, a Democrat Karl Rove type.

[cain_7777]

79. Evangelical right hook will get ya every time

Just like a brain washed cult, the fundamentalists will rally for the GOP(i.e. DeLay received 62% today, but thats because of the unconstitutional redistricting in Texas and all the uneducated hicks). We can't relax because of the numbers, we must fight like we are behind, because the right will cheat their way into office again and again.

[Mrspeeker]

80. diebold will not fail the GOP

We havent had a fair election in 6 freakin years, dont let the media fool you!

[Lorien]

81. It's not the votes, it's who counts them n/t.

[ImNotBuying]

85. No surprise

I think just about everybody including most republicans would rather vote for a trained monkey (no offense to monkeys) at this point. I think some folks are finally starting to figure out that throwing a wrench into the system by voting to stop the Repub trifecta now that they have the supremes is the only prayer left of stopping WWIII assuming we even make it to elections. Even assuming the Dems sweep, the ones already on the hill better grow some and quit letting the neos steamroll over them or it's going to be a tough one turning this ship around before it nails the iceberg.

[Kurovski]

89. Welcome to DU, ImNotBuying!

:hi: