Only 22% of likely voters say Foley scandal will affect their votes!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

Only 22% of likely voters say Foley scandal will affect their

votes!

From http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N25392208.htm :

"FACTBOX-Reuters/Zogby poll findings before U.S. election

26 Oct 2006 11:00:52 GMT; Source: Reuters

Oct 26 (Reuters) - A Reuters/Zogby poll released on Thursday examined voter sentiment before the Nov. 7 elections that will determine the balance of power in the U.S. Congress. The national poll of 1,013 likely voters, taken Friday through Monday, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Here are some of the findings:

-- The scandal involving Republican Rep. Mark Foley and his lewd messages to teenage male congressional assistants will not directly influence most voters, with just 22 percent saying it was likely to affect their vote and 74 percent saying it was unlikely.

-- Democratic candidates are favored over Republicans by 44 percent to 33 percent when voters are asked which party's candidate they intend to vote for.

-- The number of voters who thought President George W. Bush's job performance was excellent or good was 36 percent, down from 42 percent in the Reuters/Zogby poll a month ago. The job rating for Congress was unchanged from a month ago, with 23 percent calling it excellent or good."

[Greeby]

1. That could just mean plenty were already planning

to vote against the Repukes anyway :shrug:

[stopbush]

6. Exactly. With all of the death and destruction bushco has visited

on the world - not to mention the assault on our Constitution - it's pretty pathetic that
22% of responders would cite the Foley scandal as an influence on their vote.

Of course, the poll could mean that a bunch of pedophiles have decided to vote R this year based
on Foleygate and the Rs coddling of perverts.

[fhqwhgads]

15. i'm a zogby panelist...

...and i was one of the people who said that the foley thing would not affect my voting decision, for exactly the reason you mentioned, greeby. i'm already 0% likely to vote for a republican. the foley thing had no effect on me, it's just ammo against self-righteous right-wingers.

the zogby poll includes questions that ask if you're a democrat, republican, independent, etc. and also whether you consider yourself "progressive," "liberal," "moderate," etc. the breakouts against those bannerpoints would be interesting to see. saying that 22% of likely voters claim their vote will be unaffected by the foley scandal doesn't tell the whole story.

for those who say they won't be affected, they could also have thrown in a question asking why their vote wouldn't be affected.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

27. IMO it's quite likely those subgroup stats can be found on the Zogby

site, IF you or your employer have a fairly costly subscription. "Did Mark Foley Destroy the Republican Revolution" currently is the lead, top screen-center, largest-font item on the Zogby homepage, at http://www.zogby.com/index.cfm .

[MrModerate]

2. For those who don't live and breath homophobia . . .

The Foley scandal may look like just more corrupt congressional behavior, and hence already have been discounted.

E.g., Gary Condit or Joe Scarborough (sans the inconveniently dead intern).

[riderinthestorm]

7. In Hastert's district, its the cover-up, not homophobia nt

[MrModerate]

10. True, and that's often what brings down secondary sinners . . .

but they've successfully muddied the waters to the extent that Hastert's guilt is not necessarily seen as a sure thing by voters.

[riderinthestorm]

11. I hear ya. Downthread someone said the ethics comm. is delaying the release of

their report until after the elections. I hadn't heard that. Is there a timetable for that? If Hastert is implicated in that, it could sway it just enough for Laesch to slip in. He's only trailing now by 7 pts.

[MrModerate]

12. The ethics committee -- headed by Republicans . . .

Is delaying its report (or is that "DeLay-ing"). I'm shocked! Shocked and appalled.

[riderinthestorm]

13. Actually the ethics comm is bi-partisan. Equal # Dems & Reps

Theoretically they should want to put the reputation of the Congress as pro-active on protecting the pages, over the election??!!

I know, I know, silly. But can the Dems shame the Repukes on the committee into getting the info out there? It has at least a 50/50 chance....

I just hadn't heard that there was a firm date for release (like after the election). I needed the sarcasm tag obviously

(must go get more coffee to stay sharp....)

[MrModerate]

14. Not the usual "majority has one more vote" setup? n/t

[riderinthestorm]

16. Nope, not on this one

I hear there is a black woman Dem who is a fierce child advocate, she's gonna put some whup-ass on these guys according to some DUers when this scandal was originally referred to the Ethics Comm.

We'll see. I hope it blows open in time for the election. Right in Hastert's face.
:evilgrin:

[MrModerate]

19. Hmmm . . . time's a-wastin' n/t

[ProgressiveEconomist]

23. AP says most potential witnesses already have testified. IIRC, the

unanimous House vote that started the investigation called for a report "within 10 days", which was more than two weeks ago if my mental timeline is right. Do you think Pelosi or some "bad cop" Democrat like the House Whip ought to DEMAND an interim report, NOW?

From http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles/2006/10/25/news/news04.txt :

"Hastert testifies in House ethics panel's Foley probe

By Larry Margasak - Associated Press Writer Updated: Oct 25, 2006 - 10:57:59 am CDT

WASHINGTON - Speaker Dennis Hastert says the House ethics committee should quickly determine whether officials took proper action after learning of ex-Rep. Mark Foley's overly friendly and salacious computer messages to former male pages. He may get his wish. Most of the key players in the scandal already have been questioned. ...

Hastert, who testified Tuesday, said afterward that he told the committee that they needed to move quickly to get to the bottom of this issue, including who knew about the sexually explicit messages and when they knew about it. The committee Tuesday also questioned Mike Stokke, Hastert's deputy chief of staff, and House Republican campaign chairman Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y. Stokke learned of Foley's e-mails ... a year ago, and Reynolds said he warned the speaker about Foley last spring. The speaker said he can't recall the conversation. Stokke, who was with the committee for five hours, would not comment after his testimony.

The four ethics committee members serving as investigators are not tipping their hands on the timetable or whether they plan an interim report before the Nov. 7 elections. Polls have shown the scandal has hurt Republicans, who are trying to maintain their majority in both houses.

Republicans have asked the committee to interview Democrats, to see whether they had copies of Foley's messages and strategically released them near the election. Nothing to support the accusation has turned up publicly. It is unclear whether the panel has communicated with Foley or plans to do so. The Florida Republican can no longer be punished by the House, since he left Congress' jurisdiction when he resigned his seat in late September. But he could be questioned. One of Foley's attorneys, William Taylor III of Washington, declined to comment on whether Foley had been asked to appear."

[riderinthestorm]

24. Thanks for this. I thought it was 10 days also,

Even if they were going to issue their report 10 days after the fat man sung, that would place it's release before the election.

It's hard to gauge what they mean by "10 days", investigate and report in ten days, or put out the report within ten days from the end of the investigation?

Hastert hasn't fooled a lot of people out here. He has his 33% diehard base (like Bu$h) who won't ever leave him but there are a whole lotta folks who have been just letting him skate along with impunity - the land deal was a wake-up call, his vicarious mentions in the Abramoff scandal have given him some blows but the Foley scandal has truly exposed Hastert's shittiness. People are giving him a good look-over and he's ugly.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

25. I was sure the 10 days were up on Monday, October 9th. This

Monday would make the Ethics report three weeks late. IMO, it's time for some prominent Democrat to go on record as demanding a timetable for the final report with an interim report next week.

If the "investigation" is allowed to drag on, it may become the kind of witch-hunt for DEMOCRATS that fool Patrick McHenry (R-NC) has been brazen enough to demand.

[WI_DEM]

3. Good, that means more people are voting against the war, economy

and corruption of the GOP congress. And 22% is not inconsiderable, it could be a factor in some close races.

[riderinthestorm]

4. The Ethics committee hasn't put out their report yet

I really hope it nails Hastert. If that 22% are in his district, then it may give John Laesch more votes.

[WI_DEM]

5. they won't put it out until after the election

[riderinthestorm]

9. Do you know that for a fact? I hadn't heard that. nt

[longship]

8. Great!!! Dems will get all of that 22%...

That's an awesome swing of votes. The GOP wishes that the Dems have a scandal that would swing 22% of the votes.

:kick:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

21. I sure hope you're right. But this development brings to mind all

the Bush scandals that Dubya shed like Teflon, starting with his DUI coverup, going AWOL in the TANG, SEC coverup of his Harken Oil insider trading, etc.

Democrats sure seem to have taken the high road again on Predatorgate. There may be more Republican ads accusing Dems of not protecting kids than hard-hitting Democratic Predatorgate ads like Wetterling's in MN.

I sure hope Dems haven't taken the High Road to Nowhere.

[Subdivisions]

17. That's because Foley is not the main issue and never was...

It's Iraq that has done them the most damage. Though what Foley was doing is appalling to everyone, the only people influenced with regard to how they will vote is Christian conservatives.

[riderinthestorm]

20. Welcome to Hastert's District

"...the only people influenced with regard to how they will vote is Christian conservatives."

It is having an effect out here. Laesch went from being behind by more than 30 points to being within 7 pts.

Anyone know the stats for the other cover-up playas, Schimkus and Reynolds? This 22% has got to be happening for their areas too. I can't believe Boehner seems to be scapegoating Hastert. Wowza.

[Teaser]

18. "only?" That's a huge chunk...

nt

[ProgressiveEconomist]

22. Hope you're right. But 'swing my vote' is only a subset of 'affect

my vote'. Let's say it's a 20 percent subset.. That's only a swing of 4.4 percent of the vote. Stepped-up targeted disfranchisement at the polls, misallocation of voting machines so lines will be longer in Democratic precincts, deep-sixing of provisional ballots, and all the other tricks we've seen since 2000 might wipe out that small a swing due to Predatorgate.

[LSK]

26. ONLY?????? try to consider that at least half of the voters will never change

I think its safe to say that 25% of the voters are firmly Dem voters and 25% are firmly republican voters.

Its the other 50% that have to be swayed and 22% is a fairly large chunk of that.

[Jacobin]

28. Exactly

Its like saying the tsunami a couple of years ago was only 25 feet high