Voting Links Galore!

What does it all mean?  I'll throw out the links, and let you sort 'em out.

First up we have the so-far-left-he's-about-to-topple-into-a-vat-of-socialism Bob Kuttner in yesterdays Boston Globe essentially saying that either the Democrats enjoy a glorious romp on Tuesday, or Republican fraud/cheating/voter suppression/Diebold!! steals it from them.  Never mind all those illegal ACORN registrations there, big boy.  A rebuttal comes from Michael Graham, who notes and then tears apart the dishonesty of Mr. Kuttner's analysis.

Dean Barnett, on a long sabbatical from Soxblog, thinks that the polls are wrong, in that Democrats in general are much more likely to talk to pollsters, and particularly so when they are excited about their chances.  His view seems too optimistic, but at least he's not accusing the other side of cheating in advance.

To take a more serious look at the matter, what the polls measure right now are people passionate or bored enough to spend a half hour talking to a stranger or, worse still, punching buttons on their telephone when prompted to by a recording. Democrats are more likely to tolerate this exercise, just as they were more likely to tolerate the inquisition of an eager grad student as they left the polls on Election Day ’04.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post, apparently sensing the tide lifting Michael Steele to victory in Maryland, comes up with a wholly unsupportable editorial in support of his opponent, Rep. Ben Cardin.  Power Line has the details.  Their most pertinent question?  How can the WP endorse Mr. Steele's governor and then condemn Steele for working with him?

Why would the Post sense such a tide?  Well, a new ABC/Washington Post poll has it much tighter on the generic ballot question Democrat vs. Republican than it has been in some time, 6% for the Democrats.  Jim Geraghty has more, including a similar poll response before the tidal wave in 1994, another big Democratic year.  Maybe Mr. Barnett was on to something.  Others on this:  AJ Strata, Decision '08, Ace of Spades.

Again I ask, what does it all mean?  Who knows?  I do know that Kuttner is wrong about his "Dems win or Reps cheated" construct.  Other than that, get out and vote, vote only once, and don't go to the polls if you're dead.

11/5/06 1930: Oh oh, oh oh.  As Randall said to Mike Wazowski, "You hear that?  It's the winds of change."  Should we call it the John Kerry Effect?

11/6/06 0645:  Gallup Poll - same tightening, which USA Today tries very hard to pretend isn't worrisome for the overconfident Dems.  That's three polls out just before the election, and very consistent.  It looks as if I'm not the only one who thinks it's the Kerry Effect.  Remember, he was before the war before he was against it.

11/6/06 1530: We're officially in "who knows?" territory now.  CNN and Fox News polls both show Democrats with much larger generic question advantages than the other three, Gallup, Pew and ABC/WaPo.

Comments

[daveinboca]

Middle East terrorists have no doubts about the upcoming US election.

They want the Democrats to win.

The only cavil they have is with Nancy Pelosi:

Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."

Jaara said vacating Iraq would also "reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."

Hamas' Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."

"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation," Abdullah said.

While the terror leaders each independently urged American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.

Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."

He called both Democrats and Republicans "agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S."

Abu Abdullah commented once Democrats are in power "the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]. I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so. I tell the American people vote for withdrawal. Abandon Israel if you want to save America. Now will this Happen? I do not believe it."

Still Jihad Jaara said the alternative is better than Bush's party.

"Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world."

Maybe Howard Dean should see if these guys could help him tap some of Osama's vast funding in return for pulling out of Iraq.

Senator Kennedy and Ex-Prez Jimmy Carter approached the Soviet leadership in 1983 for help in the '84 elections against Ronald Reagan, according to KGB documents.

Why shouldn't the Dems tap into their overseas "Hate America" allies?

[Daniel DiRito]

My own speculation is that the race isn't as close as the first four polls indicate but the Democratic advantage isn't as large as the final three polls would suggest. I've always suspected some narrowing of the Democratic lead as unsatisfied Republicans come to the conclusion that they will hold their nose and support the GOP candidate...primarily based upon fears that Democratic control of the Senate might jeopardize future Supreme Court appointments...which better explains the close Senate races in contrast to the growing evidence of Democratic strength in House races.

I can't recall a time when concerns about the make up of the Supreme Court were more prevalent and I cannot find a better explanation for the disparate polling information that seems to show Democrats doing very well in contested House races while the Senate races seem to be tightening...and some of these Senate races actually appear to be trending Republican. Supporting the possibility that the Supreme Court consideration can explain voter differences between the House and Senate races would be the argument that there is clear voter opposition to the war in Iraq and a desire to impose some accountability on the Bush administration...and that would be in the form of a Democratic House.

Historically, in elections where the House switches control from one party to the other, the Senate also follows suit. Current polling in the individual Senate races seems to indicate that this election could defy that historical trend. I would argue that this may well happen based upon voter concerns about Supreme Court appointments which may lead enough swing voters to vote against their GOP House candidate while still supporting their GOP Senate candidate.

After all, it is the Senate that must approve Supreme Court appointments and voters may still favor conservative appointments...especially if one considers the opposition to same-sex marriage and a general belief that the Democratic Party is against any limitations on abortion rights. In other words, if voters want their unhappiness with the war in Iraq to be heard while still endorsing the social issues they seem to favor, the best solution would be to elect a Democratic House and maintain a Republican Senate.

Read more poll analysis here:

www.thoughttheater.com