The NY Times, Keeping Hope Alive

The NY Times headlines great news for the Democrats!

Poll Finds Most Americans Displeased With Congress

Dead Tree readers of a liberal persuasion get even more encouragement in this version, (sub heds not on-line):

Only 25% in Poll Approve of the Congress

An Echo of 1994 Findings

Links to Special Interests Are cited - Standing of Bush Also Lags

The Democrats are going to party like its 1994!  Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder return to this in the second paragraph:

The disdain for Congress is as intense as it has been since 1994, when Republicans captured 52 seats to end 40 years of Democratic control of the House and retook the Senate as well.

It is not until paragraph five that Times readers get a whiff of reality:

What is more, it seems highly unlikely Democrats will experience a sweep similar to the one Republicans experienced in 1994. Most analysts judge only about 40 House seats to be in play at the moment, compared with over 100 seats in play at this point 12 years ago, in large part because redistricting has created more safe seats for both parties.

One of the many things we love about the Times is that it has a comprehensive guide to the election, including current projections for Senate, House, and Gubernatorial elections.  However, the Nagourney/Elder on-line story does not include a link to that feature.  Why not?  I can't even guess (but I will!) - maybe the Times only feels comfortable doling out exposure to reality in small doses.  [In that case, Times readers really don't want to see this LA Times story based on a Times/Bloomberg poll: "Bush and GOP Making Gains Among Voters"]

Anyway, per the NY Times election guide, the House races look like this:

Safe Dem, 189; Leaning Dem, 18; Toss-up, 15; Leaning Rep, 22; Safe Rep, 191

When we posted on this on Sept 4, the Times called the races as follows:

Safe Dem, 189; Leaning Dem, 17; Toss-Up, 16; Leaning Rep, 21; Safe Rep, 192

So in roughly two weeks a "Leaning Dem" has become a toss-up and a Safe Rep has migrated to "Leaning Rep".  Tear out the front page.

With today's numbers, to get to a majority of 218 the Dems need to win every safe and leaning seat and pick up 12 of the 16 toss-ups.  Not exactly a shoo-in.

Now, the obvious reason that this will not be 1994 is that the Democrats have not been able to unite behind any strong message other than "We Are Not Bush" (Maybe Hugo Chavez of Venezuela can help them liven that up a bit).  Nagourney and Elder tackle this head on in paragraph, hmm, thirteen:

In the poll, 50 percent said they would support a Democrat in the fall Congressional elections, compared with 35 percent who said they would support a Republican. But the poll found that Democrats continued to struggle to offer a strong case for turning government control over to them; only 38 percent said the Democrats had a clear plan for how they would run the country, compared with 45 percent who said the Republicans had offered a clear plan.

Following their 2002 debacle the Democrats were criticized for trying to beat something with nothing.  I'll reiterate - here we go again.  To win this election the Democrats need to run against George Bush and run away from their base; it's hard to do both.

MORE:  Amongst punters, the prospects for Republican control of the House have moved up to 56% at TradeSports and 55% in the Iowa Electronic Markets.

DID BUSH MOVE THE NEEDLE?  Nagourney and Elder say no:

The Times/CBS News poll also found that President Bush did not improve his own or his party’s standing through the intense campaign of speeches he made and events he attended surrounding the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

McQ at Q&O says yes, but all he has as evidence are the poll results themselves - where are the years of journalistic experience that Nagourney, Elder, and the Times editors bring to the table?  Evidence?  C'mon, we are talking about the reality-based community here.

MEANWHILE, ON THE OTHER COAST:  From the LA Times:

Bush and GOP Making Gains Among Voters

The LA TImes explains that, while the absolue levels are not good for the Reps, the direction of the poll results suggest the tide is now running in the Republican's favor:

WASHINGTON — President Bush's approval rating has reached its highest level since January, helping to boost the Republican Party's image across a range of domestic and national security issues just seven weeks before this year's midterm election, a new Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The survey spotlights a continuing array of Republican vulnerabilities, but it also offers the first evidence in months that the GOP may be gaining momentum before November's battle for control of Congress.

Democrats hold a lead in the poll, 49% to 39%, when registered voters are asked which party they intend to support for Congress this year. But that advantage may rest on softening ground: On virtually every comparison between the parties measured in the survey, Republicans have improved their position since early summer.

In particular, Republicans have nearly doubled their advantage when voters are asked which party they trust most to protect the nation against terrorism — the thrust of Bush's public relations blitz in recent weeks.

Comments

[Semanticleo]

" To win this election the Democrats(Republicans) need to run against(away from) George Bush and run away from their(his) base; it's hard to do both."

Good call, Maguire. In 1994 the 'Promise-ers'
had a simple, easily communicated message to the electorate. Do the Dems have one for 2006
and 2008? How about Iraq? All they have to do is hammer away on the bonehead play of the millenium. Simple.

[Mackenzie]

The polls have been volatile this month. Polling done in the period of Sept 11-15 showed the President up, while polling done since shows that he is back to the lower levels recorded during the summer. Rasmussen showed 5 days of 44% to 47% approval, followed by 4 days at 40% to 41%. Gallup showed a sizable increase, while Pew and NYT/CBS showed no change from August.

[Bob]

cleo... they have and look what it got them. The people are tired (dems get worse approval then bush on this) of the Democrats squawking about Iraq with no solution to offer. Also having voted for before they voted against is not playing all that well either. Finally if your relying on "polls" to tell you what will happen in November, just remember those exit polls in 2004... it also doesn't help that the people they pole, are the more likely to vote for the next American Idol than get of their butts to vote in November.

[freaknik]

The Repubs will certainly continue to run the country.

Right into the ground.

Vote Democrat and Die...Free

[Sue]

I had a strange phone call last night. I have tried to recall who the recorded message said they were with, but can't. The question was "Would you vote for Bush today, press 1, if you would tend to vote for a democrat, press 2". Isn't that a weird polling question?

[Rick Ballard]

I think "Lurch Left and Lose" is more on target. The Copperheads were never rewarded at the ballot box for their sedition, why would anyone think that their heirs whould do better?

[Pofarmer]

Personally, I just hang up on polls, any polls. I wonder how many others do? I can't beleive that any poll, period, has any level of accuracy other than the one at the ballot box.

Although, I actually heard a pollster the other day admit that MO was trending more and more conservative. That had to be a tough pill to swallow. At the same times, the Dims running for office are starting to sound like mini-Howard Deans. That's a recipe for disaster.

[freaknik]

I admit Dems suck. But look what we have now:

Bush says we're in an existential war for civilization, and the Congress is going to adjourn early without passing an interrogation policy bill, just so they can go campaign that they deserve re-election!

Meanwhile the President has threatened(?) to shut down the whole program in the interim, and apparently not ask terrorists a damn thing. Until when is unclear.

It's either an absolute charade or the grossest incompetence of all time.

So let the Repubs win. This inertia cannot continue. Whatever revolution comes is just going to be that much bigger.

[Semanticleo]

"Whatever revolution comes is just going to be that much bigger."

Yeah. but will we survive until then?

[clarice]

Yesterday, we found out that American support for U.S. participation in the Iraq war is rising.

One poll last week (Sept. 12-13) found that 51 percent of Americans back “the U.S. war in Iraq.” That’s the first majority for the war since October 2003. A slightly newer (Sept. 15-17) poll showed that, for the first time since last December, less than a majority of Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake.

In other words, our role in the Iraq war is increasingly popular. http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2006/09/did_i_imagine_n.html

[Semanticleo]

"Yesterday, we found out that American support for U.S. participation in the Iraq war is rising."

"Keeping Hope Alive"

This Post's for you.

[Rick Ballard]

"Yeah. but will we survive until then?"

You're still typing after having undergone a lobotomy and the cessation of cerebral activity - your future is as bright as ever it was.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

We have a situation here in California where we have a semi-popular governor being challenged by a nerdy looking guy whose platform consists of two planks -- raise taxes, make gay marriage the law. Is he running on his own platform? No? Every night I'm subjected to a half dozen showings of the same ad, a huge media buy considering I'm in both the San Diego and Los Angeles media markets. This ad says absolutely nothing about Angeliddes and his positons, it says absolutely nothing about Arnold's positions. The entire ad is against Bush and tries to make the point over and over that Republican Arnold supported Republican George Bush at the Republican National Convention in 2004. Millions of dollars in media buy to replay a clip of Arnold do a Convention rally speech for the President. It is a stupid waste of money, especially in this market where Arnold is very popular and going to win hands down in all the counties served by this media market except perhaps the inner city areas of L.A. and I'm not even sure those are at risk. I don't even think most people would recognize Angeliddes if they met him on the street. He doesn't want his picture up where his nerdy looks can be juxtaposed against Arnold's strong good looks. He certainly doesn't want it broadly broadcast that he wants to raise California's taxes to even more debilitating levels than they already are. And gay marriage may play well in Hollywood and up in Pelosi country in Marin county, but it sure doesn't play well down here in So. Calif., so that is also off his campaign table. I have yet to even here Angeliddes's own voice, since all the ads are done with a professional announcer in voice over or it is, like I said, Arnold at his best, rallying the crowd for Bush.

[Tom Maguire]

So let the Repubs win. This inertia cannot continue. Whatever revolution comes is just going to be that much bigger.

A theory is that a Dem victory now hurts them in 2008: (1) it lets some of the air out of the balloon and lets them share some blame; (2) Pelosi/Reid on center stage won't help the Dem cause, but will highlight their lack of message and inability to unite behind an agenda that is not widley mistaken for a SNL skit.

[JohnH]

The Times poll found 50% wanting to vote Dem and 35% Rep. This is interesting but pretty useless for figuring out if the House is going to change hands.

Let's say they talked to 1000 people (I could check, but I'm lazy). Less than 5% of those people would be expected to be in "toss-up" districts. That's 50 people. Those districts are where they should be polling, and 50 people is not going to give a significant result.

[Sue]

I would have hung up normally, but I decided to see what questions they asked. That was it, press 1 if you would vote GWB today, press 2 if you would likely vote for a democrat. What possible purpose would that have?

[freaknik]

their lack of message and inability to unite behind an agenda that is not widley mistaken for a SNL skit

Hey. It seems to be working for the Republicans. E.g., what's the latest news on the much heralded but little seen "compromise" on interrogation?

And the House Judiciary shenanigans yesterday were too primitive for SNL, harking back to earlier Keystone Cops comedy.

[Semanticleo]

"A theory is that a Dem victory now hurts them in 2008".

Not a new theory, is it Maguire?

2008 is less of a concern than the antiseptic
quality of daylight on the clandestine activities of certain individuals and groups
who fear personal exposure more than a breach of National Security.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I am reminded of 1988. My husband took part in a poll where he was asked if he would vote for Regan again. He answered no, not because he wouldn't vote for Reagan if was running, but simply because he was informed enough to know that the election was between Dukakis and GWH Bush and that Reagan could not run again because he'd already served two terms. When he got off the phone, I aksed him about the poll questions and when he came to that one, I said, "oh no, they'll count you as a Dukakis voter. A few days later the results of that poll hit big time and there it was, Dukakis with an 18 point lead and predictions of a dem landslide were the headlines.

This, of course, was even before the Repubs had had their convention.

The only way to really interpret polls is to look closely at how a question is asked.

[Other Tom]

As usual, once they see it all slipping away, they become more and more fun to read. It reminds me of the collapse of the seven-hour presidency of John F. Kerry.

[Sue]

I pressed 1, but while doing so thought it was a dumb question, since Bush can't run again and what are they trying to determine?

[Bob]

boy cleo and the freak seem pretty resigned to defeat again in November...

"

So let the Repubs win. This inertia cannot continue. Whatever revolution comes is just going to be that much bigger."

And Fitzmas will be "bigger" next time too!

God it must suck to be a democrat... their either lying or being lied to.

I guess something has to give them hope!

[sad]

A federal judge handed a victory to the defense Thursday in the Valerie Plame case, siding with Vice President Dick Cheney's indicted former chief of staff in a fight over release of classified information.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton decided that he won't impose strict standards sought by prosecutors who want to limit the amount of classified information used in the trial of defendant I. Lewis Libby.

Prosecutors had proposed a stringent three-part legal test that would have allowed information to be considered for the trial only when its benefit to the defense outweighed the government's need to keep it secret.

Walton sided with Libby's lawyers, who said any evidence that's relevant to the case should be considered for use. Once Walton rules on which evidence is relevant, government attorneys can propose portions to be blacked out or summarized, the judge said.

Libby is accused of lying to authorities about conversation he had with reporters regarding the CIA employment of Plame. Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, criticized the Bush administration's intelligence leading up to the Iraq war and the couple has accused Libby and others of leaking Plame's identity as retribution.

Libby, who is charged with perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI, wants access to classified information, including Cheney's daily intelligence memos, to show that Libby had more important things on his mind at the time of the leak and honestly didn't remember his conversations with reporters.

Prosecutors have suggested Libby is trying to derail the case by threatening to expose national secrets — a tactic known as graymail.

ap via sfgate

[Bob]

NY REP Charlie Rangel, just scolded Chavez:

DON'T COME TO MY COUNTRY AND ATTACK MY PRESIDENT

More proof the Democrats are scared of the blow-back from Chavez saying nothing too different then the Democrats.

[Jane]

Let's hear it for Charlie Rangel, who just said that while it was nice for Chavez to send his constiuants heating oil, he has no business coming to the US and criticizing our president. Bravo!

[topsecretk9]

Is Mr. TM been around today?

Check your email!!! There is a present in it.

[topsecretk9]

Has Mr. TM, i meant.

[freaknik]

Don't worry about me Bob.

Watching the Democrats take over Tom Delay's seat (due solely to Republican stupidity) negates all other disappointments.

[Bob]

sorry freak but your beyond worrying about... and I wouldn't be too sure about taking his seat either. Then all you'll have left is the tooth fairy to believe in!

[Aaron Adams]

Reality Check:

It was always going to be an uphill fight for the democratic party to gain control of either the house or the senate in the 2006 midterms. It still is for all the usual reasons: power of incumbancy, gerrymandered districts, money disparity and the superior republican microtargeted, neighbor-oriented GOTV operation.

As for the comparisons to 1994 and Newt's "contract on America", (largely observed only in the breach by the way) few here appear to recall that marketing ploy was launched within 30 days of the election.

The number of House races and Senate races where democratic party candidates are competitive is larger than was expected by most analysts less than one year ago. Also, despite ocassional outliers, Bush's JARs are consistently within a point or two of 40%, not a comfortable place less than 50 days out from an election where the balance of power in either house is at issue. Further, the generic congressional ballot still favors dems over repubs, though the exact delta is elusive.

In sum, it is too early for either party to begin crowing just yet. If the dems wrest control of either house it will be a victory for constitutional government and checks and balances. If the repubs fend off the challenge, expect greater executive power that our founders intended. One may think the latter scenario is a good thing for their party though it is hard to imagine in their heart of hearts they think it would be a good thing for our constitutional republic.

Of course, YMMV

[Rick Ballard]

TM,

I found this paragraph pretty telling:

"Overall discontent with Congress or Washington does not necessarily signify how someone will vote when they see the familiar name of their member of Congress on the ballot. Thus, while 61 percent of respondents said they disapproved of the way Congress was handling its job, just 29 percent said they disapproved of the way their own “representative is handling his or her job.”

The other way to write that is "An amazing 71% of the respondents indicated satisfaction with their own representative." It's very difficult to find a district where the incumbent's party has a 71% majority which means that a fair percentage of those polled are willing to cross party lines to vote for an incumbent of the opposing party.

If Nagourney were not Clymer's legitimate heir he might have placed a bit of focus on comparing the '94 response to that question with the current response.

Maybe he will do a "How the Democratic Wave Became a Ripple" series as an act of contrition.

And maybe I'll awaken tomorrow with golden wings and fly down to LA for lunch.

[Good Lt]

"Watching the Democrats take over Tom Delay's seat (due solely to Republican stupidity) negates all other disappointments."

Enjoy it. Its gonna be painful for you in November when Rangel retires.

[Florence Schmieg]

Let's talk about about Libby and just wait until actual election results come in, the only thing that matters. Although I do admit that this is fun!

[sbw]

Cleo, welcome back.

Cleo and freak, without dissing Republicans for past performance, how about succinctly expressing the positive campaign platform you would espouse? No cheating be saying we'd just do things better. Give me a reason to vote Democratic.

So far I've only heard, isolationism, trust the UN, bad guys are simply misunderstood, cover up problems by payoffs taken out of other people's pockets, drag business down by over-regulation, equality is better than liberty, and stop the sun's cycle from heating up the Earth.

... But I'm happy to learn where I may have misinterpreted something.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Chavez is now lecturning Americans and telling his listeners that the problem is that we don't turn off our lights enough.

Rangel surprised me since he seemed genuinely offended that Chavez made his remarks in the United States, but even worse, in Rangel's district. You don't come into Rangel's hood and start bashing our President. A sight to behold.

It is refreshing to see a Democrat put a love of country and pride of America above party politics. Doesn't happen very often.

[topsecretk9]

So...apparently Dems realized that Chavez crazy was not good for their image...fade to Cindy Sheehan and Chavez kiss...

[Florence Schmieg]

My husband, a staunch conservative, has somehat of a soft spot for Charlie Rangel. What he said today may not be just political but his true feelings. I would hope that American citizens would all agree.

[clarice]

Let me say I regard newspaper analyses of elections prospects a waste of newsprint. Barone and Cost know what they are talking about. The rest are--um--whistling Dixie usually with a Dem accent.

[Good Lt]

"In sum, it is too early for either party to begin crowing just yet. If the dems wrest control of either house it will be a victory for constitutional government and checks and balances. If the repubs fend off the challenge, expect greater executive power that our founders intended. One may think the latter scenario is a good thing for their party though it is hard to imagine in their heart of hearts they think it would be a good thing for our constitutional republic."

Yadda yadda Bush is a tyrant yadda yadda Democrats are "constitutionalists" yadda yadda forget that Democrats threatened to revoke station licenses, eliminate the Second Amendment, destroy terrorist financial and communication monitoring programs through unaccountable courts, attack successfl private businesses with regularity, raise taxes to depress the economic growth of the populace yadda yada...

We. Weren't. Born. Yesterday. Adam.

[Good Lt]

"Rangel surprised me since he seemed genuinely offended that Chavez made his remarks in the United States, but even worse, in Rangel's district. You don't come into Rangel's hood and start bashing our President. A sight to behold.

It is refreshing to see a Democrat put a love of country and pride of America above party politics. Doesn't happen very often."

They have to do it, because they realize that if one of them doesn't get out there, Chavez will tip more moderates to the GOP with his socialist rantings. They see the polling momentum slipping from them, and they're in spin and damage control mode because they're afraid people will start equating this lunatic with the Bush-bashing of the Democrat party. Which they will, since our memories aren't 10 minutes long.

Rangel is and has been as viscious a Bush-basher as there ever was.

Always remember - Don't be foolded. They're Democrats.

[Daniel]

How about a poll question:
Who would you prefer for president now:
Bush or Chavez?

[freaknik]

"Give me a reason to vote Democratic".

This country works better with divided government. Look at this typical raving lunatic, Good Lt., supra. Don't you kinda wannna check and balance his ass?

[sbw]

Freak, remember that I asked "how about succinctly expressing the POSITIVE campaign platform"?

[Good Lt]

Why don't you do it yourself, freak?

[Pofarmer]

You don't come into Rangel's hood and start bashing our President.

Apparently he reserves that for himself.

Freak.

There's a difference between checks and balances and obstructionism and ankle biting, just sayin.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Freknik -- we are doing the counterbalancing now. It isn't easy to balance the rantings of Pelosi, the ravings of Reid, the lies of Kerry/Kennedy, or the general stupidity of the rest of them with their cut and run, tax the hell out of anyone who gets off the couch and out to a job each day.

The idea of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House is the stuff nightmares are made of.

The latest scuttlebutt on John Murtha is that he is in big trouble in the PA 12th and that is music to my own ears. I knew my hometown had more sense than to keep electing that senile old man.

[JM Hanes]

freaknik:

"This country works better with divided government."

The government is already divided into three parts, so you can cross that one off your list.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

clear

[Bob]

"It still is for all the usual reasons: power of incumbancy, gerrymandered districts, money disparity and the superior republican microtargeted, neighbor-oriented GOTV operation."

I love democrats, always using the same old talking points, and it's never their fault... it's always "the man" that's keeping them down. Don't you ever tire of he blame game?

How about admitting that the Democrats don't stand for anything as the main reason they'll lose in November!

"This country works better with divided government."

freak you'd be right if the Dems had something positive to offer. But as long as their platform is "Anything but Bush", they'll never get traction. They first need to wrest away control from the netroots, and become a political party and not a mouthpiece for the moonbats!

[Good Lt]

Swish!