‘This is making me nervous’

November 6, 2006

DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel is keenly aware of some very recent national polls showing the Dems’ generic-ballot lead shrinking. He told the NYT, “It’s inevitable that there would be some tightening in the end.” Emanuel added, however, “This is making me nervous.”

Indeed, the Pew Research Center for People and the Press released a poll yesterday that showed the Dems’ national lead over Republicans has been cut in half in the campaign’s waning days. Two weeks ago, Pew found Democrats with an 11-point generic-ballot lead (50-39). Yesterday’s poll showed the margin down to just four (47-43).

Understandably, this is causing some, shall we say, consternation among some of us who are hoping for big Dem gains tomorrow. Is it panic time? I kind of doubt it. Consider the five national polls conducted and released over the last six days:

* CNN (11/3 – 11-5) — Dems 58%, GOP 38%

* Newsweek (11/2 – 11-3) — Dems 54%, GOP 38%

* Time (11/1 – 11-3) — Dems 55%, GOP 40%

* Post/ABC (11/1 – 11-4) — Dems 51%, GOP 45%

* Pew Research Center (11/1 – 11-4) — Dems 47%, GOP 43%

If you’re willing to go back slightly further, as Charles Franklin did, and include the NYT/CBS poll released on 11/1, that’s another poll that looks encouraging: Dems 52%, GOP 33%.

Taken together, the national landscape looks slightly less favorable than it did, say, two weeks ago, but hardly grounds for panic.

Here’s Charles Franklin’s explanation:

[T]he current estimate of the Democratic lead based on the trend of all recent survey remains at roughly +11. While down from the peak of early October, check my post and comparison graphic from earlier this week. The final Democratic advantage has not been over 10 points (or even close) in the last 12 years.

Maybe it’s a natural part of Republicans rejoining the fray, maybe the GOP’s smear tactics are paying off; and/or maybe the obsessive coverage of John Kerry’s botched joke stunted the Dems’ momentum in the week before the elections. Whatever the cause, when you create an average of all the results, Dems’ lead has dropped a little, but the party is still poised to have a pretty good day tomorrow.

On the other hand, maybe a tightening race can be a motivating development. If voters anxious for a new direction assume Dems are poised to cruise tomorrow, they may be less inclined to show up at the polls. A tightening race is a wake-up call: if you want a better government, you’re going to have to go out tomorrow and make it happen.

November 6, 2006 at 11:24 am

Interesting, but unfortunately in the Karl Rove era, national polls don’t matter.

The point, which Karl Rove realised way before anyone else (and many still don’t realise) is that elections are won locally, on the ground. So we’re now seeing concentrated robocalls, last-minute smears, and God knows what else in a handful of marginal districts. I’m still expecting the final number of seats won by Dems to be surprisingly small, even if the number of votes won by Dems is large. These guys have it figured out. Do Democrats?

This is good news; I was beginning to sense an air of laissez-faire among Democrats… this should push more Dems to the polls…

On the GOP side, Fox News interviewed a guy who was running http://www.dontvote.com for 5 minutes at least this morning, hoping that independents would be turned away from the polls. My guess is that only the wingnuts would be swayed by that, and the tactic should backfire on Roger Ailes’ face.

>>A tightening race is a wake-up call: if you want a better government, you’re going to have to go out tomorrow and make it happen.

i gathered from reliable sources that prof instanitwit claimed, a couple of weeks ago, that he had been considering voting for ford, but after the – what was it, larry craig? – supposed dem “smear” aimed at outing a gay republican, he had realized that he couldn’t.

i as much believe that prof instanitwit was considering voting for ford as i believe that george bush is a uniter, not a divider.

which is to say the generic ballot has always seemed suspiciously positive for the dems this fall, and now that push is coming to shove, a lot of voters are reverting to their normal habits.

my attitude 3 months ago was that there was a 50-50 chance of the dems winning the house and zero chance of the dems winning the senate. i still think that way.

it’s up to us to make sure the democrats regain control of congress. we not only CAN do it, we MUST do it. GET OUT AND VOTE.

As a former sportswriter, it’s always been my observation people are more interested in a close game than a blowout. When people think they can help decide an election, they’re more likely to vote, aren’t they?
There are no 15 point leads in American politics anymore. Not for us, not for them. Reagan got the last one in ’84, a long time ago.

Elections are like house renovations – almost never as good as you hoped and often worse than your expectations.

The mantra for the next few days should be: The Bush administration published a how-to-build-a-nuclear-bomb on their website. Feel safer now?

I think the important underlying question, here — if these tightened polls are accurate — is why?

I know that elections can often tighten up in the last few days, but what has happened that might have been a factor?

How could all the bad press the Republicans have been getting this past week — in contrast to almost no bad press for the Democrats — explain this?

John Kerry.

I have no proof, of course, but it is the only story out there that was played (and played and played) as bad for Democrats. (Remember, these are all pre-Saddam verdict).

This is why we, who wish to move this country forward, can never underestimate the willingness for the Freak Show press to spend huge amounts of time on things that are absurd even to Tom Friedman.

And the Democratic candidates for 2008 better be learning this lesson, or we can say hello to President St. McCain.

Vote early … and vote often. (insert smiley face here)

[Sorry, my other post attempt failed. Here’s another try]

“A tightening race is a wake-up call: if you want a better government, you’re going to have to go out tomorrow and make it happen.”

I agree. For instance, in Rhode Island voters who may have been re-considering their vote for Whitehouse and instead leaning toward voting for Chafee because he’s a nice guy, might be more inclined to throw Chafee under the bus if they believe their own state may be the one that puts Bush over the top in the Senate. It simply raises the stakes again.

Here is some rational and calm commentary from Mark Barrett:

“So for Election Day, 2006, I make these simple, common-sense predictions:

Republican turnout will be depressed
Independents will favor Democrats
Democratic turnout will not be depressed

The only alternative is to imagine an America where a political party can start a war that America doesn’t need to fight (2003), promise that that war will be won (2004), fail to win the war by every measure (2006), and yet pay no political price. And I can’t imagine that.”

The rest is here: http://thepremise.com/archives/11/06/2006/576

To be honest, I AM nervous.

Here in Missouri, Emanuel Cleaver has his House seat wrapped up, but it’s the McCaskill-Talent race that’s killing me.

The fact the race is even close says a lot about how fed up many people are with the GOP. But the Dems should be trouncing these clowns.

I guess there are just too many idiotic rednecks whose primary concern is that two men will get married to each other. They ignore health care, a living wage, job outsourcing, a war that’s bankrupting our country and making us all less safe, and everything else that actually affects their every day lives, and instead focus on one of the dumbest wedge issues in the history of human kind.

I really, truly, just don’t get it.

It’s important to take any of these polls with a large grain of salt. For example, the Pew poll credits Bush’s rising job approval ratings — 41 percent in October — for a Republican resurgence. Yet has Bush’s job approval rating at 35 percent. Which one do you believe?

And if things don’t work out in the Democrats’ favor, it certainly isn’t for a lack of Republican cooperation. With the exception of John Kerry’s botched joke and Saddam’s death sentence, it’s hardly been a week of good news for Republicans and their allies — Sadr City, releasing nuclear secrets in Arabic on-line, Ted Haggard, everyone is calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation, etc. You couldn’t ask for a better political climate than what the Dems have right now. If they can’t close the deal tomorrow, they need to find another line of work.

Whoops, here’s the link to the CNN poll.

Not that I think we should emulate Republicans necessarily, but Emanuel’s rightwing counterpart would never have said that this made him nervous, were the situation reversed. Hell, even if things had gotten significantly worse for Republicans, they’d never say that it made them nervous. Instead, they’d find some way of attacking Dems and how the polls were obviously wrong. Or something like that.

It’s not that I think we need to get into propaganda loonyland, but I would prefer if our guys weren’t so prone to showing weakness. Perceptions aren’t nearly as important as Republicans believe, but they do have some influence on things.

One thing my polls consistently report: A good 30% of the US population are easily lead mushheads who mean well.

Another 30% are dumber than a bag of dirt, but that’s besides the point.

Doctor Biobrain,

I agree, and I just saw Mehlman on CNN claiming the big MO. Which makes me think Emanuel had a reason for saying what he did, but your guess is as good as mine as to why.

You couldn’t ask for a better political climate than what the Dems have right now. If they can’t close the deal tomorrow, they need to find another line of work.
–brainiac

And that’s what I don’t get — we’ve got an amazingly unpopular mess of a war … corruption the likes of which we’ve never seen … a Republican stalking pages online and GOP leadership that covered it up … an economy that’s not benefitting us regular folks … prominent right-wing leaders exposed as hypocrites … illegal campaigning by Republicans … the party of national security publishing a “How to Make Nuke” guide on the Internet … and millions of people without health care …

Yet the Dems are in the fight of the political lives just to pick up some seats?!?!?

I don’t know if it’s piss-poor Dem leadership, the GOP’s ability to control the “liberal media’s” news cycle with trumped-up stories, an amazingly turned-off/tuned-out/clinically retarded populace, or a combination of all three.

But if the Dems don’t take tomorrow, our nation is a lot worse off than I ever thought.

The Rovian Machine and the Bushites need some poll somewhere to say the election is close so that the Media won’t be all over them when they Diebold this election. Rove of course implied that HE had all the numbers he needed, but they were secret special poll numbers that just he saw.

Please God, don’t let America fall for that lie again.

Unholy Moses is effectively wondering how the Dems could blow it tomorrow. I’m a cynic because of the times they’ve managed to do just that. And it’s probably easier than we realize. Despite all of the rational, logical reasons that should make some poor sucker who makes 30K a year vote for Dems, they’ll instead be out there voting for a party that has little interest in anybody making less than 500K.
The radical-right has successfully demonized “liberal.” Gingrich and others are out there suggesting the nation doesn’t want Pelosi’s “San Francisco” values. Others of their ilk are complaining about candidates and supporters with “New York” accents. All that subliminal and closet crap (Repubs are “nice” people ‘n “real” men, keep your guns forever, ain’t no n—–s in the white people’s party, kill all the gays, Dems are godless commies, etc.) that harks back to decades of polarizing rhetoric that is now affecting voters. That was how my great grandmother more or less characterized the Repubs of a century ago.
NOT voting for the GOP becomes an act of personal treason against your race, your religion, your class, a betrayal of all those “nice people.” Bigotry and greed will be the final arbiters of this election — as usual.

Ohioian… did you check out the “dontvote.com” site? Its run be the AARP and the point is “don’t vote until you know the issues and who stands where. I doubt the AARP is looking for independents to stay home tomorrow.

My own speculation is that the race isn’t as close as the four oldest polls indicate but the Democratic advantage isn’t as large as the three most recent 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.