An article out today on MSNBC posses that question. It cites a few memos by democratic strategist Jennifer Crider and Texas republican Pete Sessions. Crider's memo is very optimistic that recent polls are saying the democrats have halved the republican lead and Pete Session's memo has an outlook of republican's only picking up enough seats to stop the democrats "functional majority".
First off the article is from MSNBC. They're like FOX news only the flip-side, highly partisan, only arguably more so. MSNBC desperately wants the democrats to remain in power and articles like these are meant to get the party faithful, who tend to watch and follow them, a little more jazzed and willing to go to the polls in a few weeks. My attitude is that articles like these are frivolous and nothing more.
Also interestingly enough, the article makes a brief attack at John Beohner, who recently went on the campaign trail to gin up votes and money for various candidates. Yet the author, Charles Babington, refers to it as the "speaker-in-waiting" tour and claims that others have called it that, although this claim is completely unsubstantiated. I call shenanigans. Comments like that are meant to create a narrative that over time can become the perceived "fact". That Beohner is licking his chops and chomping at the bit to get the speaker position. Fortunately I think that this article will go fairly unnoticed since it's pretty much counter to what every other pundit is saying about these elections.
My guess though is that you'll see a lot more aggressive BS writing coming form the democrats and their sympathizers as time presses on and even more so if the republicans do end up taking back control of the house.
Showing posts with label republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label republicans. Show all posts
Monday, October 11, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Jobs Report
Well it's that time. The last Jobs report was released today. I will fully admit that I was wrong about my prediction. The unemployment rate held steady at 9.6%. If you read the Reuters article you may be a little confused about nonfarm payroll and private payroll. It all boils down to the fact that we did lose jobs this past month but not really a whole bunch to cause the over-all percentage of unemployed to rise.
What does this mean for the dems and Obama? It remains to be seen but if the republicans are adept at campaigning as they ought to be then they can use this info to their advantage. I think we'll probably hear in the next week the phrase, "Summer of Recovery" a whole lot from the right and in the next breath talk about the stagnant job report. It was a poor idea when Obama announce that catch phrase. Now all the republicans have to do is yell. It's a pretty simple tactic and one that could potentially get people riled up if the republicans are eloquent enough in discussing the issue.
The democrats do have a way to fight back though. They could easily argue that because the unemployment percentage hasn't really changed it could mean that we've rounded the corner and are on our way back up. They could make the claim that their steps to recovery are working and that we need to give it more time. It's a good argument and one that may actually be true, but people are still angry and I think that even a good jobs report couldn't shake the current trend that people want to vote incumbents out of office.
What does this mean for the dems and Obama? It remains to be seen but if the republicans are adept at campaigning as they ought to be then they can use this info to their advantage. I think we'll probably hear in the next week the phrase, "Summer of Recovery" a whole lot from the right and in the next breath talk about the stagnant job report. It was a poor idea when Obama announce that catch phrase. Now all the republicans have to do is yell. It's a pretty simple tactic and one that could potentially get people riled up if the republicans are eloquent enough in discussing the issue.
The democrats do have a way to fight back though. They could easily argue that because the unemployment percentage hasn't really changed it could mean that we've rounded the corner and are on our way back up. They could make the claim that their steps to recovery are working and that we need to give it more time. It's a good argument and one that may actually be true, but people are still angry and I think that even a good jobs report couldn't shake the current trend that people want to vote incumbents out of office.
Monday, October 4, 2010
About the One Nation Rally
The people over at Moonbatery.com have a really informative article on the One Nation Rally that was staged over the weekend. To sum it up, it basically stated that the Democrats did a crappy job at trying to rally people the same way Glenn Beck's rally did.
At this point in the election cycle is it really that big of a surprise? Over-all the democrats have been getting hammered in the opinion polls and they may loose control of congress. Sure there are a couple of bright spots for the dems this year. California is most likely going to have a liberal governor...well a more liberal governor, let's face it Ahnold isn't the most conservative guy on the planet. And also Christine O'Donnell is probably going to flame out in a spectacular way.
But the inability of the dem's to garner any sort support for this rally is bad news. They used the unions to bus people in for goodness sake, and still got didn't get much to show for it. If you go to the link and look at the comparison pictures you can see how small turn out was. Will this translate in November? That remains to be seen but again the trend is pointing more in favor of the republicans.
At this point in the election cycle is it really that big of a surprise? Over-all the democrats have been getting hammered in the opinion polls and they may loose control of congress. Sure there are a couple of bright spots for the dems this year. California is most likely going to have a liberal governor...well a more liberal governor, let's face it Ahnold isn't the most conservative guy on the planet. And also Christine O'Donnell is probably going to flame out in a spectacular way.
But the inability of the dem's to garner any sort support for this rally is bad news. They used the unions to bus people in for goodness sake, and still got didn't get much to show for it. If you go to the link and look at the comparison pictures you can see how small turn out was. Will this translate in November? That remains to be seen but again the trend is pointing more in favor of the republicans.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Everyone is leaving the party!
Rasmussen has a new poll out showing that people are leaving both the democrat and republican party at a pretty steady rate. Some would argue that this is because of voter frustration with both parties and a desire for a change of course in the way we do politics.
I'm not so sure. I think that while both parties have had a decrease in numbers, the republicans have a better footing over-all. For example, if you ask most tea-party members where they stand politically, you are more likely to here them call themselves "conservative" rather than republican. While they may not identify with Republicans out-right they are still fired up and ready to go to the polls and vote that way. Democrats on the other hand are becoming despondent about their chances in November. Plus many on that side are feeling betrayed by the party leadership and how they haven't delivered on the nebulous "change" promise.
Also there's the deflation of the cult of personality that Obama created during the '08 campaign. It's difficult to translate the energy he generated into sustainable interest over the long term, especially when you have to act more "presidential".
I've been a little back and forth as to how the election will turn out but I feel (a little more now after that poll) that things are still pointing to a big year for Republicans...even if these that vote for them don't actually call themselves that.
I'm not so sure. I think that while both parties have had a decrease in numbers, the republicans have a better footing over-all. For example, if you ask most tea-party members where they stand politically, you are more likely to here them call themselves "conservative" rather than republican. While they may not identify with Republicans out-right they are still fired up and ready to go to the polls and vote that way. Democrats on the other hand are becoming despondent about their chances in November. Plus many on that side are feeling betrayed by the party leadership and how they haven't delivered on the nebulous "change" promise.
Also there's the deflation of the cult of personality that Obama created during the '08 campaign. It's difficult to translate the energy he generated into sustainable interest over the long term, especially when you have to act more "presidential".
I've been a little back and forth as to how the election will turn out but I feel (a little more now after that poll) that things are still pointing to a big year for Republicans...even if these that vote for them don't actually call themselves that.
Whats wrong with Democrats?
George F. Will has a fantastic commentary today regarding the Democrats shrinking stature in all the opinion polls that have been coming out for the past few months and how they are reacting to this. He does a great job focusing on the two major blunders that the democrats are going to be held accountable for this election cycle, namely the massive stimulus bill and the healthcare bill. He then goes on to say that because the democrats really don't have anything to run on that people are willing to get behind, that they will be forced to "pound the table" and make personal attacks against Republican opponents.
He couldn't be more right.
If you've been paying attention to the news in the past few days then you may have seen this attack ad by candidate Alan Grayson, implying that his opponent, republican Daniel Webster is a cooky religious nut. It's back-firing pretty bad for Grayson since Webster is up 7 points in this recent poll and will probably continue to rise higher.
In his article George Will uses the example of Barry Goldwater and the democrats successful undermining of his mental and personal credibility by using various psychiatrists to declare him unfit to hold office. This is a tactic that works well with the collusion of the media. What's the old saying? A lie can go around the world faster than the truth can tie it's shoes. Christine O'Donnell is currently getting a similar treatment. After winning the nomination, it was widely reported that her primary opponent, Mike Castle, didn't think she was fit for the position and would never win. That comment was quickly picked up by the media and started a narrative that O'Donnell will probably never be able to get out of. This in turn has caused a lot of background digging, going so far as the media to breathlessly announce the fact that she "dabbled" in witchcraft in high school. Seriously. That's stupid news. But it builds up that narrative that gives people a negative view of her and kills her standing in the polls.
Now, admittedly there have been other gaffes on her part. The anti-masturbation stance and the fact that she claimed to have studied at Oxford to name a couple but these are things that have come out afterwards and caused this snowball effect of negativity. Which in turn has allowed her opponent to claim that she is too far right from the average Delaware voter (which may be true) and hurt her ability to connect with the people, thereby giving the Democrats the advantage.
Sure there are examples like O'Donnell that liberal pundits point to in order to claim that they still have a chance at keeping the house and senate but when tactics of desperation like the ones being used this cycle are in play, it really does indicate how scared the democrats are. The Tea Party movement has been scoffed at from the very beginning. Yet in spite of all the punditry mocking it, it continues to grow. The people at the top simply aren't getting it. This is a grassroots movement, that while at times can be misguided and a little extreme, is an honest out-pouring of voter frustration. This is what is wrong with the democrats. They just don't get that these people are passionate about what they believe in and are willing to make big personal sacrifices of time and money to fight for it. I have several family members involved with the Tea Party movement (much to my dismay) and they are very ardent in their beliefs about the state of the country, Obama and the democrats policies. This has caused them to devote huge swaths of time and money to the cause and this is something that they are not unique in. I've been dragged to a few rallies and have seen the "rabble". They are, for the most part, everyday people who simply love this country but you can sense the anger they have towards the leadership on both sides of the aisle. The democrats used to be this way. When Bush was in power they were passionate about the war and various social causes. But now that they finally have control they seem to have lost a lot of that fire, perhaps power breeds complacency but it is a mistake they make at their own peril. No matter party you subscribe to people can be just as equally angry and passionate. Its what got the Dem's back in control in the first place. It's what brought them together.
What's wrong with the Dems? They forgot what the people were like. They have forgotten that when you have enough angry people they can quickly coalesce into a powerful group. They have forgotten that their policies and actions while in office will have an affect of the people and manifest come election cycle. it's why I think they are still in big trouble come November.
He couldn't be more right.
If you've been paying attention to the news in the past few days then you may have seen this attack ad by candidate Alan Grayson, implying that his opponent, republican Daniel Webster is a cooky religious nut. It's back-firing pretty bad for Grayson since Webster is up 7 points in this recent poll and will probably continue to rise higher.
In his article George Will uses the example of Barry Goldwater and the democrats successful undermining of his mental and personal credibility by using various psychiatrists to declare him unfit to hold office. This is a tactic that works well with the collusion of the media. What's the old saying? A lie can go around the world faster than the truth can tie it's shoes. Christine O'Donnell is currently getting a similar treatment. After winning the nomination, it was widely reported that her primary opponent, Mike Castle, didn't think she was fit for the position and would never win. That comment was quickly picked up by the media and started a narrative that O'Donnell will probably never be able to get out of. This in turn has caused a lot of background digging, going so far as the media to breathlessly announce the fact that she "dabbled" in witchcraft in high school. Seriously. That's stupid news. But it builds up that narrative that gives people a negative view of her and kills her standing in the polls.
Now, admittedly there have been other gaffes on her part. The anti-masturbation stance and the fact that she claimed to have studied at Oxford to name a couple but these are things that have come out afterwards and caused this snowball effect of negativity. Which in turn has allowed her opponent to claim that she is too far right from the average Delaware voter (which may be true) and hurt her ability to connect with the people, thereby giving the Democrats the advantage.
Sure there are examples like O'Donnell that liberal pundits point to in order to claim that they still have a chance at keeping the house and senate but when tactics of desperation like the ones being used this cycle are in play, it really does indicate how scared the democrats are. The Tea Party movement has been scoffed at from the very beginning. Yet in spite of all the punditry mocking it, it continues to grow. The people at the top simply aren't getting it. This is a grassroots movement, that while at times can be misguided and a little extreme, is an honest out-pouring of voter frustration. This is what is wrong with the democrats. They just don't get that these people are passionate about what they believe in and are willing to make big personal sacrifices of time and money to fight for it. I have several family members involved with the Tea Party movement (much to my dismay) and they are very ardent in their beliefs about the state of the country, Obama and the democrats policies. This has caused them to devote huge swaths of time and money to the cause and this is something that they are not unique in. I've been dragged to a few rallies and have seen the "rabble". They are, for the most part, everyday people who simply love this country but you can sense the anger they have towards the leadership on both sides of the aisle. The democrats used to be this way. When Bush was in power they were passionate about the war and various social causes. But now that they finally have control they seem to have lost a lot of that fire, perhaps power breeds complacency but it is a mistake they make at their own peril. No matter party you subscribe to people can be just as equally angry and passionate. Its what got the Dem's back in control in the first place. It's what brought them together.
What's wrong with the Dems? They forgot what the people were like. They have forgotten that when you have enough angry people they can quickly coalesce into a powerful group. They have forgotten that their policies and actions while in office will have an affect of the people and manifest come election cycle. it's why I think they are still in big trouble come November.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
I freaking knew it!!
So today the dems to end this session of congress with tails between their legs and decided not to do anything about taxes. If you have happened across this blog before you've may have seen my post earlier regarding the cowardice the dems are displaying by turning their collective backs on this issue. I'm still not to sure how I feel about John Beohner (his tan is really unsettling) but he did make a very poignant comment on the floor of house today, saying that those who voted to adjourn were, "putting their elections above the needs of [their] constituents".
If we needed any evidence of that the vote tells a lot; it was a very close call to adjourn. 39 democrats voted no on the matter, indicating that they are pretty nervous towards their constituents potential electoral wrath.
My analysis probably mirrors everyone else. That this was a bad move on the dems part and only up-holds the narrative that they don't really care that much about the people and are more concerned about saving their own hide than actually helping people. Days like this only point further to a big republican gain come November.
If we needed any evidence of that the vote tells a lot; it was a very close call to adjourn. 39 democrats voted no on the matter, indicating that they are pretty nervous towards their constituents potential electoral wrath.
My analysis probably mirrors everyone else. That this was a bad move on the dems part and only up-holds the narrative that they don't really care that much about the people and are more concerned about saving their own hide than actually helping people. Days like this only point further to a big republican gain come November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)