November 07, 2006
Election Cut and Run
While some pollsters are still predicting massive Democratic gains in today's voting, Adam Nagourney of the New York Times is sounding a pre-emptive retreat:
For a combination of reasons — increasingly bullish prognostications by independent handicappers, galloping optimism by Democratic leaders and bloggers, and polls that promise a Democratic blowout — expectations for the party have soared into the stratosphere. Democrats are widely expected to take the House, and by a significant margin, and perhaps the Senate as well, while capturing a majority of governorships and legislatures.These expectations may well be overheated. Polls over the weekend suggested that the contest was tightening, and some prognosticators on Monday were scaling back their predictions, if ever so slightly. (Charlie Cook, the analyst who is one of Washington’s chief setters of expectations, said in an e-mail message on Monday that he was dropping the words "possibly more" from his House prediction of "20-35, possibly more.")
Some Democrats worry that those forecasts, accurate or not, may be setting the stage for a demoralizing election night, and one with lasting ramifications, sapping the party’s spirit and energy heading into the 2008 presidential election cycle.
"Two years ago, winning 14 seats in the House would have been a pipe dream," said Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic organization. Now, Mr. Bennett said, failure to win the House, even by one seat, would send Democrats diving under their beds (not to mention what it might do to all the pundits).
"It would be crushing," he said. "It would be extremely difficult."
Mr. Cook put it more succinctly. "I think you’d see a Jim Jones situation — it would be a mass suicide," he said.
Metaphorically, of course (h/t BCB).
Scott Elliott of Election Projection made an uncharacteristic disclaimer on his deadly accurate election formula that was so accurate in predicting the outcome in 2004:
For any election projection formula to be accurate, one of two conditions must be met. Either the data used in the calculations must be reasonably accurate, or the formula must correctly compensate for inaccurate data.In Election Projection's case, I firmly believe neither condition was met this year, especially in the House. Polling data was very scarce, and the polls that were available were largely suspect in my view. Moreover, the political pundits on whom I relied heavily in my House projections see a much gloomier outlook than I believe is warranted. Combine those two factors and you have a some heavily skewed projections.
It seems like it's anybody's race to win, folks. Make sure you vote.
If you do, you could be rewarded tomorrow morning with thousands of liberal faces looking just like this one... and wouldn't that be worth it?
Yes, I see Motha-Sheehan showed up to support Webb, thats sort of like the kiss of death from Algore, or BJ Clinton.
Posted by: Mark at November 7, 2006 08:29 AM"would send Democrats diving under their beds (not to mention what it might do to all the pundits)."
That line alone should be enough to get people out to vote.
That picture is Cindy Sheehan. That's disgusting that you are gleeful about the grief of a mother who lost a son in combat.
Posted by: Earl at November 7, 2006 10:09 AMThat's Cindy Sheehan, really?
This is also the same Cindy Sheehan that embraces dictator Hugo Chavez, that says that we should not have deposed the Taliban and should get out of Afghanistan, that wants Israel destroyed, peddled anti-Jew conspiracy theories, lied and said that machine guns nests were being set up in New Orleans after Katrina, called America a "cancer," stated we have no constitution, hatefully stated George Bush should "send his two little party animals to die in Iraq" while refusing to acknowledge her son volunteered for the Army and his mission, says we are conducting nuclear war in Iraq (no, I'm not making any of this up), supports convicted terrorism support Lynn Stewart, said our very form of government is "morally repugnant," said "This country isn't worth dying for," and said and countless other things that proves she is absolutely, totally and irredeemably anti-American by any measure.
Cindy Sheehan hates, hates not just George Bush, but America, as she has stated clearly and frequently. She has spit on everything her son fought and died for, dishonoring his memory.
I'm not "gleeful" about her loss, and you're an ass for suggesting that I am.
She is not the only parent to have lost a son or daughter in this war, and the majority of those parents strongly disagree with her.
I stand with them against Momma Moonbat, and everything this bitter, hateful woman now represents.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 7, 2006 10:42 AMThe expression on her face is priceless, as if she is asking, why is she so Friggin ugly.
Posted by: Mark at November 7, 2006 11:52 AMCY, I'm glad you're fit to judge how a grieving mother should feel. What you said about her is a lot of bull. You're a mean, paranoid person. You have no right to say how her son would or would not feel about his mother's actions.
How much did you put on the Repubs holding the house? It's paying more than 5 to 1. Of course, your side deserves to win. The GOP is the party of honesty, balanced budget, eschews nation building, morality.
The jig's up CY.
Posted by: Earl at November 7, 2006 12:34 PMI hope you all are enjoying your Jimmy Carter moment. I know I am.
Posted by: Earl at November 7, 2006 12:35 PMEarl, I (and everyone else) is fit to judge anyone who thrusts themselves upon the public stage as has Cindy Sheehan.
What I said about her is 100% factually accurate. I can cite sources for every single word. I'm sorry if you would rather believe in your "truth" rather than the facts about her and the statements she has made in public.
As for how Casey Sheehan felt about his mission, he expressed how he felt quite concretely, first when he reenlisted knowing he had a high likliehood of being sent to Iraq, and later when he volunteered to go out on the rescue mission where he was killed.
I'm sorry if reality is intruding on your fantasy world, but that is they way things are.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 7, 2006 12:47 PMSorry, Earl, Confederate Yankee is 100% correct. Try using Google to verify that Cindy Sheehan did indeed say all of the things cited above.
Posted by: Vrfour at November 7, 2006 04:38 PMhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10704025/
Posted by: Vrfour at November 7, 2006 06:19 PMScott Elliot last night: "Update(11:30pm): The House goes to the Democrats, and the crow goes in the oven. (That darn disclaimer!)"
Scott Elliot today: "I'll be well-fed on crow in the coming days, I'm sure."
Posted by: SBG at November 8, 2006 01:49 PMVrfour: I read your MSNBC article. Nothing jumped out at me there. Chavez is not a dictator, he was democratically elected. Sheehan being against American *empire* is a lot different from being against America. I don't believe she said the US doesn't have a constitution, that's just weird. I don't know what she thinks about Israel or Jews or those other things. I don't care all that much about what she thinks. Mostly I mourn for her loss, especially as she feels her son died in vain.
Posted by: Earl at November 9, 2006 07:07 PM
