Democrats see hope, Republicans temper expectations for Tuesday vote

[TomCADem]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) -- In what are either last-minute head games or reflections on a shifting electorate, Democrats are predicting better-than-expected results for their side while Republicans are downplaying the extent of their expected victory in Tuesday's congressional elections.

With less than 48 hours before polling booths open, the comments on Sunday talk shows stayed true to the anticipated Republican gains in both chambers of Congress but continued to differ widely on exact totals.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was unwilling to project over-confidence, telling CNN's "State of the Union" program that even coming close to the 39 additional seats needed to win back majority control of the House would equal GOP success.

"If we get 39 seats and take the majority, that's success. If we get 37 seats, that's success," Steele said.


Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/31/election.final.predictions/index.html?hpt=T1

---

What? After a two year long corporate narrative about backlash against Democrats, which began even before President Obama took office, the Steele is suddenly trying to downplay expectations with millions in corporate money, as well as a 24/7 propaganda network in Fox News?

[Aramchek]

1. Democrats hold the House

[snappyturtle]

2. I agree. nt

[old mark]

3. AND the Senate...nt

[eggplant]

9. I'm with ya.

[Betty Karlson]

18. Chris Van Hollen disagrees

He believes 70 seats could be lost. Shall we fire him?

[Aramchek]

36. do you have a quote for that? I've heard him say we hold the House.

[Betty Karlson]

41. When was that? n/t

[tomhayes]

4. But..But..But

Just 4 hours earlier I heard the Democrats were acting GRIM.

And earlier I head that Obama was speaking in front of 8,000 people (which was LOW according to http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/thin-crowd-for-cleveland-campaign-rally/?src=tptw ) and that the Tea party Express had a HUGE , enthusiast crown that showed up number NEARLY 200 people. (http://www.wdel.com/story.php?id=774844676643)

This novel the press is writing is too darned confusing!

[Cognitive_Resonance]

5. Pour it on! Pour it on! GOTV! n/t

[FrenchieCat]

6. I want to see those nutbaggers and media pundit assholes get

proven so wrong, I'll do whatever I can to get it done!

[MBS]

25. " " " " " " " " n/t

[DallasNE]

7. There Have Been Conflicting Things All Along

All of the polling focus has been on likely voters and voter enthusiasm with weird results. One poll had almost no Hispanics and another showed only 18% for under 40 voters. Those were obviously over polling Republicans -- we just don't know by how much.

Also, from the beginning the early voting totals have actually favored Democrats. For instance, just today it was announced that in Nevada the Democrats had a 2% advantage and it was estimated that these early votes represented 65% of all votes that would be cast. Where I live the incumbent Republican held a slim 5% advantage over his Democratic opponent yet Realclear Politics rates this race as likely Republican while showing Democrats with a similar lead as only leaning Democratic. What gives there?

The big rally in DC should give some boost as well. The Senate race in PA should give us an early indication on how the night will go.

[jonthebru]

15. The polling techniques are fairly outdated.

Anyone who uses a cellphone is not polled.
The only calls I get on my landline are pollsters and political calls.

[colsohlibgal]

8. Hopefully The Spineless Beat The Soulless.

I'll vote, but it's getting harder each time to vote against a party rather than enthusiastically for a party.

[Eric Condon]

10. OMG ENJOY PRESIDENT PALIN THEN

:sarcasm:

This tends to be the typical DU response any time we acknowledge that maybe it might be nice to vote our consciences once in a while. You are very right, though.

[bowens43]

28. Voting your conscience is a a waste of a vote

if it means not supporting the the party. Like it or not we have a two party system. Voting anything other then the straight party ticket is as ridiculous and irresponsible as not voting. We have two philosophies available. Pick one and support it.

[Eric Condon]

37. "We have two philosophies available"

Obviously you're not a constituent of Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, or Bart Stupak. Myself, I've been represented for the past 12 years in the Senate by worthless DINO Evan Bayh. I plan to vote straight Democratic tomorrow, except for Senate, because I am NOT voting for Brad Ellsworth. At a certain point we have got to have some ideological standards. When you have a "Democrat" who opposes abortion, stem cell research and gun control, and wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, I'm sorry, but any way you slice it, there is NO daylight between him and a Republican.

[pattmarty]

26. AND, that my friend is the REAL problem. Look at 2008 and now..................

..............Where the hell did the "hope" go? I saw this when Scott Brown was elected in Ma to a fucking SURE Democratic seat. That should have told people a lot then, but nobody saw it for what it was, a repudiation of Obama's weak showing on healthcare and his stupid insistence on bipartisanship when the other side wanted no part of it. He is a weak President and nothing like what a lot of us saw in 2008. We voted for another FDR and what we got was a black Bill Clinton.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Iliyah]

13. Or

If it's A repugs with 15% over a Dem it's a landside but when a Dem has the same % over the repug it called a big lead.

Whats up with that?

[regnaD kciN]

16. I want them to!

At least we'll have a slight majority in favor of helping Americans dig out of the Bush economic mess. A Republican majority, even by one vote, will sandbag the country on every single issue, not caring if it sends us back into a double-dip recession or even a full-scale depression, as long as they feel sure that voter ire will be directed toward the occupant of the White House more than they, allowing them to go right back to their hegemony two years from now.

[BlueMTexpat]

23. What on earth kind of a comment is that?

Are you more privy to what "Dems" want than "Dems" actually are themselves. This particular Dem wants the Speaker of the House to be a D and not an R, even if it is just one vote that makes that difference.

[bergie321]

12. Let's just hope

That the "Teabag Tsunami" will be as potent as the "anti-incumbent fever"...

Why does the corporate media even try to pretend to be neutral anymore?

[creon]

32. It is not neutral

If you want neutral or impartial, you have to read BBC or Reuters.

We do not have the Fairness Doctrine. We are back to a partisan media.

[happygoluckytoyou]

14. even the REPUBLICANS in the west fear meg, carlie, sharron

[jmowreader]

17. I think the Republicans know they are seriously fucked

The teabaggers will be satisfied with nothing less than a MASSIVE majority in both houses--enough to impeach the president in the House and convict him in the Senate. (Even though there's no way they'll get 67 Senate seats, according to teabag ideology if there are 52-53 GOP senators the remaining Democrats will be so scared of "Second Amendment Remedies"--a nice nondescript way of saying "assassination threats"--they'll bow to teabag wishes and run off the president.)

The non-teabag Republicans would be happy as hell to pick up just the House of Representatives. All they need is the majority by one seat, so they can obstruct the president's agenda and blame the resultant Great Depression II on Obama.

What the Republicans outside Washington are not realizing is, they motivated the Democrats to get their asses out there and mark ballots for Democratic candidates and officeholders. The inner party knows what happened, and they're scared shitless. I think Steele will claim victory if he picks up ONE seat.

[Betty Karlson]

19. That seems slightly over-optimistic

At this point, Arkansas is a sure win for the GOP, just as Indiana is. Same with some of the house races. The question is rather, if the GOP will win the house. We still have a 30 % chance of holding it.

[jmowreader]

40. Slightly overoptimistic, but only slightly

Right now, ANY incumbent in an area with high unemployment should be sweating bullets, no matter which party they're in.

Just for example, the unemployment rate in Dayton, Ohio, is 13.1 percent (http://www.simplyhired.com/a/local-jobs/city/l-Dayton,+OH)--this is out of date because they list the national unemployment rate at 6.9 percent, but the thing is, the unemployment rate in the Dayton/Huber Heights/Vandalia area is outrageous. If the populace in OH-8 votes its wallet, and I think they will, the entire Republican plan for this term collapses because the incumbent there is John Boehner.

Seriously? They are probably going to take Arkansas and Indiana in the Senate, and Nevada's a tossup--are the voters insane enough to elect Sharron Angle? Past those three, I have NO idea.

[Nossida]

20. FARCE

I "attempted" to watch that drivel known as Meet the Press on Sunday morning.
One after the other, the phrase "The New republican Majority" was passed around
like the hot potato. I soon switched it off.

As if it were already decided. Its become clear in the past 2 years, that Liberal
Media the Kooks keeps raving about, is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Historic NY]

21. Welcome to DU.....we call it the Lame Street Media. (LSM)

[gkhouston]

35. Since Saturday, I now think of it as the P4C.

politico pundit perpetual panic conflictinator :P

[No Elephants]

22. Rethugs sure have lowered U.S. expectations for viable political candidates.

We used to assume people had no chance for federal or gubernatorial office unless they were smart, sane, well-educated, well-informed and well-spoken. Then Dummya became President and McCain picked his VP candidate-- Ms. Six Years in College and No One's Seen Her Degree and Doesn't Read a Newspaper.

Now we have the likes of Palladino, O'Donnell, Angle and Whitman breaking insanity and stupid meters from coast to coast. Now, "I'm not a witch" has become a qualification for U.S. Senator, ffs. If that isn't lowering expectations, I don't know what is.

Gee, I remember the good ole days when Republican politicians were only evil, dishonest and greedy.

For the love of God, VOTE and give folks a ride to the polls while you're at it. Don't let the Party of lowering expectations win.

[fasttense]

27. It's because corporations are picking our political leaders.

Have you ever noticed how out of hundreds of TV channels and programming, you can count yourself lucky if you have 6 shows you can stand to watch. Six out of 100 (or in my case 200) is some pretty bad programming.

The food you buy from corporations is usually bland and boring or so over-spiced even chickens wont eat it (Chicken owners you know what I mean.). Corporations develop one method and they use it over and over and over again. That's why fast food is so bad for you. They layer on the fat to entice your taste buds instead of developing naturally delicious flavors. It's just too hard to add variety and flavor and then turn it into a mass produced item or in this case a mass produced politician.

It's the same thing with the RepubliCON party or RepubliCorp as some of you know it as. The Corporations have so infested the RepubliCON Party and the Tbaggers that they are dictating the type of political personality they want. They want stupid, people who can be easily manipulated and unethical, greedy people who don't mind being traitors to their country for a few bucks.

Welcome to the new corporate developed politician. He (or she) must be illogical so as not to see the hypocrisy of their lives and words. They must be unethical, or immoral so that when it is blatantly clear that what they are doing is destroying Democracy, it doesn't bother them so much. And they have to be greedy, preferably very, very greedy so that when they notice what destruction they have brought to America, they can console themselves with tons of money.

[pattmarty]

24. Look, I think something MAJOR is being overlooked in this election.......

.........All the talk is about "how many seats" and will the Dems keep the Senate. If we had 255 Dems in the House and 60 in the Senate and we passed all these gold plated fantastical programs, what the fuck is going to get done in the next two years? WE fucking needed another FDR, what we got was a black Bill Clinton. It is time to seriously consider who the left wants to support in the future AND exactly what "we" (the left) wants government to do OR not do. What we now have is a Democratic party that is minimally better than the Republicans. The teabaggers are a different story, they ALL should be neutered and sent off into outer space.

[boomerbust]

29. Watch Wisconsin

If Feingold loses this country is in deep trouble.

[docvet]

30. LOL

Like it matters anymore!

[creon]

31. It is not known.

It is not known who is, or is not, going to vote.

There is a pattern. The party that is not in the WH gains seats in Congress. There is no reason for this election being contrary to that pattern

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zenlitened]

34. Here in Massachusetts...

... I notice more people talking about the candidates, specifically, rather than "Washington" in general. Quite a change from the tone or mood that preceded the election of Scott Brown.

[yellowcanine]

38. "If we get 37 seats, that's success," Steele said. Right Mikey. Keep telling yourself that.

If the Republicans fail to take back the House, Mikey's ass is grass.

[tabasco]

39. You mean the corporate media was LYING to us?

Oh my!

[michaelslomo]

42. The only thing that counts . . .

. . . is what it looks like 24 hours from now. All else is speculation.

[struggle4progress]

43. gotv