19 of 31 Red states flip to Blue

[welshTerrier2]

a recent survey by SurveyUSA reported that 19 of 31 Red states now disapprove of the job bush is doing ... and two additional Red states, N. Carolina and Louisiana are now tied ... the author of the article (see below) refers to this as "buyer's remorse" ...

but the author makes a mistake suggesting that these states have "flipped" ... first of all, while there is much more disapproval of bush, bush is not running again ... second, it is not at all clear how this will translate into Senate and Congressional races next year (i.e. all politics are local) ... to say the states have "flipped" based on disapproval for bush may be just a wee bit optimistic ... of course, on the other hand, there are plenty of nervous republicans out there ... and that will soon lead to bush becoming more of a "dead duck" than a "lame duck" ... republicans might just want to start putting some distance between themselves and the WH ...

and finally, MAKE SURE you read the first response to the article ... i wonder if it was written by one of DU's own ... the response did a great job talking about election fraud and even covered some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories ... even if you don't read the base article, don't miss the response on the same page ...

here's the link: http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/08/17/poll-buyers-remorse/

[liberal N proud]

1. OK, are they willing to change Congress to counter their mistake

in 2000 and 2004?
That is the real question, will it be enough to tip the balance and change Congress in 2006?

[welshTerrier2]

3. nationalizing the election

you've hit the nail on the hit with the question you raised ...

most races are more about the individuals running ... someone gets off a great insult during the debates ... or someone gets caught cheating on his wife ... or this guy brought lots of federal money back to the state ... it's usually a head-to-head local contest ...

most of the time, voters don't go to the polls thinking about "tipping the balance of power" in Washington ... they think in terms of the individuals running ... is this guy better than that guy ...

perhaps if Democrats could "nationalize" the elections, at least to some degree, it could get more voters to focus on the broader struggle of which party would better represent them and the country ... then, they might look beyond the distinctions between the local candidates and focus on the national agenda ...

the current difficulties the country is having in almost every aspect of our lives coupled with bush's plummeting approval ratings might make nationalizing the elections a little more feasible; it doesn't seem like that's likely to be the strategy though ...

[renaissanceguy]

11. Two things...

Assuming fair elections, if the Kerry campaign hadn't focused on that mythical independent voter so much, and instead worked on a cohesive, strong (and opposing) message, he would've had it in the bag. I'd be willing to bet Dean would've pulled it off, had the neocon media not destroyed him in the primaries. Edwards could've pulled it off, too, but he was not in the spotlight because of Kerry.

Mind you, I am not criticizing Kerry personally. I am criticizing those strategists in his campaign, i.e., the one who denounced gays as the reason he lost (anyone who knows politics and history knows that it was national security that gave it to Chimp).

Second, I wish people would step up and call for impeachment. Pulling the troops out is not enough (even though that's unlikely to happen). We need to hold this Chimp accountable and set a precedent for future presidents who might want to abuse power.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/472476

[Coyote_Bandit]

2. I see

crazy red dumb f*cking JOklahoma is not one of the states that have "flipped." No surprise here in fundy central, the armpit of the Bible belt. What is wrong with these people? Never mind. Don't even try to answer that....

[joeprogressive]

4. Use Bush as a liability in 2006 midterms

That should be part of the campaign strategy for '06. Use pictures of candidates with Bush and quote the candidate every time he sided with Bush on policy matters. The tide is turning and the coattails are evaporating. We could call the '06 midterms the Bush report card.

[welshTerrier2]

5. i agree but there's a problem ...

i think most Americans see the greatest problem facing the country right now as Iraq ... we are getting our asses handed to us and there's no hope, and no end, in sight ... problems with domestic issues, like Social Security, education, jobs and Supreme Court nominees are not seen as crises issues right now ... that's not to say these issues are not of concern to Americans ... but Iraq seems, at least to me, to be the front-burner issue right now ...

and that's where the Democrats may have a problem ... no one with any knowledge at all can think bush has handled Iraq well ... it's a total disaster ... bush will reduce troop strength leading up to the 2006 midterms ... he'll tell us all is well ... of course, right after the election, due to interference from Iran, we'll need to send more troops back over there and even launch airstrikes on Iran ... but what about the Democrats? their current position, aside from being dead wrong on Iraq, is much too nuanced to be politically effective ...

their essential theme is we need to stay in Iraq and fight for the exact same objectives as "the President" but we would be winning instead of losing ... how? first, we would build more alliances to bring in troops from other countries? second, and this is just not politically viable at a time bush is reducing the troop count, we would send more troops to "do the job right" ... Americans are not going to want to hear about a Vietnam-style broadening of the war ... they are already sick of the mess bush made over there ...

so, calling the midterms the "bush report card" is a great idea; but the Democrats' current position may not yield them higher grades ...

[quaoar]

6. Interesting polls

In Alabama, it shows that Bush has a 52 percent approval rating and 45 percent disapproval. This is actually up for Bush from a 50 percent approval rating in May.

Considering Bush cruised to about a 30 point win in November here, that shows either an extraordinary amount of buyer's remorse in Alabama or it means little when it comes to actually voting. In other words, they might not like him but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't vote for him.

[welshTerrier2]

7. one voting model

suppose we speculate that voters may look at three factors when they choose a candidate:

1. the goal and objectives the candidate defines ... i.e., do they agree with the candidate's positions on issues
2. track record ... has the candidate been successful in meeting the goals he fights for
3. personal traits: is the candidate personable, does he "look French", is his wife "kind of weird", does he seem confident about his own beliefs and capababilities

polls like the one cited in the base post seem to focus primarily on the second criterion ... Americans believe bush has not been successful, especially in Iraq ...

but, as you pointed out, this doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for him or for his party ... if a Red Stater's big issue is, say, abortion, and they like the republican position more than the Democrats' position, seeing bush as failing in Iraq is not at all likely to translate to votes for the Democrat ...

again, this poll is good news but the Democrats may not be able to reap what should be a really bountiful harvest ... i think the Democratic Party, for whatever reason, seems unwilling to offer Americans a clear alternative and a clearly defined platform ... and that's especially true on Iraq ... the current position (fight the war better than bush and maybe increase troop strength) is both far too nuanced and politically DOA ...

[sunnystarr]

9. It's a simple matter of BAIT 'N SWITCH

forget flip flop ... it's bait and switch - and everyone knows what that means.

The first lie is calling it a "War on Terror." That's what we were sold and most bought, including Dems.

Both houses voted to give * the authority to get rid of Saddam by hopefully diplomatic means but force if necessary. The reason was WMDs.

There were no WMDs and what we got is nation building. Pre-emptive war to impose a democratic government.

Even this is a lie but it's the current "Switch." If it was the truth then we'd be invading Saudi Arabia, which was the birth bed of the movement and continues with government support.

But all Dems can go with the "bait 'n switch" framework, no matter how they voted on the war initially.

The question to the American people is are they willing to sacrifice their young and face ever-increasing deficits and/or taxes to pay for spreading democracy in the Middle East for decades to come. Do they want a policy of nation building.

I'm willing to bet the pig ranch that the answer is NO WAY.

Personally I believe the answer to terrorism is not war. The answer lies in diplomacy and incentives to get the governments to join in extricating and eliminating terrorist cells. The should be a global mission with a world court presiding in the prosecution and imprisonment of terrorists. Espionage and spy agencies in all countries should be working together, each with a special agency that focusses only on terrorism, sharing information and coordinating arrests.

By making it a "war" Bushco has only enhanced their position and prestige and made it more attractive to other malcontents to sign up and join the terror tide. It's been glamorized for them and is now a way to believe their life (and death) has a purpose.

Dems need to bring this message home to the voters. War is NOT the answer.

[LondonReign2]

12. But it also shows

that the radical right actually gets off their asses and votes at a much higher clip than the reality based community. Very sad.

[sleipnir]

8. Not really, most would vote For Bush again, if we had Kerry running.

Kerry's staff would find someway to bungle even this lead.

[geek tragedy]

10. The big problem is finding a Democrat they dislike less.

Northeastern liberal Senators with long voting records are too easy to tear down.