November 06, 2006
Democrats Getting Nervous About Election
Republicans Cut Democratic Lead in Campaign's Final Days:
Republican gains in the new poll reflect a number of late-breaking trends. First, Republicans have become more engaged and enthused in the election than they had been in September and October. ...The Republicans also have made major gains, in a relatively short time period, among independent voters. ...Notably, President Bush's political standing has improved in the final week before the election. ...The final pre-election survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted among 2,369 registered voters from Nov. 1-4, finds that voter appraisals of the national economy also have improved. ...In addition, Sen. John Kerry's "botched joke" about the war in Iraq attracted enormous attention.
Republicans More Likely to Vote:
The Pew poll showed that the Democratic advantage had dropped to 47 percent to Republicans' 43 percent among likely voters, down from 50 percent to 39 percent two weeks ago. The poll found a drop in Democratic support among independents, but Pew Director Andrew Kohut said the most significant change over the past two weeks is that Republicans now outnumber Democrats among likely voters. ...Democrats, mindful of the Republicans' success in getting their voters to the polls in the past two elections, expressed nervousness at signs of tightening in some national polls. But they said private and some public polling in contested House districts continued to show their party in a position to win enough seats to claim the majority. "I don't know what to make of it," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican chairman, said polls showed that Republicans and conservatives “were coming home,” which he said “is what happens when voters focus on the choice before them.” Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the Democrat leading his party’s effort to win control of the House, said, “It’s inevitable that there would be some tightening in the end.” Still, Mr. Emanuel, who has been careful this campaign to avoid the public expressions of optimism voiced by other Democrats, added, “This is making me nervous.”
Weather Forecast--Wide Spread Rain:
A new study of voter behavior confirms something political operatives have long suspected: rain hurts Democrats and helps Republicans. The study found that 1 inch of rain reduces overall turnout by slightly less than 1 percent and cuts the Democratic vote by 2.5 percentage points. ...Democratic strategists acknowledge that their party is more affected by bad weather but say they boost their turnout efforts by giving out rain ponchos (LOL) or adding more vans to give voters a ride to the polls.
So, Democrats Already Starting with the Excuses:
In an interview from her Capitol office, Pelosi...cautioned that the number of Democratic House victories could be higher or lower and said her greatest concern is over the integrity of the count -- from the reliability of electronic voting machines to her worries that Republicans will try to manipulate the outcome. "That is the only variable in this," Pelosi said. "Will we have an honest count?''
But, I'm not confident despite the Democrat's worries. However, I feel better knowing that the Democrat's are losing confidence themselves. Let's pray for heavy showers tomorrow.
G.M. UPDATE: In a previous thread, one of my favorite contrarians who typically is fairly obnoxious in his comments (reg) complained that we thought only the educated should vote and that we were racist etc. (read the whole thing and all the comments). But then comes along a typical liberal/democrat who posts a comment on this Huffington Post post:
Instead, I talk with Wingers and feed into their conspiratorial mistrust of politicians and government in general, with catch phrases like: "They're all a bunch of crooks! Your vote doesn't count anyway! It makes no difference who you vote for, they do what THEY want anyway!" Helping to keep stupid people FROM voting is my goal in this election, and it is relatively easy to do.Yeah reg, you were saying? Posted by Woody M. at November 6, 2006 07:40 AM | TrackBack
G.M., your addendum makes perfect sense. The Democrats think that our military forces are stupid, and so they try to keep military votes from being counted, just as they did in Florida in 2000. Here's the latest:
E-Mail Ballots for Military Questioned
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Nov02/0,4670,VotingMilitary,00.html
Posted by Woody at November 6, 2006 01:31 PM
GMR - I want to apologize for something some guy wrote on the internet. The problem of some guy writing something on the internet has plagued many of my arguments, because some guy is always writing something somewhere on the internet. I have gone to great lengths to keep some guy from writing something on the internet, but my sweat and tears have been to no avail. Some guy just keeps writing something on the internet. It needs to stop, otherwise some guy will write something on the internet that can be used as evidence of something to undermine my otherwise sound arguments and observations. Consider yourself lucky that some guy isn't writing something on the internet this very moment that could be used to prove something - or other, for that matter - that might completely and utterly demolish the carefully constructed edifices of impeccable logic and overwhelming evidence that constitute the typical perorations of this Corner and those cornered herein.
Posted by reg at November 6, 2006 08:04 PM
reg, set a good example and quit writing on the internet yourself.
Posted by Woody at November 6, 2006 08:06 PM
Incidentally, I never called you a racist, I said that one of Crosby's arguments was racist in his contemptuous, overtly comment about "real progress" since the days when only white men could vote and how back in those days they were the only people who could be considered qualified. I was very specific in pulling his quote - which was a comment that, to put it bluntly, only a white person could have written without realizing how insulting it was. Of course, I was called a racist by several of the yahoos who frequent your threads. I know how you guys love to play victim in these discussions, but there is such a thing as truthfulness.
I also made a comment about "thinking twice" before using the attached clip art of a black person in the context of that article, but I didn't call you racist. The implication was of insensitivity, possibly cluelessness...which is a different order of accusation. The latter I stand by.
Posted by reg at November 6, 2006 08:13 PM
"overtly comment" should have been "overtly snide comment"
As to that other little note above - Woody, you inspire me...
Posted by reg at November 6, 2006 08:15 PM
Here in Ohio it is supposed to rain all day. I've bought up all the umbrellas and raincoats within 50 miles and other Republicans are doing the same in other parts of the state. Victory is assured.
Posted by DADvocate at November 6, 2006 09:11 PM
reg, the linked article did not in any way say that we should have only rich white property owners vote now, and to imply otherwise is to either misunderstand or misrepresent the article.
And no, he didn't practically say it, or sorta say it, or durn close say it.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at November 6, 2006 10:11 PM
Reg, you are correct, you implied that Crosby was racist, however, in a later comment you alluded to my having the same feelings because I linked to Crosby.
I'll let you in on a little secret reg, I've been supporting the civil rights fight since 1957 when I lived in a little town in Arkansas just 30 miles from Central High School. My Dad was a Army National Guard advisor (he was regular army) and we, just having moved to Arkansas only 40 days before the riots began) were dumfounded at the hatred exhibited by the so called white pillars of the community. In the early to mid sixties I marched, was in the crowd at the Lincoln Memorial for King's I have a dream speech, registered voters and applauded as the REPUBLICANS pushed the civil rights act of 1964 into the passed column.
As to the graphic, I added the lightbulb and I drew in the rays. The graphic was selected by typing in "Thinking" into the search bar. I had no care as to the color of the graphic, nor should you. Crosby's comment on who was allowed to vote in the beginning is not a plea for a return to the seperation of the races as you imply, but a plea to return to the idea of educated people voting. A plea for people to become educated before they vote. But, I think you knew that.
That's the major problem with folk like you reg, you make assumptions and never believe that the other guy can be honest in his/her disagreement with you. You are, and have always been to my certain knowledge the master of the argumentum ad hominum. But you know what, here, on this site, you will get reasoned argument every time. If someone disagrees with you, they will tell you in no uncertain terms. If you disagree, you have the same privilege.
So, keep coming back reg, maybe you will eventually learn something. I have my doubts because your anger seems all that drives you; anger and a strong compulsive desire to attack anything conservative or republican. Yet, you seem surprised that someone like Woody has diametrically opposed ideas to yours. Maybe, just maybe the truth is between what you and Woody say, but you will never see that as long as you stay angry.
Posted by GM at November 6, 2006 10:12 PM
"In the beginning only white, male Anglo-Saxon Protestants who owned property could vote. And why do you suppose that was the case back then in 1776? Was it simply that all those nasty, rich, white guys wanted to hold everybody else down because they are naturally hateful, cruel and evil? Or could it be that the only ones who were qualified to make intelligent decisions back then were the white male property owners?"
Followed by a snide remark about our current "real progress" in extending universal franchise.
I think this is a very creepy statement. It's not taken out of context - he continues on rationalizing the special qualifications and wisdom of white males based on the lack of universal access to education at the time. And, yes, it's racist. I don't think the decisions regarding who should be slave and who should be free or the status of women - in fact a whole host of issues framed and legislated by the white male elite - were "intelligent". I think they were self-serving and bigoted and cruel, despite any monopoly on formal education these fellows enjoyed. Disagree all you want. But I'm not being unfair or tendentious. And I can guarantee you that the statement Crosby makes regarding that period of our history would not come from the pen of anyone other than a fairly clueless white male. Well, maybe Michelle Malkin...but then she also supports the incarceration of American citizens based on their ethnicity.
Posted by reg at November 6, 2006 11:37 PM
Assistant Village Idiot - your reading comprehension is very poor. Plain fact.
Posted by reg at November 6, 2006 11:40 PM
reg, the statement all by itself seems to be open to interpretation to you. Yet when others interpret it differently, and take into consideration the context of the entire article, they are the incompetent boobs with no reading comprehension?
Saying that wealthy white men were the only one's educated enough to make an informed decision is not a racist remark unless he claims that he believes that only wealthy white men should vote. The entire article was written on the basis of connecting education with informed voting.
Did he imply anywhere in the article that only black people are too uneducated to vote? No.
Being a woman, did I take offense at his article? No. Afterall, women weren't allowed to vote then either. By your standards, I should be offended and find his statement "creepy". But I don't. I wonder why that is, reg.
Is it because I'm not looking for snakes everytime I click onto GM's blog?
Posted by Oyster at November 7, 2006 05:19 AM
"the incompetent boobs with no reading comprehension?"
That was a reference to the completely distorted characterization of my statements....you've got a one-note response about my evil intent and it's getting tired.
"Saying that wealthy white men were the only one's educated enough to make an informed decision is not a racist remark unless he claims that he believes that only wealthy white men should vote. The entire article was written on the basis of connecting education with informed voting."
Of course it is racist and sexist - and creepy - to say that only wealthy white men could make an informed decision in the early days of the republic. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that anyone can't comprehend that, but of course I shouldn't be. And anything "written on the basis of connecting education with informed voting" is anti-democratic to it's core. And BS. George W. Bush has a superior educational history, yet I'd trust my mother, who doesn't have much formal education, to use better judgement. Crosby's piece went far beyond an appeal for voters to inform themselves regarding candidates and issues by making an overt attempt to rationalize the systematic exclusion of entire classes of people from any participation in our democracy. I can't believe I've got to explain this. As for your being a woman, big deal. So is Phyllis Schlafly. I've heard plenty of reactionary, racist and sexist drivel spouted and/or swallowed by women. Perhaps some should know better, but...
Oh, Lord - give me the wisdom not to care about this little bit of GOPer nonsense any more.
Posted by reg at November 7, 2006 06:25 AM
"Democrats Getting Nervous About Election"
Unlike Woody, who's getting hysterical...and praying for rain so little old ladies (who favor the Democrats by about 17 points) don't get to the polls.
Here's a great link for you to post, Woody, as a sort of election morning special...the Communist Party is bringing out all of its forces to help elect Democrats...also Middle East terrorists are pulling for Nancy Pelosi...I want your readers to be well-educated and make informed decisions as they head off to the polls...this is my public service to help motivate the special niche that you attract in their tireless efforts to discern the important truths and salvage what's left of Western Civilization....you're welcome.
http://loboslinks.blogspot.com/2006/11/democrats-join-with-communists.html
Posted by reg at November 7, 2006 06:47 AM
Well, it is raining here in Ohio at 8:00 AM. Looks like it will continue all day. Aaah, beautiful
Posted by DADvocate at November 7, 2006 07:01 AM
The Democrats better be passing out a lot of their free rain panchos in major parts of Tennessee, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and the northwest.
http://www.weatherunderground.com/US/Region/US/2xpxFronts.html
Posted by Woody at November 7, 2006 07:19 AM
Woody, why do you hate democracy ????
Posted by reg at November 7, 2006 08:25 AM
reg, the people who hate democracy are those who will not take the time to study the issues and the candidates and care so little that they let rain keep them away. These are the same people that the Democrats scare and feed on for votes. A concerned and informed electorate is the best insurance for a healthy democracy--and, that's what I favor.
P.S. Check this site, which is similar to the one you referenced above:
The National Board of the Communist Party USA released the following appeal
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/783/1/56/
Posted by Woody at November 7, 2006 08:44 AM
Unfortunately all of the great work being done on our behalf by the Communist Pary is being undermined by the goddam Trotskyists. I'm starting to get worried...
http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml
Posted by reg at November 7, 2006 09:29 AM
reg, I thought the trotskyites had it sewed up, unfortunately for them, the stalinists and the maoists seem to have tampered with the ballot boxes and stolen the whole process. ;-)
(actually, an interesting link - thanks - it pays to know who the real enemy is... and it ain't necessarily you reg...)
Posted by GM at November 7, 2006 10:16 AM
I find it very especially disturbing that Woody is posting links to the Weather Underground...
Posted by reg at November 7, 2006 12:47 PM
reg, it's so sad when a radical left-wing, communist group of terrorists from the Viet Nam era disintegrates into a capitalist, for-profit weather service.
Then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)
Now: http://www.weatherunderground.com/
Posted by Woody at November 7, 2006 04:55 PM
What seems to have been lost in the crossfire, is that reg made an important point in his initial posting about "some guy" and "something" -- which is that we do not get to pick the people who walk on the same side of the road that we're walking on. Thus we're not accountable for their statements and actions -- unless we claim them as our allies.
The discussion here would be more focused and enlightening if all parties kept this in mind.
Posted by civil truth at November 7, 2006 05:53 PM
no, reg, I have a long history of proven ability to comprehend, and that is in fact one of the skills with which I make my living now. You quote an important piece of the essay, then offer your interpretation of what follows and call it creepy. You are reaching and stretching for that interpretation. I am quite uncertain as to your motivation for this, and won't speculate. But you might consider the possibility that if everyone else reads something differently (check the online discussion of that article), then perhaps it is thee who is bringing something to the reading that is not present in the writing.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at November 7, 2006 06:51 PM
I didn't say what you said I said. It's pretty simple. How many times do you need to stumble through the same pile of self-generated doodoo.
"reg, the linked article did not in any way say that we should have only rich white property owners vote now, and to imply otherwise is to either misunderstand or misrepresent the article."
I never made the claim that he believes we should revert to that formula now, nor did I almost, sorta, kinda make it. You have limited reading comprehension skills. I said that it's creepy to assert that the only people BACK THEN who could make intelligent use of the ballot ("intelligent" was his choice of words) were white propertied males, despite their access to educatioin. You can disagree with that, but try to at least get the substance of my argument right. I also think, as I've clearly stated before, that I think it's putrid to assert that TODAY voting rights should be assigned on the basis of education. I'm all for appeals to people to get as much access to information on ballot issues and candidates as possible - the Crosby piece went way past that into some pretty creepy terrain.
Posted by reg at November 7, 2006 07:11 PM
