| |
|
Monday, November 6, 2006
|
|
Political Wire: "It took thirty years to build the Reagan coalition. It has taken George W. Bush just two years to destroy it. Polls taken by Reuters/Zogby International on the eve of the 2006 midterm elections confirm this analysis. In each of the Senate and House races surveyed, key groups that once formed the backbone to the Reagan coalition -- i.e., men, born-again voters, married, those with children under age 17 living at home, Independents, and those earning between $35,000 and $50,000 -- either favor the Democrats, or have forced the races to a draw. Presidential coalitions endure because their agendas remain unfulfilled. Thus, when communism ended, the Reagan coalition began to decay. In politics, there is an important axiom: Success kills party coalitions. The fall of communism presented the Reagan coalition with its first crisis. Bill Clinton took advantage and won the presidency because of Reagan's success."
"2008 pres"
6:45:59 AM 
|
|
Colorado Confidential: "A new national bipartisan poll indicated that Democrats may now dominate rural voters, once an important segment of the Republican base, according to a new non-partisan poll conducted in late October for the Center for Rural Strategies, a Kentucky group working to attract attention to rural issues. Five hundred likely rural voters were surveyed in six states with close Senate races and 41 heavily contested congressional districts, including Colorado's Third and Fourth Congressional Districts. Fifty-two per cent of the respondents indicated they will support Democratic congressional candidates; 39 percent say they'll vote for Republicans."
"2008 pres"
6:43:09 AM
|
|
Bull Moose: "Republicans evisioned that they would at least match the forty-year Democratic control over the House that they upended in 1994. The GOP fervently believed that the Democrats would at least spend as much time wandering in the wilderness as the ancient Hebrews. The right suggested that a conservative revolution was underway. The right was in the ascendancy. After all, conservative leaders were in charge of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.
"The truth is that conservatism was corrupted by power. The right violated all of their limited government principles in the pursuit and maintenance of their perks. And a conservative Administration proved devastatingly incompetent in the management of a war. And so the voters appear on the verge of rejecting conservative leadership.
"Of course, Democrats must be cautious about over-interpreting the election. Moreover, it is still possible but not likely that the party will not match the expectations for a blowout. While a Democratic victory will clearly be a rejection of the Administration's war management, that does not mean the electorate is willing to accept a defeat in Iraq. And there is no evidence that there is any significant ideological shift. Indeed, one recent poll showed that voters want the government to do less rather than more.
"The only remaining question is whether the electorate will take a chance on the Democrats. And if they are given the opportunity to gain some power, will the donkey more responsibly govern than the failed elephant?
"The American public is looking for problem solvers and not polarizers."
"2008 pres"
6:40:27 AM
|
|
NewAssignment.net: "Here are nine ways that distributive networks are working to cover Election Day."
"denver 2006"
6:37:26 AM
|
|
Here's a report about negative advertising in this year's election from the Denver Post. From the article, "If you think this campaign season is the dirtiest ever, you might be right. In Colorado, roughly $9 out of every $10 spent on congressional campaign advertising by the national political parties has been for negative ads against opposing candidates, about the same as the nationwide ratio, according to a Denver Post review of Federal Election Commission data. Nationwide, the Democratic and Republican parties have spent $160 million on ads attacking congressional candidates, as opposed to $17 million on positive ads about each party's own candidates, the FEC reported last week. By comparison, in 2004, the parties spent about $6 on negative ads nationwide for every $5 they spent on positive ads in congressional races. And that doesn't take into account what the candidates themselves spend on negative ads, nor does it include independent '527' organizations with names such as the Trailhead Group and Coloradans for Life that pay for political advertising...
"There might be more negative advertising on the air this season simply because there's more political advertising overall, said Evan Tracey, whose Campaign Media Analysis Group tracks campaign advertising from Arlington, Va. He said the amount spent on political advertising has risen from $1.6 billion in 2004 to an anticipated $2 billion this year. But as much as people say they don't like negative ads, they are influenced by them, Tracey said. 'They wouldn't use them if they didn't work,' he said. 'If a negative ad is true and it's good, it'll work.' For example, Duffy says polls showed that Musgrave started pulling ahead this year after running television ads targeting Democratic challenger Angie Paccione's financial problems."
"denver 2006"
6:07:02 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/15/09; 12:09:52 PM.
|
|
|
