The Turning Tide
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2006 — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
UPDATE: Be sure to read this from Jay Cost as well.
I'm a little short on time today, but I just wanted to point out a few things that ought to provide a little Monday morning encouragement for you. Heading into the last two weeks of the election season, the GOP is showing signs that it might not be dead after all.
First of all, in the Senate. The most recent Rasmussen poll ($) shows that Burns has closed the gap on Tester to 48-46. As I said a couple weeks ago, I feel like we have a better shot at keeping Burns' seat than we do DeWine's, and now I'm feeling pretty good about Burns' chances to pull this out in the end, as red state Montana voters "come home" over the last two weeks. Also, the Maryland Senate race has really tightened up, and the Democrats are going to have to spend probably more than they would like in the last two weeks to keep this seat. Also, the most recent poll in Missouri (Rasmussen) shows Talent with a lead, and things were a toss-up in TN before Harold Ford's weekend meltdown. I think we hold at least TN, MO and MT at the end of the day. Even Lincoln Chafee is showing signs of life, coming in less than five points behind in two recent polls (Fleming and R.I. College).
In the House, good news continues to trickle in as well. Most devastating to the Democrats is the news that Tom Reynolds has regained the lead in NY-24, which suggests that the Foley bounce may not only be over, but also that there may be some backlash on the horizon. Also over the weekend, polling came out showing Peter Roskam ahead in IL-06 for the first time in months.
We'll keep you updated on all data as it rolls in this week.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | How Disturbing — Comments (24) »
The Turning Tide 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I agree with the trend and believe the last Ohio poll I saw had Brown up 49 - 45, although some are showing Brown slightly over 50. In the case of MT, OH and MO I think voters will migrate towards the incumbents once it becomes clear the Dems aren't going to win the Senate.
Ohio's in a funk but at the end of the day I just don't see us throwing out six years of Senate seniority in the majority for a dope smoking, tax deadbeat, leftist punk. I think DeWind will surge in the closing weeks.
And right now, Roskam yard signs outpace Duckworth by about 5:1.
That's why I don't pay attention to the doomsday predictions of the Dems and left-wing press. We can win this thing and I believe we will win this thing. But we need to be motivated and we need to vote and get everyone we know to get out and vote for Republican candidates.
About two months ago, when Sheila Sekula-Gibbs was selected for backing as the write-in candidate in TX-22 to replace Tom Delay, Nick Lampson was quoted in the Houston Chronicle as stating that he saw no need to campaign against Sekula-Gibbs and planned no advertising other than his own message ads (in fact, the analysis reported was that if he did, it might actually help her campaign).
This weekend, in response to Sekula-Gibbs running commercials along with assistance from the Republican Congressional Committee (with ads showing voters exactly how to do a write-in on the e-Slate system), the Lampson campaign began airing commercials attacking Sekula-Gibbs record.
If Lampson is now worried about a write-in candidate, and feels the need to actually campaign against her, I think that is a sign that they no longer expect a cake-walk in TX-22.
Maybe Sekula-Gibbs can pull off the unlikely and be the first congressional write-in candidate to win in Texas. If so, that is one less "sure Democratic pickup" that the media has been salivating over.
Shouldn't type someone's name so soon after e-mailing someone with a similar first name. Should be "Shelley" not "Sheila" Sekula-Gibbs (I blame it all on the brain cells that drain out my ear every night as I approach 50).
Thus illustrating the problems with a write-in candidate...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
But I hope that Barron's turns out to be right anyway. :-)