October Surprise

[Lemon law]

I will go back to the Prof John commment about the power of incombancy--with people perceiving someone else congressman as fodder for replacement--but not their own.

And its hard to argue with a 98% incombancy re-election rate. In the house---only 40 out if 335 races perceived as even close---in the senate only seven or 8 out of about 33 or 34.

But 2006 is also showing signs of being throw the rascals out year---especially in primary races. Only time will tell if that 98% will hold. And how events will play out in the remaining four weeks---with unknown future events having the possible power to stampede large numbers of voters one way or the other.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I will go back to the Prof John commment about the power of incombancy--with people perceiving someone else congressman as fodder for replacement--but not their own.

And its hard to argue with a 98% incombancy re-election rate. In the house---only 40 out if 335 races perceived as even close---in the senate only seven or 8 out of about 33 or 34.

But 2006 is also showing signs of being throw the rascals out year---especially in primary races. Only time will tell if that 98% will hold. And how events will play out in the remaining four weeks---with unknown future events having the possible power to stampede large numbers of voters one way or the other.

There were a number of signs before the 1994 election that pointed to the anger the American people felt about congress. I am not sure we have seen them in as great of numbers this year.

Second, the Republican did a great job of nationalizing the 1994 elections, the Democrats seem to have failed at doing that this year, unless "vote Democrat because we aren't Foley" is their plan.

I don't see some HUGE wave like we saw in 1994. The Republicans can still lose the house, but that only takes a 15 seat shift, a large, but not unbelieveable swing.
This N Korea thing changes a lot, hard to see what happens in the next 4 weeks.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I will go back to the Prof John commment about the power of incombancy--with people perceiving someone else congressman as fodder for replacement--but not their own.

And its hard to argue with a 98% incombancy re-election rate. In the house---only 40 out if 335 races perceived as even close---in the senate only seven or 8 out of about 33 or 34.

But 2006 is also showing signs of being throw the rascals out year---especially in primary races. Only time will tell if that 98% will hold. And how events will play out in the remaining four weeks---with unknown future events having the possible power to stampede large numbers of voters one way or the other.

There were a number of signs before the 1994 election that pointed to the anger the American people felt about congress. I am not sure we have seen them in as great of numbers this year.

Second, the Republican did a great job of nationalizing the 1994 elections, the Democrats seem to have failed at doing that this year, unless "vote Democrat because we aren't Foley" is their plan.

I don't see some HUGE wave like we saw in 1994. The Republicans can still lose the house, but that only takes a 15 seat shift, a large, but not unbelieveable swing.
This N Korea thing changes a lot, hard to see what happens in the next 4 weeks.

You know, I was watching Hannity and Colmes interview Oliver North, and it's pretty clear that the Republicans are just itching to milk this North Korea situation for all it's worth. You can practically HEAR them drooling. They think it's their ticket to victory, the good old "fear factor". But here's the thing, and it's a point Colmes (in an unusual display of actual rhetorical ability) kept making...we have a problem with North Korea today because the Republicans have spent the last 6 years doing nothing at all to prevent it. Not a damn thing. Oliver North was quick to try and pin the entire problem on Clinton, but Clinton hasn't been President for 6 years...this isn't like 9/11, Bush and the Republicans had YEARS to do something, and they didn't.

I don't think this is a great political issue for the Dems either, but if the Republicans are planning on making this into just another partisan campaign issue (and it looks like they will, I'm not sure they know how to do anything else), I think it could backfire. If Bush gets up and talks about how great a threat North Korea is, using his most determined expression of course, I wonder how many viewers are going to ask why the hell he and the rest of the Republicans didn't do something about it before it was a crisis. Personally I think what needs to happen is for Dems and Republicans to put aside their differences and really work on this issue, but Republicans have shown a total lack of ability in that area, particularly when they think they can win an election instead. Which is great, but I think it could massivly backfire on them if they don't watch it. Even Oliver North's "blame Clinton" rant seemed half-hearted, like he knew how bullshit it all sounded, if the Republicans start slinging mud around on this issue, they are the ones that could end up covered.

 

[ProfJohn]

What happened to Lamont winning???

I could have sworn there were so many people on here jumping up and down with glee when he won the primary.

Now it looks like Liberman is going to win by 10+ points.

If the forums weren't so slow I'd go dig up some quotes just for fun.

 

[Lemon law]

For what its worth dept---news from yahoo news----of the various senate races up for grabs---the powers that be in the republican party have opted to spend alot of cash trying to
hold on in Tennesse, Ohio, and Missouri as a firewall strategy---which may take money away from other close races.

 

[Lemon law]

far far too early to see how this N. Korea thing will effect the election yet---both parties show signs of spinning isssues already--somewhat a risk for either party if the N. Korea options spin off in new directions and they need to retract previous positions to embrace the new party line. With almost a month to go---the repubs have the most to lose if anything goes bad.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What happened to Lamont winning???

I could have sworn there were so many people on here jumping up and down with glee when he won the primary.

Now it looks like Liberman is going to win by 10+ points.

If the forums weren't so slow I'd go dig up some quotes just for fun.

Lieberman is still a DEMOCRAT you moron. Other than this Iraq nonsense he votes completely Democratic.

 

[alchemize]

"655,000 Iraqis dead since invasion, study says" splashed on CNN's front page, I think that qualifies as another Who ever said the democrats couldn't play dirty politics huh? Rove's turn!

 

[GoPackGo]

Here is another "surprise"

US Deficit Lowest in 4 years.

Down to 247 Billion... Still way to much...but at least its getting better.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: alchemize
"655,000 Iraqis dead since invasion, study says" splashed on CNN's front page, I think that qualifies as another Who ever said the democrats couldn't play dirty politics huh? Rove's turn!

Yeah, who gives a fvck about some dead Iraqis (not like they were people anyway)? :roll:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Here is another "surprise"

US Deficit Lowest in 4 years.

Down to 247 Billion... Still way to much...but at least its getting better.

That's good news - too bad it also factors in the highest federal spending in history.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Here is another "surprise"

US Deficit Lowest in 4 years.

Down to 247 Billion... Still way to much...but at least its getting better.

That's good news - too bad it also factors in the highest federal spending in history.

It's unrealistic since it doesn't involve all the "off budget" Iraq spending.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Here is another "surprise"

US Deficit Lowest in 4 years.

Down to 247 Billion... Still way to much...but at least its getting better.

That's good news - too bad it also factors in the highest federal spending in history.

It's unrealistic since it doesn't involve all the "off budget" Iraq spending.

Actually I think it does, I believe figures like this involved ALL government spending.

"Off budget" means that when congress passed a budget last year they did not include the cost of the war in it and instead passed other bills to pay for that.

When you start talking about end of the year deficits I am pretty sure they include everything.

If I am wrong can anyone point to proof please. I am not 100% sure of this, but I have never seen anything that says Iraq spending is not included in these types of figures.

 

[techs]

You need to factor in the Social Security part of the budget.
Without the SS surplus the budget deficit would be much higher.
And next year the surplus will be less, as well as interest payments on the debt being more.
Estimates for next years deficits are back to 340 billion and the following year over 400 billion.

 

[alchemize]

Rove counters the dead iraqi's report with a new york plane crash into a high rise! Man the surprises are starting to roll in now...

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Rove counters the dead iraqi's report with a new york plane crash into a high rise! Man the surprises are starting to roll in now...

Must of been one of those remote control devices hidden in civilian planes...

 

[alchemize]

Harry Reid land deal - Surprise! good one

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Harry Reid land deal - Surprise! good one

I have no particular love for Harry Reid, but I hope that to the extent the Republicans try to blow this story out of proportion, the Democrats point out every similar example of Republicans doing essentially the same thing, starting with Denny Hastert.

 

[glugglug]

November surprise:

Diebold administrators get nervous and overzealous, giving Republicans a massive majority in both the Senate and the House, over 90% of the vote in some districts where it's difficult to find anyone who didn't vote against the GOP.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I think the October surprise is already upon us with North Korea.

The President's approval ratings have essentially been dropping since we went into Iraq, yet that factor has yet to manifest itself in results at the polls...how Bush won in 2004, and the Republicans maintained their majority, is beyond me given the ill will in this country towards the NeoCon handling of the WOT.

Despite the failures and mistakes of the war in Iraq, Republicans tend to fair well in elections where there are perceived or real threats, particularly in the foreign policy arena...North Korea definitely has our attention now.

How Bush handles North Korea will have an impact on the November elections...especially considering that the GOP has essentially conceeded the House, and are investing all of their resources in what will probably turn out to be several very hot, intense and critical Senate races.

 

[Thump553]

A classic Ocotber surprise is something implemented by (usually the party in power) doing something which they have control of timing. I don't really consider such things as North Korea to fit into this category. I also don't put the Mark Foley scandal it this category either, unless the Bill O'Reilly/ProfJohn conspiracy theories are more than partisan fantasies.

My nomination for October surprise hasn't happened yet, but I predict that within ten days the White House will announce a major new direction in Iraq. I predict that what is now called "cut and run" will essentially be recast and adopted as the nation's policy. The Administration will announce their own, relatively short time table for withdrawal. They will probably recast this as fostering Iraqi self-determination, or saving American lives, or some-such face saving window dressing.

My reasons? The handwriting on the wall-the Brits are on the edge of pulling out on their own and our military leadership almost universally views the present course of action as destructive to the Services and doomed to failure.

This isn't as far-fetched as it initially seems, given the past history of the government's past justifications for this war (war on terror to WMD to programs to develop WMD to the current bring democracy to Muslim countries).

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Harry Reid land deal - Surprise! good one

Surprise, another good one!

What about the Hastert land deal? Does that count? :laugh:
See we can do this all day! :laugh:

 

[CaptnKirk]

Abramoff - the 'Gift' That Keeps On Giving


Supplies, Supplies!

For five years, Allen Stayman wondered who ordered his removal from a State Department job
negotiating agreements with tiny Pacific island nations ? even when his own bosses wanted him to stay.

Now he knows.
Newly disclosed e-mails suggest that the ax fell after intervention by one of the highest officials at the White House:
Ken Mehlman, on behalf of one of the most influential lobbyists in town, Jack Abramoff.

The e-mails show that Abramoff, whose client list included the Northern Mariana Islands, had long opposed Stayman's work advocating
labor changes in that U.S. commonwealth, and considered what his lobbying team called the "Stayman project" a high priority.

"Mehlman said he would get him fired," an Abramoff associate wrote after meeting with Mehlman,
who was then White House political director.

 

[Lemon law]

23 days to go---and counting down---3 weeks and change.

With the GOP in full damage control mode---lots of things could go wrong---few things can go right.

Bank on a few surprises yet---either pro or anti-your party of choice.

 

[1EZduzit]

I caught Brit Hume this morning on FOX saying that by all indications the Dem's were going to take back the house this election.