Democrats' message: 'I'm not for Bush, but my opponent is'

[question everything]

Democrats' message: 'I'm not for Bush, but my opponent is'

By Chuck Todd
September 17, 2006

(snip)

If the electorate is as angry as the polls and media indicate, and if that anger is going to be cast upon Bush, then his job-approval rating will start falling again, particularly among likely voters. We should see evidence of that by the end of the month. And the closer Bush's job-approval rating gets to 35 percent, the higher the likelihood that both the House and the Senate will go to the Democrats.

However, if Bush's job-approval rating doesn't fall any further after the initial barrage of September anti-Bush paid media, then the GOP should start believing it can win again. So the first marker to check is Bush's job-approval rating on Oct. 1. The second marker is harder to track because major polls address it differently, but the distinction in the public's mind between the war on terror and the war in Iraq ought to be followed closely. Simply put, if voters are going into the voting booths worried about Iraq, they are probably voting Democrat. If voters are going in worried about terrorism, they are probably voting Republican. I'm not convinced many pollsters are correctly measuring the difference (or lack thereof) in the electorate's mind regarding Iraq and terrorism.

(snip)

The increasing Republican dissent on Rumsfeld and Iraq appears to be step No. 1 in what it takes for a party to lose its grip on power. Whenever a party that's reeling begins moving into “everyone for him/herself” mode, bona fide swing voters – small group that they may be – tend to lose confidence in the disunified band. In a few individual cases, Republicans who break from the administration on Iraq might save their own hides, but they'll be inflicting greater damage to their party nationally. Breaks with the administration do take a toll, with the Democrats' rift with President Bill Clinton in 1994 as Exhibit A.

As for the battlegrounds that will likely determine the majority, there are three critical states in the battle for the Senate and four in the battle for the House. Presumably, in a “change” environment, it's hard to imagine the “out” party losing Senate seats. Barring a collapse by Democrats Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota, Sen. Debbie Stabenow in Michigan or Sen. Maria Cantwell in Washington, the battle should come down to three states: Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee. If Republicans hold two of the three, Democrats cannot win control – period. But if Democrats grab all three, they will win control. Even if they pick up two of the three, they might win control.

(snip)

As for the House, if the Democrats can pick up 10 or more seats in the following four states – Connecticut (three targets), Indiana (three targets), Ohio (three targets) and Pennsylvania (four targets) – they'll grab control. If Republicans hold their combined losses in these four states to single digits, then they just might hold on to congressional power.

(snip)

Todd is editor in chief of The Hotline political report.


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060917/news_mz1e17todd.html

[Erika]

1. W has already dropped in the rasmussen poll

The terrorism bump is over.

[KoKo]

2. Todd says "initial barrage of Sept. anti-Bush paid media." What paid

media? Todd is implying that Democrats are "Paying the Media?" :wow:


However, if Bush's job-approval rating doesn't fall any further after the initial barrage of September anti-Bush paid media, then the GOP should start believing it can win again.

[wiggs]

3. Democrats' message: first step in solving Iraq, Iran, global warming

deficit, rape of environment, N. Korea, etc is to put adults in the WH and bring back checks and balances.

Simple. Honest. True.

Whenever asked what DEMOCRATS would do in Iraq, the obvious answer is to remove the people who have bungled their way to Iraq in the first place.