Carol Platt Liebau: The Democratic "Wave"?

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

The Democratic "Wave"?

Yesterday, this piece forecasting a Democratic "wave" on election day ran in The Washington Post. Today, it's appearing in Seattle and Hartford newspapers.

The question is whether that assessment is "yesterday's news" in more ways than one. Look on the net today. Michael Barone, about the best political analyst out there, asserts the opposite -- that, whatever the outcome, no "wave" is in store.

What's more, sweeping assertions like Ron Brownstein's contention that second- and third-tier Republican congressional seats are coming into play are undermined by more detailed analysis like this, which takes a close look at one of the seats Brownstein has declared to be in jeopardy.

As John Podhoretz points out, it won't be clear who's right until Election Day. Even so, it's damaging for the MSM when readers begin to have access to the kind of detail that creates doubt about hitherto-authoritative old media analysis -- and when the internet gives access to a wide enough spectrum of old media offerings that the echo content character of the MSM becomes patently obvious.


Blogger COPioneer said...

The Dem Wave has crashed, and right behind it is the November Surprise Republican Wave. Just like has happened every election since 1994, especially if all you read is MSM, and listen to NPR.

10:09 AM  
Blogger HappyWash said...

Not true. Though the Dems will not take the Senate, they, according to Fox News and Conservative pundits like Barnes, Krauthammer, Kristol, and Boortz, that the Dems will take the House. Though not a tidal wave, I'd agree, it is a message that many people are not happy with the Congress right now.

And let's not forget that the climate is not the same as it was in 2002 and 2004 when the repubs picked up sseats. During those days, the presidential rating was high (mid-50s to mid-60s), a large majority of people were for the Iraq war, terror was the number one worry of Americans, and there were several "ban gay marriage" bills in swing states to energize the base.

Now? Bush is in the 30's, a large majority is against the war in Iraq, Iraq is now the number one concern of voters, with terror down the list at 10%, and no chance of having a "we re-affirm our ban of gay marriaqe" bills in the swing states. Put all that with stem-cell research being popular with Americans, Foleygate (taking the place of Rathergate), and no end to Iraw in sight, and you have the situation the Republicans are in today.

Plus, you can't compare the exit polls of 2004 to say that all polls are bad in 2006. Exit polls are highly suspect. But take a look at the polls across the the spectrum, including vey conservative polls from the likes of Fox News and others (WSJ), and you'll get a pretty accurate picture of what will most likely happen on Election Day.

Dems will not sweep, not even close, but they will gain in the Senate, and they are almost certain to get the House (Barnes says they will get 18 seats, 3 more than they need. That seems to be the conservative concensus number of seats to the Dems.)

I can be honest and say that the Dems aren't going to get what they expect. Not even close (execpt the House). Can you be honest and say that the Republicans might finally be in trouble?

1:55 PM  
Blogger HappyWash said...

I must say that I did like the article. But you also have to realize that he didn't say it wasn't a "wave." He said they he "couldn't say it was a wave. Not yet."

So it's not quite as optmistic of a turning tide for the republicans piece as it appears. And even he's saying the Dems are going to take the House. And he's the most conservative I've seen, giving only 16 seats.

2:06 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Republicans will keep the House and Senate in November and all three in '08!

9:15 AM  
Blogger kimb1 said...

Wow... you guys must feel really stupid today...Nov 8th. Too bad this probably won't get posted.

5:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home