Nationalizing Mid-Term Elections?
For the past several months, we've been seeing a lot of bad numbers for Republicans.
Of course, there are three types of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics -- so you've always got to question the accuracy of polls. For example, do they measure intensity?, do they poll only "likely" voters?, do the national numbers matter (in the case of primary elections, they don't), etc.
However, when it comes to '06 mid-term elections, this is, perhaps, the scariest thing I've read...
"Asked which would be more important in determining how they vote, their own representative's position on national issues or their representative's performance in their district, 44% said 'national issues' and 40% said performance in the district. That's a greater percentage choosing 'national issues' than in October 1994 (35%)."
Based on recent poll numbers, -- and President Bush's current approval ratings -- if Democrats are able to "nationalize" the elections in November, we could be looking at two very long years...
Of course, there are three types of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics -- so you've always got to question the accuracy of polls. For example, do they measure intensity?, do they poll only "likely" voters?, do the national numbers matter (in the case of primary elections, they don't), etc.
However, when it comes to '06 mid-term elections, this is, perhaps, the scariest thing I've read...
"Asked which would be more important in determining how they vote, their own representative's position on national issues or their representative's performance in their district, 44% said 'national issues' and 40% said performance in the district. That's a greater percentage choosing 'national issues' than in October 1994 (35%)."
Based on recent poll numbers, -- and President Bush's current approval ratings -- if Democrats are able to "nationalize" the elections in November, we could be looking at two very long years...
posted by Matt Lewis at 9:32 AM
Subscribe
<< Home