gwcubamug

Wilson’s Krystal Ball: Election 2006 Predictions


by Glynn Wilson

Turning to the polls online to look for hope or impending disaster on election day 2006, it is surprising to find the online pollsters more optimistic for the Democratic Party than even the national corporate broadcast media at this point.

It’s a balanced picture on TV, of course, with the Republicans coming back in the end.

But the best pollsters seem to think it’s over and the Democrats will take back both houses of Congress.

We are not so sure, due to the “too close to call” nature of many races – and our fear that the Republicans will likely do their best to disengranchise voters where they can and “steal” any close election.

Let’s hope the pollsters are right.

According to the Cook Political Report, the Democratic Party should pick up 20 to 35 seats in the House, four to six seats in the Senate and a six to eight more governor’s races than the GOP.

“All Monday there was considerable talk that the national picture had suddenly changed and that there was a significant tightening in the election,” Cook says, but it’s not true.

“This was based in part on two national polls that showed the generic congressional ballot test having tightened to four (Pew) and six (ABC/Wash Post) points,” he says.

But seven national polls have been conducted since Wednesday, November 1 and give Democrats an average lead of 11.6 percentage points, “larger than any party has had going into an Election Day in memory.”

Even if you knock five points off of it for the margin of error, it’s 6.6 percentage points, he says, “bigger than the advantage that Republicans had going into 1994.”

“Furthermore, there is no evidence of a trend in the generic ballot test,” he argues.

In chronological order of interviewing (using the midpoint of field dates), the margins were: 15 points (Time 11/1-3), 6 points (ABC/Wash Post), 4 points (Pew), 7 points (Gallup), 16 points (Newsweek), 20 points (CNN) and 13 points (Fox).

In individual races, some Republican pollsters see some movement, voters “coming home,” in their direction, and/or some increase in intensity among GOP voters,” he says. But “all seem to think that it was too little, too late to significantly change the outcome.”

It might be enough to save a few candidates, but no one thinks it is a major change in the dynamics of races.

For all the details on each individual race, go to the Cook Political Report.

Sabato’s Crystal Ball is predicting about the same result, 4, 5 or 6 seats going to the Democrats, “resting party control of the Senate squarely on the edge of the butter knife,” according to Larry J. Sabato and David Wasserman of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

“We think the Democrats may replicate their feat from 1986 (the sixth year election of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency) and capture just enough seats to take over,” they said. When they add together all their predictions, Democrats pick up six seats, “sufficient to wrest control from the GOP.”

For all the details on each individual race, go to Sabato’s Crystal Ball.

So, it looks good tonight, but don’t count on it. Go to the polls yourself and make it happen. Your future freedom depends on it.

If the power does change hands, it means above all, that Rep. John Conyers will become chair of the House Judiciary Committee. No one is campaigning on the issue, but he will no doubt launch a major investigation into President George W. Bush’s war crimes and bring articles of impeachment against the dicktater in chief.

He’s already drawn up the articles and held hearings in the Capitol basement, since the Republicans would not use their Constitutional oversight responsibilities to do the right thing for their country. They won’t even give him a room or put his hearings on the agenda.

It’s at least worth an investigation, some hearings, a national discussion and a damn vote. Otherwise, we are a democratic republic no more and the world will never believe us or look up to us again…

2 thoughts on “Wilson’s Krystal Ball: Election 2006 Predictions

  1. Jeff

    Your conclusions about the need for an investigation into Bush and equating his actions with war crimes are ludicrous. By all means, if an investigation is necessary, let’s do it, but it sure sounds like sour grapes.

    “Clinton escaped impeachment but was humiliated, so let’s do the same thing to Bush.”

    Here’s a new one for you… if the Democrats take control, let’s all MOVE FORWARD. Progress! If all the Democrats offer is a vengeful, looking-back scenario for the future, they don’t deserve to be in the leadership they refuse to accord to the Republicans.

    Change is needed, but your version of the future is more alarming than what we presently have.

  2. fast2write

    Guess you didn’t read and digest what I said. The only way to regain credibilty in the world and show that we are a nation of laws and perhaps to stop the “scary” terrorism would be to hold Bush accountable. Seems to me allowing him to get off the hook is the more scary scenario…

Comments are closed.