Arkansas Blog

Poll: Middle Class Voters Abandoning GOP

Oct 27, 7:29 AM (ET)

By LIZ SIDOTI and TREVOR TOMPSON

WASHINGTON (AP) - The 2006 election is shaping up to be a repeat of 1994. This time, Democrats are favored to sweep Republicans from power in the House after a dozen years of GOP rule.

Less than two weeks before the Nov. 7 election, the latest Associated Press-AOL News poll found that likely voters overwhelmingly prefer Democrats over Republicans. They are angry at President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, and say Iraq and the economy are their top issues.

At the same time, fickle middle-class voters are embracing the Democratic Party and fleeing the GOP - just as they abandoned Democrats a dozen years ago and ushered in an era of Republican control.

"I don't think the Republican Party represents what I stand for. The guys I golf with, we're in the middle class, we're getting hurt," says Joseph Altland, 73, a retired teacher in York, Pa. He is a registered Republican but says he is considering becoming an independent.

The AP-AOL News telephone poll of 2,000 adults, 970 of whom are likely voters, was conducted by Ipsos from Oct. 20-25.

In it, 56 percent of likely voters said they would vote to send a Democrat to the House and 37 percent said they would vote Republican - a 19-point difference. Democrats had a 10-point edge in early October.

"I don't care if I vote for Happy the Clown, just so it's not who's there now," said Mary Nyilas, 51, an independent voter from Cologne, N.J. She said she would do everything she could to "vote against the powers that put us in this situation" in Iraq.

In the minority, Democrats need to gain 15 seats in the House and six in the Senate to win control of Congress. They are arguing for a change in leadership and trying to tap into intense public anxiety about the Iraq war as well as discontent with Bush and the Republicans in charge of the House and Senate.

The 2006 election has been likened to 1994, when backlash against the controlling party - then the Democrats - triggered the election of new rulers - in that case, the Republicans.

On Thursday, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., dismissed talk of a sour outlook for the GOP and cited signs of a strong economy. "Things are looking pretty good, and I don't think anybody would really want to change that at this time," he said in Aurora, Ill.

One of Hastert's lieutenants, Rep. Philip English, R-Pa., said that while he senses "a strong anti-Washington blowback ... the conclusion that, therefore, this is going to be an election like '94 or that control of Congress is likely to shift, I don't think is warranted yet. I think this is gong to come down to the wire."

Unlike in 1994 when the GOP offered a policy platform, English said, Democrats "seem unable to unite behind a common theme."

Democrats say history is on their side.

Read the rest @ http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fapnews.myway.com%2Farticle%2F20061027%2FD8L0UR4G0.html

Bad boys, bad boys
Whatcha gonna do?
Whatcha gonna do
When the Dems come for you?

Bad boys, bad boys
Whatcha gonna do?
Whatcha gonna do
When the Dems come for you?

Drudge had an interesting article yesterday about how Democrats have become more competetive by moving far to the right. For example, Harold Ford of Memphis, who ran against Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house, opposes abortion and gay marriage. He also claims to oppose taxes and has voted against tax hikes. I would welcome a new crop of conservative Democrats.

>>Drudge ... Democrats ... moving far to the right.<<

Bah! That's been a neo-con meme for some time now. Here's a nice article from Slate about Oboma, including how it's upsetting that bit of forced CW.

http://www.slate.com/id/2152252/nav/tap1/

Yeah, the cons keep repeating that bit about the Dems moving to the right. They wish!

Did any of you SEE Rumsfeld's press conference? It was frightening to say the least - a meltdown is more apt. Let's review this week. Bush calls a press conference that does no Republican or his own cause any good re: Iraq. He firmly asserts that we are instituting "benchmarks" and "timelines." In other words, we expect quantified results.

The we have Maliki, leader of Iraq, giving a press conference the very next day saying "timelines my ass, and beyond that, what is the US doing invading Sadr City without consulting me!" Unity of purpose? I don't think so.

Then Rumsfeld gives a long and contentious press conference where he scoffs at "timelines," tells the press corp they don't get it, repeats that the situation is "complicated" and tells the press corp to "relax." He even tells them at one point that things will work out and "everyone will have a good time." A GOOD TIME?

He basically told the national and state department press corps that they were too dense to understand his very complicated job and the Iraq situation.

In the meantime we mark one of the deadliest months for US troops in the whole course of the war. I don't think anyone standing at those funerals is going to believe that we should "relax" and that "everyone will have a good time."

All of this is spin anyway, ahead of James Baker's report that is leaking, leaking, leaking but somehow won't be published until AFTER the election. Bush AND Rummy are resisting the fact that the truth - while abundantly evident to every sentient person - is that the war in Iraq is a LOUSY situation accomplishing nothing. Baker is about to say so. They are already trying to appear as if it was THEIR idea to make adjustments - not Baker.

Who, in the commercial media, will put this all together for you? Not one that I know of. But the voting public isn't stupid. With almost no assistance from media analysts or straight news, we're understanding clearly that this administration led us into a useless war with lies and now does not know how to accomplish any positive results or to extricate our troops.

The results of our opinions are going to be seen Nov. 7.