Current status of election 13 Days to go

What a wave election looks like


There are a lot of reasons so many people are calling 2010 a “wave election.” A wave election is one in which one party is voted out in large numbers. So is this really a wave election? Let’s look at the evidence.

To start with, the REPUBLICANS ARE RAISING A LOT MORE MONEY than the Democrats as many of the big money Democrat contributors are sitting this one out. They don’t see much point in spending money on a lost cause.

Secondly, if you look at the house seats in play you get a horrible picture if you are a Democrat. Back in August in the Real Clear Politic scoreboard, the Republicans had 202 seats that were safe, likely or leaning Republican while the Democrats had 201. Looking today you see the REPUBLICANS HAVE 213 IN THOSE CATEGORIES WHICH THE DEMOCRATS HAVE 179. The remaining 43 are toss ups with 41 of those being Democrat seats and 2 being Republicans. Overall the Democrats have 123 (48% of their current number) seats that are considered safe and the Republicans have 163 (91% of their current number).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map.html

We are seeing most GENERIC POLLS SHOWING THE REPUBLICANS WITH BIG LEADS. Gallup currently has the Republicans anywhere from 17% to 13% up while Rasmussen has them up 9% (see the story below). In past elections, these polls generally underestimated the strength of the Republicans. The numbers in favor the Republicans have never been this high before.

Next you see the DEMOCRATS ABANDONING A NUMBER OF SEATS (withdrawing financial support) while Republicans suddenly find themselves adding seats they are going after.

Finally, this phenomenon is happening NOT JUST IN THE HOUSE, BUT THE SENATE AND THE GOVERNOR’S MANSIONS. And rather than simply a “wave” this election might turn out to be a tsunami.



TEA Party Candidates appear to be quick learners, Democrat pols, not so much

Sharron Angle helped herself in the one and only debate against the often incoherent Harry Reid. In the post-debate Rasmussen Poll, she is up by three points.


Meanwhile, in the Kentucky Senate race, Democrat Jack Conway released a simply bizarre ad attacking Rand Paul’s Christianity. (Even Jonathan Chait finds the ad revolting.) The Paul campaign was justifiably indignant and struck back with an ad of its own.


So here are two Tea Party–backed candidates with a propensity to blow themselves up with controversial statements. But two weeks before the election, THEY ARE DEMONSTRATING THE SORT OF DISCIPLINE AND FOCUS ONE WOULD EXPECT OF THEIR MORE POLITICALLY EXPERIENCED RIVALS. It is the Democrats in both these races who seem in over their heads, if not downright desperate.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/374451
In fact there is a smell of desperation across the country as Democrats keep losing ground.

Generic Poll still shows Republicans way up

Election Day is just two weeks away, and REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES HOLD A NINE-POINT LEAD OVER DEMOCRATS on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, October 17, 2010.


Forty-eight percent (48%) of respondents say they would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate, while 39% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

Even more worrisome for Democrats, however, is the finding that AMONG THE VOTERS WHO ARE MOST CLOSELY FOLLOWING THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS REPUBLICANS HOLD A 55% TO 36% LEAD.

While the margin has varied somewhat from week-to-week, Republicans have been consistently ahead on the Generic Ballot for over a year, and their lead has run as high as 12 points and as low as three points. When Barack Obama first took office as president of the United States, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point lead on the Generic Ballot.

AMONG VOTERS NOT AFFILIATED WITH EITHER MAJOR PARTY, REPUBLICANS HOLD A 17-POINT LEAD.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot


'Ten years' to solve nature crisis, UN meeting hears

Delegates will consider adopting new set of targets for 2020 that aim to tackle biodiversity loss


The UN biodiversity convention meeting has opened with warnings that the ongoing loss of nature is hurting human societies as well as the natural world.


The two-week gathering aims to set new targets for conserving life on Earth.


Japan's Environment Minister Ryo Matsumoto said biodiversity loss would become irreversible unless curbed soon.

Much hope is being pinned on economic analyses showing the loss of species and ecosystems is costing the global economy trillions of dollars each year.

The tune is familiar but the lyrics have changed. AGW is pretty much dead as a cause, but here comes biodiversity. A different problem, but with the same basic solution. And notice we have that same 10 year time frame.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11563513


Leftist arrogance demonstrates lack of knowledge

Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Over the past few days we’ve had two examples of this.

First in a debate between Christine O’Donnell and Chris Coons O’Donnell asked him where in the Constitution is there “the separation of church and state?” Coons answered quoting the establishment clause. Thinking he had scored a big one, he came back “I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”

“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.

“Yes,” Coons responded.

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.

In the meantime Sarah Palin telling people to keep working and not to party like it’s 1773 showed again arrogance by leftist is something they may want keep in check. After she said it, the leftist’s blogsphere went crazy making fun of her again. It appears this particular group thought she didn’t know the Declaration of Independence didn’t happen until 1776. But what could you be referring to when addressing a lot of tea party folks that happened in 1773? Hmm, I wonder? Could it be the actual Boston Tea Party?