Fox News poll: Dems lead by 13 on generic ballot; Update: Newsweek columnist: Tomorrow, deal with Saddam’s collaborators

posted at 1:18 pm on November 6, 2006 by Allahpundit

Oh well. All that newfound optimism was making me uneasy anyway. It’s always better to be pessimistic — that way you can never be disappointed.

CNN’s got the generic at 20. Between them and Fox, even if it’s true that polls underestimate Republican support, they don’t underestimate it by 15 points, folks.

Oh, did I mention that Survey USA has Webb ahead of Allen — by seven?

Come home to daddy. Come home to pessimism.

Here’s a little optimism to sweeten the pot: Talent’s back up by one in Missouri, Santorum’s within four according to some pollster I’ve never heard of, and Joementum looks like a mortal lock in Connecticut.

Corker’s up four on Ford in Tennessee too, leading Junior to call in Barack Obama and draw the logical conclusion from their absolute moral authority as black Democrats.

Meanwhile, Hitchens thinks we’re all idiots, the Daily Show expands its stable of fake newsmen for election night, and Americans turn on their televisions and wonder — why is this man smiling?

matthews-today.jpg

Update: Cause for optimism — Dick Morris says we’re going to get blown out.

Update: Rumor has it that Junior’s headed to Wall Street if he flames out against Corker. Why? Because God wants it that way.

Update: Suddenly, Richard Armitage’s deafening silence during Plamegate makes perfect sense:

The former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage – a Republican who opposed the Iraq war – said his party would pay the price for presenting an “angry face” to the world after the September 11 attacks.

“We were showing a very snarly and angry face,” Mr Armitage said. “I think it’s understandable to a certain degree.

“But we’re well past that now, and it’s time to turn another face to the world, back to more traditional things such as the export of hope and opportunity.”

Update: Kos’s upset special? Lamont over Lieberman in Connecticut.

Alas, his other predictions are pretty solid.

Update: Ace makes the arguments that polls by phone almost necessarily oversample Democrats.

Update: Christopher Dickey of Newsweek reminds you to fight the real enemy:

Saddam wanted to keep the Iraqi state together, with well-defended borders, in the face of a growing threat from the wild-eyed mullahs in Iran. He would kill anybody who threatened that design. And in the 1980s the Reagan administration (with a little token hand wringing) thought that was just fine.

The Democrats, while they may be feckless, are largely blameless in this drama. President Jimmy Carter was too busy bungling the Iran hostage crisis to pay much attention to Saddam, and probably was thankful, for a minute or two, when Iraq launched its war on Iran in 1980. By the time Bill Clinton came to office in 1993—after Saddam had invaded Kuwait, been driven out, and been allowed to survive—there wasn’t that much left for an American president to do, unless he wanted to invade the country, topple the dictator, occupy Baghdad and … well, the Clinton administration had other priorities

You remember President George W. Bush smugly telling The Washington Post in January 2005, “We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections.”

Another accountability moment is coming. Sunday was judgment day for Saddam, who probably will hang. Tuesday will be judgment day for Republicans. What will happen to them afterward, well, we’ll have to wait and see.

Update: Dan Riehl says the Webb-Allen poll is FUBAR.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Constantine wrote: “Oh georgej! You never fail to deliver with the hackneyed neocon phrases.”

Do you like your “Grape Kool-aid” sweetened with sugar or with artificial sweetner? If the latter, “Pink” or “Blue” packages? Just curious.

georgej on November 6, 2006 at 5:21 PM

Polls, polls, polls!
There are many people now, and I am one, who will never be part of a telephone poll because I don’t have a land telephone line. I gave it up when I bought a cell phone. Dewey Defeats Truman, indeed!

Troy Rasmussen on November 6, 2006 at 5:26 PM

The Communist Party is supporting Democrats on their website. Even with this being completely expected … I believe this could actually turn quite a few votes.

Anyone out there with a blog … please spread get this out.

Gregor on November 6, 2006 at 5:39 PM

Polls, polls, polls!
There are many people now, and I am one, who will never be part of a telephone poll because I don’t have a land telephone line. I gave it up when I bought a cell phone. Dewey Defeats Truman, indeed!

Troy Rasmussen on November 6, 2006 at 5:26 PM

I’m with ya there Troy. There are plenty of other reasons to doubt the polls too, but that one is a biggie. I only have a cell, and this trend is increasing within the public. But then there are still questions about how they decide who to call. Talking to my 76 year old grandmother today, she’s never gotten a polling call. I know most people I’ve talked to haven’t, yet you have some people who get called every season, sometimes more than once.

Also, I have to point out how funny it is that you’re questioning the poll and your name is Rasmussen. Mr. Pew and Mrs. Gallup can’t be far behind.

RightWinged on November 6, 2006 at 5:42 PM

The Communist Party is supporting Democrats on their website. Even with this being completely expected … I believe this could actually turn quite a few votes.

Anyone out there with a blog … please spread get this out.

Gregor on November 6, 2006 at 5:39 PM

Is it a secret? Hell, we’re moving the only self-identified elected socialist in Washington from the House to the Senate. I’m praying Bernie doesn’t win, but it doesn’t look good. However support on the streets would seem to give a different impression, so I’m holding out a bit of hope. But at the same time, I do realize I’m in Vermont.

RightWinged on November 6, 2006 at 5:44 PM

Chafee? Who cares?

I’m sorry to say that I do. I need to look into getting a “Don’t blame me, I voted for Steve Laffey! bumper sticker. Or maybe, “I was against Chaffee before I was for him.”

I’m still calling this one Senator Whitehouse.

Ptooooi!

Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 6:19 PM

The Communist Party is supporting Democrats on their website.

…it’s the pot calling the kettle…er…red….

Puritan1648 on November 6, 2006 at 6:36 PM

what is with FOX, man bill kristol buger and fred “let the cat out of the” barns are spelling dome.

how do you do a generic congressional poll. why not list all 435 of them, or even better yet list the so called 50 toss ups.

get out the vote, pray for ice in northern virginia, rain in old saint luueeey.
friends, country men lend me your phones, voices and feet. get out the vote.

i am in north carolina, sorry i can’t vote for one of the TOSS up races.

oh, sorry about Sen. Dole i hope we can replace her with someone who lives here.

All the jokes aside, people really just Pray for Gods help to help change minds and hearts. Forget taxes, stem cell — this election is about defeating terror.

Pray, Pray, Pray, Pray, then VOTE, Pray, Pray, Pray some more.

Ross

kara26 on November 6, 2006 at 7:27 PM

I freaking hate political hacks like Morris, Kristol, etc. They live in the Inside the Beltway la-la land. They don’t know ANYTHING about the real America. Real Americans know that we are in a fight for our lives agains a subhuman enemy that will massacre us if they are given the chance and the Demoncrats will give them that chance if they win. If you give in to this freaking pessimisim that permeates this site, then you give aid and comfort to the enemy that is the Demoncrat Party. A vote for a Demoncrat is a vote for terrorism and defeat so that make ALL Demoncrats terrorists. I will never retract that so there.

marianpaul on November 6, 2006 at 7:31 PM

I freaking hate political hacks like Morris, Kristol, etc. They live in the Inside the Beltway la-la land. They don’t know ANYTHING about the real America.

Kristol is a lot smarter than you think… remember, he was one of the architects of 9/11.

RightWinged on November 6, 2006 at 7:42 PM

A vote for a Demoncrat is a vote for terrorism and defeat so that make ALL Demoncrats terrorists

And you have the nerve to say other people are living in la la land? You just called 100 million+ American citizens terrorists.

JaHerer22 on November 6, 2006 at 8:33 PM

Yes I did and I stand by my claim. If you vote for the Demoncrats you are a poor American at best and a traitor at worst. Demoncrats offer nothing and all they do is take.

marianpaul on November 6, 2006 at 8:49 PM

Okay, as you can tell I’m a little bit ticked. Maybe I need to go do a little Tai Chi and calm down. Get my blood pressure down some. Maybe saying that all Democrats are terrorists was a bit over the top. The average Demo is not a terrorist and I apologize for going that far. I do think that the Demo leadership and the nutroots are poor Americans at best and traitors at worst but those Demo’s that are not part of either group are not. So if I’ve offended anyone here, I’m sorry.

marianpaul on November 6, 2006 at 9:01 PM

Listening….nope…nothing yet….um…. Nope still ain’t been polled myself. Polls are BS.

tickleddragon on November 6, 2006 at 10:12 PM

I take comfort in the circumstance that, when one looks at nature, change, or the way the world is, one sees that shrewdness tends to overcome stupidity, strength tends to overcome weakness, growth tends to overcome stagnation, flexibility tends to overcome rigidity, and multitude tends to overcome fewness. If, in the long run, I win in the company of my friends, I’ll be satisfied and happy; however, if not, I aim to rest satisfied, regardless.

Kralizec on November 6, 2006 at 10:39 PM

Meanwhile, Hitchens thinks we’re all idiots…

c
Comforting to know that at least some things never change :-)

RD on November 7, 2006 at 12:11 AM

Saddam’s collaborators? You mean this guy?

Constantine on November 7, 2006 at 12:32 AM

No silly, Rumsfeld was Reagan’s envoy, not Saddam’s bridge partner.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Leave it to Constantine to get every last one of them wrong.

Pablo on November 7, 2006 at 3:00 AM

Constantine wrote: “Saddam’s collaborators? You mean this guy? [link to photo of Rumsfeld]

Constantine, you’re a real moonbat asshole as well as an outright liar. And you really need to be bitchslapped.

Rumsfeld was meeting with a HEAD OF STATE as a representative of the United States government and was not collaborating with Saddam. It is customary to shake hands at such events. It doesn’t make you “friends” or “good buddies,” or anything else. It is a SOCIAL GRACE (something you moonbat assholes know nothing about) and has no meaning beyond that.

The UNITED STATES was not an ally of Saddam’s regime. We had a common interest in seeing that Iran LOST THEIR WAR with Iraq and that was all. There was no military cooperation, or military coordination between Iraq and the USA and no military aid beyond a few transport helos. In fact, had their been coordination with them as alies, Saddam’s air force would not have fired two Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles at the USS Stark, casuing considerable damage and nearly sinking the ship and killing 37 sailors.

The actual allies (collaborators) of Saddam’s are listed below, data compiled by the PEACENIKS at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (www.sipri.org):

According to figures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute between 1973 and 2002 Russia supplied 57 per cent of Saddam’s arms imports, France 13 per cent and China 12 per cent. The US supplied at most just 1 per cent and Britain significantly less than that. Brazil supplied more weaponry to Saddam than the US and Britain combined. No wonder France, Russia and China declined to support action to disarm one of their best customers. And no wonder they are so keen to have their pet UN run the country now. We cannot have any inconvenient invoices falling into the wrong hands now, can we?

[Michael Gove, “The fiction of the peaceniks is overdue for pulping”, 4/8/2003, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-638446,00.html]

But, if you are looking for collaborators with terrorists, gaze upon this picture. Yeah. That’s Clinton, his wife, and his pedophilic, boy-raping, “good buddy” Yassar Arafat who spent more time in the Lincoln bedroom than any other foreign leader.

Rumsfeld met with Saddam YEARS BEFORE Saddam invaded Kuwait and became our confirmed enemy. Clinton repeatedly met with Arafat YEARS AFTER ARAFAT ORDERED THE MURDERES OF TWO US DIPLOMATS. Who is the real collaborator here, fool! Can you figure it out?

georgej on November 7, 2006 at 3:00 AM

you’re a real moonbat asshole as well as an outright liar. And you really need to be bitchslapped.

Hey George, I was asking a question. Other people here have no problem being polite and respectful… well, at least polite. Why can’t you?

Thanks for another rambling screed that avoids the issue. We both know there are many ways of knowingly supporting a brutal dictator other than providing weapons. Are you suggesting Rummy and Reagan weren’t aware of the kind of person they were dealing with? You think their support didn’t help enable Hussein to invade Kuwait?

I’m not sure what Clinton has to do with this discussion, except that it’s a typical diversionary tactic. Brilliant logic there.

Constantine on November 7, 2006 at 10:07 AM

Constantine wrote: “Other people here have no problem being polite and respectful… well, at least polite. Why can’t you?”

“I’m not sure what Clinton has to do with this discussion, except that it’s a typical diversionary tactic. Brilliant logic there.”

1. Other people don’t constantly troll dropping DISPROVEN nonsense to inflame and alarm others the way that you do.

2. You openly and deliberately accused Donald Rumsfeld to be a collaborator of Saddam Hussein. You were not asking a question — you were SMEARING A REPUBLICAN just because you could and because you are a Bush-hater. You did so with malice aforethought, and think that you were being “cute” in the process. Well, boyo, you are neither cute nor correct.

3. The definition of collaborator is:

1. to work, one with another; cooperate, as on a literary work: They collaborated on a novel.
2. to cooperate, usually willingly, with an enemy nation, esp. with an enemy occupying one’s country: He collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.

[Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=collaborator%5D

I defy you to prove that a STATE VISIT, as part of the process to reinstate diplomatic relations with a foreign government by an official of the United States Government is willingly working with an enemy country or is working together in any kind of “joint project.”

4. Under any definition, common or legal or even diplomatic, neither Donald Rumsfeld, nor his boss, the President of the United States, was a collaborator or an accomplice before or after the fact with respect to the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein, an independent HEAD OF STATE of an INDEPENDENT NATION, which was the context in which you made your accusation.

The state visit to Iraq occurred in 1983 and diplomatic relations were restored in 1984, years before the crimes committed by Saddam for which he was condemned, and year before the United States went to war with Iraq over the invasion of Kuwait.

Your statement was a lie, a deliberate defamation, and was manufactured with malice aforethought out of whole cloth. It has no basis in fact. It is a continuation of YOUR practice of revising history (i.e., telling lies) to suit your political agenda.

5. It is a FACT that Yassar Arafat ordered the murder of 2 United States Government officials in Khartoum in 1973. The fact that a SUBSIQUENT President of the United States, armed with the knowledge that Arafat was not only a murderer and a terrorist, but ONE WHO HAS ORDERED THE KILLING OF AMERICAN DIPLOMATS, treated Afafat as an honored guest, repeatedly and more often than long time allies of the United States, acted to legitimize these crimes against the United States of America committed by Arafat, who was feted as an honored guest without apology or reparations for the crimes he committed against the United States of America.

Contrasted to the behavior of Clinton’s successor, President George W. Bush, who refused to meet with Yassar Arafat, the behavior of President Clinton was collaboration in the common and legal definition as well as being an accomplice after the fact in the murder of 2 US Government officials.

6. It is true that I used harsh language in responding to you. For this I apologize. I should have responded in the same vein as Pablo did and humiliate you as the silly, ignorant little partisan lying git you are. I promise you I will do better next time.

georgej on November 7, 2006 at 3:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2