Rove Confident GOP Will Retain House and Senate (Updated)

The Architect remains, to all outward appearances, serene and confident about the upcoming midterm elections. So confident, in fact, that the Washington Post described the attitude of Rove and President Bush as "inexplicably confident".

Rove explains that the weakness of Democrats on security issues will lead to their downfall at the ballot box. Money quote from the Washington Times:

"It is useful to remind people what [Democrats] said and what they do. I think they have given us here, especially in the last couple of weeks, a potent set of votes to talk about. You had 90 percent of House Democrats voting against the terrorist-surveillance program, nearly three-quarters of Senate Democrats and 80 percent of House Democrats voting against the terrorist-interrogation act. Something is fundamentally flawed."
But the Washington Post, and others, are wondering if Rove and Bush know something that the rest of us don't.

For instance, what if this story, or something almost as significant, like the capture or death of Zawahiri, is about to be confirmed?

Update: Maybe this is the answer. Jim Geraghty, who literally wrote the book, has serious doubts about the validity of recent polls:

Finally, King over with SCSU Scholars is looking at a poll that had Patty Wetterling up 48-40 over Michele Bachmann in the Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District Race. He notes that poll's sample was 58 percent women. It's not uncommon to have more women voters than men voters, but it's usually closer to 51-49. Also, in a district that supported Bush, 57 to 42 percent, the sample was Republican 30 percent, Democrat 34 percent, and Independent 23 percent.

That's the kind of poll that emits an odor.

Update II: From the comments at The Dread Pundit Bluto; why Dem control of the House would be a disaster, and why jihadis want so very much for it to happen:
We'll take the house, but it will be just this side of meaningless. The only satisfaction will be the hearings that will start. We spent 140 hours during Clinton checking into if they used the White House invitee list for fundraising, while less than 50 hours was spent on Halliburton. That will change.
Peter in Hastings | 10.18.06 - 2:51 pm | #

Posted by: Bluto at 09:49 AM

Comments

1 Why yes indeed . . .. let's review YouTube video "Why Vote Republican":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJmbomyq0fcmode=relatedsearch=

And then review the charts posted at Doug Ross' place . . .spot on!

All the news
that's not fit to print - http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/10/all-news-thats-not-fit-to-print-shhhhh.html
Also remember The New York Times selects all the government secrets it deems fit to
print- obscures or ignores the positive gains, in turn reflecting
earnings (ha!) on this five year chart:



http://www.investorguide.com/stock-charts.cgi?osymb=NYTsiteid=8BD6B6FD-860E-46B8-9949

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at October 18, 2006 11:02 AM

2 DPB,

Harken back to the heady days of the Sandinistas and the Contras. Remember how the dems handcuffed Reagan and pulled funding for our support of the anti-communist forces in Costa Rica? They are merely doing the same old cut and run crap here as well. That was what got Bush senior eleced despite his dirty hands in the Iran/Contra scandal. It is also why they cannot hope to make advances in the next election. Most of America still realizes we are at war.

Posted by: SeeMonk at October 18, 2006 11:14 AM

3 Rove Co. have enough money to put an effective push here at the last minute, they have internal polls that are much better than the biased ones published, and despite dealing with scum still have the better package.

No, all the press is doing is setting up the left for another disappointment that they can not fathom or explain. It can't be possible that they lost after EVERYONE said we were going to win. The only 'logical' explanation is that Rove stole the election. Yeah, that's it...

Prepare yourself for yet another round of Bush/Rove/Diebold stole the election from us.

Posted by: ken at October 18, 2006 11:43 AM

4 Why do voters need some extrordinary epiphany before election day to vote against democrats? Even here where my corrupt local GOP congressman presides, I'll need to be very intoxicated to vote for a Dem.

Posted by: whocares at October 18, 2006 01:02 PM

5 I wonder what dirty trick Rove has up his sleave.

Posted by: Greg at October 18, 2006 02:21 PM

6 Mox Nix. The elections are rigged. Why don't they just go ahead and declare victory now and be done with it?

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 18, 2006 02:47 PM

7 Howard Dean said Dems will take Texas once again and the media covered it like it was gospel. Sorry, butthat just make me laugh!

Posted by: RepJ at October 18, 2006 06:14 PM

8 Never sell Rove short ... despite all odds, he's proven he knows how to win elections for George Bush. Now if he could only extend that knowledge to actually governing once the victory has been sewn up, ah, then we'd have something.

Posted by: Gleep! at October 18, 2006 06:15 PM

9 Hmm? Despite all odds? That must mean Rover knows how to fix oil prices to lull the populace into a everything is goingjolly feeling, despite their lack of health insurance and retirement. Rover doesn't need to worry about the odds, because he must have every voting machine rigged to beat the odds. How else can you explain the dog which is still presiding in the White House between golf games and 5-week war-time vacations? Fore! L o ~~~~~~~~~ O7

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 18, 2006 08:57 PM

10 Well, gee - what else is he gonna say?

"OH MY GOD, WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOOMED!"?

Posted by: mojo at October 18, 2006 10:53 PM

11 Kinky will win in Texas.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 19, 2006 07:12 AM






Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0065 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0048 seconds, 19 records returned.
Page size 12 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.