This is the graphic that the USA Today is running at the top of a story that paints a pretty good picture for Democrats in November:
Democrats had a 23-point lead over Republicans in every group of people questioned — likely voters, registered voters and adults — on which party's House candidate would get their vote. That's double the lead Republicans had a month before they seized control of Congress in 1994 and the Democrats' largest advantage among registered voters since 1978.And by 'inconclusive' I'm assuming he means 'failed.'
Nearly three in 10 registered voters said their representative doesn't deserve re-election — the highest level since 1994. President Bush's approval rating was 37% in the new poll, down from 44% in a Sept. 15-17 poll. And for the first time since the question was asked in 2002, Democrats did better than Republicans on who would best handle terrorism, 46%-41%.
"It's hard to see how the climate is going to shift dramatically between now and Election Day," said John Pitney, a former GOP aide on Capitol Hill who now teaches at Claremont-McKenna College in California. He said Iraq remains the biggest problem for Republicans: "People just don't like inconclusive wars."
Government corruption, Iraq and terrorism were the three most important issues. Along with their lead on terrorism, Democrats had a 21-point advantage on corruption and a 17-point advantage on Iraq. A 56%-40% majority said sending troops to Iraq was a mistake — the widest disapproval margin in a year.All of this looks great. As I mentioned in the title, have we reached the point where even Diebold can't 'cover the spread?' It's easy to steal an election when polling indicates that the race is going to be very close but when the projected 5 or 8 point winner suddenly loses, questions come up.
If we haven't reached the point where the Republicans feel that they can't Diebold this election, have we reached the point where Democrats will stand and fight if they do?
I think we have.
Democrats Republicans 2006 Elections Polls