On Tuesday, the Howey Political Report which covers Indiana politics reported on the results of a poll from Indiana 08. In a head to head poll, between John Hostettler (R) and Brad Ellsworth (D), Ellsworth was leading by 3 points (44 to 41) almost a year before the election. This in a district that Bush won 63% to Kerry’s 37%.

There are some circumstances that are unique to the district; though I think it verifies some of the national polling we’ve seen where generic dems are trouncing generic Repubs.

First, as Kos pointed out when he wrote about the poll this is technically a partisan poll. The pollster Garin-Hart-Yang, is a Democratic firm, though in this case you can caveat yourself out of some pretty important info. While Yang is partisan, he knows Indiana, and if you look at the 2004 presidential numbers in the poll, they almost perfectly reflect how the district went, Bush performed at 63/ Yang had 59 of voters voting for him. Yang is highly respected in the world of polling, so I don’t think a partisan label on the pollster had anything to do with these numbers. I think Yang dropped a poll and released his numbers when he saw Hostettler was doing so badly this far out.

From the Election Law Blog this morning. The Bush Administration DOJ has apparently instituted new rules that bar staff attorneys from writing any recommendations of voting rights cases, thus giving its political appointees at DOJ carte-blanche to cement voting rights changes made by Republicans, which is exactly what they did in the Texas redistricting case.

I've been hesitant to front-page something that is really a cut out of an article partly because there's so much great analysis that goes on here at MYDD. There's nothing I can say that isn't said in the Washington Post this morning. If this had been the Soviet Union, a third world dictatorship, or Venezuela the State Department would have rightly handed down a statement of condemnation. Democrats always say the Voting Rights Division of the DOJ gets gutted at the beginning of any Republican administration. What the Bush Administration just did was completely remove the one last, albeit small road bump from the process. A Republican majority by any means possible.

As Republicans scurry to avoid having to take responsibility for what appears to be a tenuous political map in 2006, there’s a far larger problem looming after the 2006 elections.

The quasi-parliamentary system that the Republican majority has built is entirely dependent on delivering votes for Bush, who in turn blesses his popularity and cash onto down ticket Republicans. The system worked wonderfully in 2002 and partly in 2004 in consolidating the Republican position. Mark Schmidt describes the system beautifully at his site, but like the English parliamentary system the performance of the prime minister can completely scuttle the image of the party.

Inside the 36 positive/ 60 negative view that the country has of Bush, Bush is plummeting with “traditional Republicans” in state after state, especially in places where Republican hopefuls have to campaign for the nomination in 2008.  

There are two composites of these voters that most reporters have not begun to fully grasp just yet.

First, despite the best wishes of Republican activists, these voters are not more conservative than Bush. If you look at polling from some of the hot button issues from the last year, it’s been voters who safely vote Republican but can’t be considered part of the religious right, the anti-tax right, or the “kill the poor right.” 

In my opinion, the thrust of the Bush campaign that was so successful in 2004 was the ability to reassure the far right without turning off moderate voters who if they were presented the same message would have quickly turned against the Bush/Cheney ticket. After a series of losses where Republicans reached for what they promised, the moderate Republicans soured and pushed back.