It is no longer a “given” that the Democrats will gain at least one house of Congress in the November elections — and the latest poll shows trend that should make Democrats nervous:

Amid falling gas prices and a two-week drive to highlight his administration’s efforts to fight terrorism, President Bush’s approval rating has risen to 44% in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. That’s his highest rating in a year.

The poll also showed likely voters evenly divided between Democratic and Republican candidates for Congress, 48%-48%. Among registered voters, Democrats had a 51%-42% advantage.

With some 6 weeks to go before the election, if this trend continues, then a few weeks from now you would not be going out on a limb to predict the Republicans hold onto Congress:

The results come seven weeks before closely contested elections for control of Congress. Republicans have struggled to overcome problems, including Bush’s low ratings, continuing violence in Iraq and the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.

They also come as terrorism is making headlines: an alleged plot to blow up planes headed from Britain to the USA, the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and weeks of focus by Bush and other top Republicans on terrorism and whether Democrats can protect the country.

The new findings reflect “a consistent, persistent, tenacious effort to make … the Republican Party’s ability to deal with terrorism the No. 1 issue in the campaign,” said political scientist Richard Eichenberg of Tufts University, who has studied presidential job ratings during wartime. He called it “a carbon copy” of the successful 2004 playbook.

It’s the trend of polls that’s most important. So far polls have shown a show climb by Bush and the Congressional GOP. If these trends continue future polls will likely show a GOP advantage. If there’s a significant terrorist incident before the elections of another threatening tape from Osama bin Laden that could solidify it.

The bottom line: this poll shows Bush and the GOP in ascension with the Democrats losing their one-time big poll advantage.

— In yesterday’s Los Angeles Times, before this poll came out,Harvard History prof Niall Ferguson had an op-ed piece titled The GOP Will Hang On that said to ignore all the pundits (and blogs) — that the GOP will end the election still in control of Congress. Read it here.
Bull Moose notes that traditional Conservatives who had been recently talking about how good it’d be for the party to lose 2006 may now be disappointed — and how a Democratic win based on anti-Bush fervor won’t solve what he sees as internal Democratic party structural problems. He then writes:

The Moose urges all politicos to curb their enthusiasm. As much that is at stake in 2006, the election does not matter that much. Regardless of the outcome in November, the American people aren’t particularly thrilled with either party.

The question of the moment is which party will reform itself to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate in 2008, and be able to both win the Presidency and govern with a strong bi-partisan majority?

–Some other polls have shown other things.

Glenn Reynolds aka InstaPundit:”It was never really a given that the Dems would take back Congress, and these polls certainly don’t make it a given that they won’t. Beware of poll fever! In the short term, however, these polls may reduce the extent of GOP defection from Bush’s legislative agenda, which may actually help the Republicans hold on to Congress.”

JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Leave a replyComments (35)
  1. MichaelF September 19, 2006 at 9:58 am

    Watch those falling gas prices .

  2. jim b September 19, 2006 at 10:42 am

    A new poll stating repubs are doing well, tomorrows poll, Dems are doing well. Ho hum. What matters are the big races such as Santorum and say maybe Conrad Burns. Taking over either house isn’t as important as pushing the extremes, of either party, out. If the extreme right is pushed out, that allows for the moderate conservatives to take back control of their party, and that is huge. It really doesn’t matter which party is in control, it matters what they do w/ that control.

  3. Mr. Moderate September 19, 2006 at 10:56 am

    Wow it’s 2004 all over again. Who would have thought the Democrats fumble the ball again. Remind me why I’m totally disillusioned with American politics again?

  4. Jimmy September 19, 2006 at 11:00 am

    Another Bush/Rove rope-a-dope. Some people never learn.

  5. Elrod September 19, 2006 at 11:06 am

    Gallup is notorious for bouncing all over the place. Next Gallup poll will show Bush “plunging” back to 39%. Why? Because Bush never actually rose to 44% in the first place. The big warning light is the bogus likely voter model that puts the Congressional race at 48-48 but registered voters at 51-42 Democrat. Hmm, so all those polls throughout the summer and fall showing unusual Democratic intensity get thrown out the window? I smell a rat. Fortunately, it’s Gallup, and they have a tendency to bounce around this way. If a more respected outfit like Pew showed a major uptick then I’d be worried. Hopefully the false Bush comeback media narrative will motivate the Democrats to drive the dagger home on the Republicans.

  6. Elrod September 19, 2006 at 11:23 am

    I read through Niall Ferguson’s article and found it mostly unpersuasive. He cherry-picks data on terrorism and Iraq, ignoring that even the bogus pro-Bush Gallup likely voter model shows a plurality separating terrorism from Iraq. And his comments about all politics being local are generally belied by the polling showing this an unusually nationalized election. The part that’s most persuasive is the bit about the economy. In fact, the reason Bush has genuinely risen about two points over the last month is because of the fall in gas prices. Professor Pollkatz’s model is pretty convincing. That Republicans have swung around to support Bush may be part of it as well. But as long as Independents still side with the Democrats to a large extent, the Dems will take at least one house.

    The biggest problem for the GOP is that the period of 9/11-sploitation is largely over. So Bush got a little bump from the five year anniversary. That’s not really that surprising, when you add it to falling gas prices and the foiled British plot. But will voters be thinking of that in November? The data on support for Iraq going up convinces me that the bump is superficial. It’d be one thing if Iraq was objectively improving. But it’s not. That’s why Bush and the GOP will be in trouble in November.

  7. Eural September 19, 2006 at 11:26 am

    “It really doesn’t matter which party is in control, it matters what they do w/ that control.”

    I couldn’t agree more – good comment and analysis!

  8. Truflo September 19, 2006 at 11:46 am

    I hope you’re right Elrod, because the alternative is frightening. At this moment in time in America, the President of your country can declare anyone a terrorist, have him or her disappeared, tortured, tried and sentenced without anyone ever seeing the evidence. And his approval rating goes up!

  9. Daniel DiRito September 19, 2006 at 11:58 am

    This recent polling data tells me that voters have a clear perspective on the war in Iraq…perhaps more cogent than either Party. They feel it is being handled poorly, they know what a civil war looks like, they believe Congress has failed to do its part in guiding and overseeing the executive branch, and they realize that the notion of exporting democracy to the Middle East is a Bush Doctrine that fails to recognize the realities in the region. Finally, they believe that Middle East stability is important and that a withdrawal that leaves Iraq in chaos may well be detrimental to the United States.

    That, my friends, is one spot on analysis and suggests that voters have discerned fact from fiction with an impressive demonstration of acuity. Perhaps both parties will someday learn that the truth is, in the final analysis, the most powerful campaign strategy available. Don’t hold your breath.

    Read more here:

  10. The Angry Independent September 19, 2006 at 12:43 pm

    Pretty suspicious that gas prices are conveniently coming down sharply, just weeks before the elections.

    Normally this wouldn’t raise questions, but we have an executive branch that is in bed with the oil industry. They should call the “White House” the “Oil House”. I’m sure Bush is getting a little help from his buddies in the oil business.

    I understand that prices come down in the Fall after the Summer driving season…. but can that account for the total drop? The geopolitical situation has not really changed, refining capacity is still not sufficient, and Winter will be here in no time.

    These prices are being affected by more than just “supply and demand” as the oil companies want us to believe.

    Bottom line is… some Americans are still swallowing the Republican bull…..

    It seems as if the American public will buy anything.

  11. Bandit September 19, 2006 at 12:44 pm

    That’s why Bush and the GOP

    Bush isn’t running

  12. Elrod September 19, 2006 at 1:19 pm

    I actually agree with Glenn Reynolds. Low poll numbers cause Republicans to run away from Bush. Higher numbers cause them to stick around. The problem is that many vulnerable Republicans have already run away from him. Are they going to turn around and embrace him suddenly? Democrats have made Bush THE issue. I think that’s smart because I think that outside core conservative Republicans, Bush is deeply unpopular. The Bush-focus may help to drive some Republican voters back into the fold. But it won’t help pry Independents away from the Democrats.

  13. Ed September 19, 2006 at 1:30 pm

    I think this may be the high water mark caused by the wall-to-wall 5 year 9/11 anniversary coverage. Barring an attack (which since Al Queda seems intent on supporting Bush’s alienating policies, could happen) I believe approval rates will be back under 40 and Congressional preference back to +10 within a few weeks.

  14. Elrod September 19, 2006 at 1:36 pm

    Chris Bowers at MyDD makes an important point in response to many of these polls. Many of the likely voter models show a much stronger vote for the GOP than the registered voters (though some show the opposite.) Why? Because likely voter models look at voting in 2002 and 2004 when the GOP kicked ass in turn-out. There is simply no other way to explain how a 51-42 Dem edge in registered voters falls to 48-48 among likely voters. Likely voter models in September are notriously unreliable, which is why pollsters have to start using past voting history as the only gauge of voting passion. Still, the challenge for Democrats to get out the vote is real. If Dems get beaten on base turnout again, they will need to dominate among Independents in order to win, and that’s always an iffy projection (even though Indies favor the Dems by a lot right now).

    However, Bowers says that Dems most do especially well turning out black voters, the ultiimately Democratic base. I think Bowers is wrong here because in an off-year election, most black voters are in districts that are already safely Democratic. The issue is suburban Northeastern and Midwestern white women. Turn them out in big numbers and the Democrats will win. The gender gap appears to be back in style again. Fail to turn out moderate, suburban Northeastern and Midwestern women (the former soccer mom, then national security mom, and now anti-Iraq mom) and Republicans will hold both houses. That’s the issue.

  15. moptop September 19, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    Is this honestly the first time you liberals are grappling with the whole “Likely Voter/Registered Voter/Adult” dimension of polling data?

    Maybe because us conservatives have spent decades trying to pry accurate information out of a overwhelmingly hostile media, these things are second nature to us. Admittedly, the media is much less hostile recently.

    As a historical fact, ‘likely voters’ always skew more Republican than ‘registered’, who also skew more Republican than ‘Adults’. That is because Republicans tend to find the time on election day to actually vote.

    Weekend polls skew more Democratic than Weekday polls, which tend to more accurately reflect the outcome of elections.

    It is a truism among conservatives that when the press wants to gin up a favorable polling story, they use either “adults” or a weekend poll.

    Maybe it is because so many liberals are so young, and have no historical reference?

    On the plus side for you ‘moderates’, the bounce, while it was real, is probably over

    On the negative side, I can’t think of a year, including 1994, when the Democrats didn’t lead in the “generic ballot” for Congress. Yet still, the Repugnants control both houses.

    As for oil prices? Did the discovery in the Gulf of Mexico which increased estimates of US reserves by 50% that happened a week ago really escape the notice of such an astute commentator as “The Angry Independent”? Of course not. It is all part of the conspiricy. Everything is. Of course.

  16. TallDave September 19, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    the President of your country can declare anyone a terrorist, have him or her disappeared, tortured, tried and sentenced without anyone ever seeing the evidence.

    That kind of lunatic “Bush is more dangerous than the terrorists” talk is precisely why the GOP keeps winning.

    The Dems have a seldom-mentioned structural problem: unlike the GOP, seniority is everything on the left side of the aisle when it comes to committee chairmanships. That means people from the most extreme left districts have the safest seats and accrue the most power. And when Teddy Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are the faces of power in your party… well, it ain’t pretty to the voters.

  17. TallDave September 19, 2006 at 2:49 pm

    I’m sure Bush is getting a little help from his buddies in the oil business.

    Sigh. Another “angry” person who doesn’t understand capitalism and free markets.

  18. TallDave September 19, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    they know what a civil war looks like

    More likely they know they keep seeing the words “civil war” in the press. The usual definition involves formation of opposing governments, declarations of secession, central institutions of government not functioning, and massive armed conflict between standing armies. Iraq had real civil wars in the 1990s and 1980s that make the current conflict look idyllic.

  19. Kim Ritter September 19, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    Must be getting that bump from the anti-Clinton “Path to 9/11″ docudrama!

  20. M. Simon September 19, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    I really wish the Democrats had a plan for Iraq other than impeaching Bush.

    Currently I’d say we are stuck with no plan to get unstuck. The only fortunate bit out of this situatioin is that our enemies are stuck too. Thanks to Israel holding our flank.

    I voted Bush/Obama in the last election (couldn’t stand theocrat Keyes). So I’m not a strict party line guy. I’d like to see some constructive suggestions from the Dems. So far all I hear is that they want to start a circus in the middle of a war.

    Of course considering that the Rs. did the same to Clinton, I’d have to say payback is a bitch.

    Still, I don’t see that we should repeat our mistakes every 8 years.

  21. Jack on Track September 19, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    None of what has been written really matters in election science. The objective on election day is two fold – turnout and winning.

    At this juncture the Republicans have a more efficient turnout machine compared to the “all style” Democratic machine. This is why Dean was the wrong guy for the party – he thought being crazy and having the west side of NYC cocktail set in his pocket would solve all the Dems problems.

    Truly focussed election engineering is all about knowing your precinct, your district, your city, your state and then mobilizing volunteers to canvass, to mail, to phone, to knock on doors and then to get out the vote.

    It is not as much about policy or ideas or governance as it is about the basics and the biggest offset to all of the ideas and policy and governance is turnout. Keep the other guys home and make sure your?

    You think this is about Democracy? Give me a break – this is big time business with a cottage industry that is the only industry in Washinton. Even for local and state elections – the business of elections is still run out of boutique shops on K street.

    With all that said. Who will turnout in November to vote? The guys who control and master that control Congress. My money is on Mehlman/Rove – no one does it better. Remember Florida in 2004? And then Ohio in 2004 – all about turnout.

  22. Elrod September 19, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    You’ve got Howard Dean wrong. He’s completely pissed off the NYC elite Democratic crowd by trying to just what you said: build local and state party organizations in the “red states” so that turnout operations can work all over the country. It’s decidedly anti-elitist, actually.

    Your definition of civil war is not really accurate. You don’t have to have full-on secession or formation of opposing governments; just large-scale armed insurrection by people who want to overthrow the government. And I’d say the Iraqi central government is not functioning. 75% of Americans think Iraq is in civil war. They’re right.

    On oil prices, remember, the price dropped long before the discovery of oil reserves in the Gulf. I think it had more to do with conversion to ethanol gas than anything else. Conspiracy doesn’t explain it at all.

    M Simon,
    The Dems have offered several plans, including Biden and Wesley Clark. Peter Galbreath, a Clinton Democrat, has offered a plan too. None of them involve impeaching Bush. What I’d love to know is what the Bush plan for Iraq is, since he’s going to be President for two more years. And the current course doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

  23. Chris September 19, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    Unless someone can show that Americans typically vote the party line, I don’t see that W’s approval rating has all that much to do with the upcoming election, except as a broad indicator. For example, take a look at the number of red states with Democrat governors and blue states with Republican governors. I also don’t remember too many recent presidents having party support of both Houses.

  24. Kim Ritter September 19, 2006 at 4:07 pm

    M Simon-Its true that the Dems don’t have a unified plan they agree on, but selected Democrats do have ideas on how to get out- Have you watched any of the debates for Senate seats on Meet the Press?

    Moptop wrote: “Republicans tend to find the time on Election Day to vote.”

    I believe that Democrats are more motivated this year, especially after a disasterous six years of Bush/Cheney. Don’t be too surprised by a higher than expected turnout. Also, there are many Republicans and Independent voters who have become disenchanted with the direction the country is going in and want a new one.

  25. Darrell September 19, 2006 at 4:15 pm

    My projection…Republicans will retain both houses of Congress with an outside chance of picking up seats in the House. The Democrats cry voter fraud, wring their hands, and declare the continuation of a vast right-wing conspiracy in America. Meanwhile, average Americans continue their steady movement toward more conservative values, setting up more Democrat losses in the future. I used to vote for Democrats. When I find some that stand for something other than … “We HATE Bush and the Republicans!”… I may vote for a Democrat again. We are at war! War is hell! Americans don’t like any war that lasts longer than about one year. So what??? That doesn’t mean that they are ready to turn over the future security of this country to a political party that places the rights of cold-blooded, murdering terrorists ahead of the lives of Americans. The momentum of the polls is moving toward Republicans, because Americans are getting closer to a decision point in November and the Democrat talking points simply haven’t impressed them.

  26. Michael van der Galien September 19, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    Dave Price (I assume it’s you): what are you doing man? Do not hold back. Tell it them like it is…


  27. Darrell September 19, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    For Americans who insist that Iraq is in a civil war and a lost cause, maybe we should defer to what most Iraqis think. Polls of Americans are meaningless. Over the past three years, the polls of Iraqis concerning the direction of their country have been mostly upbeat. The majority of Iraqis want freedom and democracy to succeed in their country. The majority of Iraqis don’t want us to cut and run. The majority of Iraqis think that they are better off now than they were when Saddam was in power. Should America continue as the primary proponent of freedom and democracy for all? Or, should we simply isolate ourselves from all of the pain and injustice outside of this country? Isolationism sure sounds good on paper, but it is a selfish policy that robs us of our humanity and threatens the very foundation of our freedom.

  28. Rambie September 19, 2006 at 6:55 pm

    moptop: As for oil prices? Did the discovery in the Gulf of Mexico which increased estimates of US reserves by 50% that happened a week ago really escape the notice of such an astute commentator…

    Did it happen to escape your notice that’d it take years to get actual PRODUCTION out of this new find?

  29. egrubs September 19, 2006 at 6:56 pm

    Dear God. Angry hicks with a thesaurus who think they’re Jack Nicholson are running the country.

    Isolationism sure sounds good on paper, but it is a selfish policy that robs us of our humanity and threatens the very foundation of our freedom.

    The freedom to the spied on.
    The freedom to be held without cause.
    The freedom to be held indefinitely.
    The freedom to be told what to think.
    The freedom to travel in shame.
    The freedom to travel without safety.
    The freedom to see our jobs go to India and China.

    Thank you for protecting my freedoms, good people of this fine country.

  30. M. Simon September 19, 2006 at 8:24 pm

    Well yes. The Dems have a plan to leave Iraq to the tender mercies of the throat slitters.

    It is a way to get out (was done that way for ‘Nam). It may be a solution for America. It is not a solution for the Iraqis.

    In ‘Nam we had about 100,000 murdered by the communists and another 500,000 took to the sea with about 1/2 dying.

    So I guess the Dem plan for success is a tyranny in Iraq with no more than 350,000 dead to arrive at that result. That is not what I would call a plan for success.

    Just going on the way we are would be better.

  31. SnarkyShark September 19, 2006 at 10:34 pm

    Just going on the way we are would be better.

    Wow, you drank every last drop of the kool-aid, didn’t you.

    Don’t worry, that is exactly your Dear Leaders plan. Till he can pawn it off on someone else and then blame Clinton.

    It must suck to be so infantly perdictable

  32. Elrod September 19, 2006 at 11:53 pm

    Um, Darrell, you’re using outdated talking points. No poll taken in the last year has shown Iraqi support for US troops. In fact, no poll has been taken to my knowledge because it’s too dangerous to do so. Sure, some want the US troops around because they can protect civilians from the Iraqi military and police who moonlight as death squadsmen.

    The level of pessimism in Iraq is identifiable in other ways, like the exodus of the entire secular middle class, the closing down of the famous book section of Baghdad, the internal refugee crisis of Sunnis and Shi’ites forcibly removed from their homes, and the turning of Shi’ites toward radical militias in lieu of an impotent central government. All of this is not the result of American isolation. It’s the result of criminally negligent incompetence.

  33. Kim Ritter September 20, 2006 at 2:34 am

    MSimon- It is not the fault of the Democrats that Rumsfeld chose to invade with so few troops, allowed Bremer to disband the Iraqi army, police force and other government agencies-leading to the chaos we have now. He was warned by many ME experts and senior military officials about the complexity of Iraqi culture and religion, but chose to ignore the warnings, so that the war’s cost would not jeopardize the Bush tax cuts.

    His actions and those of others in the Bush administration left us and the Iraqis in a dire situation with no good options. Biden wants to disband the private militias and force the warring sects to arrive at a political solution. He wants regional powers to help stabilize the country. Maliki’s outreach to oil investors is a good start to get revenue needed for reconstruction. Many of the US companies responsible for reconstruction failed to complete the job. Eight billion in reconstruction funds is missing -why doesn’t that bother you, if you are sincere about your concern for the fate of Iraq? The war has been Bush’s debacle from the start.

  34. moptop September 20, 2006 at 7:20 am

    Regarding OIL, part of the price of oil reflects the judegement of the market of future scarcity.

    “Angry Moderate” said that nothing had happened in the oil market. He was wrong. Full stop.

    Of course, the release of strategic petroleum resurves had something to do with it. That was done on presidential order. But if you recall the circumstances, the BP pipeline in Alaska had problems, which was going to interrupt supply.

    The Summer driving and boating season has also come to an end.

    All of this stuff happened, and still ‘Angry Moderate’ says that it was a conspiricy by Bushco.

    Pretending to be a ‘moderate’ cannot cover for being a raving moonbat. Sorry.

  35. Mike Kelly September 20, 2006 at 9:25 am

    Yeah well,

    I’m a conservative leaning type who doesn’t like how the President is handling things and I’m pretty sour on the way the whole immigration bill has gone.

    I’m not a happy camper by any standard of the term.


    Do you really think that because of all of that, I’d be willing to see Pelosi as Speaker of the House? Or Conyers get moved up?

    Not in this lifetime. I’m betting that is true for a lot of people like me. It’s not that we don’t think the Republicans don’t suck. We just realize that they don’t suck as much as the Democrats.

    If the poll asks, “Do you approve of the job that Mr. Bush is doing?” I’d answer no. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to throw my vote to a Democrat. In my case, it would be Stabenow. Why would I want to vote for that?

    TITLE: Lowering Expectations
    I chuckled a bit when I read Joe Gandelman’s warning that the Crats have lost their steam. Gandelman is, like the blog says, a moderate Democrat, and so reality is creeping leftward. What I find curious is the lack of anger at Democrats blowing an advantage variously described as a tsunami, a sea change, etc… Is it really just bad luck that this happens every election cycle? What should be very obvious to anyone consistently following political news is that…

    TITLE: The Bushies and Recent Polling Data
    BLOG NAME: Dean’s World
    Joe Gandelman notes that Republicans are suddenly doing better in the polls than they were for most of the last year and a half.

    This should be no surpr…

    TITLE: Design and Hosting
    BLOG NAME: Design and Hosting
    Read more about Design and Hosting

    TITLE: Day memorial
    BLOG NAME: Day memorial
    Read more about Day memorial

    TITLE: Alfuzosin
    BLOG NAME: Alfuzosin
    Read more about Alfuzosin

    Read more about

    Read more about

    Read more about

    TITLE: Macie
    BLOG NAME: Macie
    Read more about Macie

    TITLE: Kiara
    BLOG NAME: Kiara
    Read more about Kiara

    TITLE: Raegan
    BLOG NAME: Raegan
    Read more about Raegan

    TITLE: effexor
    BLOG NAME: effexor
    Read more about effexor

    TITLE: effexor
    BLOG NAME: effexor
    Read more about effexor

    TITLE: effexor
    BLOG NAME: effexor
    Read more about effexor

    TITLE: paxil
    BLOG NAME: paxil
    Read more about paxil

    TITLE: paxil
    BLOG NAME: paxil
    Read more about paxil

    TITLE: hickey
    BLOG NAME: hickey
    Read more about hickey

    TITLE: inflammatory-disease
    BLOG NAME: inflammatory-disease
    Read more about inflammatory-disease

    TITLE: balding
    BLOG NAME: balding
    Read more about balding

    TITLE: whiteheads
    BLOG NAME: whiteheads
    Read more about whiteheads

    TITLE: inflammatory-disease
    BLOG NAME: inflammatory-disease
    Read more about inflammatory-disease

    TITLE: balding
    BLOG NAME: balding
    Read more about balding

    TITLE: zyrtec
    BLOG NAME: zyrtec
    Read more about zyrtec

    TITLE: whiteheads
    BLOG NAME: whiteheads
    Read more about whiteheads

    TITLE: zyban
    BLOG NAME: zyban
    Read more about zyban

    TITLE: whiteheads
    BLOG NAME: whiteheads
    Read more about whiteheads

    TITLE: tenuate
    BLOG NAME: tenuate
    Read more about tenuate

    TITLE: Holden
    BLOG NAME: Holden
    Read more about Holden

    TITLE: Lotus
    BLOG NAME: Lotus
    Read more about Lotus

    TITLE: Mitsubishi
    BLOG NAME: Mitsubishi
    Read more about Mitsubishi

    TITLE: Jeep
    BLOG NAME: Jeep
    Read more about Jeep

    TITLE: Chrysler
    BLOG NAME: Chrysler
    Read more about Chrysler

    TITLE: Motorcycle
    BLOG NAME: Motorcycle
    Read more about Motorcycle

    TITLE: Porsche
    BLOG NAME: Porsche
    Read more about Porsche

    TITLE: Ferrari
    BLOG NAME: Ferrari
    Read more about Ferrari

    TITLE: Porsche
    BLOG NAME: Porsche
    Read more about Porsche

    TITLE: Yamaha
    BLOG NAME: Yamaha
    Read more about Yamaha

    TITLE: Aston martin
    BLOG NAME: Aston martin
    Read more about Aston martin