So, What Were We Talking About?
By Erick Posted in 2006 — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Big Lizard pointed out this USA Today/Gallup Poll. The media has been making a big deal out of the generic ballot question. To recap what people like Jay Cost and others have said -- the generic ballot question has always polled the Democrats ahead of the Republicans. And when the gap has been less than 5%, it usually means fairly good things for the GOP.
Likewise, we've all been speculating that if and win the President gets back above 40%, a trend line he has been on for a couple of months, the numbers will start to look better for Republicans.
Well, behold:
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, support for an unnamed Democratic congressional candidate over a Republican one narrowed to 2 percentage points, 47%-45%, among registered voters. Over the past year, Democrats have led by wider margins that ranged up to 16 points.
Now 42% of Americans say they approve of the job Bush is doing as president, up 5 points since early this month. His approval rating on handling terrorism is 55%, the highest in more than a year.
The boost may prove to be temporary, but it was evidence of the continuing political power of terrorism.
As I've been saying for months now, I think the GOP will lose some seats, but I'm not yet ready to say they'll lose the House or Senate. And I really do believe that nothing really starts to matter until after Labor Day. This polling proves it. The race can still be won by either side.
By the way, if you are hearing this for the first time today, you should be reading Crosstabs.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Kos rips Casey — Comments (35) »
So, What Were We Talking About? 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
if the lefty blogosphere's biggest primary goal ended up stopping the dems from taking back a house of Congress?
the majority of voters tend towards the center, and lean slightly one direction or the other.
If the dem leaning moderates start to see a hostility towards those in the party they are most in line with, it may either run off votes, or keep people home-neither of which the DNC can afford.
I don't know if this perception will play into congressional politics, given that often people like their guy, they just want everyone else's bad guy thrown out, but I suspect the treatment of Lieberman may lose the party some more of their centrist voters.
this poll built in disadvantages facing the GOP, such as vote fraud and the "conservatives" who want to sit out.
There may be more sitting it out on the other side. GWOT is still the number one issue for a very large number of people. There are almost no Republicans in winnable House or Senate races (RI is one exception) who are on the wrong side on this one.
On the other hand, the Democrats were split exactly down the middle on the Iraq vote. So if you are a Democrat with incumbents in the Senate and the House, then it is odds on that at least one of these two voted the 'wrong' way, by your lights. This applies whichever position you personally hold.
Of course, the Democrats most under threat from supporters sitting it out are incumbents who supported the war and have not retracted their vote. But all Democrats are in danger of at least some supporters sitting it out over this issue.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
of voting even when somewhat apathetic than the DNC.
For years the general convention is low voter turn out is usually better for republicans, high voter turn out better for dems, but the last 6 years have sort of pushed that conventional wisdom out the door.
I think the reality is that we are probably going to have low voter turn out, the majority of center voters will probably stay home, and it will be a race for which side motivates its base to come out and vote the best. I suspect apathy will be more of a problem for dems than the GOP-you just aren't going to motivate somebody who is apathetic to come out and vote against somebody, you have to give them something to vote for, and I haven't seen the DNC make a coherant argument yet of what exactly they are for.
the generic ballot is becoming more irrelevant as the blue districts get bluer. It’s the ultimate manufactured lazy news poll.
It just seems to me in the current political climate the blue districts are going rabid blue while voters that traditionally vote Republican in red districts are showing up undecided, making us look weaker at the aggregate. I think when people start paying attention after Labor Day we will win the close races while Kucinich’s district (God help me because Taft railroaded my hometown of Rocky River into it for another 10 years to avoid running against Brown in 2002) and the rest of the urban blue districts go from 70% to 80% Dem, and further towards Pyongyang. The Dems polling at 45% but up by 5 to 10 in red districts will learn the ceiling for their party of agitators is under 50% in those districts as the undecideds realize what is at stake.
What’s the point of gaining in the generic ballot if the voters you’re picking up are in districts you already have while the lead you’re creating is due to voters in your opponent’s district going wobbly before they start paying attention again?
The main reason why the generic ballot is not useful is that Republicans are much more efficiently distributed in congressional districts than Republicans. In other words, Democratic incumbents generally win by larger margins than Republican incumbents. Hence, Democrats need more than 50% of the votes to get 50% of the seats, representing bias in what is called a "seats-votes curve." This outcome is mainly the result of: (1) successful gerrymanders by Republican state governments following the 2000 Census; and (2) majority-minority districts.
Neil Malhotra
Department of Political Science
Stanford University
more efficiently distributed in congressional districts than DEMOCRATS.
P.S. Usually, Democrats have to win by 10% on the "generic ballot" to win a majority of seats.
Neil Malhotra
Department of Political Science
Stanford University
Not so much for the happy smile it brings to my face, but for the generally informative nature of the comment. Thanks!
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Well, I've been following projections on www.electionprojection.com and there has been a movement in his projections .. i.e. Talent is now favored based on his formula.
He also had a description of the "generic ballot" numbers for specific districts AND the actual polls for the same district (you have to scroll down to August 18th to see this data).
all summer that the houses are safer than conventional wisdom would suggest. The Ned Lamont-Joe Lieberman story may also be alerting more voters nationwide to the far-left takeover of the Democratic party.