Under the heading, "Republicans not in a position to retake the House (yet)," Chris Bowers estimates that the Democrats have a 41.2%-37.7% lead in recent generic House polling. Bowers writes, "Democrats are, after all, still winning."
But it's not so simple. In research published a couple years ago, Joe Bafumi, Bob Erikson, and Chris Wlezien found that, yes, generic party ballots are highly predictive of House voting--especially in the month or two before the election-but that early polling can be improved by adjusting for political conditions. In particular, the out-party consistently outperforms the generic polls.
The paper accompanying this graph was among the first public predictions of a Democratic takeover in 2006.
Bafumi, Erikson, and Wlezien's analysis doesn't go back before 300 days before the election, but if we take the liberty of extrapolating . . . The current state of the generic polls gives the Democrats .412/(.412+.377) = 52% of the two-party vote. Going to the graph, we see, first, that 52% for the Democrats is near historic lows (comparable to 1946, 1994, and 1998) and that the expected Democratic vote--given that their party holds the White House--is around -3%, or a 53-47 popular vote win for the Republicans.
Would 53% of the popular vote be enough for the Republicans to win a House majority? A quick look, based on my analysis with John Kastellec and Jamie Chandler of seats and votes in Congress, suggests yes.
It's still early--and there's a lot of scatter in those scatterplots--but if the generic polls remain this close, the Republican Party looks to be in good shape in the 2010.
P.S. Is there any hope for the Democrats? Sure. Beyond the general uncertainty in prediction, there is the general unpopularity of Republicans; also, it will be year 2 of the presidential term, not year 6 which is historically the really bad year for the incumbent party. Still and all, the numbers now definitely do not look good for the Democrats.
9.23.2009
Generic House Polling Suggests the Republicans Could Regain the House in 2010
@ 2:29 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
175 comments
With mid-term elections over a year away, it is way too early to try to predict what will happen. All you have to do is compare this time last year with now to recognize that. At this point, polls mean nothing.
Even if they do swing to a majority, no way will it be a veto-proof on party-line vote majority. So there's that. The bad thing is they will waste time on bad bills that go nowhere, and no good bills will see the light of day. I hope we're not that stupid, but it hinges on the senior citizens, as it always does.
Nate:
Encouraging from my POV, but we are too far out to be predicting 2010. Too many things can happen from now until then.
If Obama continues the policies that are energizing the conservative plurality, unemployment is still above 9% and the GOP runs competent conservative candidates, there is a damn good chance the GOP could take the House. If...
I think all you can safely say right now is that the GOP is likely to take between 20 (historical) and 50 (ala 1994) seats in 2010.
As long as the Dems are able to pass health care reform they will not lose the House. Why?
1. The economy will begin getting better by then. That'll help Dem approval.
2. People will realize that health care reform didn't kill their lives.
3. Health care will no longer be an issue (unmotivates the opposition)
Just for those reasons alone it becomes unlikely Dems lose the House.
I think this all comes down to healthcare reform really. Without it, Reps take the House back, and make big gains in the Senate. With it, maybe slight gains, but nothing like the movement they might expect given the polls right now.
pssssst its Andrew's post!!!
Russ -
You are exactly wrong in my humble opinion.
1. The taxes and cuts in Medicare start IMMEDIATELY
2. Nobody will get new coverage until after 2012.
It is going to seem EXACTLY the opposite.
In 2010 we will have more uninsured than today. The same goes for 2012.
YET, seniors will begin seeing their Medicare Advantage plans get hammered immediately.
Whatever other taxes (soda taxes, meals taxes, cadillac plan taxes, etc) will kick in IMMEDIATELY.
The Democrats did this to make the bill seem cheaper.
10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of benefits.
This is what Obama calls "sustainable" and "deficit-neutral".
It is a giant facade, but it will also make this bill the greatest political albatross in modern times.
All imediate pain, no immediate gain.
You have 2 elections before anything meaninful happens.
It will look like a failure before it even starts.
...the polls do mean something.
Andrew's post proves it.
I agree that we cannot predict what happens next year. But Nate is not trying to do that.
What he is saying is that if the conditions do not change, or if hypothetically the election were tomorrow, the GOP would retake the house.
He is correct.
The GOP wave in 1994 was comprised of a slim majority of the congressional vote...53%.
There are 84 Democrat held seats in districts won by Bush or McCain.
48 of those were won by Bush AND McCain.
This is fertile ground for a wave election.
Plus, we have 2 other factors that will weigh negatively on Democrats:
1. You have pissed off seniors. This dynamic did not exist in 1994.
We have a larger relative population of seniors today, who vote more often and who will show up in off-year election cycles.
The health care debate has already soured them, and if Health Care passes they will start losing benefits next year.
You have 10-11 million enrollees in Medicare Advantage who are certain to lose benefits.
I would guess that 6-7 million of them may vote.
The average margin of victory in an off-year congressional election is about 13,000 votes.
An extra million votes is all you need to swing 40-50 seats.
2. The Tea Party Movement. This was not present in 1994.
The right will have a deeper informal organizing and fundraising network than ever before.
If you discount this, you have to discount what Obama was able to do.
I would not do that.
Obama's organization will not offset this, as things stand.
Young voters have lost the passion for him, and certainly for Congressional Democrats. There is a disturbing void here.
Nate is gaining credibility every day in my eyes because he is showing those who will not see what they must see and prepare for now.
Good job, Andrew.
@MidPointMAn
While historical evidence does point to a gain by the Repubs, I think you are over-emphasizing a couple of key factors.
First and foremost, polling OVER a year out by definition will skew the polls from election day. Democrats usually get much more motivated right near the election cycle, where Republicans have a more consistent squeaky wheel drumbeat.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that August will ALWAYS be a democratic presidents worst month, barring over-riding circumstances.
But in particular to point number 2, of course the Repubs are better organized.. IT"S CALLED THE INTERNET!!! Were you on it in 1994?
Not to be snarly, but the political winds change at such an accellerated speed compared to 50, 20, or even 10 years ago.
It really is all about peaking at the right time...
Mid-Point Man,
You could not be more exactly wrong if you tried.
a. People want health care reform. Period. It will happen.
b. The economy is already turning around and will be in better shape by then.
c. How many times do you have to hear the president state that those making under $250,000 will not have a tax increase? And in fact, we already got a tax cut! Sheesh, get a clue.
It will look like a success before it starts. And spare us the tired Republican tax whine. That is not a factor. Wasn't last year, won't be in the elections.
Since when did young voters HAVE a passion for Congressional Democrats??
Oh wait.. living in Oregon, we really do like Mr. Wyden. And most of us wanted the guy with the hook for a hand! (Hope he runs for Governor!)
Russ -
Which of these issues do you think will unmotivate the opposition:
1. Cap and Trade
2. Immigration Reform
3. Expiration of Tax Cuts
4. Employee Free Choice
5. Financial Regulation (a potential snoozer, unless the start fixing salaries, which they will try)
Here is one that is coming, but you will not read much about it yet...
6. Media Regulation:
- Fairness Doctrine
- Net Neutrality
- Telco Re-regulation
- Internet "bullying" regulations
- Newspaper Bailouts
This will cause a firestorm because it will impinge of the first amendment in new and interesting ways...
It only gets worse next year.
MidPointMan said...
~~~~~~~~~~
MPM always shows up when there's a hint of bad news re: the Dems lol
whereas liberals comment on everything and never go away ...
take care
First, please people pay attention and credit Andrew, not Nate.
I can't believe we're seriously looking at polls for what will happen in November 2010. There are so many factors that will come along between now and then that none of us can predict.
However as some have pointed out, the economy is likely to be in much better shape a year from now, and health care will have been passed(hopefully) which will be a victory for democrats, unlike in 94, the failing of which was a black mark against them.
Plus there is no Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America leading congress. Who will it be? John Boner? Crazy Bachmann? And I think Obama's volunteers will be mobilized again, not as much as last year, but more than young democrats usually are. They're already registered to vote, we just have to get them to the polling booth.
dsalkovi -
The question is whether they want THIS reform.
Most think it will make things worse, the surveys show it.
There is no measurable impact until 2014!
We are an immediate gratification society these days, am I wrong?
We will see all the taxes and Medicare cuts (our parents / grandparents will b*tch about it ad nauseum).
No benefits. All pain, no gain.
If you believe this bill will pass, even with the appearrance of no tax on the middle class, you are just insane.
1. The individual mandate is a tax. It raises taxes on everyone, and you get out of it by proving you are insured.
2. There will be all sorts of creative taxes in this bill, they are already there. Here are some proposals:
- Soda Taxes
- Junk Food Taxes
- Restaurant Taxes
- Cosmetic Surgery Taxes (including LASIK surgery!)
- THE BIGGIE: Taxes on high cost health plans
This is just a sampling. You are naive if you think some of this will not be funded through the middle class.
You cannot raise enough from just the top 1% and business taxes.
Jeff -
Nate does run this site. He has been the first to raise the alarm at the Netroots convention.
He is given credit for being data-driven on this particular point.
True that it is Andrew's post.
It is Nate's site and he was the first to start clanging the alarms.
Just a thought: back before 24/7 cable news ad nauseam minutia ie March, 1983. Yes Virginia, back before MPM was feverishly posting his Limbaugh talking pts.
Back when Reagan had a 35% job approval rating! Who'd a thunk he would beat any Dem 59/41 Nov. 1984, which was a mere (16) mos. after March, 1983.
Yes, Mondale was in a long line of weak Dem presidential nominees, but the Carter effect lingered and Mondale was Carter lite, which begs the question, who will be the Reps Mondale in 2012, I digress.
And yes my post is a prime example of deflection, but also political reality as a wk is an eternity in U.S. politics.
Just a thought ...
p.s. Reagan and his admin constantly mentioned Carter between 1981 to Nov. 1984. hmm, wonder what will be the Dem's game plan for 2010 and 2012.
Heck, Reps are still mentioning Carter!
dsalkovi -
We are likely to have unemployment above 9% this time next year.
It will feel like the jobless recovery we had already emerged from in 1994. Unemployment was well under 6%!
The Democrats still got hammered.
Even Obama's rosy forecasts suggest this unemployment will be stubornly high, likely around 9%.
Unemployment better be falling like a rock by next September.
Perceptions on the economy change VERY slowly. The media will help all they can.
Democrats will need it.
@MPM
I think the issues that you listed will certainly motivate some branch of the opposition, but they're not the sort of things that will galvanize enough voters in swing districts.
Don't forget: Just last year, Obama was elected promising to reform the health insurance system, moderate, common sense environmental impact and energy conservation reforms (like cap and trade), allowing the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy to expire and re-targeting them to the middle class, common-sense immigration reform, and above all else real regulation and oversight of the financial markets.
Over and over again we here Republicans proclaiming that Obama is breaking his (unspoken) promise to be a do-nothing centrist president who will only advocate for programs that everyone supports. In fact, every one of Obama's agenda items has come straight from his campaign platform. I don't think that fulfilling a promise or two will galvanize the electorate against him.
Some of MPM's list items, such as the Fairness doctrine, telco reregulation, and especially EFCA, are good policy but bad politics and they will go nowhere in Congress. Net neutrality might go somewhere but it's hard to imagine a movement up in arms against it.
You're leaving out two important factors that aren't really measured in poll numbers:
1) The current state of health care is pushing Dem ratings artificially low. Both moderates and progressives are mad because it is easy to imagine the worst in a plan that hasn't passed yet (death panels!!! corporate handouts!!) In a few months, the health care thing will be resolved, and no matter the outcome, the Democrats' poll numbers will bounce back to some extent. If done right, the numbers will move significantly in their direction.
Keep in mind that at no point in Clinton's presidency were his approval numbers lower than when he was trying to fix health care.
2) The economy is only getting better from here. Barring a huge surprise, the 2010 elections will occur in an environment where unemployment numbers have been steadily improving for over a half a year.
My point here is that we can very confidently predict that there are two factors that will be serving to boost the Democrats' popularity in the upcoming year. It's not impossible that some other factor will serve as an appropriate counterweight, but taking the temperature right now and assuming that things won't change is ignoring some known issues.
MPM, I don't know how long you have been frequenting this site, but I'm going on a year and half now, I remember when it was ONLY Nate. I'm well aware of who's running things. I was just asking people to respect the author of this post instead of just assuming it was Nate.
While I don't have a photographic memory, I see you deleted one of your posts, and I believe in it, you credited Nate, and since you were caught on it, you copied it, deleted it, and reposted it by beginning with
"...the polls do mean something.
Andrew's post proves it.
I agree that we cannot predict what happens next year. But Nate is not trying to do that."
In other words, you pasted it, changed Nate to Andrew in one spot, but forgot to do it later when you still mention Nate. But that's all beside the point.
I also see you think people don't want THIS health care bill. Well we do know most people favor a public option. So if there is one, and all republicans oppose it as expected, I doubt that help sweep them into power. And IF there is an extra 5 or 10 cent tax on soda, I think there are enough reasonable voters who will say, that's just a few cents to help cover everyone in a bill that should keep costs down in the long run.
I could be wrong. We have over a year to find out.
MPM -
You're seriously going to refer to Fox's random, disorganized flash mobs as a "movement"? Ask 10 people what they're there protesting, and you'll get 10 different answers. The Dems may lose some seats in 2010, and rightfully so if they don't get cracking on their legislative agenda, but it won't be because of the tea partiers.
Shiloh -
Reagan's low was 42% at the height of the unemployment in January 1983(1/22/83).
Not 35%.
He had 2 years of 6% economic growth.
By November 1984 unemployment was down to 6.5%.
If Obama knocks 4% off the unemployment rate in the next year, you will do fine.
It ain't gonna happen.
I want to sincerely apologize for feeding the troll.
:)
I promise to do better next time!
Jeff -
I don't care.
I am saying Nate deserves credit.
Get it?
MPM, I've posted this before, but just for you buddy! :)
Indeed, although 1983 began for Reagan with a 35% job approval rating -- the worst of his administration -- things started to look better.
As Casey Stengel would say, you could have looked it up, and as dubya would say, use "the google" ie search: Reagan/March 1983/Gallup
take care, blessings
p.s. how did folk back in the wagon train days get by w/out the internet(s) ...
Jacob -
I agree that many of the others may not be the lightening rod that health care is...
except immigration reform.
However, the problem is that it expands the tent of people who will be upset.
If you want to find big opponents of immigration reform, you have no further to look than the rank and file members of many labor unions.
- think construction
- think tradesmen
- think factory workers
They see the influx of cheap labor as a real threat.
If you cannot placate this constituency with EFCA, you will lose them on immigration.
All it takes is one big issue for those marginal voters to drift away from him.
Labor is generally wary of cap and trade and immigration reform.
Cap and trade will be a violation of Obama's tax pledge in the eyes of many.
People think that what killed Bush was Iraq.
That laid the groundwork. But he could have survived that alone. Instead he went after:
- Social Security Reform
- Immigration Reform
He lost major constituencies on both of these failures.
That made something like Katrina impossible to recover from.
By the time Iraq turned around, even conservatives had written off Bush on Domestic Policy.
Once you lose the ability to govern a reasonable coalition, you are in the abyss.
US political dynamics is in uncharted waters. I believe its nearly impossible to predict congressional elections this far out with such fluid issues swirling about. GOP party ID had barely nudged in the last few months @23% and Obama is steady at 55% favorable. I just can't see the GOP making major inroads in with these stats. Are you suggesting a backlash vote against Dems with the GOP so weak on issues.
This post is absurd, that's all I have to say about that. I do find it almost as amusing as seeing all these GOP'ers now claiming to be the "saviors" of MediCare benefits. It's all so odd.
Yeah MPM, I get it. I called you on your deceptive post, and you don't even deny it, instead responding with "I don't care."
As for what did Bush in, it was that all he had going for him in 04 was that he somehow convinced people he was keeping us safe, and then the war in Iraq got way out of hand, which made Katrina impossible from which to recover, after which the war got even worse, and with the rash of gay and adultery scandals by the family value republicans just before the 06 elections, there was no way the republicans weren't going to win.
Of course, something unforeseen could happen to Obama and the dems too, but it won't show up in polling yet, that's for sure. As for immigration, that was the main issue during the republican primary and it was of zero importance during the general campaign. Besides, Obama's stance on it is that we should go after employers who are hiring workers in the first place. He won't advocate for rounding them up and sending them home because that would be a financial and beauracratic nightmare. Not to mention illegal immigration is down slightly because of the down economy. If it somehow becomes a major campaign issue on which Obama is perceived as soft, he'll call for ramping up border patrol. Not much else to do on that.
- think factory workers
I didn't know there were illegal alien sabermetricians out there (ah, nothing like a lame joke that only Nate and the hardcore baseball nerds will get).
correction on my last post. I used a double negative, or could've replaced 'republicans' with 'democrats', or 'win' with 'lose'. However, I think my point was self explanatory. At least I don't modify my posting history like some people....
Shiloh -
It depends on which poll and what he measurement period is.
If you take an average of polls he never drops to 35%. If you cherry-pick a single week, maybe.
Here is where I get the 42%.
"Reagan's ratings while in office rose and fell sharply with events. Approval peaked at 73 percent after he was wounded in a March 1981 assassination attempt, but tumbled to 42 percent in the early '80s recessions."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90043&page=1
Here is a graph that nicely summarizes it.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html
Jeff -
Deceptive? By crediting Nate?
Hahahaha...
I ignored the rest of your off-topic blathering.
Who cares if I credit Nate for making this point as well...
Whiners.
Agree with FredZ here. I can buy that the Republicans gain seats, but with generic popularity of the Republican Party hovering in the 20% range, I can't see a massive flip in either the House or the Senate.
The Republicans certainly have a window of opportunity here. From my perspective, they are engaged in too much base-pleasing populist rhetoric at the moment to take advantage of this. Of course, a year is a long time in politics.
Jeff -
Here is a sampling of Democrats under investigation, or severe media scrutiny:
Charlie Rangel
John Murtha
John Edwards (still going!)
Roland Burris
Rod Blagojevich
Kent Contrad
Bob Menendez
Eliot Spitzer (about to rear his head again)
Sanford Bishop
Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Allan Mollohan
Linda Sanchez
Loretta Sanchez
Pete Viclovsky
GOP:
Jerry Lewis
Gary Miller
Tim Murphy
Don Young
Good luck!
MidPointMan said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Damn how one uses ad nauseam rationalizations when he has been proven wrong!
Do you rationalize how many sheets of toilet paper you'll use before you take a ...
and Hahahaha...
I ignored the rest of your off-topic blathering.
Who cares if I credit Nate for making this point as well...
Whiners.
Priceless!
once again MPM, you are becoming wayyy too "intellectual" for me. Try to tone it down a tad, thanx.
take care, blessings
MidPointMan—
Always a pleasure.
Indeed, although 1983 began for Reagan with a 35% job approval rating -- the worst of his administration -- things started to look better.
Year 2 is mild and Year 6 is the 'killer'??
Hmmmmm.......
1992 saw the Democrats lose over 50 house seats and control of the Senate.
1996 saw the Democrats GAIN seats in the House and Senate.
Hmmmmmmmmmm........
MPM, you're quite a joke. First you say you ignored my "off-topic blathering", but the part you claimed to ignore was a direct response to your post and the original article by ANDREW.
Second, why are you posting what you're trying to pass of as a random "sampling" of politicians under investigation or scrutiny? I can skew a sample too. Just off the top of my head, you didn't mention Mark Sanford, Joe Wilson, Michelle Bachmann, Chris Dodd....
Besides, except for Spitzer, those democrats didn't run on a platform of being perfect and then getting subsequently caught engaging in the very acts they railed against. You think the average voter really cares or even knows about Sanford Bishop or Pete Viclovsky, or even Tim Murphy or Gary Miller? 2006 was a perfect storm for republicans. It seemed like every week there was another republican hypocrite making the news.
You're really reaching. Keep going.
Chad -
I agree that the GOP numbers are terrible.
That is because half the GOP is dissatisfied with it's own party.
If the GOP wins in Virginia and New Jersey (NEW JERSEY?), then you will see the winds of sentiment start to drift among the disaffected base.
If the GOP wins a governor race in one of the bluest states in the nation, you can bet that something is changing.
Christy Todd Whitman won in 1994 too.
Jeff is angry.
Jeff is part of an angry mob I think.
Jeff hopes the public plan covers psychotropic drugs, I think.
loner -
Poll averages. Poll averages.
You guys still think 80% support the public plan.
...yet oddly only 45% support Obama's plan.
Cherry-picking a poll is easy. It is poll averages that smooth out the noise. Ask Nate.
HILARIOUS!
MSM, I've enjoyed reading your descent from simply making points I disagree with to calling me an angry drug user. Keep on going in that direction. Please, insult your opponents when they try to engage in serious debate. That will help your republicans take back the house.
MPM, most people don't know what Obama's plan is. It's simple. He doesn't have one. So it's a disingenuous question to ask in a poll. But by the midterms next year, health care will be in the rear view window, Obama will have signed it, and the GOP will have no more lies to tell in regards to it. It will be quite clear to everyone what has been passed and how it will affect us.
Chris said:
"Ask 10 people what they're there protesting, and you'll get 10 different answers."
This is EXACTLY the problem. This mix of issues is galvanizing a fairly broad coalition that is deep on issues.
- Seniors on Medicare
- Independents on Spending and Deficits
- Libertarians on just about everything
- Business on EFCA, Cap and Trade
- Hawks on Missile Defense
- Everyone on bailouts
The list goes on...
There is a reason only 20% of people identify themselves as Liberal in surveys
Only 20% are Liberal.
While 40% are Conservative.
A lot of those in the middle are libertarian-types who dislike government and are annoyed by social conservative bromides.
I fall into that category.
It angers people here that I tell it like it is.
You are losing the middle fast.
Obama is galvanizing the libertarian-leaning independents to the right-wing base.
They have no home whatsoever in the Democrat Party anymore.
MidPointMan—
Averages?
Reagan's low was 42% at the height of the unemployment in January 1983(1/22/83).
Not 35%.
Reagan was at 35% in Gallup's polling in January 1983. What makes you think 42% wasn't ABC's polling? You might want to take another look at that WSJ chart.
It angers people here that I tell it like it is.
When was that?
Jeff -
You said: "MPM, you're quite a joke."
Poor Baby... You started it.
You are a giant crybaby who likes to serve it up the sauce, but can't handle the taste.
Ease off the sanctimonious condescension.
Translation: Stop whining!
I credited Nate and you started a sobbing contest.
Get over yourself.
loner -
I already posted my source on the 42% number.
It is quoted in an ABC article. Go read.
Keep up. I move fast here.
MidPointMan—
I looked at both of your links. Did you?
MidPointMan said...
If the GOP wins in Virginia and New Jersey (NEW JERSEY?), then you will see the winds of sentiment start to drift among the disaffected base.
~~~~~~~~~~
Again, actual candidates have to run against each other by staging a political campaign, go figure. Ask "Macaca" Allen.
And whereas Corzine's personal poll #s are in the tank because of the way he has governed, Obama's approval ratings in NJ are above 60%. Corzine losing means nothing except NJ voters don't like Corzine! but, but, but if Corzine wins ...
Yea, everyone has a plan until they get hit by their political opponent and yes Virginia, sometimes politicians actually use the truth to defeat their opponent, but, but, but money helps also. ;)
Virginia should be interesting as McDonnell continues to implode as does Christie in NJ.
Did I mention a wk is an eternity in politics ...
carry on
btw MPM, one didn't get back to me on the # of toilet paper ...
Jeff said:
"most people don't know what Obama's plan is. It's simple. He doesn't have one."
This is a GOOD THING? This means that it can be ANYTHING the opposition wants it to be.
This is what is wrong with Obama. He is so evasive in his language that he is losing the trust of too many people.
"But by the midterms next year, health care will be in the rear view window, Obama will have signed it, and the GOP will have no more lies to tell in regards to it. It will be quite clear to everyone what has been passed and how it will affect us."
How is this the case?
Do you actually realize that the provisions of the bill do not kick in until 2013?
That is right. Not a single person will be covered by this plan for FOUR YEARS!
NOBODY! It is in the bill.
Do you think Health Care costs will fall in the next 4 years?
Do you think the uninsured will disappear over the next 4 years?
When he is running for re-election in 2012, we will have 50+ million uninsured and much higher costs than today.
How will that sell on the stump?
All of the taxes will be levied...
Yet nobody will be getting benefits yet.
All pain, no gain.
It is perhaps one of the worst political strategies of all-time in the making and you do not even realize it.
Amazing.
MPM, you were wrong re: Reagan's poll #s not being as low as 35%.
Let's move on, shall we ...
take care
loner -
The WSJ is Gallup polling. It averages the polls.
It never goes down to 35%. You can cherry-pick one week if you like, but that is just what it is...
Cherry-picking.
By that measure, Obama is already at 42-45% based on Zogby.
The bigger point is that Reagan had 2 years of 6% GDP growth and walked unemployment down from 10.8% to 7.5% in 16 months.
Now, if you think that is going to happen, then all bets are off.
Do you think that will happen?
Do you think unemployment will be 6.4% next November?
I do not.
Shiloh -
I quoted an article that says it only went down to 42%.
Take it up with ABC News.
I will grant you that if Obama pulls about 4 million jobs out of his hiney between now and November, he can emulate Reagan.
If you think that is realistic given the trajectory of the economy, fine.
My baseline scenario is a bit more modest.
MPM, at least we got you to stop using "hahaha" and start asking questions.
btw, do you think the universe as we know it could be contained inside a ping/pong ball? All things being relative.
take care
p.s. MPM, you must love the old MGM musicals as you are a song and dance wannabe ...
MidPointMan—
It does, however, dip below 40% and there, presumably, is an actual average of some sort.
Gales of laughter.
It's way too far out for polling to mean anything, but not too far out to see some of the basic factors which may be out there.
1. If teabaggers and the rump nature of the GOP translates into Republican primaries being won by the most stridently conservative candidate available, well, I guess the Second Amendment allows you to shoot yourself in the foot, by why would you? The low hanging fruit are moderate to mildly conservative districts (eg CT-4, PA-10, MD-1, MI-7, NJ-3, NY-23, NC-8, OH Senate, etc.) and will not be very competitive with a fire-breathing, birther, evangelical conservative. If you see the GOP nominating mainstream candidates (rule of thumb, if the nomination doesn't piss off Beck, O'Reilly or Limbaugh, it's too conservative), they will do well.
2. Conversely, if liberals (like me) follow through on threats to challenge moderate and conservative Democrats in the primary and succeed, it will hurt the Dems. Blanche Lincoln sucks on a lot of issues, but a Patty Murray or Bernie Sanders couldn't get elected dog catcher in Arkansas.
3. If the economy improves, Dems go up. But, there's a limit. Ironically, if the economy really gets good (unlikely) the economy will not be a major issue. If it goes down significantly, especially after some green shoots, Dems could be seriously hurt. I think best case scenario for Dems is unemployment peaking at 9.999% in the winter, dropping steadily to about 6 or 7% (2003 levels) by the election. Slow steady progress and positive momentum is better than a miracle turn around.
4. In off-years another factor is concurrent races, like referenda. Gay marriage has probably peaked as a GOTV issue, since the most conservative states have already voted on it, but there are other issues. Watch for the GOP to put gun rights or abortion on the ballot for 2010.
5. If the GOP develops a coherent message on the Iraghanistan, they gain points. But, doing that's easier said than done. Every time the war is mentioned, it reminds people of He Who Shall Not Be Named (Bush). They need to put this issue to bed, either by falling in line behind Obama and thereby making the Dems in Congress look like hippie peaceniks or by coming up with a credible defense for the Bush-Cheney war decisions. (Cold fusion would be easier.)
6. The Unknown is inevitable. I know nothing about 2010 except for one thing: there will be a Black Swan event. Pirates kidnap Britney Spears. Canada invades Greenland. The four conservatives on the Supreme Court are on a doomed plane. It turns out the Birthers are right. Al Qaeda blows up the Golden Gate Bridge. Or Timothy McVeigh types do. I have no idea what, but with over 13 months left between now and November 2010 something totally unexpected will happen. And that's where any sane man packs up his crystal ball.
Remember for years Democrats lead In the generic Ballet and yet Republicans keep the House.Obama's
approval Is better than Clinton
was.A fact the media likes to Ignore.NBC/WSJ has him at 51 Percent,Fox at 54 Percent,and CNN
at 58 Percent.Gallup has never had him lower than 50.Every special
election In 2009 have the Democrat
winning.Deeds has moved closer to Mcdonnel In Virginia and may have a shot at a narrow win.Christie has gone from Double diget lead In New Jersey to a 4 to 7 point lead
depending on the pollster.
Here is what Reagan did to get re-elected.
1982-08-01 9.8
1982-09-01 10.1
1982-10-01 10.4
1982-11-01 10.8
1982-12-01 10.8
1983-01-01 10.4
1983-02-01 10.4
1983-03-01 10.3
1983-04-01 10.2
1983-05-01 10.1
1983-06-01 10.1
1983-07-01 9.4
1983-08-01 9.5
1983-09-01 9.2
1983-10-01 8.8
1983-11-01 8.5
1983-12-01 8.3
1984-01-01 8.0
1984-02-01 7.8
1984-03-01 7.8
1984-04-01 7.7
1984-05-01 7.4
1984-06-01 7.2
1984-07-01 7.5
1984-08-01 7.5
1984-09-01 7.3
1984-10-01 7.4
1984-11-01 7.2
For argument's sake, let's suppose Obama is able to emulate Reagan's V-shaped recovery.
We are probably at this point in the cycle and handicap .7 points.
1982-10-01 10.4
Just below the peak of unemployment.
This means that by next October unemployment would be:
1983-10-01 8.8
-.7
8.1%.
Good luck with that.
"Poor Baby... You started it....You are a giant crybaby....Stop whining......I credited Nate and you started a sobbing contest."
I looked over all my posts and I don't see any crying, whining, or sobbing. There was certainly no contest. I just take references seriously. You mistakenly believed Nate wrote this article, and instead of saying so, tried to cover it up and then made up some lame reason you're still sticking to about why Nate deserves credit for Andrew's analysis.
I can't believe this is still a discussion, nor can I believe you guys are arguing over whether Reagan's true approval rating in the early 80s was 35 or 42%. What does it matter? It went through a dip, as all presidents' approvals do, including Obama's. But it didn't hurt his re-election at all.
Likewise, I do think Obama made a mistake handling the health care bill. Clinton did it wrong, and Obama took the complete opposite approach, thinking it would be the right one, and it's hurt his approval, because his leadership was a perceived strength, and he clearly has not effectively led on this issue.
However, if they pass a good bill with a public option, even though it doesn't kick in until 2013, it will be harder, if not impossible, for republicans to lie about what's in it. They can't say there are death panels if there are none in the final bill passed by both houses and signed by Obama(moot point since there never were any). They can't say illegals are covered if it isn't in the bill, even though the bill will not yet have gone into effect.
MPM, you're wishfully thinking, but I'm sure you also thought Sarah Palin would be the death of Obama's campaign and we all know how that turned out.
MPM, good to know one has discovered how to use "the google" ...
take care
Jeff said...
"Poor Baby... You started it....You are a giant crybaby....Stop whining......I credited Nate and you started a sobbing contest."
I looked over all my posts and I don't see any crying, whining, or sobbing.
~~~~~~~~~~
MPM uses projection a lot as do most of 538's "whining" ;) trolls ...
carry on
Shiloh, I guess you're used to dealing with MPM. I'm not. I used to post on here a lot last year but not much since. On his first couple posts on this thread, I actually thought he was trying to engage in serious debate. I point out a simple mistake and his cover-up, and he reverts to name calling, denials, projections, and changing the subject the way most teabaggers do.
It's becoming more and more rare to find a conservative who's actually able and/or willing to discuss policies intelligently and rationally.
This post is pure hogwash, and Andrew Gelman is a pure hogwasher.
Not the first time this has been noted.
As I have said a thousand times, anybody can sift through polling and find results that support any point of view.
What he is saying is that if the conditions do not change, or if hypothetically the election were tomorrow, the GOP would retake the house.
:facepalm:
That is the exact opposite of what he said.
"Under the heading, "Republicans not in a position to retake the House (yet)," Chris Bowers estimates that the Democrats have a 41.2%-37.7% lead in recent generic House polling. Bowers writes, "Democrats are, after all, still winning."
But it's not so simple. In research published a couple years ago, Joe Bafumi, Bob Erikson, and Chris Wlezien found that, yes, generic party ballots are highly predictive of House voting--especially in the month or two before the election-but that early polling can be improved by adjusting for political conditions. In particular, the out-party consistently outperforms the generic polls."
Jeff said...
Shiloh, I guess you're used to dealing with MPM.
~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, I've only been a "regular" at 538 for 4/5 mos. and only dealt w/MPM recently. His first post to me used various ad hominems and he called me an anti-intellectual, so I've amused myself w/him since.
Many at 538 would probably wish I'd disappear ;) and I may as I tend to lose interest easily, but giving trolls a hard time by stating the truth to them can be fun!
It's funny how you start off thinkin' some of these trolls may indeed, have something to offer in the form of political debate, but then after time you realize most are just your average, common, garden variety, spamming, winger trolls.
538 is no different than any other political blog as discussion can quickly turn into chaos and I'm to blame as well.
538 not having rules and regs or discernible moderation tends to accentuate this activity ...
take care
HA! Two conservatrolls flame warring on this site. Priceless
MPM: you started it!
Jeff: Did not!
MPM: Did to!
Jeff: NOT!
MPM: Did Too!
Etc. Wow, and I thought I sounded dumb when I went troll bashing.
I've been posting here since April/May right after the Nevada primaries and Olbermann started giving Nate props on Countdown. Long enough to realize that useful discourse disappears after about thirty posts. Unless Mule Rider (the only troll that has been booted off this site as far as I know) is off his meds.
A bummer for me as I'm on the west coast and don't get into the conversation until late.
wv: bradual. Gradually morphing into Brad
On topic: Nice extrapolation, Andrew.
I think you can draw some valid conclusions based on these data. I wonder if it's possible to follow trends from previous pendulum swings. Kind of like Hari Seldon (Asimov) and psychohistory.
"HA! Two conservatrolls flame warring on this site. Priceless
MPM: you started it!
Jeff: Did not!
MPM: Did to!
Jeff: NOT!
MPM: Did Too!"
"I've been posting here since April/May right after the Nevada primaries"
Conservatroll huh? That's a new one for me. Been called a lot of names in my day, but never conservative or a troll. Gotta tell ya, as a guy who hasn't voted republican in any statewide or national election since I first registered in 94, that's the first time anyone's ever called me conservative. By the way, the Nevada primaries were in January, but I've also been here since around April/May 08.
Seriously, being called conservative really hurts my feelings. That's the nicest way I can say it. And I challenge you to find anything I posted that falls under the "troll" category.
Can't help myself: You're a prick.
@Jeff
As shiloh pointed out above, there appear to be two Jeffs. I obviously mistook you for the other one. 1000 pardons
@Jeff
As shiloh pointed out above, there appear to be two Jeffs. I obviously mistook you for the other one. 1000 pardons.
At least I thought he posted it. He appears to have deleted it for some reason. ???
Mid Point Man...
Your credibility is weak.
It seems you have only heard/read/absorbed the Republican/conservative misinformation version of what health care reform will accomplish.
The biggest thing -- relevant to your predictions concerning health care legislation passage -- you miss is that provisions prohibiting insurers to deny claims for pre-existing conditions or establishing life time caps on coverage will be implemented IMMEDIATELY.
I have not heard of anyone who won't have very favorable reactions to this.
There is, of course, more to the legislation than the insurance reform part, that in some legislation still pending final drafting has been slated for a 2013 enactment.
*******
Frankly, if health insurance reform passes WITH the goal of CHOICE (the public option accomplishes this) for consumers included -- the Democrats could feasibly win seats.
If you only look to Texas and these four counties (Dallas, Harris, Bexar, Travis) that went solidly (Travis, especially) for Obama in the last election... you will see some weak links in the conservative/Republican chances to hold seats.
*********
It is too early to predict and as another poster said... there is likely to be one or more significant event that skews the races.
We live in a 24 hour "news cycle", with the internet and media in our pockets... things are exponentially different today from back, say in Reagan's time.
Point: You can't really predict the future using the past as a wholly accurate measure now.
It just a'int "then" anymore.
To clarify..
In my prior post I am referring to the implementation of the proposed "Health Insurance Exchange"... when I mentioned the health insurance reform slated to be available by 2013.
This is the PURCHASING of insurance part of the reform.
The regulation of Insurer practices is what will be immediate.
PS ... no mandate to buy without CHOICE... or the Democrats could lose BIG by losing their own party votes. I don't think a lot will vote Republican, but they could just stay home, all po'd !
Davy said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Just another reason why 538 should require membership. It would make referencing to other posters much less confusing.
Davy, deleted my post because wasn't sure you didn't already know about the (2) Jeff's and realized they are/were both anti Obama/Dem to be sure and they both may or may not be Rep trolls.
Whereas again, it is interesting that 538 appears to have no Rep posters anymore, only conservative independents and Libertarians. ;)
p.s. the conservative, religious, "Gays don't have a human right to be married", Canadian Jeff 3996 stood out because my last post re: him suggested moving to Alaska or Oklahoma after the '04 and '08 elections as those states may be a better fit for conservative religious zealots like himself.
carry on
Davy, thank you for clearing that up. I take it back. You're not a prick. :)
All is well again in my world. It would really freak me out to think I come across as conservative, or a troll.
I'll try to give myself a more distinctive name in the future, maybe San Diego Jeff.
One thing everybody—amazingly IMO—neglects to point out is that in order for there to be a surge of voters toward the GOP that party has to stand for something or at least put forward some ideas. In all the pontificating and comparisons to past voting histories, it is never acknowledged that there never was such a deadbeat, morally bankrupt political organization such as the current Republican Party. They don’t call them the Party of No for nothing—I say the “No” extends also to their future.
Shiloh, I apologize in advance if I'm misunderstanding you but are you implying I'm anti-Obama?
"Davy, deleted my post because wasn't sure you didn't already know about the (2) Jeff's and realized they are/were both anti Obama/Dem to be sure and they both may or may not be Rep trolls."
No worries, Diego Jeff. Gotta nice ring to it.
Pragmatus,
Your point is well made.
Except -- people vote AGAINST as well as FOR.
The Republicans seem to be putting their entire campaign and election chances on the AGAINST.
It is despicable and people with insight and objective thought processes see through it readily.
Unfortunately, our country also consists of folks who are not so bright and easily manipulated by emotions.
So,
Let me say... please.
No matter how bad the Dems are... we just can NOT let the Republicans win ... knowing their strategy is so blatantly foul.
This isn't new... it wasn't people using objective reasoning that bought into the Third Reich...
Let’s see if I can sort this out—
Jeff ID –3996 is from Canada and has a decidedly GOP twist to his thinking.
Jeff ID –4843 is from California (I’m in WeHo BTW) and has a decidedly progressive twist to his thinking.
Shiloh I don’t see two “bad” Jeffs, unless there’s another one—?
nicvera211…
True, but it’s harder to motivate people just by saying “Get out and vote simply to vote against our opponents!” I think the Democrats tried this in the past, without much success.
I am not a Democrat, but the behavior and recent corruption in the GOP makes me dead set against anything and everything they stand for (or slouch for, or pander to, etc.)
I am a progressive, but one who is disgusted by most political practices by both political parties. I am particularly revolted by the amount of health insurance lobby money that has made its way to both sides of the aisle in Congress. Democrat Max Baucus is the poster child for how business money is capable of corrupting anyone.
OK, apologies to the "good" Jeff 4843 as probably got him mixed up w/a winger as quickly skimmed this thread at the same time was reviewing the previous thread w/the other Jeff, when making my first post which I deleted and shouldn't have lol.
Was multitasking at the time doing a couple other internet(s) tasks and totally discombobulated myself. ;)
So my first post said sorry to Jeff and that one should apply to this mix-up!
Was trying to be nice and I confused myself ;) because 90% of the time I'm sarcastic at 538.
Yes Virginia it's true as I may need that vacation from 538 that I keep telling the Rep trolls to take. :)
carry on
p.s. there will be a spot quiz tomorrow re: 538 Jeff's ...
If the Republicans regain control in the house and senate, I am moving out of the country. I'll take my chances and my sanity to another country where the populace knows how to navigate the corruption rather than stay here and deal with the manic changes every 2-4 years.
All these national polls seem to be missing the big story. The complete regionalization of the GOP. If a poll shows 42-38 Dem over GOP nationwide, then that is probably 30-60 in the South, and 58-32 everywhere else.
Are there any seats available to pick up in the South for the GOP? I find it hard to imagine that there is more than a handful.
All the historical data that the original post is based on seems to be from a time when we had a great upheaval (out with Coastal Republicans and Dixie Dems). That process is over (first the Dixie Dems which was the 1994, then the Coastal Repubs in 2006 and 2008).
This thread has been wrecked by troll-feeding!
Great post Andrew. Despite what has been asserted here, you did not predict that the Dems will absolutely lose the house. Instead you presented clear historical data that show it is quite possible.
When I look at these charts, here's what I see: there were three midterm elections in the past 66 years with the combination of a Democratic president and a generic ballot with the Dems up by less than eight points between 240 and 300 days before the election, though they were up in all three cases. The Dems lost the national congressional vote-share in all three.
Sure a lot can happen in a year, and as Andrew acknowledges, the GOP has it's own set of large negatives at the moment. But that a generic ballot lead has historically never been enough for Democrats is an important and useful contribution.
Thanks Andrew.
I think there's a good chance that we could see a reemerging republicanism (small r) as a result of the uber-statist, centralized approach taken by the Obama White House.
Sure, the Republicans (Big R) will gain a few House and Senate seats on 2010, but so what? Obama will be weakened but, frankly, he's already weakened.
I think the next BIG WAVE of political movement will be towards increased regionalism, more localized empowerment, not a bad thing.
Myabe even some viable 3rd parties?
Walker…
You, know I can’t figure you out, except to assume that you don’t always tell the truth.
If you pay your own insurance premiums for a family of six, doesn’t it appall you how steeply the premiums have gone up over the past few years? Seems to me a sensible person, especially a money-grubbing Republican, would want to support change that stopped this escalation. If there is no reform, then the premiums you claim to be paying will escalate far beyond your ability to pay. Only through reform will the waste and extravagance of the insurance companies be reined in.
Or do you think somehow that premiums will start going down by some sort of magic? Please explain this magic intervention you foresee, because it can’t operate on the normal lines of economics.
In short, your story has holes in it.
(This is the point at which Walker always flies away, as do all GOOPers when confronted with embarrassing reality…)
Oh, Walker—
Walker?
I thought so.
Please take your GOOPer crap arguments elsewhere.
This thread is full of highly reasoned, erudite discussion! =D
But seriously. Since this entire thread is a trainwreck, I will state one obvious thing. Well, two.
1) New Jersey is shocking now? Granted, it was probably surprising that Dems managed to retain control after the McGreevey/Cipel scandal (you know, "I am a gay American (and OH YEAH I made my Israeli national boyfriend head of the state Department of Homeland Security just because he had a nice dick but still feel bad for me because I'm a homo)"), but that was two months after Katrina (which was watershed, I think - the ineptitude of Republicans was on display) and Dick Codey was nowhere near as hapless as David Paterson.
But New Jersey was a swing state as late as 1992, really. Its House delegation is split fairly evenly between Democrats and Republicans (though Dems picked up NJ-3 in 2008, Republicans managed to retain NJ-7 with another freshman). More importantly, throughout the '90's (up to 2001, in fact) it had a Republican (albeit moderate) governor. You may know her. She was President George W. Bush's first head of the EPA.
2) In my opinion - and I'm stating this as a New Jerseyan - opposition to Corzine isn't so much because he's a Democrat. His numbers were in the gutter through the 2008 election cycle. The opposition is more because he's seen as ineffectual and lacking the charisma of a wet paper bag.
Now, I know that Mid Point Man, NJ_Moderate, etc., etc. are probably going to dismiss me because New Jersey is in the OMG LIBERAL northeast. And this, in part, is true. On the other hand, this past election cycle, I believe 6 of New Jersey's 21 counties (granted, three of them were relatively low-pop - Sussex, Warren, and Cape May - but the other three were the fairly large Morris, Ocean, and Monmouth (albeit by a small margin) counties). But especially in the mid-Atlantic, you can't really pigeonhole the entire state as just like New England. It's probably more like the bastard son of Pennsylvania (which is still widely considered a swing state) and New York (which is considered one step right of full-blown communism).
Plus, gubernatorial politics are weird. Keep in mind, the People's Republic of New York had a R in the governor's mansion for 12 years. Vermont currently has a Republican governor, if I recall correctly, and this is a state that elected a Socialist (yeah, an actual socialist, guys - not just the "I'm not as far to the right as Genghis Khan" kind that is always the MOST LIBERAL CANDIDATE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD) to the Senate!
tl;dr - When Corzine gets his ass handed to him, it's not because we decided we love Republicans. Sorry. Nothing personal.
"uber-statist"
Conservatives are so good at this. Asserting an ideological point so blithely and with such confidence that it gets buried underneath your larger point. So no one ever challenges you on the fact that you called Obama an "uber-statist," which is absurd on its face, because they're too busy trying to respond to your more prosaic claims about "regionalism," or whatever.
Seriously. All conservatives do this, and it's exactly why American politics keeps threatening to tilt rightward. Because right-wingers are so damn good at embedding untested assumptions and stealth assertions into their language. The "death tax" is just a minor example. Consider the standard conservative narrative about the free market being naturally more efficient than government. This isn't a fact, it's a doctrine of faith, but by asserting it even before the argument begins, conservatives start with the upper hand every time.
The one exception to this dynamic is race. Liberals still automatically own race relations in this country.
Inferno said...
Finishing your point by looking at CNN's 2008 election map 6 of NJ's 21 counties voted Rep.
There was a poster at the other political forum I frequented who was born in Brooklyn, but grew up in NJ who stated categorically she was born a Rep ;) and we had nothing in common politically, but we both were/are huge Springsteen fans and it pains her to no end that Springsteen is a progressive.
Whereas I was born a cynic and a skeptic.
NJ, where Jewish Rabbis are allegedly involved in selling body parts. A tad more exciting than Ohio where our political scandals usually just involve money laundering, tax evasion, ethics violations and disenfranchisement of minority voters.
As I mentioned a couple mos. ago, if Corzine wins in NJ, Reps should fold up their tent and not leave a forwarding address.
Actually it was 7 of 21 including Hunterdon County.
carry on
brown, good points.
I figured I'd probably re-write it.
@Shiloh: Our scandals are generally equally pedestrian. The Jewish rabbi body parts thing is at least the most interesting thing since...okay, since 2004, but generally, we're pretty boring up here as well.
I do agree that if Corzine wins, that's pretty much the sign that Republicans are screwed. Pretty much no one supports him, really. Even I'm weighing voting for Daggett, even though Daggett's a fair bit to the right of me (probably moreso than Corzine).
Also, 7? I was going from memory, but I thought Hunterdon had gone blue. Guess I was wrong. Or I swapped a county.
Left off my list sexual harassment/extra-marital affairs ;) ie Marc Dann et al, Ohio's former Dem Attorney General who lasted a little over a year lol
Despite Ohio's horrible economy, Strickland is leading Kasich and either Brunner or Fisher is leading Portman for Voinovich's senate seat in the meaningless early polls.
Just like cheney/bush's legend looms large for the foreseeable future, likewise in Ohio former corrupt/incompetent governor Taft's legend looms large.
Was pleasantly surprised Obama won OH by (5) pts. as the "Bradley Effect" had no effect ;) and Ken Blackwell was no longer Ohio's Secretary of State in charge of elections. As D.L. Hughley said early 2008 in a comedy routine, cheney/bush have screwed up so bad America might elect a Black man ...
If the election were tomorrow.
It's still over a year away, and while I expect the Dems to lose seats, what we must remember is that approval ratings are not necessarily a ski slope, like we've been seeing since 9/11. Approval ratings go up too.
And I see the signs that approval is going to go up. Obama's stabilized his own approval rating, for example. He has to have stabilized it or it would have dipped under 50% by now. By the midterms, while we may REMEMBER the healthcare fight, much of the EFFECT from it will be long gone, replaced by a given voter's feelings on some other issue, whatever we happen to be fighting over at the time. Some will linger, but the intensity will be maybe a third of what it is now, if that, because it's over and settled one way or the other. And no issue drives down approval ratings like healthcare. I think they're almost bound to go up after an initial shock in whatever direction in the immediate aftermath.
Gaylthacan, I think you meant 1994 instead of 1992, Year 2 of Clinton's 8 years. In 1998 (not 1996), Year 6 of Clinton's 8 years, there was no change in the Senate - it remained at 55-45 GOP. The Dems picked up a few seats in the House, the first time since FDR(?) the president's party gained seats in his 6th year (due to the impeachment mess?).
There are many different elements in play this time versus 1994, many of them one-time.
(1) In 1994, one big issue was the "40 years of Dem control of the House" and the complacency which accompanied that. The Dems will have controlled the House for only 4 years by the time November 2010 rolls around.
(2) In 1994, we had the House Banking Scandal, a specific example of complacency in (1) above.
(3) In 1994 we had some court-ordered redistricting in some southern states (NC, GA, I believe). This redistricting created majority-minority districts while creating more conservative neighboring GOP districts. As a result, many white conservative Dems lost.
(3) In 1994, the Assault Weapons Ban had just been passed, angering a key constituency which votes solely on the gun issue.
(4) In 1994, a majority of the Ross Perot voters, returned to the reservation and voted for the Republicans.
(5) There was a unifying GOP figure, Newt Gingrich, and the Contract With America which made the midterm elections into a national campaign.
(6) Mentioned by Patrick earlier, the Republican gains were made mostly in the South. They can't win again seats they have already captured and held. The seats they would need to win the House this time are those in the Northeast, Pacific Coast, and purple-turning blue areas such as in parts of Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. The GOP will need less conservative candidates in the mold of Chris Shays and Connie Morella to win them. Are they out there and will they run?
Are there factors this time which did not exist in 1994 and which will help the Republicans? Yes. Will they exceed the factors which helped the GOP take over the House (and Senate) in 1994? I don't think so.
Brown, Obama is easily the most "uber-statists" chief executive we've ever had.
Let me count the ways: Gov't Motors, Fed-financed bank bailouts, a push towards a national energy policy, etc.
There is one thing Obama instinctively embraces: Top-Down, DC-led, centralized statism.
This, of course, is not wearing well on the American people as reflected in quickly falling approval ratings for Obama ON QUESTIONS REGARDING HIS KEY AGENDA, not his approval as a person or his likability.
The Republicans are a spent force and not in a position to capitalize on this like they did in 1994.
Instead, I think you will see the creation of strong, grass-roots led 3rd party movements, some right-wing, some left.
I could see some disenchanted liberals growing very frustrated in the general impotence of the Obama White House in passing the progressive agenda and moving towards a sort-of Green Party/Peace and Freedom Party alternative as a protest.
I agree with Walker except Obama's poll numbers are stable, low 50`s and have been that way for a while. The high poll numbers were never going to last.
Keep in mind Clinton was elected with only 42% of the vote Obama had a clear majority. I expect all the marginal seats the GOP lost to revert to them but I doubt a wave election is coming.
If democrats are stupid enough to let Obama fail they will all lose and deserve to. The only way the democrats lose the house is by stupidity.
If it does happen total gridlock will happen with the dems still having a big senate majority.
Oh well Americans get the govt they deserve. I still say if the economy is coming back in a strong
way the losses may be small.
USA Today is reporting that the GOP is out raising the Dems again. It appears as if the Tea Party movement also writes checks.
This is just my wet finger in the wind, but I wonder if the Obama campaign's ability to bring young people to the voting booth in 2008 will have a reverberation in 2010. Namely, after showing up and voting in 2008, will those same new voters have an increased proclivity to vote in the mid-terms, elections that in the past they would have skipped. I count myself as one of these voters. I used to vote in presidential years only, but now feel involved enough to get out the vote for the mid-terms.
I think Patrick's point regarding regionalism is well taken. In 1994, there were quite a few "relic" seats in the South held by Demmycrats, which ideologically were much more closely aligned with the Republicans. In 2006 and to a lesser extent 2008, the opposite was true--the moralistic social conservatism of the Republican party had created a vast gulf between the old Republican base in the Northeast, and their horrendous losses in the region were the result.
Now, we see a lot more stability. Although there are marginal districts held by Democrats (and several held by Republicans), the regional alignments have improved. I would also wager to say that when you look at the regional polling, the South skews the results significantly. I believe outside of the South, Obama's approval rating is approximately 57% in the West (which includes such conservative bastions as Utah and Idaho) and higher everywhere else. There are only so many Democratic seats in the South to take, and many of those are already safe seats dating from the days the Republicans packed as many African Americans into one district as possible.
Clueless Pelosi leaves the Blue Dogs twisting in the wind with an even more hard left Obamacare plan that will explicitly impose Medicare compensation caps in doctors.
The GOP is going to tie this nonsense to the Blue Dogs no matter how they vote.
Better and better.
I don't know if this has been mentioned. I can't read all 100+ of these comments!
But I was thinking about Biden's statement earlier this week, that Obama's agenda is at risk if the Republicans take Congress in '10. That's pretty intense. I think he's trying to mobilize the Democratic troops. Will that add another factor?
Also, I've been watching Grassely's (usually very high) poll numbers drop since he endorsed the death panel-tea party ideas. I don't doubt that the Tea Party movement will get people out to the polls. But I think there's potentially going to be just as many, if not more people, motivated to vote due to anti-Tea Party feelings. We know from the polls that the vast majority of Americans either oppose the Tea Parties, or aren't paying attention to them. Those video clips of racist and/or ignorant teabaggers have inspired a lot of backlash. That'll probably only grow as the Tea Party movement keeps pushing.
All that said, the Democrats are definitely going to be vulnerable if the job market hasn't recovered.
As to the issue of whether a platform is necessary, sometimes (obviously) it isn't. Case in point--2006. The Democrats ran on a lets not do this anymore platform, referring to our misadventures in the Middle East, domestic surveillance, social conservative controls over individuals, etc (*cough* remember this stuff, guys? I know many, many people who voted Democratic, including myself, because of these issues. Don't punish us by ignoring them). That was a ripe issue for a "let's not do this" platform because none of it needed to be done.
To some extent, that is something the Republicans can do in 2010. They can oppose all of the new programs and reforms, essentially saying the status quo pro ante was preferable.
I don't know this argument works for the jobs issue, though. As much skepticism as I have for the average voter's ability to understand and recall history, the Republican stranglehold on all three branches for most of the time leading up to the economic collapse will be remembered by some at least. Without some new plan, how many of these voters are going to want to go back to the economics that destroyed the economy in the first place?
Then again, I very well might be giving voters too much credit. Time will tell, I guess.
Pragmatus, I trust the entire progressive movement is disenchanted with a good number of Democratic politicians who appear more beholden to industry than their voters.
The one response to this is to exert pressure on these politicians and/or support their primary opponents. The other is to disengage in disgust.
Given the nature of the US electoral system, I don't think generally turning away from the Democratic party is a wise course for (very) progressive people.
Of course, progressives don't want to be taken for granted either. I think the movement is becoming a whole lot more assertive.
But come on, you're no more a true Independent than say nutjob Michael Savage is (who claims the same). How often have you not voted for a Democrat? My guess is not often. Surely, for all practical purposes you are a Democrat, no?
My basic point is that many of the "Independents" aren't actually ideologically positioned between the two main parties, but rather are more conservative than the GOP or more progressive than the Dems.
Such labels are hence not all that useful. Same goes for "conservative" or "liberal". "Liberal" essentially has been cast as being a bad word. I'm sure you'd get a whole lot more people self-identifying as "progressive" than "liberal".
And hey, I'd probably label myself as "moderate", but I'm nearly always on board with what progressives want. So also the "moderate" label is kinda fudged.
My sense is that self-identified moderates and progressives tend to be much in the same camp. Hence 70-80% being for a public option. My belief is that the majority of self-identified moderates have entirely written off the GOP. The GOP seems to have essentially pursued a scorched earth strategy, so it seems to me, when it comes to moderates.
And that is why I don't see the GOP making much of the way of electoral inroads in the foreseeable future.
I strongly disagree that the passage of health care reform, despite the shape and form of the bill, will help the Democrats in Congress in 2010. It may help President Obama in 2012, but not Congress, mostly for the reasons MidPointMan articulated, i.e., the hurt of the taxes to a majority of the electorate happens immediately; the potential benefits do not occur until well past the 2010 election, but also because the electorate is currently worried about their jobs and diminishing paychecks more than health care. If unemployment continues to be in the 9 to 11 percent range well into next year, which it is likely to do (even in mild recessions, unemployment lingers 6 to 9 months after the start of the recovery, and this is no mild recession) it will have an overwhelmingly negative effect on Democrats in Congress, despite whether health care is passed or not.
In my opinion, most voters are likely to view negatively the attention that Democrats are paying to the passage of health care, since they are not addressing their #1 issue of jobs and the economy; much like a man lost in the desert would perceive the gesture of receiving brand new clothing, rather than what he really wants--water!
umm....sure.... if the politcal landscape is static.
You know better Nate.
In 2010 healthcare reform will just be a sweet memory.
The GOP will be trying to hispander the demographic timer while the Teabagger Demographic chews them a new asshole on illegals.
Obama deliberately put healthcare out from 2010 in part to distance it, and in part to act while horrorshow Bush was still fresh in the electorates short memory.
Or maybe...you are just rope-a-doping Allahpundit?
hehe
Speaking as a Republican who will officially be a senior next election, I can tell you I have never been so eager to vote since 1980 when we got that loser Carter out of office.
I look forward to the next two election cycles. First the House, then the presidency and closer numbers in the Senate. Thank you, Obama!
One thing you missed in your analysis.
These polls done by MSM paid-for polling always WILDLY OVERSAMPLE DEMOCRATS.
For instance, the new NBC Poll showing Obama at 51% had 11% more Democrats than Republicans. Both Rasmussen and Gallup agree that this number should be 5%. Any poll which includes more than 5% Democrats over Republicans is simply wrong.
In other words, it is MUCH uglier than even this analysis suggests. The Dem base is disheartened, Independents felt like they were mislead and the Republican base simply could not be more motivated.
This is gonna get ugly in 2010 if ur a Democrat.
P.S., In 2006 and 2008, Democrats won in Republican districts by posing as moderates. NO ONE is gonna believe that again.
Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party. A heartfelt thanks!
Rasmussen, the #1 pollster for accuracy in 2008 shows the Republicans with a 4 point lead in the Generic Ballot and he polls only likely voters.
Like I said, it's gonna get ugly.
Bill—
Rasmussen wasn't most accurate about much of anything in 2008, but thanks for playing.
@Bill
Republican affliation is around 20% to 22%. Democrats are around 30% to 35%. That's not oversampling. That's reality.
It's going to be really hard for Republicans to win the House with no coherent leadership, polls showing them on the bottom of the favorability food chain, and no platform other than anti-Obama. Granted, they will make some gains due to historical shifting, but it's a pretty big hoop dream to think they'll regain the House.
@ Anyone
Did Mule Rider really get kicked? Haven't seen him for a while. What about PeteKent?
Latest Gallup polling shows the GOP in the early stages of a recovery.
It clearly shows that approval is recovering among the base.
From 63% approval to 83%. If the GOP wins in VA and NJ, the party will be energized again and this will rise to 90-95%.
The standing among independents dipped slightly, but is close to where it has been over the last year.
...around 31%.
This should be taken in this context...
The Democrats standing among independents dropped from 47% the baseline over the last year to 40%.
The GOP is at their 1-year historical baseline.
The Democrats are 20% below their 1-year baseline.
Given that only 11 points separate the parties...
D-51
R-40
This could get very close, very fast.
In June the spread was 19 points.
In December it was 21 points.
Obama is reviving the GOP.
If the GOP delivers candidates who are:
1. Solidly fiscal conservative
2. Pseudo-libertarian small government
3. Not polarizing culture warriors
they will retake the House given the current inertia.
If the GOP can reframe key social issues through a more libertarian prism (i.e. abortion as a state issue, not a federal issue)then you can address the base through the language of good governance, not moralizing or sermonizing.
It is the moralizing and sermonizing that drives independents batty.
Libertarian independents can sympathize with the idea that every little interest group should not be afforded special rights or unequal protection under the law.
They will bristle when the language turns to "sodomy = eternal damnation" and "porn makes you gay".
This is about sound governance and fairness, not moralizing.
If the GOP can get that balance right, they can be a majority party again.
Will they? Who knows.
@KinkorKnight -
Among all ADULTS the party affiliation according to Gallup is...
D-35
R-28
This was as of May, and I would guess these numbers have shifted to the GOP by a small margin since then.
Among LIKELY VOTERS, Rasmussen places the breakdown as:
D-37
R-33
Traditional surveys tend to oversample Democrats.
There is a participation bias (GOP more likely to refuse) and a time of day / day of week bias.
The GOP consists of a higher % of married people with kids.
GOP has a bigher % of employed vs. retiree and unemployed.
Both of these affect the likelihood of...
A) Being at home when calls are made
B) Taking the time to participate
Rasmussen is so accurate because he factors these into his survey weights.
Other pollsters do not.
Gallup
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118084/Democrats-Maintain-Seven-Point-Advantage-Party.aspx
Rasmussen
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends2/summary_of_party_affiliation
House races are all first & foremost LOCAL races.
What you are missing in this analysis is that the demographics that support the GOP and their agenda favor white southern conservatives.
That may mean clean sweeps in the south.
But it is not enough to win ANY national elections namely House majority, Senate majority or the WH.
That is the problem the Republicans face as they re-entrench as the southern white party.
You cannot take a generic trend and apply that across all regions of the country for House races in this way.
Here is a more recent Gallup Poll on Party ID:
For August it was...
D-34
R-28
However, with leaners it is:
D-45
R-40
Now, go look at the opinion polls from:
NBC
D-41 (22+9+10)
R-29 (10+8+11)
This gave Obama a 51% approval rating
a 46% rating on Health Care
a 34% "good idea" rating on the stimulus
a 39% "good idea" rating on Obama's health care plan
all based on a +12 Dem advantage on party ID, when it is likely closer to +4 or +5.
It also showed the Democrats +3 on the Generic Ballot.
With a realistic party breakdown, they are losing by 3 points.
Here is the breakdown.
Strong Democrat ...............................
22
Not very strong Democrat .................
9
Independent/lean Democrat ..............
10
Strictly Independent...........................
22
Independent/lean Republican ............
11
Not very strong Republican ...............
8
Strong Republican .............................
10
Other (VOL) .......................................
5
Not sure ...........................................
3
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122693/Democratic-Advantage-Party-Affiliation-Shrinks.aspx
Yeah, because we all know those retirees hate using the government as a tool to enforce morality, are very accepting of gays, are never racist, totally support civil liberties, and never participate in those well-informed town hall meetings. Thus the commanding Democratic presence among the old white demographic.
Not to mention the fact that 18-30 year olds are always home, actually have land lines all the time, and are great about taking time to answer survey questions. Besides, we all know that single people never work longer hours than married ones, and also never go out.
I'm glad Rasmussen takes all this into account for his polls.
"Bill—
Rasmussen wasn't most accurate about much of anything in 2008, but thanks for playing."
Loner, sorry, I'm on your side, but Rasmussen's final poll was almost deadly accurate. However, I'm still skeptical about their current polling.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
MPM, you're making way too many assumptions. What you're saying is that the republicans can get back in power by ignoring their christian base. I'd be fine with that. I am all for fiscal conservatism, I just hate how religious nutjobs have taken over the party. I don't like being in debt, that's a big reason I had a problem with Reagan and W. Obama has us in a hole too but there wasn't much he could do about that if he wanted to get the economy moving again. He did inherit this and it would take a true magician to fix it as quickly as conservatives are demanding.
I know the republicans say he should've frozen spending and cut taxes but obviously that wasn't going to happen for many reasons, plus it was not likely to stimulate the economy and his approval would probably be further in the tank.
@MPM
I wondered if I was going to attract your attention.
Perhaps my estimates are wrong, but that doesn't mean that the non/Rasmussen and Gallup pollsters are wrong, either. It is a big tendancy for folks to quote the pollster that most reflects victory for their side. Your polling arguments are based on your politics, as are mine.
I could go pulling up half-a-dozen other polls supporting my position. This one, for example:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_national_survey_fm_91521.php
But all we'll do is argue Party ID numbers until we're blue in the face. The truth is, I don't think the trends you are posting are accurate. Dems are regaining the dialogue, there's a intern Dem senator now (spoiling the filibuster), the economy is in a slow recovery (which, admittedly, may not do Dems much good in 2010), and the Repubs still have no leader and no real coherent strategy other than appealing to every fringe idea available (a point you keep ignoring, I might add).
You're betting the trends favor the Repubs. I don't. Time will tell. I will add, again, that the Repubs will probably make gains. I'm sure the House will lose seats and the Senate Repubs will regain their filibuster (not that it's done the Dems much good). But they won't change the landscape, and they have to remove the rather extreme public image the Repubs have rightly earned - something you're choosing to make excuses for and not address.
And will someone please tell me if Mule Rider got banned for sure, or is he just taking a vacation?
@MPM re: NJ - Did you even read what I said at all?
No. Don't answer that. I know the answer. But in tl;dr form - You are so painfully wrong it makes my head spin.
To quote Billy Madison (with the appropriate substitutions):
Mr. MidPointMan, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this post is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
All very good points Richard. I work from home but I ignore surveys every single time I've been asked to do one. But I found it interesting that retirees tend to be democrats, considering most of them are older and old folks are the only demographic Obama didn't win, not to mention they were the most common demographic at tea parties and town halls.
As brown said, I believe, that's just an example of the kind of lie conservatives like to insert into an argument that they hope gets overlooked, thinking if they say it enough, people will start to believe it.
@Patrick
http://www.themonkeycage.org/2009/09/are_republicans_now_officially.html
Very good point about the regionalization problem of the GOP. If you check out the brief article above, it's hard to see how the GOP can have big gains outside the South and the Mormon West (UT, WY, ID) in 2010. The GOP's favorable/unfavorables in the NE are 87% to 7%. That doesn't bode well for regaining lost GOP districts in NH, upstate NY and suburban PA. Though I would love to see closer polling to see if this is largely a rural to urban split, masked by large urban populations. (For example, if NYC is now 99% unfav for the GOP, they might still have decent numbers upstate.) OTOH if that's the case, it could be an uphill battle for the GOP in some urban/suburban districts in the South, places like NC-8, AR-2, SC-5 and FL-22.
I just don't know how the GOP gets out from under being a white, rural, older, socially conservative party when all of those groups are shrinking. Now, those demographics are all likely off-year voters, so they may do okay in 2010, but they should be concerned with the long run, of 4, 8 or 16 years out.
And as long as they have "You Lie!" moments, where a white, Southern man, who was one of only 7 state senators in favor of the Confederate flag, shouts out on the issue of immigration to a black POTUS, it just shows me they don't even get that there is a long-term structural problem, let alone are willing to fix it. (And nothing against Southerners, btw, I live in Charleston, SC myself.)
Jeff—
FYI
I've read that while many retirees ARE Democrats, they are rarely liberal. Some, at least, are Southerners who have a slightly different take on ideology than the rest of the party (indeed, some are probably old-school Southern democrats who align almost perfectly with conservative ideology). Most of those guys probably don't vote for the Dem national candidate.
If this wasn't the case, the Dems would slaughter the Republicans almost every year. I don't think the Republicans have EVER held an edge in partisan ID, maybe a tie a few years back but thats about it.
loner, I followed your link. Where in there does it discredit Rasmussen's polls? I'm not doubting you, I just didn't see it.
therainracer said...
This is just my wet finger in the wind, but I wonder if the Obama campaign's ability to bring young people to the voting booth in 2008 will have a reverberation in 2010. Namely, after showing up and voting in 2008, will those same new voters have an increased proclivity to vote in the mid-terms, elections that in the past they would have skipped. I count myself as one of these voters. I used to vote in presidential years only, but now feel involved enough to get out the vote for the mid-terms.
September 24, 2009 9:33 AM
**********
This post most definitely bears repeating.
Don't base all your data on PAST determinations of the "Likely Voters". The real "sea change" going on in America today is a generational change.
Look up birth rates... you'll see the baby boomers don't have all the marbles anymore. The natural cycle of life and death bears on this, if nothing else.
If you fail to take into account the emergence of the "young voter" in our information saturated world today, you fail to come to the most accurate conclusions.
Period.
Jeff—
You: Rasmussen's final poll was almost deadly accurate.
You linked to the RCP data where Rasmussen had a 6% margin in Obama's favor in their last pre-election national poll.
At the time Nate added a post regarding votes yet to be counted on 11/5, Obama's margin was 6.1%. When final results were released a few months ago the actual margin was 7.27%. Accurate, deadly or somewhat, on 11/5 was only somewhat and not most long before July 2009.
Barack Obama (Democrat) 69,498,516 52.93%
John McCain (Republican) 59,948,323 45.65%
Ralph Nader (Independent, Peace and Freedom) 739,034 0.56%
Bob Barr (Libertarian) 523,715 0.40%
Chuck Baldwin (Constitution/Reform/U.S. Taxpayers) 199,750 0.15%
Cynthia McKinney (Green, Independent, Mountain) 161,797 0.12%
Write-In (Miscellaneous) 112,597 0.09%
Alan Keyes (America’s Independent) 47,746 0.04%
Ron Paul (Constitution, Louisiana Taxpayers) 42,426 0.03%...
Ok, so they were a little over a percent off from polling to the actual result. That sounds close to me considering the larger margin of error. Other pollsters were farther off, but 538 had it closest with it's models.
Jeff—
Other pollsters were also closer and Nate's model wasn't as close to the actual margin of victory as the RCP and Pollster averages.
Bart DePalma said...
USA Today is reporting that the GOP is out raising the Dems again. It appears as if the Tea Party movement also writes checks.
~~~~~~~~~~
Keep hope alive! BDP w/your ad nauseam o/t posts and speaking of o/t ...
MPM, always enjoy your daily intellectual ;) Limbaugh talking pts. :)
Really
take care
therainracer said...
This is just my wet finger in the wind, but I wonder if the Obama campaign's ability to bring young people to the voting booth in 2008 will have a reverberation in 2010.
~~~~~~~~~~
If Obama can mobilize the same folk/volunteers in 2010 that worked for him in 2008 is the question.
Also, how will early voting affect the process. Because of Obama, the Dems/DNC is ready to roll w/computerized info of just about every person who voted for him in 2008. Way ahead of the dwindling Rep party in this regard. The Dems have conquered the internet(s).
This is not your grandfather's Dem party ...
The Dems know how to win elections now and cheney/bush will be a constant theme for the next several years along w/the new leaders of the Rep party, Limbo and Beck!
take care
Pragmatus said...
Jeff ID –3996 is from Canada and has a decidedly GOP twist to his thinking.
~~~~~~~~~~
He said he lives in Canada, but is he a Canadian? as his winger talking pts. are right out of Kansas or Oklahoma ...
"If democrats are stupid enough to let Obama fail they will all lose and deserve to. "
I agree. I also live in DC. I saw the tea parties. These people were never going to vote for Obama, or any Democrat. I'm sorry they're so frustrated, but I don't want to live in the world they were promoting.
In 1999, real wages were 16% higher than they are today. In 2001, the CBO predicted a $710 billion surplus for 2009. I don't want the people who were in charge during that time to regain power. We're just starting to clean up after their mess. I think there are a lot of people like me out there who don't have time to go yell at some town hall, and who don't get our "news" from an email forward. I hope we'll win, again, before these bozos regain power.
Honestly, watching the corporate give aways and the irrational freak outs, I always think of that phrase conservatives like to quote, "A society is only free until a minority learns it can vote itself a pay raise..." or something like that. I think that's the exact situation we had for 8 years. I'm glad it's finally being cleaned out. And I don't want to go back. I just hope there are enough like me. Because the tea parties were both much less well-attended than advertised (The yoga-on-the-mall was more crowded) and completely without credibility in terms of workable policy proposals.
@ Bart De Palma
Medicare compensation caps? Really? That's your emotionally resonant, bumper sticker issue?
I can see it now, ten thousand people in the streets (a candle light vigil, maybe) singing protest songs about a marginal shift in the capitation rates of contracted Medicare providers.
Yeah, that sounds like the basis for a mass movement. Even the folks on this site aren't that wonky.
Oh, and BTW, you make assertions about these changes to Medicare based on a Hill article which never mentions it. Was your law school comfortable with non-germane, fictional citations, or is this a habit you've developed since then?
Nosimplehiway said...
@ Bart De Palma Medicare compensation caps? Really? That's your emotionally resonant, bumper sticker issue?
This resonates rather profoundly with the doctors from whom the government will be stealing and the private insurers who will be undercut by fiat and put out of business as I and other conservatives have been pointing out for months.
Both the doctors and insurers had generally been supporting health insurance legislation where the government would send them more clients. Pelosi is making it increasingly clear that they are targets rather than allies in this effort.
Given how Obamacare is crashing and burning with voters, alienating special interest allies is hardly a smart idea. But, then again, Pelosi is not about to see her socialist dream fail.
For some strange reason, the businesses targeted by our new socialist government have
closed their check books to the Dem Party. Go figure.
"For some strange reason, the businesses targeted by our new socialist government have
closed their check books to the Dem Party."
This is a bad thing? You're bragging about this? I'm happy the democrats aren't caving to special interests. We'll just leave it to republicans to promise government help to the wealthiest Americans.
That article said dems trail reps by $1.7M. Considering we're talking about tens of millions, that's not a huge difference. Besides, many of us went all in last year on our donations and are waiting until next year to donate again.
What a pathetic argument on your part. Thanks for proving our point.
The Hill is reporting:
“The vast majority of the caucus wants a public option, but we have to get the votes of a majority of the Congress,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) after leaving a closed-door caucus meeting.
He said he was surprised by how many freshmen and New Democrats oppose the public option, in addition to Blue Dogs, who have been more vocal in their opposition. Still, he expects Pelosi to include a public option.
“My guess is that leadership will prevail,” Moran said.
Pelosi clearly favors a public option. On Thursday she ruled out a “trigger” mechanism that would leave a government-run healthcare plan as a fallback option, enacted only if other reforms didn’t make healthcare more accessible.
And like her fellow liberals in the party, she wants reimbursement rates tied to Medicare. Blue Dog Democrats and other centrists are skeptical of any public plan and especially don’t want one linked to Medicare.
Blue Dogs say that if Pelosi follows through on including a public plan, it won’t have enough votes on the floor. Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), a prominent Blue Dog, said there probably isn’t enough support for any one approach within the Democratic Caucus to get the needed 218 votes. He said Pelosi should take a sharp turn to the center and see if she can pull together centrist Democrats and centrist Republicans.
“Somebody’s got to find a way to convince Republicans they’re not the party of ‘no,’ ” Boyd said.
Good luck with that. Obamacare is a Dem project from start to finish. You Dems own it.
Jeff said...
BD: "For some strange reason, the businesses targeted by our new socialist government have
closed their check books to the Dem Party."
This is a bad thing? You're bragging about this? I'm happy the democrats aren't caving to special interests. We'll just leave it to republicans to promise government help to the wealthiest Americans.
Deal. Between American business and socialist Czars of the Obama Administration, I will take business every time and twice on Sundays.
Oh, my mistake, I thought we were talking about campaign finance. What exactly does the czar system implemented by conservative icon Reagan and followed by every subsequent president have to do with that?
I thought my point was clear, but in case it wasn't, I was saying that I would rather our leaders collect donations from regular people like myself who are not trying to buy influence than from rich folks who are only trying to line the pockets of our politicians for their mutual gain. Apparently you prefer the latter, even twice on Sundays.
Jeff:
Honestly, are you living in a cave?
For some reason, American business feels threatened by socialist czars running the US auto industry, the home mortgage industry, any part of the economy emitting carbon dioxide (which is all of it), and soon to be the health insurance and thus the health care industries. Thus, no more checks from American business to the socialists.
Please spare me the self righteous nonsense about politicians lining their pockets with campaign cash. Your President is the pre-eminent champion for the foreseeable future at this.
@ Bart De Palma
What I find amusing is how conservatives use the term Obamacare, to imply that it's something people won't like.
I'd be all for changing the name of Medicare to "LBJcare", or Social Security to "Franklin Roosevelt's Democratic Plan for Retirees". If we pass a bill that's worth the congress voting into law, I think they should actually title it Obamacare.
Should we start calling the budget deficit the "Bushbust"? Maybe something snazzier, like "Republicans Spending Lots For Nothing Without Paying For It".
The reason conservatives are so batshit, crazy, terrified of real HCR is that anytime liberals put together a well-designed program, we gain supporters. Gain big. These are programs that tend to become so beloved by the American people they jealously guard them at the ballot box. For generations.
How would the GOP do next year if they campaigned on a platform of promising to cancel Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, the EPA (thank you, Pres. Nixon), Headstart, WIC and SCHIP? There are neo-cons and libertarians across the country who never grew out of their Ayn Rand phase, the way most college freshmen eventually do, who seriously want to abolish or privatize those programs.
"Starve the Beast" sounded like a good slogan, in theory, but it turns out American voters collectively are the Beast.
Bart, you make no sense. One minute he's a socialist. The next he's beholden to special interests? Personally I think the latter is closer to he truth. Obama's a politician first and foremost. But I don't see how that jives with him being socialist. As he's said, he didn't come into office planning on helping the banks and auto industries. He was faced with a catastrophe and he had to deal with it. I suppose if we'd let all those institutions fail and we were looking at 20-30% unemployment as a result, you'd all be applauding him for sending us into a depression?
And by the way, no matter how many times you use the word socialist, it doesn't become any more of a threatening word. Socialism is what we have with schools, roads, military, etc. You don't like these things?
Bart DePalma said...
For some strange reason, the businesses targeted by our new socialist government have
closed their check books to the Dem Party. Go figure.
~~~~~~~~~~
Bart, Bart, Bart you've become a serial spammer and o/t poster just like PK, Walker and TommyReport very sad! ;)
Come'on buddy, you're better than that, ok, I'm lying ...
BDP, remember my recent post saying most trolls eventually turn out to be of the common, garden variety type.
take care
MidPointMan's claims are untrue. At least concerning the Baucus bill, the mandate and revenue items don't go into effect until 2013 or 2014. Furthermore, many of the other items he mentions (junk food tax, etc.) are not in any of the bills at this moment and are, therefore, merely speculation on his part... though like the other revenue items, these too would almost certainly go into effect in 2013/2014 if included.
For those debating him, I would suggest not wasting your time with ad hominems. It's pretty easy to fact check his claims by simply referring to the bills in question. Even regarding his "all pain, no gain" slogan, the first page of the Finance bill lists the provisions that would be implemented immediately:
Small Business Tax credits
Medicare Part D Drug Discounts (what were you saying about angry seniors?)
State Health Insurance Exchanges (or a national exchange if the Wyden Amendment passes)
Furthermore, MidPointMan's erroneous claim that the bill attempts to deceptively appear as deficit-reducing by scoring 10 years of revenue generation with 6 years of new expenditures is refuted by two important points:
(1) again, most of the new revenue measures don't kick in until 2013
(2) CBO has found that the bill cuts the deficit further over a twenty year period
In other words, MidPointMan is full of it.
Rahmsputin said...
MidPointMan's claims are untrue.
...
In other words, MidPointMan is full of it.
~~~~~~~~~~
but MPM is an intellectual ;) just sayin' ...
Nosimplehiway said...
@ Bart De Palma, What I find amusing is how conservatives use the term Obamacare, to imply that it's something people won't like.
You miss the point. We call it Obamacare because we are tying an increasingly unpopular government health insurance plan to its author.
The Dems tried the same thing with 1982 by using the term Reaganomics to tie Reagan's policies to Carter's recession. However, as Reagan famously quipped during the 1984 campaign, they stopped doing so once the economy came roaring back.
We will see whether Obama will have a similar opportunity to get the last laugh. I tend to doubt it.
Jeff said...
Bart, you make no sense. One minute he's a socialist. The next he's beholden to special interests?
What makes you think that socialists are not beholden to special interests? Socialists are simply beholden to different special interests. See Obama's use of over $60 billion of our tax money to pay back the unions by buying Chrysler and GM for the UAW.
Bart DePalma said...
This post has been removed by the author.
~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed, Obamacare and socialism as BDP's song and dance sideshow continues at 538.
Re: the last laugh. How long will it take Reps to live down the disaster/joke which was cheney/bush? hmm ...
and yes, BDP, as a rule makes no sense as he spins and deflects his ad nauseam daily minutia.
Keep hope alive!
shiloh,
If you look back to 2006, you will find Republicans and conservatives making claims just as strenuously as BDP is about a Republican resurgence.
That is what they do. The GOP is always going to win big the next time, no matter what the situation is.
In 2008, they were going to win big. Why? War hero, secret Muslim, Bradley Effect, Palin, centre-right country, and the base will turn out in big numbers. All of those things turned out to be a fantasy. Now they deny that anyone ever thought that The Incredibly Fearsome Base (TIFB) would turn out in huge numbers. But it is "obvious" that TIFB will do so next time.
Funny thing is, TIFB was supposed to turn out in a huge way in 2006, too. The "victory" in Iraq was going to rouse the base to the polls, and Presidential approval numbers would have no effect on "local" races (House and Senate). Rove had "the math" that proved all Republican were safe, and the Party would actually make gains (in his mind). When that turned out to be delusional, they merely shook their fists and made up scenarios for a big win in 2008.
The Faithful perpetually bleat and squawk, shake their fists, and make dire threats about what TIFB is going to do next time. Then, pundits stroke their chins and say, "Hmmm". And when it is proven that everything they said was delusional, they deny they ever said it or believed it, and start the whole process over again.
When you have people who continually buy into delusional scenarios and reasoning, and who strenuously assert these delusions at length, and then deny ever having asserted these delusions, it is hard not to laugh when these same people do the exact same thing all over again and expect to be taken seriously.
Let TIFB go nuts and nominate fringe candidates who will put both feet in their mouths on a regular basis. When they lose to sober and rational Democratic candidates, BDP will change his screen name and tell us all that nobody ever really thought that the nation was deathly afraid of socialism or cared about a birth certificate, but that we should expect a really big resurgence in 2012.
Exactly Todd, spot on as I mentioned at the other political forum I frequented there was this Gay self-loathing Rep who would smugly remind all the progressives that the party of No! had won the previous 7 out of 10 presidential elections and it was sooo surprising that the Dems had managed to even win those (3). Of course Carter winning was solely because of Watergate and Ford pardoning a constitutional criminal nixon and Clinton was because of Perot and Bush41's economy.
but, but, but from 1954 to 1994 Congress was controlled by Dems as they now also appear to be on another (40) year run, given the current discombobulation and incompetence of the Reps. Presidential politics is an entirely different animal than state, senate and congressional races as you are electing a C-in-C and Dems have made it easy nominating very, very weak candidates in the past ie McGovern, Carter, although weak still beat Ford who was appointed president, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.
As my old high school football coach used to say, it's amazing how many times you win, when the other team doesn't score er is pathetic ;) I digress.
Rove's genius was scorched earth politics much like Lee Atwater ie the Reps meme for the past (40) using the fear factor, putting hate issues on the ballot because hey, in the past it worked! bottom line. Rove was also very good at registering new voters and getting out the vote.
Here's the current rub for Reps as they won in 2004 because Kerry was a very, very weak candidate, and Rove registered 300/400k new voters in FL and OH and Reps were very, very good at getting out their vote, but this of course was before cheney/bush totally destroyed/deflated the party of No! and now there are very few new/young voters for them to register as they have lost the youth vote for a couple generations, if not more.
Also, 2000 must be mentioned when Rove used these same tactics and cheney/bush, in fact, got less votes than Gore, who didn't show up and still got more votes.
This is the current Rep reality as they have lost the youth vote and continue to lose minorities w/their racist rhetoric and actions. Yes Virginia, there aren't enough teabagger racist yahoos out there to make a difference in presidential politics as most of these are already solid Reps ie preaching to their dwindling lemming choir.
Yes BDP, know it, learn it, live it, believe it
As I mentioned a couple wks ago the Reps are lucky all eligible American voters don't vote, because if they did, Reps would never win a presidential election imo.
Reps are surprised they don't win every presidential election and when they don't, especially to a young, relatively inexperienced bi-racial, African/American, Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Fascist, wealth-distributor, Satan, the Devil Incarnate, the Anti-Christ, Arab, whose a Muslim born in Kenya ... then, then their idiotic ad nauseam minutia rationalizations kick into overdrive lol
Sorry BDP, no more Reps out there to register and you have shot your wad on all the hate issues to put on the ballot as the bible belt states are a continuing dwindling minority ie OK, KS, NE, AR, LA ie not enough evangelical racists out there to have an effect.
but, but, but as always Bart, you can have the aforementioned states because hey, no need to be greedy!
that is all ...
p.s. Rove, Morris, Rasmussen, Coultergeist, Crowley, Bernard Goldberg, etc. are regulars on Billo, yea this 100% negative echo chamber will bring Reps back from the dead! along w/beck, hannity, limbo, savage, boortz, larson, ingraham, malkin, prager, liddy, etc. as they continue to preach to the dwindling yahoo rednecks out there.
That's the ticket!
Todd Dugdale said...
If you look back to 2006, you will find Republicans and conservatives making claims just as strenuously as BDP is about a Republican resurgence.
You may want to actually read my posts. I am making observations of Dem overreaching self destruction and a conservative, but not necessarily a GOP, resurgence. As I have repeatedly pointed out, GOP does not always equal conservative and the GOP will not win back the House in 2010 unless they completely dump Bush's "big government conservatism" and get back to the real thing.
No BDP, you've been smugly predicting a Rep takeover of Congress in 2010 for quite some time and not using any qualifiers in your disingenuous spin er deflection er red herrings er 538 winger troll posts ...
OK, in your case it's more like hoping/praying than predicting! ;)
take care
It is difficult to envision wide spread wins by Republican candidates. I have not seen recent poll data but I would be shocked to see voters having a positive opinion of Republicans.
This is the first time in my memory where party identification of a candidate may be an overriding consideration and affect an outcome.
Baring some major unknown event, my sense is that Republican candidates will not enjoy widespread support to win back the house.
It is difficult to envision wide spread wins by Republican candidates. I have not seen recent poll data but I would be shocked to see voters having a positive opinion of Republicans.
This is the first time in my memory where party identification of a candidate may be an overriding consideration and affect an outcome.
Baring some major unknown event, my sense is that Republican candidates will not enjoy widespread support to win back the house.
Rasmussen reports that a whopping 2/3 of likely voters are pissed off about the current policies of the federal government. However, before the GOP starts having images of 1994 dance in their heads, 7 in 10 of the pissed off believe that neither party's political leaders have a clue:
Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 36% who are Very Angry.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 30% are not angry about the government's policies, including 10% who are Not at All Angry.
Adding to the voter frustration is the fact that 60% believe neither Republican nor Democratic political leaders have an understanding of what is needed today.
Among those who are Very Angry about government policies, 80% say that neither political party’s leaders have the answers.
Ninety percent (90%) of Republicans are at least somewhat angry along with 44% of Democrats and 77% of those not affiliated with either major party.
More than seven-of-10 Republicans and unaffiliated voters say the neither party has the answers. Democrats are more evenly divided.
Bart DePalma said...
Rasmussen reports that a whopping 2/3 of likely voters are pissed off about the current policies of the federal government. However, before the GOP starts having images of 1994 dance in their heads, 7 in 10 of the pissed off believe that neither party's political leaders have a clue:
Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 36% who are Very Angry.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 30% are not angry about the government's policies, including 10% who are Not at All Angry.
Adding to the voter frustration is the fact that 60% believe neither Republican nor Democratic political leaders have an understanding of what is needed today.
Among those who are Very Angry about government policies, 80% say that neither political party’s leaders have the answers.
Ninety percent (90%) of Republicans are at least somewhat angry along with 44% of Democrats and 77% of those not affiliated with either major party.
More than seven-of-10 Republicans and unaffiliated voters say the neither party has the answers. Democrats are more evenly divided.
~~~~~~~~~~
BDP, since one has an incestuous ;) relationship w/Rasmussen's totally skewed in the tank of the Rep party polling, I highlighted it for 'ya! :)
btw, as even biased Rasmussen points out above the Reps suck just as much as the Dems, eh and if one looks at more reliable polling the Rep's favorability is subterranean, but, but, but you swear by Rasmussen so I won't bother w/source material as polling over a year out of the 2010 elections is totally, totally meaningless.
Again, all politics is local, incumbents always have a major, major advantage, especially Senators, sooo why did you waste your time posting the above nonsense and the bigger question lol why did I waste my time replying. ;) take care ...
Keep hope alive!
The relevant question - Will party identification play a significant role in the mid terms?
My premise is that as annoyed as some may be at the ambitious Democratic agenda, the GOP image will be a factor. The attempts to blame the Democrats for all the ills and the behavior of many Republicans will affect local elections and prevent a 2010 GOP turn around.
As always, name recognition ie the power of incumbency and money will have its effect. Plus do "we" really want to return to the disaster of cheney/bush er their legend will loom large in Dem political advertising.
In the late '60s the face of the Dem party was Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, Angela Davis, The Black Panthers, SDS, Jerry Rubin, Abby Hoffamn, etc.
Today, the face of the Rep party is Limbo, Beck, Hannity, Billo, Malkin, Ingraham, Savage, Boortz, Larson, Crowley, Morris, Rove, Goldberg ie the fixednoise negative/racist echo chamber along w/their sheep bat shit crazies palin, mittens, Huckabee, Jindal, Gingrich, Perry, Ensign, Sanford, Vitter, Boehner, Cantor, Steele, Bachmann, Blackburn, Joe Wilson, Jean Schmidt ie the birthers, deathers, 10thers, secessionists er very, very sore losers!
Hence, ergo, therefore Obama elected quite easily after (8) years of cheney/bush.
Again, how did the Dems get sooo damn lucky. Thank you party of No! for becoming what the Dem party used to be lol.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Let's debunk an utterly INSANE meme: "As long as the Dems are able to pass health care reform they will not lose the House. Why?"
Hogwash. The opposite is true. Democrat OVERREACH will result in a Democrat ROUT in 2010. ObamaCare= overreach. If Democrats trimmed sails NOW they could trim losses in 2010. It's a real simple matter of whether they are listening to concerns of voters or TONE DEAF to them.
The concerns? JOBS, DEFICITS, ECONOMY. Put cap-and-trade on ice, deep six expensive health care mandates/taxes/spending, and focus on job creation. Do those things and Democrats survive. Vote for ObamaCare and say bye bye to Pelosi and Reid.
"1. The economy will begin getting better by then. That'll help Dem approval."
- healthcare reform will NOT help the economy, either short OR long term
- the healthcare mandates WILL harm business employment, so high unemployment WILL hang around Democrat necks if this passes
"2. People will realize that health care reform didn't kill their lives."
- People will ALSO realize that most provisions wont kick in until 2013 and THE ONLY WAY TO FIX THOSE THINGS will be to dump the Democrats
-
"3. Health care will no longer be an issue (unmotivates the opposition)
Just for those reasons alone it becomes unlikely Dems lose the House."
- You are so friggin' blind you might as well stick hot pokers in your eyes. Maybe you need to visit a Tea Party rally. The MORE the Govt does, the STRONGER the opposition.
"I wonder if the Obama campaign's ability to bring young people to the voting booth in 2008 will have a reverberation in 2010. Namely, after showing up and voting in 2008..."
Those young voters are now suffering from double-digit unemployment and a bleak future economically. They will take revenge on Dems for destroying jobs with their tax-and-spend-and-regulate insanities.
Massive independent voter repudiation of tax-and-spend-and-run-up-deficit Democrat policies wil happen.
"It is difficult to envision wide spread wins by Republican candidates. I have not seen recent poll data but I would be shocked to see voters having a positive opinion of Republicans."
ARE PEOPLE THAT BLIND? Despite massive media bias and the power of the White House arrayed against Republicans, VA and NJ just shifted 15 POINTS TO THE GOP. Not just for Governor, but in downballots races, the shift was large, especially in affluent counties (see Barone's article).
You havent seen any recent poll data? That was it! If replicated in 2010 congressional races, it would be an 80 to 100 seat pickup.
Post a Comment