Michael Barone:
Late yesterday, Gallup came out with new numbers on the generic ballot question—which party’s candidates would you vote for in the election for House of Representatives? Among registered voters Gallup shows Republicans ahead by 46%-42%, about as good a score as Republicans have ever had (and about as bad a score as Democrats have ever had) since Gallup started asking the question in 1942.
However, Gallup also shows the results for two different turnout models. Under its “high turnout model” Republicans lead 53%-40%. Under its “low turnout model” Republicans lead 56%-38%.
These two numbers, if translated into popular votes in the 435 congressional districts, suggest huge gains for Republicans and a Republican House majority the likes of which we have not seen since the election cycles of 1946 or even 1928. For months, people have been asking me if this year looks like ’94. My response is that the poll numbers suggest it looks like 1994, when Republicans gained 52 seats in a House of 435 seats. Or perhaps somewhat better for Republicans and worse for Democrats. The Gallup high turnout and low turnout numbers suggest it looks like 1894, when Republicans gained more than 100 seats in a House of approximately 350 seats.
Having said that, caution is in order. Gallup’s numbers tend to be volatile. Its procedures for projecting likely turnout are very sensitive to transitory responses. They’re useful in identifying shifts in the balance of enthusiasm. But they can overstate the swings to one party or the other. Scott Rasmussen’s l among likely voters show Republicans with only a 45%-42% lead, much less than the 48%-38% lead he reported two days ago. That’s based on a three-day average, indicating Democrats fared relatively well on the most recent night of interviewing. Perhaps Barack Obama’s attempts to gin up enthusiasm among Democratic voters are bearing fruit. Or perhaps one night’s results were an anomaly. Polling theory tells us that at least one out of 20 polls is simply wrong, that is, the results differ from what you would get from interviewing the entire population by more than the margin of error.
The realclearpolitics.com average of recent generic ballot polls, with the Gallup likely voter results factored in, shows Republicans ahead by 48%-42%, which is similar to what we’ve seen for the past week or two.
Good news for the GOP, even if one factors in what might be a recent Obama-aided Democrat bump.
And yet:
the latest Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center, shows that Republican leaders on Capitol Hill drew a spare 24 percent approval rating, down from 33 percent in July, while their disapproval figure had climbed up 7 points from 53 percent, tied for their worst performance in the nine-plus years since Pew has asked about House and Senate barons in both parties.
Democratic leaders did slightly better with a 30/53 approval/disapproval split on the same question, leaving their net margin roughly unchanged since July, when the GOP had outperformed them.
To believe the National Journal, “[…] six in 10 Americans have a negative view” of the GOP — a “level of GOP unpopularity” that “leaves the Democrats some campaign leverage against their GOP critics with less than a month to go before Election Day.”
But how much of that increase in GOP unpopularity is a result of Tea Party-types — conservatives, independents, etc., — showing their displeasure with the GOP establishment, particularly in light of their refusal to support certain of the Tea Party’s preferred candidates, despite those candidates having won GOP primaries?
I honestly don’t know. I’d like to believe that the American electorate has finally awoken from its slumber / phantasm / emotional desire for “symbolism” made manifest. But after years of watching the US flirt with electing socialists — before finally going ahead and doing it — I’m not so sure that’s the case.
The coming mid-term elections will tell us much. I hope the message bodes well for the future of our great experiment in self governance.
And we’ll know that only if we see pointed change.
Ironic, eh?
****
related: “Democrats say their election prospects are improving”
Based on past performance I believe Barone has a pretty good feel for this race and I would take his predictions seriously. The next person I would take seriously as a predictor would be Charlie Cook.
Just my take from following the old horse race for years.
I’ve got a few good links today, regarding the hope and the future of our great experiment in self governance.
I think OUTLAW is spreading.
your blog is very pretty
I’ve been arguing for awhile that if we touted some specifics of what we’d do in power we’d be better positioned for the coming budget battles because we’d have created a mandate. It’s easy to demonize a political party.
It’s possible though that if the mid-terms are truly historic then such a mandate might be impossible to effectively deny. As we’ve seen with the Tea parties, it’s much harder to demonize the populace.
Accusation: The GOP wants old people to eat dog food!
Response: Yeah, blah, blah, blah… and yet the American people still hate you assholes much more. Now, let’s talk about public union pensions.
Time to depress Democrat turnout. Proggies and Libtards need to send those centrist sellouts Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid a message!
Why thank you Happy. I’ve been obsessing over music lately, but that happens.
My crude methodology is “sign counting” – I have to drive from the Suburbs to well Downstate here in IL. Even in the State Capitol I barely saw any “D” signs – and every Constitutional office in the state and both Houses of the Legislature is “D”.
2008, didn’t see anything but “D”.
change
This, I think, is an extremely good idea.
They’re failing for some obvious reasons. They sold out to the insurance companies when they didn’t insist on single payer. They sold out to Big Energy when they quit on Cap and Trade. They sold out to the racists when they decided they couldn’t be bothered to push comprehensive immigration reform.
They’re practically to the right of George Bush. It’s shameful and they need to be sent a strong message. Maybe a big enough mid-term loss could do that.
Well, it’s going to be hard for Obama to claim that the voters elected 100 new Republicans in the House and 10 in the Senate to work with the President on Cap ‘N Tax, VAT, tax ‘n tax etc.
On the other hand, if the GOP only picks up 45 or so seats in the House and falls 2 or 3 seats short in the Senate, what’s Boehner going to do?
Give each of us an ulcer. I feel pretty confident with that answer.
Fuckin’ A Bubba!
But the biggest betrayal of all was the blatant total completet failure to make the rich pay their fair share!
“what’s Boehner going to do?”
Try to learn how to herd cats.
“it’s going to be hard for Obama to claim… ”
*snort*
It’s not hard for Obama to claim the most outrageous things. ‘Cuz of the oratory genius…
Anybody else hate it when you don’t see the typo until after you’ve hit the publish button?
Not to mention completely missing that you forget the closing slash for the html tag.
Doesn’t bother me in the least, Ernst. But then, I never make mistaeks.
Here‘s a fairly cynical view.
Saw, that linked by Glenn Reynolds earlier, bh. I’ve had similiar thoughts.
Win the house, get competitive in the senate, and push Ryan’s roadmap…
And maybe if we’re lucky an eloquent and erudite blogger (Hint:JeffG) will explain the different facets of it just like Madison, Jay, and Hamilton did for the Constitution in the Federalist.
Could be a win-win.
I would just as soon Boehner is busy herding cats. Biting, slashing cats.
Hah. Tell me third parties can’t win.
I propose to start the Vacation Party. Platform: all members of Congress will be loaded on 747s (specially outfitted for the purpose, meaning we need LOTS of them) and carried away on junkets to investigate life in such hell-holes as Paris, Tahiti, the Riviera, Rio de Janeiro, etc.
The said junkets to last the entire term, returning only in time to campaign for the next one, so that at no time is there anything approaching a quorum for doing business on the House or Senate floor.
If nothing else, it’s bound to be cheaper. There’s no way in Hell anybody could spend as much on luxuries as the a*holes can with a simple “aye”. No-one’s life, liberty, or property is safe when the Legislature is in session. It’s not a guarantee that those things are safe when the Legislature is not in session, but why not give it a try? There’s every reason to hope, and it would definitely be a change.
Regards,
Ric
Nishi gets an invite.
Political football?
On the other hand, if you spend your evenings with the MSNBC talking heads, you’d believe the Democrats are set for sweeping victories next month…