Democratic poll: GOP looking at another blue wave next year
posted at 4:52 pm on July 31, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Yeah yeah, it’s a Dem poll. Normal caveats apply. Still:
# In the battleground of the 70 most competitive congressional districts (35 Democratic and 35 Republican-held), the Democratic incumbents, including the big class of freshmen, have quickly moved into dramatic leads in the named congressional ballot (52% to 40%.)
# In the 35 Republican battleground districts, the named Republicans trail their generic Democratic opponent by 5 points, 49% to 44%.
# In a poll across seven Republican-held U.S. Senate seats, the named U.S. Senators had a vote to re-elect of only 37% and were garnering only 44% of the vote against a generic challenger.
# The overall image of the Democratic Party has fallen back from the honeymoon post-election period to essentially where it stood for the whole 2006 election period — and that has been stable since April. On the other hand, the Republicans have weakened in the current period since April to their lowest thermometer score in the past half century.
Ace gave me a little free advice the other day to stop being such a downer. Yeah? Flip through these seven pages, noting in particular voters’ solution to the gridlock problem. Welcome to my nightmare.
There is one spot of good news although we have to go to a different poll to find it. Exit question: If Iraq is such a poisonous issue for the GOP, how do you explain this?
Update: I forgot to mention this story. A master stroke if it pans out, but would a Democratic majority really be so stupid as to push something like that through? If a Republican majority is that stupid in North Carolina, why not?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
eek!
zane on July 31, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Delighful…no wonder you’re such an Eeyore Allah.
Bad Candy on July 31, 2007 at 5:01 PM
NC is run by Dems, they’ve had power for decades and have districts gerrymandered. In 2004 Republican State legislature candidates got 60% of vote roughly added together but still came out as minority party thanks to gerrymandered districts.
NC is tobacco country and the Dems almost passed through a smoking ban bill recently.
jp on July 31, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Damn…Delightful. Sepll Cehck is my firend.
Bad Candy on July 31, 2007 at 5:02 PM
A Dem poll with Carville on top?…
Wake me when this gets serious.
Randy
There’s a difference between vigilance and paranoia.
williars on July 31, 2007 at 5:02 PM
A lot can and will happen between now and the election.
Spirit of 1776 on July 31, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Since this is a proposed ballot measure Democrat and Republican polotics means less. Although it is clear that the democrats would not be for this, you’re also talking about the state that recalled a Democratic Governor and elected a Republican. We’re not as far into the Democrat camp as many believe (with the exception of the bay area). Our ballot process makes it relatively simple for a well funded idea to get placed before the people for a vote. My thought is that the real threat to this bill would come from our courts.
FireDrake on July 31, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Ooooo more iconoclastic goodness!
TBinSTL on July 31, 2007 at 5:07 PM
It’s beyond this mere mortal’s comprehension to understand why any living breathing American could put even a 1/2 a grain of faith in a Democrat sponsored poll. Or any poll for that matter. They lie. They twist. They cheat. It’s been proven over and over again. Their only purpose is to further their agenda. No exceptions. Even the so-called ligitimate pollsters are completely corrupt. Remember the exit polls in 2004? Get over it. And stop acting as their distributor-in-chief.
Griz on July 31, 2007 at 5:09 PM
The seeds of Socialism are illiteracy and ignorance – it only follows that the Democrats will gain the support of the Cattle. The “People” are now the Cattle. The Cattle want to be taken care of. The Cattle need the State. All the Democrats want in return – is for the Cattle to keep chewing their cud. Shut up, allow your earnings to be confiscated. Don’t worry about being an individual. Don’t concern yourself with the growing power of the State. Just keep mooing – you won’t even see the truck that’s coming, to take you to the slaughterhouse.
OhEssYouCowboys on July 31, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Wow, the links at the bottom are far more important than the unsurprising and bleak poll data. Could California really split their electoral votes like that? That would completely revolutionize presidential politics. Like an asteriod slamming into our political reality. If the initiative succeeds it will change the political calculation right in the middle of the campaign. I’d be stunned if the Powers That Be allowed such a momentous change so quickly. If this wins look for it to spend the next several years in the courts.
Thomas the Wraith on July 31, 2007 at 5:13 PM
I would be up for splitting the electoral vote in California. I think, anyway.
Ever since the first time I was able to vote in a Presidential election (1996), I have been frustrated with the electoral college. After work, I went to vote, and on the way to the polling place, the radio announced that Clinton had defeated Dole, and essentially that my vote didn’t matter at all. I still went and voted, but I don’t know why.
As a California Republican, I have never really felt like my vote would count. Actually, I felt the same when I lived in Massachusetts.
nailinmyeye on July 31, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Dems will always poll better in the silly time when no votes are actually being cast, because they work at it. It feels safe to be ahead, and that’s more important to them than strategy, pacing, and even the finish line itself.
I prefer to be behind in the polls all the way until 3 days before the election. Keeps the blood flowing.
a4g on July 31, 2007 at 5:22 PM
“, but would a Democratic majority really be so stupid as to push something like that through?”
I would fully support the notion that presidential elections should give electors based on congressional districts for ALL states. The reason is that the electoral vote will then more closely track with the popular vote. While it might be bad news for the Democrats RIGHT NOW, it could serve the Democrats well at some point in the future. All it would do is give a split of electoral votes more along the wishes of the voters.
It is not a bad thing. I think they should do the same thing with primary delegates in ALL states too. No more “winner take all” primaries.
crosspatch on July 31, 2007 at 5:30 PM
November ‘08 is a long time away, especially in politics.
I remember how GHWB looked unbeatable 16 months prior to Nov. ‘92, and how it seemed that no Dem wanted to jump into the race because of that. I remember how everything turned out, too.
thirteen28 on July 31, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Let’s just give up, not vote, all is lost. What other possible intention would there be to post this?
Capitalist Infidel on July 31, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Amen. This has passed ridiculous and wandered into the sublime.
Literally anything could happen in the space of a year and a half.
Remember when this guy had the absolute lock on the 2004 nomination?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc
Professor Blather on July 31, 2007 at 6:03 PM
The lower you score in a dem poll, the better candidate you are.
TheSitRep on July 31, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Remember it as well as I remember hearing that John McCain was pretty much going to have a cakewalk to the Republican nomination for ‘08 probably not more than six or seven months ago.
I’m sure we could dig up dozens of other examples if we wanted to.
thirteen28 on July 31, 2007 at 6:32 PM
One thing that would have helped the Republicans is if Bush and Republican legislators (Inhofe and Santorum come to mind) had seemed more willing to compromise with their opponents. Clinton also seemed to be willing to compromise during his presidency. It’s why the Republicans got blamed in 1994 and may go a long way to explaining his reelection in 1996.
Besides PR issues, a strong case can be made that a democracy is all about compromise on most issues. Bush has rejected projecting that image. This gives Bush more the tone of a dictator–which is why the BusHitler smear is accepted by a large subculture. (I’m not at all comparing Bush to Hitler. Such a comparison is nonsense in my opinion. I’m only explaining why it could become widespread.)
Yes, there are a very small number of issues where a leader should take an unpopular stand. For Bush, it should have been the Iraq War and maybe Social Security, but it was issue after issue–like Judicial nominees and global warming. It leaves a bad taste. Fight only a small number of fights worth fighting, and compromise on the others issues.
thuja on July 31, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Speaking of legislatures. Remember when Rudy said that dems would raise taxes by 20% to 30%? Fact is Dems want to raise taxes much more than that. Somebody here was all upset that Rudy made such a statement.
Capitalist Infidel on July 31, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Bush refuses to compromise!?
Slowly now . . . step away from the doobie.
Hoo boy, with the exception of the Iraq war, Bush has compromised himself right into the toilet with the Republican Electorate. The Mid-terms were as much a reflection of Republicans just not voting as it was any kind of mandate for the Dem’s policy positions.
Fatal on July 31, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Preferably TANCREDO-HUNTER.
Likely winners?
Guiliani-Romney.
Beating Clinton-Edwards.
I have a fin says I’m right.
profitsbeard on July 31, 2007 at 8:09 PM
I’ve commented before — but apparently need to so again — that poll questions dealing with “generic” candidates are generally crap. I really don’t care how many say they will vote for a generic Dem for POTUS over a year from now, when the most likely nominee has a constant near-majority of voters who say they would never vote for her. And the POTUS race will drive turnout down-ticket.
That being said, this poll asked what to do about gridlock — with two of the options not really being options. Yet the increase since the last poll in elect more Dems was 10 percent and elect more Repubs was 18 percent.
The Senate looks bad, but the ‘08 Senate races would have looked bad in ‘05; the 6-year cycle will do that sometimes.
The issue questions were thisclose to push-polling: “Do you favor rainbows and Unicorns?”
Karl on July 31, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Good for them = angel, bad for them = antichrist; but, heh, they are the progressives.
Some commenters on this or linked threads misread what Calif. intends to do. It will not have on the ballot going with the “popular vote” but rather splitting the 55 electors, about as even as the state is split.
I said before and you laughed, perhaps. There’s a good chance that Calif. will make a huge difference this time around, for many reasons, this one an interesting one and worth fighting for. Large pockets here are very liberal and large pockets are completely pro military. The new method would definitely be more representative, in addition to giving such a large state a raison d’voting, and not taking it for granted. Not too hopeful, but enticing.
Entelechy on July 31, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Hell, I’m not even packing a parachute
EricPWJohnson on August 1, 2007 at 1:33 AM
Splitting up the California vote sounds good to me. I can’t think of any problems with this right now. It brings the power of the vote back closer to the people.
JellyToast on August 1, 2007 at 7:26 AM
Only one point less for the idea that Obama would handle the war the best? That’s supposed to be good news? Sheesh!
smellthecoffee on August 1, 2007 at 9:36 AM
I agree with Ace. All this negativity(or whatever you want to call it)might be catching. I am guessing that you want it to be a call for action, but that might backfire. It could have the oppostie effect.
jeanie on August 1, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Comment pages: