Oh my: GOP leads on Rasmussen’s generic ballot for first time in years

posted at 4:35 pm on March 17, 2009 by Allahpundit

Via Moe Lane. The usual caveats apply — it’s early, it’s Rasmussen, it’s at odds with the GOP’s general popularity these days — but even an eeyore as stalwart as me is starved for good news. I’ll take it:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% said they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 39% would choose the Democrat.

Investors now favor Republicans by a 46% to 36% margin, while non-investors would vote Democratic by a 45% to 33% margin…

Over the past year, Democratic support has ranged from a low of 39% to a high of 50%. In that same time period, Republicans have been preferred by 34% to 41% of voters nationwide.

A glance at the sidebar at the link shows that Republicans got as close as a point last month and two points shortly after the election (when the generic ballot always tightens) but have never led dating back to 2007. Rasmussen’s not the only pollster suddenly showing the generic ballot a statistical dead heat, either. Exit question: To what do we owe our sudden good fortune? Hmmm:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

And, Dole didn’t lose the election per se, the “I am the only true pure conservative” faction lost it for him. Dole was better than anything that has come down the pike since!

Old Country Boy on March 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM

I wan an idiot college kid in ’96. I voted for Clinton.

myrenovations on March 17, 2009 at 6:01 PM

It’s hard to oppose “Hussein” with only 41 38 GOP Senators, and one seat in limbo (Coleman/Franken).

Steve Z on March 17, 2009 at 6:00 PM

FIFY

Romeo13 on March 17, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Perot sucked the libertarian repub and indie vote from Dole, which left Clinton with 43% of the solid demo vote.

That was the ’92 election, not Dole in ’96.

NoDonkey on March 17, 2009 at 6:02 PM

ddrintn on March 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM

Because you say so?

Give an example or three.

barkolounger on March 17, 2009 at 6:02 PM

I wan an idiot college kid in ‘96. I voted for Clinton.

myrenovations on March 17, 2009 at 6:01 PM

I voted for Mondale as an idiot college kid, at least my guy lost.

NoDonkey on March 17, 2009 at 6:03 PM

Pardon that partial previous post. It disappeared in the Vista control alt delete not running mode. It did not all get through. I have reposted above.

Romeo I did not say the libertarians were evil. I consider myself one. I was upset the repubs nominated Bush the first time. I knew he was a Rockefeller republican and Cheny was a vindictive SOB. However, he was running against Gore. Relatively speaking, you and I did the right thing considering the alternatives that we are now living with. That doesn’t make it taste any better.

If you really want a libertarian revolution, start at the city and county, then state. Then graduate to the federable gumment. It is stupid to start at the top like Perot. You have to have a base that is sitting in office somewhere. Thinking you and your like minded friends are a viable base is self delusionment.

Old Country Boy on March 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM

no donkey – yer right. I got carried away. I do that often.

Old Country Boy on March 17, 2009 at 6:07 PM

When the Primaries that elect our candidates, are open, we lose. Instead of Steel working on these problems, he’s out annoying. get back to work and close these primaries so that only Republicans nominate Republicans. We cant afford another McCain.

jainphx on March 17, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Thinking you and your like minded friends are a viable base is self delusionment.

Old Country Boy on March 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Bet the Whigs said the exact same thing…

The stats speak for themselves… 2/3rds of the American voters say they want SMALLER Government, yet both Repubs and Dems consistantly GROW the Federal Gov.

41% now self identify as somthing other than Repub or Dem (last poll I saw… changes by who does the polling, and from State to State).

You may very soon see the binary decision set change. People are fed up with BOTH parties.

Romeo13 on March 17, 2009 at 6:14 PM

I may be old and forgetful, but barring some more serious catastrastroke than we’ve seen so far, you will still probably do better starting at the bottom. The historical political landscape is littered with well meaning parties that tried to start at the top. If political redress doesn’t work, you will still have to start at the bottom to avoid a dictatorship. Get the libertarian house in order so that the 41% recognize it as something with staying and governing power.

Old Country Boy on March 17, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Old Country Boy on March 17, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Ohhhh…. catastrophe like the realization that the GOVERNMENT is complicit, if not responsible, for most of the economic mess we find ourselves in?

The Catastrophe that will develop when suddenly the Baby boomers retire on HALF of what they had only a couple of years ago?

Or would that be the Cap and Trade, that Barrak AND McCain wanted? That the Whitehouse now admits will raise taxes by 1.9 trillion or so for just the first 8 years?

Those Catastrophes? The ones the Dems enabled, and the Repubs stood by and did nothing substantial about?

I really don’t think many understand the amount of pure anger out here…

Romeo13 on March 17, 2009 at 6:42 PM

sorta yep. Those are sorta catastrastrokes. I was sorta thinking about a complete breakdown of civil authority or about a cabal of Army colonels deciding to try to run the government themselves. Or, maybe a terrorist (pardon me – freedom fighter )- nuke over a major US city, or even outright war on the Mexican border. Your catastrokes are more political, along the lines of congress actually showing up for work and doing something normal. Mine are more structural,I think. If the rest of the day goes like it has so far, I’m probably wrong again.

Old Country Boy on March 17, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Old Country Boy on March 17, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Take a look at how the Soviet Union fell… essentialy it was part economics, and part an crises of confidence in the system.

Or the various Warsaw Pact countries… like Poland… there were some riots, but no large scale insurrection, or Roman type outside barbarians at the gates…

Or heck, even the “awakening” in Iraq, when the people got fed up with the Jihadists…

In every “Revolution” there is a tipping point… it seems to come when enough (not even a majority) of the people get fed up with the status quo… and when the silent majority looses confidence in the existing system.

Sometimes that aciton is political, sometimes somthing else… and often it goes places the origional leaders of the movement did not want it to go (French revolution and Napoleon? Lennin and Stalin?)

The key quality the Founders put into our system was the ability to peacefully change that system… but the Two political parties have gerrymandered the system, and created laws whose intent is to preserve their dual power sharing structure (look at campaign laws, and especialy campaign finance laws).

Question now is can the ability to change be put back into the system.

Romeo13 on March 17, 2009 at 7:08 PM

I wan an idiot college kid in ‘96. I voted for Clinton.

myrenovations on March 17, 2009 at 6:01 PM

I was still an idiot college kid in 76 and I voted for Jimmy Carter. Please don’t hate me.

*ducks for cover*

Knucklehead on March 17, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Thank you Mr. Hope and Change.

Terrye on March 17, 2009 at 7:20 PM

You have the right question. I’m not sure about your answer, as I percieve it. All those examples were societies where there were complete breakdowns in civil authority, resulting in the rise of paramilitary gangs and warlords. Sometimes the people could do something, often not. It depends on the perception of whether they have anything more to lose.

In my opinion (such as it is), revolutions (political, peaceful, bloody) have several players: One group sitting around a coffee pot trying to figure out what to do next; A group in power sitting around a coffee pot trying to figure out how to keep power and keep the other group from doing next; and a group of “fighters” with lots of romantic experience on revolutions. Why I said to get your base together – the third group are not warriors (regardless of their own perceptions), they are not soldiers, and they are not organized and trained. If you are going to go to civil war, you better know and trust who is standing next to you, whether in group 1 or group 3. Without an organized base, you will never know that. As a veteran, I can assure you that trained US soldiers beat armed civilians every time (if the soldiers have the backing of a population base).

Let your anger drive you to organization. You will then win the political game or the revolution, whichever happens. Logistics and training win every time. You know – “whoever gets there furstest with the mostest.”

Old Country Boy on March 17, 2009 at 7:30 PM

Y’know…
I can’t wait until the Republicans get control again and piss it all away by spending like drunk sailors and passing out political favors.
Good times.

12thMonkey on March 17, 2009 at 8:16 PM

ddrintn on March 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM

Because you say so?

Give an example or three.

barkolounger on March 17, 2009 at 6:02 PM

I thought we were going to have 5 days to look at the stimulus bill before Obama signed it.

I thought there would be no lobbyists in this transparent administration. Copies of certain waivers in this regard withheld.

The Blago situation is still pretty murky.

Pretty much run of the mill. Nice rhetoric, though.

ddrintn on March 17, 2009 at 9:28 PM

it doesn’t matter who votes…it matters who counts the votes…ACORN and the RATs…

right4life on March 17, 2009 at 10:17 PM

Investors now favor Republicans by a 46% to 36% margin, while non-investors societal leeches would vote Democratic by a 45% to 33% margin…

Fixed.

Glenn Jericho on March 17, 2009 at 10:28 PM

Just the other side of a double headed coin. Big whoop.
Republicans these days are nothing more than 40% of the wasteful earmarks in the President’s omnibus bill.
Question: What is the difference between a republican and a democrat philosophically?
Answer: One spends your chidren’s tax money today and is proud of it, the other does exactly the same, but won’t admit it in public.

paulsur on March 17, 2009 at 10:49 PM

Who cares?!?

Most of the Republicans are Democrat Lite™ anyways. They will be pressured to do the same socialistic crap Bush did.

romanianhacker on March 17, 2009 at 11:41 PM

Democrats: Tax and Spend.

Republicans: Borrow and Spend.

The key word in each definition is ‘SPEND.’

romanianhacker on March 17, 2009 at 11:44 PM

Yay, they can destroy the economy again.

getalife on March 17, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Yay, they can destroy the economy again.

getalife on March 17, 2009 at 11:56 PM

If there’s one left when your fellas get finished.

ddrintn on March 18, 2009 at 12:00 AM

This is terrible news. I hope that if the Rep’s ever take Congree they will have the courage to take on the private bankers (we don’t even know who the private shareholders are) that own the Federal Reserve. If not, hello third party.

True_King on March 18, 2009 at 12:08 AM

Dang I miss Ronald Reagan.

Sultry Beauty on March 18, 2009 at 4:37 AM

Republicans! You mean like John McCain who suspended his campaign to rush to Washington to vote FOR TARP I? Yea…whatever!

sabbott on March 18, 2009 at 8:06 AM

Republicans! You mean like John McCain who suspended his campaign to rush to Washington to vote FOR TARP I? Yea…whatever!

sabbott on March 18, 2009 at 8:06 AM

I always prefer referring to him as John “We have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House” McCain, myself.

He actually told any/all still-wavering or undecided voters at that precise moment, essentially: “Hey, you wanna go ahead and vote for the openly unapologetic Socialist over there, just so we can all… y’know… feel all warm and snuggly ’bout ourselves, solely because of the color of his skin? S’cool, folks. S’cool. Party ON, dudes!”

He. Freaking. GAVE. Obama. The. Election. Right. THERE.

Thanks, Republicans.

Thanks just heaps and heaps and heaps.

Kent18 on March 18, 2009 at 8:16 AM

I’m a liberal. This is the only poll I don’t trust. Means nothing. No, really!

hawkdriver on March 18, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Thanks just heaps and heaps and heaps.

Kent18 on March 18, 2009 at 8:16 AM

Well, being an absentee Republican voter from PA, it was just another election in a long line of throwing the lever for the lessor of two evils. I’m really quite used to it.

Seriously, we Republican, Independant and Libertarian Conservatives had best get our heads out of our butts and unite to present a candidate we cn all agree on. The Conservative priciples are the things. I don’t care if it’s R,I or L after the name. So long as it doesn’t come with a hammer and sickle.

hawkdriver on March 18, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2