Predicting losses in both the House and Senate

[ProSense]

for Republicans.

Senate: 63-35-2 Democrats.

House: 260-174-1 Democrats.

This prediction is supported by several polls, showing Democrats ahead of Republicans.


Franklin & Marshall College/Hearst Television poll. Sept. 15-21, 2009. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.3.

"If the 2010 elections for the United States House of Representatives were being held today, would you vote for the Republican Party's candidate or the Democratic Party's candidate for the House in your district?"

9/15-21/09

Democratic Candidate 43%

Republican Candidate 30%

Other Candidate (vol.) 4%

Would Not Vote 1%

Unsure 22%

link



Bloomberg Poll conducted by Selzer & Co. Sept. 10-14, 2009. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"If the election for members of the U.S. Congress were held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in the district where you live, or would you likely not vote?"

9/10-14/09

Democratic Candidate 40%

Republican Candidate 32%

Would Not Vote 15%

Unsure 13%

link


Who knows what will happen, but since predictions are flying, this one is at least supported by the current reality.

[tabatha]

1. Good.

[Selatius]

2. Keep in mind, folks, that this is essentially just a snapshot of voters' views. Things will change.

If, for instance, the health care reform bill turns out to be a boondoggle, voters are likely to swing away from the Democrats in the 2010 mid-terms. This is one point. Other points would be the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, the performance of the stimulus package Obama and the Democrats passed, etc.

All of these things are still currently in motion.

[calimary]

16. That's why we need to remain constantly vigilant.

Don't drop your guard for an instant. Don't give them ANY foothold ANYWHERE.

[babylonsister]

3. I've often wondered if there was anyone, 'besides Charlie Cook',

who might have the skinny on this.

No one knows, period, not even Charlie.

[rmp yellow]

4. I'd like to see a poll with likely voters

These don't seem to use likely voters.

[ProSense]

5. Why? Do you think it's going to show a dramatic increase in Republican support?

The election is more than a year away.

[scheming daemons]

22. Define "likely voter"? 20 million people voted FOR THE FIRST TIME in 2008

"likely voter" models are outdated... especially Rasmussen's.

[wyldwolf]

6. I don't disagree

With the economy improving and the tea-baggers getting nuttier by the day...

[amandabeech]

7. The economy may be improving very slowly,

if measured by Wall Street.

However, IMHO, many voters will judge the economy by the number and quality of jobs being created.

This recession seems to be lagging more than previous recessions in producing jobs.

[wyldwolf]

8. and the 2010 elections are over a year away

[amandabeech]

17. And at the rate that jobs are being created, that's not enough time. n/t

[wyldwolf]

18. you act as if job creation will be the only determination

If you have evidence of such, I'm anxious to see it.

[dccrossman]

9. Are there local polls that support your prediction?

A national poll for this situation is not all that useful, IMO.

All of the elections are local affairs.

You can't use those numbers, for example, to tell me that there are suddenly going to be more (D) than (R) representatives in the House from Georgia. (Not that I won't be trying to make that happen.)

It's still good to know that the national conversation is still leaning (D).

Though I'm stuck here in the South, the more that (R)'s become just a regional party, the better.

[Thrill]

10. I expect the wingnuts to effect at least one Senate seat

My guess is someone like Blanche Lincoln

[bvar22]

11. I wonder if those majorities are enough...

...for The Democratic Party to enact a Democratic agenda?

Maybe we need 70 votes in the Senate before we can see some "Democratic" action.
Send in your donation TODAY!

[LongTomH]

12. BEEEEWWWAAAAARRRE!

OK, cue the thunder and the creepy music!

The Republican HorrorShow isn't over!

Excuse me, has everyone forgotten? They haven't won an election FAIRLY for decades! If people don't see real improvement in the economy, they may stay home. The only way we can defeat the Republicons is for a massive turnout of the type we saw in 2006 & 2008.

The pundits on Neocon Propaganda Radio and elsewhere are already predicting that: "The younger voters the Democrats depend on are less likely to turn out in a mid-term election." They're predicting Democratic losses in both the House and Senate.

You think they know something?:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: Ya think? :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: Ya think?:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[unblock]

13. these polls do not meaningfully relate to your conclusion

due to it being nationwide polling instead of state/district polling introduces several problems. for instance, a lot of the democratic supports could be coming from already overwhelmingly democratic states/districts; what matters more is the number of states/districts where support flips from more than 50% to less than 50% of the two-party vote. another issue is that people in states where there is no senatorial election in 2010 are nevertheless counted (they should be for district, but not for state.

another problem is that the candidates are mentioned simply by party identification rather than by name. this is understandable for a nationwide poll and because at this stage the final slate of candidates is not known. but people often feel one way about a party yet vote and/or turnout differently when it comes to their own particular state/district. a surprising number of people will indicate they would vote for the "democratic candidate" and then later in the same poll indicate that they would vote for "candidate x" where x is the name of the front-running republican, especially if it's that's the incumbent.

finally, people notoriously overestimate the likelihood of their actually bothering to vote. some of this is ultimately laziness or overoptimism. but a lot of it probably is that early on, people imagine that their vote will make a difference, but as the election draws near, the media may portray the race as a forgone conclusion, which discourages voting on either side.



my own opinion is that it's a fairly safe bet, historically speaking, to figure the "out" party will pick up seats in an off year. heaven knows the republicans don't deserve it and certainly haven't earned it, but them's the way the cookies usually crumble.

[totodeinhere]

14. You're right. But the real battle will be for the Senate where just a couple of GOP pickups would...

be a real setback for the Dems because of the way the Senate works. The House will be no problem. Even if the GOP picks up a few seats, the Dems will remain in charge.

[unblock]

15. funny, it seemed to me the republicans were already in charge of the senate

with their 40-seat minority.

[cali]

19. nah, sorry. generic dems v generic repubs is less than useless

and sorry, dems will almost certainly lose seats in both houses.

[Phx_Dem]

20. ROLF. The best thing about this, aside from us having a stronger

majority and watching Republicans get flushed down the toilet . . . again, will be enjoying the moronic pundits who all are predicting a bloodbath for Dems, try to explain how they could be so fucking wrong . . . again.

:rofl:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

21. Moronic Pundits = Oxymoron (Oxymoronic?)

They like easy story lines with neat parallels. They think that because history sometimes repeats itself, that means that history will ALWAYS repeat itself.

In 1994, the Democrats had basically been in control of Congress for 40 years. The Republicans were capitalizing on twenty years of pent-up frustration at rising inflation and flat-lining wages. They were capitalizing on a meme that said that the Democratic Party was hostile to white people and to people of faith.

Because the Republicans hadn't been running things in Washington, people had to accept their promises more-or-less on faith. A Republican-controlled Congress was an unknown entity.

Well, that was then.

Given the history of the past decade, you have to be a gibbering idiot (i.e., A Republican) to believe that turning Congress back over to the same guys who screwed every up would be a good idea. Independent and Swing voters are not going jump ship after less than two years, particularly when at this point, the Obama Administration (and Congress) have made no major mistakes.

[paulk]

23. the problem with off year elections is that the two groups

that put the Democrats over the top in 2008, minorities and younger voters, tend not to show up. This could hurt us in 2010 if the Republicans get their base out. Combine that with the historical reality that parties in power usually lose seats in off year elections, and a prediction that the Dems will lose seats is not unreasonable.

Tossing out some national polls, which, as others have pointed out, are worthless in measuring district and state races, will do nothing but create a false sense of security - which we can't afford.