• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hurricane GOP On The Way

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
from the Cook Report

...Among all voters, there has been a significant swing since 2008 when Democrats took their new majority won in 2006 to an even higher level. But when you home in on those people in this survey who are most likely to vote, the numbers are devastating. The NBC/WSJ survey, when combined with a previously released NPR study of likely voters in 70 competitive House districts by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Republican Glen Bolger, point to an outcome for Democrats that is as serious as a heart attack. Make no mistake about it: There is a wave out there, and for Democrats, the House is, at best, teetering on the edge...

These kinds of waves are often ragged; almost always some candidates who looked dead somehow survive and others who were deemed safe get sucked down in the undertow. That's the nature of these beasts. But the recent numbers confirm that trends first spotted late last summer have fully developed into at least a Category 3 or 4 hurricane.

Given how many House seats were newly won by Democrats in 2008 in GOP districts, and given that this election is leading into an all-important redistricting year, this reversal of fortune couldn't have happened at a worse time for Democrats.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Eh, every race is local. National polls don't really give you the details. While the GOP will definitely gain seats in both halves of congress, I have a feeling they're going to lose out in several key races that they thought were wrapped up. Once election time draws closer, we're going to see the counter-fire from the Democrats against some of the nuttier Tea Party-ish candidates that have somehow managed to snake through the primaries. Sen. Reid's seat is a prime example. All the GOP had to do was find Generic Boring White Guy and Reid was toast. But they failed to do that, instead they got a crazy lady who wants to eliminate virtually every federal agency and blames Harry Reid when asked about her own self-admitted views. What should have been a blowout is going to be a tough race, and bat-****-crazy is not a good way to swing the moderates.

Deuce prediction:
Senate stays in Team Blue's hands with 55 seats, House goes with a narrow majority (10-ish seats maybe) to GOP. With a split congress and the complete refusal to cooperate by the GOP, literally nothing of substance gets done for the next two years. Canada invades the US as an act of mercy.

Ok, that last part might not happen.
 
Last edited:

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Americans may be unhappy, but I doubt highly that they are going to want to return power to the party that got us into this mess in the first place and has historically done a poor job at running the country.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
well, that's what they're telling the pollsters. as for the notion that every race is local; that's a factor that we are seeing increasingly dissipate infavor of 'sending a message to Washington' or people voting fortheir loca lparty reps based on their opinion of it's party leadership. the Republicans would be idiotic not to nationalize the 2010 election.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
well, that's what they're telling the pollsters. as for the notion that every race is local; that's a factor that we are seeing increasingly dissipate infavor of 'sending a message to Washington' or people voting fortheir loca lparty reps based on their opinion of it's party leadership. the Republicans would be idiotic not to nationalize the 2010 election.
Nationalize you say? You socialist! ;)

You can nationalize all you want, but it still comes down to choosing between two candidates. Crazy Paranoid Lady isn't going to get people all excited to vote. (well, except for the extremists who are crazy themselves...)
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It is in the GOP's best interest to campaign nationally, attacking Obama. The party in power is always weak at midterm, especially since the economy hasn't pulled out and the country is still at war and so on.

It is in the Democrat's best interest to campaign locally, ignoring Obama. They need to point out that the reason the economy stinks and the war is even there is because of the GOP and that the GOP candidates have no real ideas on how to solve them.

This is actually how it usually works at midterm. The party out of power wants to make it a referendum on the incumbent, and the party in power wants to ignore the incumbent.

Nothing new here, folks.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nationalize you say? You socialist! ;)

You can nationalize all you want, but it still comes down to choosing between two candidates. Crazy Paranoid Lady isn't going to get people all excited to vote. (well, except for the extremists who are crazy themselves...)
there are two candidates in every election. people don't have to be excited about voting for one to be excited about voting against the other.

and elections have indeed become increasingly nationalized. how did you think Democrats won the way they did in 2006/2008?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
there are two candidates in every election. people don't have to be excited about voting for one to be excited about voting against the other.

and elections have indeed become increasingly nationalized. how did you think Democrats won the way they did in 2006/2008?
This is true. A lot of people do vote against the "other guy."
2006/2008 I would chock up to "HOLY CRAP THE GOP RUINED EVERYTHING" sentiment. This year, it's more "Well it was already crap and it's still getting worse." I guess we'll find out how that turns out.

Man, we really should do something about the perpetual election cycle thing we have going now. Except the only thing I can think of is lengthening terms... whiiich just about everyone will probably agree is a bad plan.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is true. A lot of people do vote against the "other guy."
2006/2008 I would chock up to "HOLY CRAP THE GOP RUINED EVERYTHING" sentiment. This year, it's more "Well it was already crap and it's still getting worse." I guess we'll find out how that turns out.

Man, we really should do something about the perpetual election cycle thing we have going now. Except the only thing I can think of is lengthening terms... whiiich just about everyone will probably agree is a bad plan.
reinstitute Federalism. once the federal government isn't the end/all be/all; it won't be worth the resources to pay for a 365 day a year 4 years a cycle campaign in order to control it.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The truth is things were fine in this country until the 2006 elections and the democrats taking over congress....Its been all downhill since then...

I saw on the news today that Obama carried independents by a 56% ration in 2008..........His ration today according to gallup is 36%. He can not win in 2012 if he does not carry independents./......
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The truth is things were fine in this country until the 2006 elections and the democrats taking over congress....Its been all downhill since then...
Right. The President in power has nothing to do with it. Unless, of course, he's a democrat. Then it's all his fault. (insert rolling eyes here).

I saw on the news today that Obama carried independents by a 56% ration in 2008..........His ration today according to gallup is 36%. He can not win in 2012 if he does not carry independents./......
While this is true, it should also be pointed out that support for the GOP hasn't risen to fill the gap. In fact, support for the GOP is lower overall than it is for the Democrats. Just because one party falls does not mean the other one rises. If the GOP puts forward a candidate with a lower approval rating, then none of that will matter. (That's what happened in 2006 -- Bush's approval rating was very low, but Kerry's was even lower.)
 

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,596
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Americans may be unhappy, but I doubt highly that they are going to want to return power to the party that got us into this mess in the first place and has historically done a poor job at running the country.
From the way I see it both of them have ****ed us one way or another. Judge Andrew Napolitano summarizes it quite nicely

We have migrated from a two-party system into a one-party system, the big-government party. There's a democratic wing that likes taxes and wealth transfers and assaults on commercial liberties and there's a republican wing that likes war and deficits and assaults on civil liberties. Neither of them is interested in true freedom. The separation of civil liberties from commercial liberties is what as enabled this to happen.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, with every election cycle, it is either Hurricane GOP or Hurricane Democrat, and it's always the same result - Nothing but a lot of hot air with no answers. Hurricane, yes, but not the kind the American people would like to envision. Just another batch of blowhards. :mrgreen:
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There's an interesting analysis by Chuck Todd, who says the GOP won't take the House for the following reasons:

1) Unlike in '94, the Republican Party has a favorable/unfavorable score that's no better (and sometimes even worse) than the Dem Party's.

2) Unlike in '94, the GOP isn't necessarily running on new ideas or even with many new faces.

3) The National Republican Congressional Committee has a HUGE financial disadvantage compared with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the RNC's political/fundraising troubles won't be able to make up the difference

4) Winning 39 seats is a tall order. After all, when Democrats won back the House in 2006 -- during the height of violence in Iraq and after Hurricane Katrina -- they picked up 30 House seats. The GOP will need almost 10 more than that.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
There's an interesting analysis by Chuck Todd, who says the GOP won't take the House for the following reasons:

1) Unlike in '94, the Republican Party has a favorable/unfavorable score that's no better (and sometimes even worse) than the Dem Party's.

2) Unlike in '94, the GOP isn't necessarily running on new ideas or even with many new faces.

3) The National Republican Congressional Committee has a HUGE financial disadvantage compared with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the RNC's political/fundraising troubles won't be able to make up the difference

4) Winning 39 seats is a tall order. After all, when Democrats won back the House in 2006 -- during the height of violence in Iraq and after Hurricane Katrina -- they picked up 30 House seats. The GOP will need almost 10 more than that.

Wishful thinking. You hang your hat on that, I'll be looking forward to seeing how well Nancy P. handles being just a House Member again. Also, there is noise out there the GOP might actually take back the Senate too.
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Wishful thinking. You hang your hat on that, I'll be looking forward to seeing how well Nancy P. handles being just a House Member again. Also, there is noise out there the GOP might actually take back the Senate too.
Well, of course there's always a chance. Anything can happen. But the analysis has some merit. Pooh-poohing it without saying why doesn't convince me of your opinion. Why do you think Todd is wrong?
 

The_Penguin

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
808
Reaction score
205
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
There's an interesting analysis by Chuck Todd, who says the GOP won't take the House for the following reasons:

1) Unlike in '94, the Republican Party has a favorable/unfavorable score that's no better (and sometimes even worse) than the Dem Party's.

2) Unlike in '94, the GOP isn't necessarily running on new ideas or even with many new faces.

3) The National Republican Congressional Committee has a HUGE financial disadvantage compared with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the RNC's political/fundraising troubles won't be able to make up the difference

4) Winning 39 seats is a tall order. After all, when Democrats won back the House in 2006 -- during the height of violence in Iraq and after Hurricane Katrina -- they picked up 30 House seats. The GOP will need almost 10 more than that.
Interesting.

I said the same thing. I expect the democrats to lose seats, but I doubt that this will be '94. As you've said, there is no new energy or momentum in the Republican party.

I predict that there will be tactical victories in local and state levels, but not strategic take overs in Washington.

Also, if there are new Republican politicians in state and local governments, it will be entirely due to the appeal of those individual candidates and not some dash back to the Republican party in general.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, of course there's always a chance. Anything can happen. But the analysis has some merit. Pooh-poohing it without saying why doesn't convince me of your opinion. Why do you think Todd is wrong?
He's trying to find some reason to give Democrat Voters hope.

He ignores the polls that show enthusiasm to vote is up for the GOP and down for the DNC. That is always indicitive of trouble for which ever party is on the down.

He ignores the motivation the TEA PARTY has stirred up among Conservatives, which is going to help the GOP not the Dems.

He ignores the falling Obama favoribility ratings and the fact Congress is at all time lows.

Like I said, it's wishful thinking to try and get Dem Voters to have hope and motivation to vote.
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
He's trying to find some reason to give Democrat Voters hope.
He's a political analyst, not a democratic shill. He has said many things in the past that were very disconcerting to democrats.

He ignores the polls that show enthusiasm to vote is up for the GOP and down for the DNC. That is always indicitive of trouble for which ever party is on the down.
True enough -- the "enthusiasm" gap though has fallen recently, especially after the health care bill passed. It may not be as big of a factor now.

He ignores the falling Obama favoribility ratings and the fact Congress is at all time lows.
No, he specifically addressed that, pointing out that even though that is true, support for the GOP is even lower. And while some incumbents have certainly lost their seats recently, the vast majority have not. As I said earlier, this is not a see-saw. Just because support for one goes down doesn't mean the other goes up. Support for both can go down. People are mad at both parties.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
He's a political analyst, not a democratic shill. He has said many things in the past that were very disconcerting to democrats.



True enough -- the "enthusiasm" gap though has fallen recently, especially after the health care bill passed. It may not be as big of a factor now.



No, he specifically addressed that, pointing out that even though that is true, support for the GOP is even lower. And while some incumbents have certainly lost their seats recently, the vast majority have not. As I said earlier, this is not a see-saw. Just because support for one goes down doesn't mean the other goes up. Support for both can go down. People are mad at both parties.
Where do you get your information???

Republican candidates hold a six-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, July 11.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely Voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Support for both candidates held steady from two weeks ago. Rasmussen Reports did not survey on the question the week before because of the long July 4 weekend.]

While solid majorities of Democrats and Republicans support the candidates of their respective party, voters not affiliated with either party prefer the Republican candidate by a 44% to 25% margin.
Generic Congressional Ballot - Rasmussen Reports™
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't get it from Rassmussen, which is known far and wide by any political scientist to be completely at odds with what just about every other pollster is finding. (There are some liberal polls that can't be trusted too).

Instead, I rely more on pollster, which averages out many polls and gives a much better view and basically shows a generic ballot tied (R: 44.1%, D: 43.5% -- a 0.6 difference, well within any margin of error).

My point, however, was that the GOP brand is lower than the Democratic brand -- not the same thing as a generic ballot, which is kind of meaningless when it is practically tied and when these races will be decided on a case by case basis when real people are in consideration. Current polls show that 33.5% of the population consider themselves Democrats to only 27.4% of Republicans. (Independents are at 33.3%, just below Democrats).

None of these are numbers that should make the GOP giddy with happiness.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't get it from Rassmussen, which is known far and wide by any political scientist to be completely at odds with what just about every other pollster is finding. (There are some liberal polls that can't be trusted too).

Instead, I rely more on pollster, which averages out many polls and gives a much better view and basically shows a generic ballot tied (R: 44.1%, D: 43.5% -- a 0.6 difference, well within any margin of error).

My point, however, was that the GOP brand is lower than the Democratic brand -- not the same thing as a generic ballot, which is kind of meaningless when it is practically tied and when these races will be decided on a case by case basis when real people are in consideration. Current polls show that 33.5% of the population consider themselves Democrats to only 27.4% of Republicans. (Independents are at 33.3%, just below Democrats).

None of these are numbers that should make the GOP giddy with happiness.
That you call Rassmussen untrustworthy shows you are neither serious about debate, nor honest enough to admit Rassmussens polls have been some of the most accurate over the past 10 years or so. You buy the MSM/Leftwing talking points that Rass is a GOP polling scam.
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
That you call Rassmussen untrustworthy shows you are neither serious about debate, nor honest enough to admit Rassmussens polls have been some of the most accurate over the past 10 years or so. You buy the MSM/Leftwing talking points that Rass is a GOP polling scam.
There are a bunch of other posts here on this subject so I won't just repeat what is in them.

You, however, have failed to explain why Rassmussen has numbers so much different from every other pollster. Why would the average of all the polls give us a tied result but Rassmussen be so far out as to be not even within the margin of error? Is every single other poll wrong?

If anyone has any bias here, it appears to be you, who, instead of looking at all the polls, hand picks the one that best supports his view. I could have countered with one of the liberally biased polls that shows the opposite, you know, but I didn't.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are a bunch of other posts here on this subject so I won't just repeat what is in them.

You, however, have failed to explain why Rassmussen has numbers so much different from every other pollster. Why would the average of all the polls give us a tied result but Rassmussen be so far out as to be not even within the margin of error? Is every single other poll wrong?

If anyone has any bias here, it appears to be you, who, instead of looking at all the polls, hand picks the one that best supports his view. I could have countered with one of the liberally biased polls that shows the opposite, you know, but I didn't.
Yawn.

Just had this discussion on anther thread.
Most pollsters just do "registered voters"
Rass uses "Likely Voters" using an inhouse formula that damn, works like a champ most of the time.

That's why Rass has different numbers. They don't just call any registerd voter and go with it, they determine the likelihood of the person to actually... vote.

The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection
polls (as reported on pollster.com).
1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)
http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf

So, you want to keep on talking about how Rass is sooo different.. how's this, they are sooo RIGHT.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
He's a political analyst, not a democratic shill.
While in college, Todd worked for the 1992 presidential campaign of Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and later started part time at The Hotline. *snip*

He became a frequent guest on political discussion shows, such as Hardball with Chris Matthews *snip*

As NBC News Political Director, Todd often provides on-air political analysis on political discussion shows, including Morning Joe, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Meet the Press, NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show *snip*

Todd is also co-author, with Sheldon Gawiser, of How Barack Obama Won.
Chuck Todd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Top Bottom