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...)
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.
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./......
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 falling Obama favoribility ratings and the fact Congress is at all time lows.
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.
Generic Congressional Ballot - Rasmussen Reports™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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?