Latest Generic Polls: Ras +12%R; WSJ 6%R; Gallup 15%R; CNN 10R; Fox13R; Bloom 3R

[Umengus]

For congressional elections and at national level, Gallup has a very good history concerning their last poll.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-special-bruce-banner-versus-incredible-hulk-edition_511945.html

[The Vorlon]

Gallup - GOP + 15
Fox - GOP + 13
Rasmussen - GOP + 12
CNN - GOP +10
PEW - GOP + 6
CBS NY Times - GOP + 6
McClatchy/Marist - GOP + 6
ABC - GOP + 4
Bloomburg - GOP + 3

The "Good Citizen" vote is breaking heavy to the GOP (except on the left Coast, looks like Murray "barely" survives)

[Sam Spade]

Gallup - GOP + 15
Fox - GOP + 13
Rasmussen - GOP + 12
CNN - GOP +10
PEW - GOP + 6
CBS NY Times - GOP + 6
McClatchy/Marist - GOP + 6
ABC - GOP + 4
Bloomburg - GOP + 3

The "Good Citizen" vote is breaking heavy to the GOP (except on the left Coast, looks like Murray "barely" survives)

In reference, Rasmussen's last poll has GOP51, DEM 39.

[Umengus]

it's not a wave, it's a tsunami !

And bad for dems, the best pollsters (for this subject) are those who give republicans the most.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Obama was too slow to respond to the tsunami, he should been on top of this before the inevitable was gonna happen. Instead he waited and now it may be too late.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Please enlighten us as to what Obama could have and should have done to stop this.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He was always adding the census jobs into the mix of net jobs gain. And when it left there were no new jobs and that's when his polls  began to tumble plus focusing on HCR instead of the economy and the oil spill.

[The Vorlon]

Please enlighten us as to what Obama could have and should have done to stop this.

A jobs/stimulus bill that focused on, well, jobs and stimulus instead of mostly being a massive payoff to core democratic voter groups.

Not wasting 18 months on a healthcare plan that they ended up stuffing down people's throats in some pretty undemocratic ways.

Making a few concessions to get at least a few token Republicans onside for major bills. (When you can't pick off any of Collins, Snowe, Graham, Lugar, Murkowski, etc... you know it's a pretty far out there bill)

The unemployment graph, you know, the one where unemployment never tops 8% if we pass the stimulus...?

Recovery Summer...?

[Brittain33]

Not wasting 18 months on a healthcare plan that they ended up stuffing down people's throats in some pretty undemocratic ways.

The filibuster is pretty much the antithesis of a democratic procedure. That doesn't make it a bad thing, mind you, but if we had applied democratic principles, the health care plan would have passed easily and probably done more. Giving a reduced minority a veto that prevents the majority from debating an issue or voting on it is not democratic. Again, that is different from saying it's a bad thing or good thing; clearly everyone whose party is in the minority thinks it is awesome, while those in the majority fulminate against it. But you can hardly blame the large Democratic majority from using the rules of the Congress to accomplish what Republicans, using the rules of the Congress, strove to prevent. 

Who do you think is responsible for the health care bill taking about 12 months? Was it the Democrats 100%, 90%, 80%?

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Please enlighten us as to what Obama could have and should have done to stop this.

Making a few concessions to get at least a few token Republicans onside for major bills. (When you can't pick off any of Collins, Snowe, Graham, Lugar, Murkowski, etc... you know it's a pretty far out there bill)

Because Bob Dole's health care bill is so far left!

[Brittain33]

Making a few concessions to get at least a few token Republicans onside for major bills. (When you can't pick off any of Collins, Snowe, Graham, Lugar, Murkowski, etc... you know it's a pretty far out there bill)

Or they're voting on what they believe is in the best interests of their party. The times when Republicans not only voted against, but voted to sustain filibusters against bills they once supported because of political calculations is quite disheartening. But it's a natural outcome of rules that allow for this kind of political strategy.

I can't come around to your view that the Republicans were purely reactive and not taking politics into account when they chose to reject Obama's policies and follow their base's initiatives to not cooperate on everything.

[The Vorlon]

Not wasting 18 months on a healthcare plan that they ended up stuffing down people's throats in some pretty undemocratic ways.

The filibuster is pretty much the antithesis of a democratic procedure. That doesn't make it a bad thing, mind you, but if we had applied democratic principles, the health care plan would have passed easily and probably done more. Giving a reduced minority a veto that prevents the majority from debating an issue or voting on it is not democratic. Again, that is different from saying it's a bad thing or good thing; clearly everyone whose party is in the minority thinks it is awesome, while those in the majority fulminate against it. But you can hardly blame the large Democratic majority from using the rules of the Congress to accomplish what Republicans, using the rules of the Congress, strove to prevent.  

Who do you think is responsible for the health care bill taking about 12 months? Was it the Democrats 100%, 90%, 80%?

Being an advocate of limited government, I like the intent of the filibuster actually.  The filibuster just about forces everybody, including the majority party, to make some compromises.

In politics, intensity counts - the "pro life" movement is a great example - Polling fairly solidly shows that a majority of the nation is "pro choice" (in many of it's swishy forms) but the sheer intensity of the feelings on the "pro-life" side means they do win some concesions from the system.

Collins, Snowe, etc...  at least one or two of them could have been brought on board fairly easy and fairly early if the Democrats had been willing to make a few minor concessions.  The final Health Care bill was 2000 pages long, if you had let Collins write 4 pages of it, Snowe 6 pages, and Lindsay Graham another 5 pages it would have been 99% the same as the final product, and it would have passed in the fall of 2009.

The GOP, correctly it appears, felt the "issue" was better to have than the compromise in terms of the politics, which is why, even more so, the Dems should have compromised.  If you make the GOP an "offer they can't refuse" and they refuse it anyway, you win politically..

If Obama had legitimately engaged the moderates in the Senate early in 2009 they could have had a bill by fall.

Clinton did this amazingly well in 1995 - he said "yes" to the GOP welfare reform bill (or at least appeared to, he actually got a lot of changes to the final product) - What was the GOP to do after he said "yes" - stop supporting their own bill?

If Obama had taken the speeches of Collins, Snow, etc all, and said... "yup you've made 15 good points, we've accepted them all, the final bill answers your objections, let's vote.."  the thing would have been done in Oct 2009.



By the time it got to be 2010, certainly the GOP was playing politics, the longer they could make the DEms thrash about on Health Care the better the GOP arguments on  he economy started to work - A president has, maybe, a year to get things done, they need to do what it takes to get them done in that year.

[Brittain33]

Collins, Snowe, etc...  at least one or two of them could have been brought on board fairly easy and fairly early if the Democrats had been willing to make a few minor concessions.  The final Health Care bill was 2000 pages long, if you had let Collins write 4 pages of it, Snowe 6 pages, and Lindsay Graham another 5 pages it would have been 99% the same as the final product, and it would have passed in the fall of 2009.

Max Baucus pursued negotiations with Olympia Snowe for at least a month on that basis, along with other Republicans. If Snowe could have promised her support, Obama would have made her the lead author and named it in her honor. But she kept pulling away the football, because that is what the dynamics of her position allowed her to do.

How closely did you follow the discussion in the Senate in summer 2009? Obama had Snowe, Collins, and others in his office regularly for hours of discussion, and as I said, the Senate put the health care bill on hold for at least a month as Max Baucus assembled his group of Republicans and negotiated with them. I don't see how you can acknowledge the tremendous influence these people were given--influence they then rejected, as we saw when Grassley pivoted from supporting an individual mandate and negotiating with Baucus to railing against "pulling the plug on grandma" and suddenly deciding that the mandate was unconstitutional after all--and still claim it was the Democrats' responsibility.

I feel like you have this need, as someone who strongly disagrees with the Democrats, for a "just so" story where Democrats could have gotten what they wanted, if only they hadn't been so pigheaded, stubborn, partisan, etc. I simply can not see how you can come to that conclusion after a close study of the actual behavior of Obama and Baucus and the various Republican senators in 2009, and knowing how human nature and partisan interests determined how Republicans actually would vote. I'm sorry, there's quite a few things I think Democrats did wrong, but I will not accept your spanking on this.

[Torie]

Ras poll:  GOP 51%, Dems 39%.  That is a lot of undecideds this late, no?  I wonder how they will break.

[Oakvale]

I like how Gallup has Obama's approval at a fairly respectable 45-47 while the GOP is winning the generic ballot by ~15 points.

[The Vorlon]

I like how Gallup has Obama's approval at a fairly respectable 45-47 while the GOP is winning the generic ballot by ~15 points.

Back to the polls

Away from Health Care

A lot of it is the Adults versus LV thing for Gallup.

But mostly it is (dare I say it) the sense that a lot of moderates have that divided government is just good to have.

Given the GOP total control for 6 years worked out poorly, and Obama and the Dems have not had a great two years either.

The Clinton/Gingrich years don't look so bad in retrospect

[minionofmidas]

Idaho-1 is gone.

For Labrador.

I shall now collect my accolades!

[Torie]

Brittain33, it is entirely unclear to me why negotiations with a few GOP senators over HCR broke down. Neither party made it clear what the points of contention were, and who if anyone switched positions (putting aside Grassley perhaps).  I suspect positions were changing all over the place, as this rube goldberg toy was put together desperately trying to round up votes. It won't survive in its present form; its gears mesh so poorly that it is just not operable.

Anyway, it would be great to read a Bob Woodward type book that tells the inside story on this, because the press to date has done a really poor job at it.  The press in general to my mind is getting increasingly superficial.

[Sam Spade]

Based on my House numbers, the final House popular vote will be somewhere around 52-45-3 GOP

[Tender Branson]

Based on my House numbers, the final House popular vote will be somewhere around 52-45-3 GOP

Yeah, that would be similar to the Senate Popular Vote, which was 49.5 to 44.9 so far for the Republicans.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G10/SenateVoteByParty.phtml

Green Papers says the House vote was 52.2 to 44.6 so far.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G10/HouseVoteByParty.phtml

So, Gallup - like in 2008 - was far off again.

[Sam Spade]

Mine is right now 52.1 to 44.7, but I've been updating the later vote returns more quickly.

As for the Senate, that would make sense.  Cycle III is the cycle that is most even between the parties based on present voting patterns (Cycle I leans Dem and Cycle II leans GOP)

[Tender Branson]

Mine is right now 52.1 to 44.7, but I've been updating the later vote returns more quickly.

As for the Senate, that would make sense.  Cycle III is the cycle that is most even between the parties based on present voting patterns (Cycle I leans Dem and Cycle II leans GOP)

Therefore the Generic Congressional Ballot (Average of Senate and House Ballot) was GOP+6

The best Generic Ballot pollsters were Reuters/Ipsos (R+6), Pew Research (R+6), CBS News/NY Times (R+6) and McClatchy/Marist (R+6).

The worst were Gallup (R+15), FOX News (R+13), Rasmussen (R+12) and Newsweek (D+3).

[Sam Spade]

Mine is right now 52.1 to 44.7, but I've been updating the later vote returns more quickly.

As for the Senate, that would make sense.  Cycle III is the cycle that is most even between the parties based on present voting patterns (Cycle I leans Dem and Cycle II leans GOP)

Therefore the Generic Congressional Ballot (Average of Senate and House Ballot) was GOP+6

The best Generic Ballot pollsters were Reuters/Ipsos (R+6), Pew Research (R+6), CBS News/NY Times (R+6) and McClatchy/Marist (R+6).

The worst were Gallup (R+15), FOX News (R+13), Rasmussen (R+12) and Newsweek (D+3).

Just fyi, but Generic ballot polls mean only the generic House ballot for rather obvious reasons.

[Tender Branson]

Mine is right now 52.1 to 44.7, but I've been updating the later vote returns more quickly.

As for the Senate, that would make sense.  Cycle III is the cycle that is most even between the parties based on present voting patterns (Cycle I leans Dem and Cycle II leans GOP)

Therefore the Generic Congressional Ballot (Average of Senate and House Ballot) was GOP+6

The best Generic Ballot pollsters were Reuters/Ipsos (R+6), Pew Research (R+6), CBS News/NY Times (R+6) and McClatchy/Marist (R+6).

The worst were Gallup (R+15), FOX News (R+13), Rasmussen (R+12) and Newsweek (D+3).

Just fyi, but Generic ballot polls mean only the generic House ballot for rather obvious reasons.

Technically yes, but some pollsters doesn't seem to get it - like Rasmussen.

They ask: "Are you going to vote for the DEM or GOP candidate in this years congressional elections ?" instead of "In your district, are you going to vote for the DEM or GOP candidate in this years congressional elections ?"

[Sam Spade]

Mine is right now 52.1 to 44.7, but I've been updating the later vote returns more quickly.

As for the Senate, that would make sense.  Cycle III is the cycle that is most even between the parties based on present voting patterns (Cycle I leans Dem and Cycle II leans GOP)

Therefore the Generic Congressional Ballot (Average of Senate and House Ballot) was GOP+6

The best Generic Ballot pollsters were Reuters/Ipsos (R+6), Pew Research (R+6), CBS News/NY Times (R+6) and McClatchy/Marist (R+6).

The worst were Gallup (R+15), FOX News (R+13), Rasmussen (R+12) and Newsweek (D+3).

Just fyi, but Generic ballot polls mean only the generic House ballot for rather obvious reasons.

Technically yes, but some pollsters doesn't seem to get it - like Rasmussen.

They ask: "Are you going to vote for the DEM or GOP candidate in this years congressional elections ?" instead of "In your district, are you going to vote for the DEM or GOP candidate in this years congressional elections ?"

Regardless of the way the question is asked, it has to be that way b/c with the Senate, not all states are up this year (I believe it was 35 of 50 this year) and one state was up twice (NY).  Skews the numbers too much.

I believe in the House this year, 24 GOP CDs were not contested by Dems and 5 Dem CDs were not contested by GOPers (exclusing all third parties, of course).  This does skew the numbers, but nowhere near as much as with the Senate (we're probably talking about tenths of percentage points, considering the safeness of most of these seats, maybe not even).