CNN Poll concerning midterms

[© tweed]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/25/bush.poll/index.html

Generic Ballot: D 55% R 42%
Bush approval: 42% approve 55% disapprove

And

Asked which party in Congress would better handle specific issues, respondents backed Republicans on terrorism (47 percent to 41 percent), while Democrats were again seen as better able to handle the economy (51-39), health care (57-32), immigration (44-40) and moral issues such as same-sex marriage and stem cell research (47-40).

[Nym90]

The fact that the generic ballot test exactly matches Bush's approval ratings isn't a good sign for the Republicans. It would appear this eleciton has very much been nationalized and is a referendum on the President.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I still think the generic ballot is overrated

ex. ME, while the state most likely would rather see a Democrat in the senate, they will send Olympia Snowe there with about 70%.

And states like NY which only elect one senator pump this total up, as a state like WY which only elects one senator has a low effect.

The generic ballot is never the greatest indicator.

[memphis]

I still think the generic ballot is overrated

ex. ME, while the state most likely would rather see a Democrat in the senate, they will send Olympia Snowe there with about 70%.

And states like NY which only elect one senator pump this total up, as a state like WY which only elects one senator has a low effect.

The generic ballot is never the greatest indicator.

The generic ballot is not good for the Senate, but historically has been a good indicator for the House. While I would love to see the Dems win back the Senate, I just don't think it's too probable.

[poughies]

Jay Cost at real clear politics has had some great writeups on the generic ballot. I tend to agree with the whole "all politics is local". Yet, if u look at the individual polls, they also suggest a very good chance at a Democratic majority.... I don't know, but I agree that they are usually overused.

[Eraserhead]

You can tell how bad realclearpolitics.com wants the Democrats to crash and burn in any of their articles. I can't read too many of them any more because they anger me.

[© tweed]

Yeah, I read something on there about a week ago (maybe less) about how Minnesota was "hotly contested in 2006" and it spoke of Klobuchar's possible impending demise.  lol!

[Conan]

By the end of this election cycle, Democrats will have the upper hand with terrorism.

[Eraserhead]

Yeah, I read something on there about a week ago (maybe less) about how Minnesota was "hotly contested in 2006" and it spoke of Klobuchar's possible impending demise.  lol!

Good God that is laughable.

[poughies]

That i didn't read.... u gotta pick out the articles carefully. Cost, while definitly a conservative, was VERY quick to jump on Republicans when they claimed the race for the house was tightening on the wings of the generic ballot.....

[Keystone Phil]

Give me a call when you walk into the booth and see "Generic Ballot" at the top.

[Whacker77]

As far as this new CNN poll, I find some of the internal numbers a bit fishy.  The fact that by 47-40, voters prefer the Democrats on "moral issues" such as same sex marriage makes me wonder if the poll didn't get a few too many Democrats.  There is no way that number is correct.  I know the left wingers won't agree with me, but same sex marriage has never been successful on any ballot.  Given that fact, I think the spread in the "generic number" is probably is closer than 15 points.  Is it even, no.  Is it six or seven points, probably.

[The Vorlon]

The generic ballot is not good for the Senate, but historically has been a good indicator for the House.

Flat out just plain wrong.

The Dems led in the "generic" ballot in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002 prior to the actual elections.  It was basically even in 2004.

The GOP had House majorities in each of these election cycles.

Granted, the gap by which the Dems lead the GOP on the "generic" ballot is larger than before (I do expect the Dems will barely retake the House BTW) but to suggest the Generic ballot is historically predictive and meaningful is simply inconsistent with reality.

[Eraserhead]

The generic ballot is not good for the Senate, but historically has been a good indicator for the House.

Flat out just plain wrong.

The Dems led in the "generic" ballot in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002 prior to the actual elections.  It was basically even in 2004.

The GOP had House majorities in each of these election cycles.

Granted, the gap by which the Dems lead the GOP on the "generic" ballot is larger than before (I do expect the Dems will barely retake the House BTW) but to suggest the Generic ballot is historically predictive and meaningful is simply inconsistent with reality.

Calm down there buddy. You are going to give yourself a heart attack.

[Joe Biden 2020]

While I would love to see the Dems win back the Senate, I just don't think it's too probable.

I, too, would love to see the Democrats take back the Senate, I, too, don't think their chances are that good.  Heck, Bill Clinton only gives them a 30% chance of doing so.  

There are some projections right now that even have the GOP hanging on to the House by a mere 1 seat.  Sadly, I think the House has gone from almost a sure Democrat pickup to a toss-up with a Democrat lean.  Especially with recent events happening such as the drop in oil and gas prices and the detainee compromise that was reached last week between McCain and Bush.  No matter what happens, it is highly unlikely, for the GOP to increase their majorities in either Chamber.  They will lose seats, it just remains to be seen if the Democrats can take enough seats to catapult Nancy Pelosi and/or Harry Reid to the top honors.

[Nym90]

The generic ballot is only for the House; it's my understanding it doesn't include Senate races.

Vorlon, is there any particular reason why the generic ballot leans Democratic? I remember hearing that the Dems did win the popular vote for the House overall in 1996, but I'm assuming the GOP won it in the other years you listed.

I'm not disputing that it is inaccurate as it clearly is, but why is this true? Why are people more likely to say they are voting Democratic and then end up voting Republican than the opposite? I guess I'm just perplexed as to why it would always be off, and always towards the Dems.

In any event, if it is always about 4-5 points too Democratic, we can then just adjust for that and get the real results. Consistency matters more than accuracy.

[Gustaf]

The generic ballot is only for the House; it's my understanding it doesn't include Senate races.

Vorlon, is there any particular reason why the generic ballot leans Democratic? I remember hearing that the Dems did win the popular vote for the House overall in 1996, but I'm assuming the GOP won it in the other years you listed.

I'm not disputing that it is inaccurate as it clearly is, but why is this true? Why are people more likely to say they are voting Democratic and then end up voting Republican than the opposite? I guess I'm just perplexed as to why it would always be off, and always towards the Dems.

In any event, if it is always about 4-5 points too Democratic, we can then just adjust for that and get the real results. Consistency matters more than accuracy.

I think people are always mad at Congress, so they always want the opposition party to win it back. However, they still vote for their own local Congressman (which in most cases have been a Republican during the last decade)

[memphis]

The generic ballot is not good for the Senate, but historically has been a good indicator for the House.

Flat out just plain wrong.


The Dems led in the "generic" ballot in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002 prior to the actual elections.  It was basically even in 2004.

The GOP had House majorities in each of these election cycles.

Granted, the gap by which the Dems lead the GOP on the "generic" ballot is larger than before (I do expect the Dems will barely retake the House BTW) but to suggest the Generic ballot is historically predictive and meaningful is simply inconsistent with reality.

Generic ballot is good indicator if polling likely voters. Not so much for registered voters. Need to check polls to see who is being polled.

[ATFFL]

The generic ballot is not good for the Senate, but historically has been a good indicator for the House.

Flat out just plain wrong.


The Dems led in the "generic" ballot in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002 prior to the actual elections.  It was basically even in 2004.

The GOP had House majorities in each of these election cycles.

Granted, the gap by which the Dems lead the GOP on the "generic" ballot is larger than before (I do expect the Dems will barely retake the House BTW) but to suggest the Generic ballot is historically predictive and meaningful is simply inconsistent with reality.

Generic ballot is good indicator if polling likely voters. Not so much for registered voters. Need to check polls to see who is being polled.

Still wrong. 

The problem is people live in different districts.  The dems can easily win the nationwide vote in congress while still failing to regain control of the House.

[memphis]

The generic ballot is not good for the Senate, but historically has been a good indicator for the House.

Flat out just plain wrong.


The Dems led in the "generic" ballot in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002 prior to the actual elections.  It was basically even in 2004.

The GOP had House majorities in each of these election cycles.

Granted, the gap by which the Dems lead the GOP on the "generic" ballot is larger than before (I do expect the Dems will barely retake the House BTW) but to suggest the Generic ballot is historically predictive and meaningful is simply inconsistent with reality.

Generic ballot is good indicator if polling likely voters. Not so much for registered voters. Need to check polls to see who is being polled.

Still wrong. 

The problem is people live in different districts.  The dems can easily win the nationwide vote in congress while still failing to regain control of the House.

Mathematically, your scenario is quite possible, but considering how most districts are gerrymandered, the generic ballot gives you some insight into how the few dozen competitive districts are likely to vote.

[poughies]

I believe that it one of many things one can use. Polling on a district level is more important.

[Deano963]

Yeah, I read something on there about a week ago (maybe less) about how Minnesota was "hotly contested in 2006" and it spoke of Klobuchar's possible impending demise.  lol!

Good God that is laughable.

Same thing for Murtha!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://politics.wizbangblog.com/2006/09/25/cook-political-report-dems-to-gain-1520-seats.php

LOL. Texasindy who is that last quote from? It's hilarious! But you ddin't include the person who said it. I want to make it my new sig.