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

[Smash255]

Gallup has it back to a 46-46 tie


http://www.gallup.com/poll/142892/Parties-Tied-Generic-Ballot.aspx

[Rowan]

Gallup has it back to a 46-46 tie


http://www.gallup.com/poll/142892/Parties-Tied-Generic-Ballot.aspx

LOL.

So this would have us believe that 8 million people changed their mind in the past week.

[J. J.]

Gallup has it back to a 46-46 tie


http://www.gallup.com/poll/142892/Parties-Tied-Generic-Ballot.aspx

Not according to their site:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

[Beet]

Gallup has it back to a 46-46 tie


http://www.gallup.com/poll/142892/Parties-Tied-Generic-Ballot.aspx

LOL.

So this would have us believe that 8 million people changed their mind in the past week.

Well I don't understand how the GOP's generic lead could go from 8 points to 16 points in two months. What's happened since July? Not all that much. The Gulf oil leak was plugged. That should help Obama. The Iraq pullout completed. That, too, should have helped Obama. At this rate, by November the GOP lead will be 24 points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Gallup has two sites now? Because the link Smash provided clearly backs up his assertion, whereas I don't see anything on the link you provided contradicting that.

[Torie]

I hope it is real. I changed the headline to reflect Smash's input. I will do that from now on, when posters put stuff into this thread that makes the headline dated.

[Mr.Phips]

Obama's win in 2008 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democrats.

BINGO.  And the only way to to give Democrats any chance of a comeback is to make sure he tanks in 2012. 

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Obama's win in 2008 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democrats.

BINGO.  And the only way to to give Democrats any chance of a comeback is to make sure he tanks in 2012.  

Because what the country needed was McCain making Supreme Court picks right? If only for the chance to replenish our bench on the Supreme Court with younger justices Obama was necessary. Also, I think you are seriously underestimating how much trouble we would be in right now with McCain(the country not the party), and just because we are going to lose a few seats in the midterm doesn't change that fact.

Plus, Obama's been pretty good. Much too conservative, but still pretty good. We have healthcare and financial reform and I'll take that.

[Brittain33]

Obama's win in 2008 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democrats.

BINGO.  And the only way to to give Democrats any chance of a comeback is to make sure he tanks in 2012.  

You two can wail and gnash your teeth, I'm glad that Obama accomplished what he did with health care and financial regulation and don't give a damn if it means the country flips back for the short term. Republicans are going to get elected on a pure protest vote with almost no ideas other than extending the Bush tax cuts and making life tough for Obama. That's not a mandate for a bright future. This past term has been meaningful and done a lot of good for the country. If nothing else, it means future Democratic Congresses will never again have to tear themselves up over the idea of universal coverage. There will be a time in the future when I would be content for Democrats to merely govern, and not legislate, but that time wasn't 2008-2009 after 30 years of conservative government. A Republican victory in 2010 sets us up for a clash of ideas in 2012. Bring it on. Viva democracy.

[Beet]

Obama's win in 2008 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democrats.

BINGO.  And the only way to to give Democrats any chance of a comeback is to make sure he tanks in 2012.  

Because what the country needed was McCain making Supreme Court picks right? If only for the chance to replenish our bench on the Supreme Court with younger justices Obama was necessary. Also, I think you are seriously underestimating how much trouble we would be in right now with McCain(the country not the party), and just because we are going to lose a few seats in the midterm doesn't change that fact.

Plus, Obama's been pretty good. Much too conservative, but still pretty good. We have healthcare and financial reform and I'll take that.

But it's not even clear that Souter and Stevens would have retired had McCain won.

I disagree with Mr Phips on 2012, but it's pretty clear that Obama's win in 2008 is similar to Jimmy Carter's win in 1976, or Herbert Hoover's win in 1928: one of those rare elections where it would have been better to lose.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Obama's win in 2008 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democrats.

BINGO.  And the only way to to give Democrats any chance of a comeback is to make sure he tanks in 2012.  

Because what the country needed was McCain making Supreme Court picks right? If only for the chance to replenish our bench on the Supreme Court with younger justices Obama was necessary. Also, I think you are seriously underestimating how much trouble we would be in right now with McCain(the country not the party), and just because we are going to lose a few seats in the midterm doesn't change that fact.

Plus, Obama's been pretty good. Much too conservative, but still pretty good. We have healthcare and financial reform and I'll take that.

But it's not even clear that Souter and Stevens would have retired had McCain won.

I disagree with Mr Phips on 2012, but it's pretty clear that Obama's win in 2008 is similar to Jimmy Carter's win in 1976, or Herbert Hoover's win in 1928: one of those rare elections where it would have been better to lose.

No, but it's always good to recycle the older members out just in case something happens. Ginsberg will likely retire next year too.

[Mr.Phips]

Obama's win in 2008 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democrats.

BINGO.  And the only way to to give Democrats any chance of a comeback is to make sure he tanks in 2012.  

Because what the country needed was McCain making Supreme Court picks right? If only for the chance to replenish our bench on the Supreme Court with younger justices Obama was necessary. Also, I think you are seriously underestimating how much trouble we would be in right now with McCain(the country not the party), and just because we are going to lose a few seats in the midterm doesn't change that fact.

Plus, Obama's been pretty good. Much too conservative, but still pretty good. We have healthcare and financial reform and I'll take that.

A FEW SEATS?  A FEW SEATS?  We are in path to lose 70 seats in the House and probably control of that chamber for the rest of our lives.  Had we waited until 2012, we could have had 300 House seats and 67 Senators and the White House and Obama could have been another FDR. 

Now, at best it will be another 1953-1959 period, 1969-1977 period, or 1995-2001 period, where one party held the White House, but the other party basically ran the whole agenda.

Democrats f**ked up big time in 2008.  We should have thrown the election to McCain and waited our turn. 

[Torie]

Obama's win in 2008 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democrats.

BINGO.  And the only way to to give Democrats any chance of a comeback is to make sure he tanks in 2012.  

You two can have wail and gnash your teeth, I'm glad that Obama accomplished what he did with health care and financial regulation and don't give a damn if it means the country flips back for the short term. Republicans are going to get elected on a pure protest vote with almost no ideas other than extending the Bush tax cuts and making life tough for Obama. That's not a mandate for a bright future. This past term has been meaningful and done a lot of good for the country. If nothing else, it means future Democratic Congresses will never again have to tear themselves up over the idea of universal coverage. There will be a time in the future when I would be content for Democrats to merely govern, and not legislate, but that time wasn't 2008-2009 after 30 years of conservative government. A Republican victory in 2010 sets us up for a clash of ideas in 2012. Bring it on. Viva democracy.

Well said. That is the kind of attitude that I admire. In the end it is about policy; it is not a football game.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Obama's win in 2008 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democrats.

BINGO.  And the only way to to give Democrats any chance of a comeback is to make sure he tanks in 2012.  

Because what the country needed was McCain making Supreme Court picks right? If only for the chance to replenish our bench on the Supreme Court with younger justices Obama was necessary. Also, I think you are seriously underestimating how much trouble we would be in right now with McCain(the country not the party), and just because we are going to lose a few seats in the midterm doesn't change that fact.

Plus, Obama's been pretty good. Much too conservative, but still pretty good. We have healthcare and financial reform and I'll take that.

A FEW SEATS?  A FEW SEATS?  We are in path to lose 70 seats in the House and probably control of that chamber for the rest of our lives.  Had we waited until 2012, we could have had 300 House seats and 67 Senators and the White House and Obama could have been another FDR.  

Now, at best it will be another 1953-1959 period, 1969-1977 period, or 1995-2001 period, where one party held the White House, but the other party basically ran the whole agenda.

Democrats f**ked up big time in 2008.  We should have thrown the election to McCain and waited our turn.  

2008 was our turn. We didn't  up at all, we won. Also, we're not going to lose 70 seats and we never would have gotten to 300 and 67 even with McCain as president. Dem gains were nearly maxed out after 2008,

I guarantee you that we don't lose 70 seats in the House. If we do I'll give you $1,000 in real life.

Under this President we've accomplished a great deal and I wouldn't go crazy over one election. Just as I said this word is coming out that he is going to go against the extension of the bush tax cuts. What do you think McCain would do about that? Even with a Dem congress?

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wish it were so. That's a noble sentiment; it is only contradicted by all the evidence.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wish it were so. That's a noble sentiment; it is only contradicted by all the evidence.

Yes, the sentiment is not widely shared; the point is to accomplish something worthy while in power (as you see it in your own best and honest judgment), not to become a careerist, and maximize one's tenure.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We should have thrown the election to McCain and waited our turn. 

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, 'having your turn' will never be worth it and ought to be avoided at all costs. Which is bizarre. The point of politics is power; after all, if the right people don't have it, the wrong people do.

Which isn't to say that the Obama administration hasn't done a huge amount of damage to the Democratic Party's chances in the mid-terms; of course it has (and so, actually, have the Congressional Democrats. Both in terms of the Leadership and individual members). But more through a tin ear and a failure to understand that the post-Cold War phase of American politics is over than because of the inevitability of electoral disaster for whichever party won in 2008.

[Mr.Phips]

Obama's win in 2008 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democrats.

BINGO.  And the only way to to give Democrats any chance of a comeback is to make sure he tanks in 2012.  

Because what the country needed was McCain making Supreme Court picks right? If only for the chance to replenish our bench on the Supreme Court with younger justices Obama was necessary. Also, I think you are seriously underestimating how much trouble we would be in right now with McCain(the country not the party), and just because we are going to lose a few seats in the midterm doesn't change that fact.

Plus, Obama's been pretty good. Much too conservative, but still pretty good. We have healthcare and financial reform and I'll take that.

A FEW SEATS?  A FEW SEATS?  We are in path to lose 70 seats in the House and probably control of that chamber for the rest of our lives.  Had we waited until 2012, we could have had 300 House seats and 67 Senators and the White House and Obama could have been another FDR.  

Now, at best it will be another 1953-1959 period, 1969-1977 period, or 1995-2001 period, where one party held the White House, but the other party basically ran the whole agenda.

Democrats f**ked up big time in 2008.  We should have thrown the election to McCain and waited our turn.  

2008 was our turn. We didn't  up at all, we won. Also, we're not going to lose 70 seats and we never would have gotten to 300 and 67 even with McCain as president. Dem gains were nearly maxed out after 2008,

I guarantee you that we don't lose 70 seats in the House. If we do I'll give you $1,000 in real life.

Under this President we've accomplished a great deal and I wouldn't go crazy over one election. Just as I said this word is coming out that he is going to go against the extension of the bush tax cuts. What do you think McCain would do about that? Even with a Dem congress?

Over 50 is still a major disaster.  A few seats is 10-15, not 40-50. 

[Sam Spade]

Folks, there is a time when you trust generic polls somewhat.  It's known as the week before the election.

Nevertheless, what I'm seeing right now suggests a 40-50 seat gain for the GOP right now, and the possible floor of 35-40 that Cook is talking about and 45 that Vorlon said earlier.  Need to adjust.

[Torie]

Folks, there is a time when you trust generic polls somewhat.  It's known as the week before the election.

Nevertheless, what I'm seeing right now suggests a 40-50 seat gain for the GOP right now, and the possible floor of 35-40 that Cook is talking about and 45 that Vorlon said earlier.  Need to adjust.

40-50 is your number if the election were held tomorrow?  I'm at 65 myself.

Yes, I suspect that the odds are that it will regress some. The Dems will not just sit around and die, and folks may decide that too much of a "good thing" is a bad thing.

[Mr.Phips]

Folks, there is a time when you trust generic polls somewhat.  It's known as the week before the election.

Nevertheless, what I'm seeing right now suggests a 40-50 seat gain for the GOP right now, and the possible floor of 35-40 that Cook is talking about and 45 that Vorlon said earlier.  Need to adjust.

40-50 is your number if the election were held tomorrow?  I'm at 65 myself.

Yes, I suspect that the odds are that it will regress some. The Dems will not just sit around and die, and folks may decide that too much of a "good thing" is a bad thing.

If Democrats lose more than 50, Pelosi and Democrats will be at war with him for the rest of his Presidency.  They wont support any new stimulus measures in the lame duck session and will try to tank his Presidency.  They did all this hard work in 2006 to get the majority back and now Obama comes in and destroys it.

I wouldnt be surprised after 1994 and 2010 that Democrats in Congress deliberately try to sink the chances of Democratic canidates for President every four years.   

In short, Obama better watch his back, since Democrats in Congress right now want to put led boots on him and dump him into Lake Michigan.

[The Vorlon]

Another log on the fire...

Democracy Corps (D) says GOP are up 7 among LVs, 6 among RVs

http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/dcor090210fq8.pdf

[Vepres]

Yikes! If you also take into account that Republicans almost always outperform the generic ballot...

[Brittain33]

If you also take into account that Republicans almost always outperform the generic ballot...

How many points do you add to all of these ballot results to "adjust" for this phenomenon?

[Dgov]

If you also take into account that Republicans almost always outperform the generic ballot...

How many points do you add to all of these ballot results to "adjust" for this phenomenon?

Why, 6 of course

[Vepres]

If you also take into account that Republicans almost always outperform the generic ballot...

How many points do you add to all of these ballot results to "adjust" for this phenomenon?

I can't find a link, but I remember Gallup's top pollster say that it was along the lines of +5-ish.