2006 Mid-Term Update: Democrats Have Twenty-Point Lead Over GOP

[Frodo]

Democrats Have 20-Point Lead in U.S.

June 12, 2006

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – The Democratic Party remains the favourite in this year’s election to the United States Congress, according to a poll by Ipsos-Public Affairs released by the Associated Press. 52 per cent of respondents would like to see the Democrats win control of the U.S. legislative branch, up one point since May.

Support for a victory for the Republican Party is at 32 per cent, down two points in a month. In addition, 12 per cent of respondents want neither party in charge of Congress, and four per cent are not sure.

In the November 2004 congressional ballot, the Republican Party elected 232 lawmakers to the House of Representatives, while the Democratic Party secured 202 seats. The Republicans also have a majority in the Senate, with 55 members in the 100-seat upper house.

Last week, several Democratic supporters pledged up to $3 million U.S. in grants to organizations in order to attract young voters. Deborah Rappaport, one of the donors, declared, "The party’s plans to reach out to young people are incredibly insufficient. If we don’t pay attention to them now, we will lose them."

American voters will renew the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate on Nov. 7.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Polling Data

If the election for Congress were held today, would you want to see the Republicans or Democrats win control of Congress?

                    June 2006           May 2006               April 2006

Democrats:       52%                    51%                        49%
   
Republicans:     32%                    34%                        33%
   
Neither:            12%                    13%                        15%
   
Not sure:            4%                      2%                          3%           
   

Source: Ipsos-Public Affairs / Associated Press
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,003 American adults, conducted from Jun. 5 to Jun. 7, 2006.  Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

[MODU]

The data missing here is, are the changes in this poll reflected in the areas which Republican seats are up for grabs in closely contested races?  If they aren't, then the stats are pointless.

[MasterJedi]

The data missing here is, are the changes in this poll reflected in the areas which Republican seats are up for grabs in closely contested races?  If they aren't, then the stats are pointless.

The stats are useless anyway because they don't do individual seats.

[nlm]

The data missing here is, are the changes in this poll reflected in the areas which Republican seats are up for grabs in closely contested races?  If they aren't, then the stats are pointless.

It's just a mood of the country as a whole type of poll. By itself it doesn't mean much of anything for a specific race, but it does speak to the national trend which is of some interest. I think this is the kind of poll that scares blue state Republicans.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry Blue Dog,

I used to like ISPOS, but, like too many media subsidized firms, they have loaded their polls to produce the results that their employrers want.

There is no doubt that currently, among the general public, Deomocrats have a generic advantage.

However, twenty four points -  get real.

[??????????]

This apparent fact became very clear in Busbys landslide victory in California...oh..wait..haha

[Alcon]

I don't necessarily disagree that many more people are wary of the Republican Party.  However, it's never going to be by this margin, because it's always other people's representatives that are the problem.

[MasterJedi]

I don't necessarily disagree that many more people are wary of the Republican Party.  However, it's never going to be by this margin, because it's always other people's representatives that are the problem.

^^^^^ This is 100% true. People love their representative but want somebody else to vote out their Republican.

[Defarge]

In all probability, most of the people saying "Democratic" are in safe Democratic seats.  When you have 150 districts where basically 100% of people want a party switch, and the rest are ambivalent, you'll probably have numbers like these.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It would be more useful if they were to ask a "how would you vote if the election was today?" instead of "who'd you like to control Congress"... but even the latter has it's uses. A 10pt lead would be more realistic.

[David S]

Sorry to see diminishing support for "neither". 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This apparent fact became very clear in Busbys landslide victory in California...oh..wait..haha

For a guy to win only by 4 points and not even break 50% in a district that typically votes GOP by 10 points and where he spent $11 million is not a very positive sign.

[Frodo]

Out of curiosity, does anyone happen to have access to records that track polling for the 1994 mid-term year?  It would be interesting to see what the numbers were at this time twelve years ago. 

[jokerman]

Actually, this does have somewhat of a use.  These polls often show the general breakdown of how last-minute voters vote.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

The data missing here is, are the changes in this poll reflected in the areas which Republican seats are up for grabs in closely contested races?  If they aren't, then the stats are pointless.

The stats are useless anyway because they don't do individual seats.

Which is what I have been saying since the media began trying to convince the American people they wanted a Democratic Party controlled Congress. 

It is all about the numbers in the districts.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It is all about the numbers in the districts.
[/quote

True. But these numbers are heavily influenced (and to a degree that it seems a polite convention not to mention) by the national picture. To believe otherwise is to live in a dreamworld. It's a nice fantasy, but it's still fantasy. Reality on this sort of thing does take a long time to set in though (the stupid question asked by this poll is evidence of that...) and I can't blame you for taking that position.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gerrymandering reduces the effectiveness of this. There are simply going to be far more wasted Democratic votes than Republican votes. When the Republicans did their mid-decade gerrymander in Texas, they promised that the House would stay Republican "no matter what the national mood".

Besides the Republican spin hasn't started in full force yet. With the help of the so called media. they'll move these numbers.

Because of the gerrymandering, if the Democrats gained 25 seats, that'd be equivalent to 1994.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wait, Frodo, didn't you say that only stupid people like me ever believe a poll?

[Frodo]

Wait, Frodo, didn't you say that only stupid people like me ever believe a poll?

No, I said only that you tend to take what a single poll says at face value and draw conclusions from it that you might regret making.  We all have this weakness, but you seem to have it worst of all of us.  That makes you appear more gullible than most.   

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Gerrymandering reduces the effectiveness of this.

True again, but not to the extent that partisans from both sides like to imagine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An argument used by Republicans in the '80's and early '90's. FPTP results in less "wasted" votes for the winning party... if there be a clear winner that is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hubris

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Prove it

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think Sam Spade wrote up some sort of calculation proving that figure he gave, although I don't know where it isnow.

[Sam Spade]

I think Sam Spade wrote up some sort of calculation proving that figure he gave, although I don't know where it isnow.

The number is a total gain of 18-24 to reach an equivalent of 1994 in 2006 elections, but it is based on the situation and the calculated odds that occur in "wave elections" of the sort that occurred in 1994.  Weighted into this is the number of presently held GOP seats that averaged an under 50% Bush vote cumulative mean in 2000 and 2004, as well as the number of open seats and their probabilities.  The GOP has 9 open seats (8 minus CA-50) where Bush scored under 59% in 2004, for example.

I did a long numbers analysis on this (with comparison to 1994 numbers), but I don't feel like repeating myself.  It's somewhere back in the Congressional elections thread.  Keep in mind I was ready to throw about 10 more seats into toss-up and say that a Democratic takeover of the House was more likely if Busby had won CA-50.  That didn't happen, so I'm stuck where I am.

Basically, as far as I can figure at present, there will probably be roughly 10 Democratic seats in play and about 35 Republican seats in play.  In order for the Democrats to win back the House, they need 25 of these.  28-34 would equal a 1994 in my mind (there have been worse election though in "wave elections").  Keep in mind that in 1994, most political pundits by September had roughly 100 seats in play.  Republicans ended +53 with a couple that weren't on the list then.

[J. J.]

I looked at the 2004 results and was surprised by about an equal number of 'close" seats that the Democrats won; a stronger coattail effect, the GOP would have gained about 15 seats.  My guess is that there are about, at most 18 GOP seats in play, maximum.

Can anybody give me a list of open seats?

My current guess is that there will be about 10 seat GOP loss; I don't know the open seats, however.

[Sam Spade]

I looked at the 2004 results and was surprised by about an equal number of 'close" seats that the Democrats won; a stronger coattail effect, the GOP would have gained about 15 seats.  My guess is that there are about, at most 18 GOP seats in play, maximum.

Can anybody give me a list of open seats?

My current guess is that there will be about 10 seat GOP loss; I don't know the open seats, however.

It will be more than 18 seats, unless the current dynamic changes.

Here are the thirty-five GOP seats that are presently on the top of my list, to give examples of what I think the 35 seats I say will be up for grabs for the GOP are. (most will be on here, some will change with time, of course).

I have 29 seats as Lean Dem/Toss-up/Lean Rep and 6 seats as Likely Rep.  The first are top-tier for now, Likely Rep. is second-tier.

I have removed CA-50 from the list now, for obvious reasons.  Open seats have *.

Lean Dem.
1. (IA-01) Nussle*
2. (CO-07) Beauprez*
3. (AZ-08) Kolbe*
4. (PA-06) Gerlach

Toss-up
5. (OH-18) Ney
6. (NM-01) Wilson
7. (NY-24) Boehlert*
8. (IN-09) Sodrel
9. (CT-02) Simmons
10. (IN-08) Hostettler
11. (CT-04) Shays
12. (WI-08) Green*

Lean Rep

13. (WA-08) Reichert
14. (FL-22) Shaw
15. (MN-06) Kennedy*
16. (PA-08) Fitzpatrick
17. (NC-11) Taylor
18. (OH-15) Pryce
19. (IL-06) Hyde*
20. (AZ-05) Hayworth
21. (KY-04) Davis
22. (OH-01) Chabot
23. (PA-07) Weldon
24. (IN-02) Chocola
25. (NY-20) Sweeney
26. (WY-AL) Cubin
27. (PA-10) Sherwood
28. (CA-11) Pombo
29. (TX-22) DeLay*

Likely Rep.

30. (NH-02) Bass
31. (VA-02) Drake
32. (CO-04) Musgrave
33. (FL-13) Harris*
34. (NY-25) Walsh
35. (FL-09) Bilirakis*

This covers all the GOP open seats with Bush 59% or lower except for NV-02 and adds DeLay to the mix, who may be removed depending on who, or if, the GOP nominates to his spot.

[??????????]

Gerrymandering reduces the effectiveness of this.

Oh, quit acting like Democrats have never used gerrymandering to their own advantage. Both parties do it when they have power so quit acting like it's such a big deal.