Oct 01 2010
Gallup Stunner Coming!?!?
OK, this election year could be more than a once-in-a-lifetime kind of year. It could be a once-in-forever, if what Jay Cost is reporting about Gallup’s ‘likely voter‘ version of its congressional generic question is accurate:
Our latest measure for the week of Sept. 20-26 shows Republicans with a 20-percentage-point lead over Democrats in terms of the percentage of voters who are “very” enthusiastic about voting. Additionally, preliminary modeling of the likely electorate using Gallup’s traditional likely voter questions (more on this next week) suggests that if current patterns persist, Republicans could have a double-digit lead in the national House vote on Election Day, which would translate into Republicans gaining well above the number of seats necessary to control the House.
Woah! A 10+% 20% lead for the GOP over the Dems would be incredible. It would not be a 50 or 80 seat blow out. It would be closer to a 100 seat blow out. No wonder Barney Frank is sweating bullets right now. Here is Cost’s take on these kinds of numbers:
It’s hard to estimate exactly how many Republican seats a +10 result would produce – predictive models can be particularly dodgy when estimating unprecedented results – but if the Republicans win 55 percent of the two-party House vote, I think they’d beat their haul from 1946, when the party won a total of 245 seats.
It just boggles the mind. The political earth quake would be (or will be!) amazing to watch. And the liberal Democrats would be radioactive poison for decades to come. As the saying goes, watch what you ask for, you just might get it!
one caveat I think we should put on this – I (and many others) have been very disappointed in Gallup’s consistency this year, as they have been showing wild swings from week to week. That doesn’t mean this number isn’t accurate, but it does raise the question as to whether Gallup has a basic methodology problem.
and in spite of these polls, I haven’t seen any signs that Republicans are starting to break out in California yet.
Without supermajorities in House and Senate it does not matter how large the victory.
If this represents a permanent shift in the attitudes of the population it is meaningful, but don’t forget 2 years ago these same folks voted for Obama with great glee.
The center is very fickle, and tend to vote with prevailing winds.
“MOOD”erates
Big OOPs in my last post in spelling, sorry AJ.
[…] spread (R-D-I), which is where I think the most likely outcome is 4 weeks out. But if there is a big, unseen wave out there, this picture would be the low end of some truly surprising […]
Got you covered oneal
WWS, Gallup’s methodology problem is that this is a unique election cycle, which is playing havoc with turn out models (which are stubborn to drift away from the long trends in normal year voting).
“but don’t forget 2 years ago these same folks voted for Obama with great glee.”
Not to be too cliche’, but 2 years ago people voted for Change. The Dem’s were given the chance, but instead delivered the same ol’ same old. Now the people are voting for change again, and there’s a lesson for the GOP in that.
The Voters Want Change. REAL change in Washington!
this isn’t about following dems, or following Republicans; this is about Who is going to bring REAL change? The first team to deliver on that is going to be trusted, but *everyone* who promises “change” in the campaign and who then spends the next 2 years making excuses and failing on the job is going to be booted out of office. And this will happen over and over again until something changes, even if that means something breaks horribly. (which it will if we don’t get this right pretty quick)
This is about ACTIONS, not promises. if Republicans win but then spend 2 years doing nothing with their new found power they will have squandered everything they are about to be given.
The problem this cycle is that the Senate doesn’t have many Dems up for re-election. That happens in 2012.
>Without supermajorities in House and Senate it does not
>matter how large the victory.
You need a supermajority in the Senate.
The House needs something like a 30 to 40 seat majority with a about 10 votes from the other caucus so you can rotate marginal seat reprentative on tough for the home district partisan votes.
Pelosi did not get that for TARP, Healthcate or Cap & Trade.
The Senate needs more than 60 (close to 65) because of Senate egos for tough avoid the consiquences partisan votes.
The Republicans might get that in 2012 because they have 23 Democratic Senate seats up in 2012 with Obama at the top of the ticket.
Every majority rural state, southern state, and Midwestern state Democratic senator is in deep deep trouble because Obama and the Democratic leaders didn’t extend the Bush tax rate cuts.
Obama will veto a full extension and Republicans won’t settle for less. This means the economy will tank in the first quarter of 2011 as the middle class gets clobbered with higher taxes and less disposable income.
Obama will see those horrid economic numbers in April 2011 and cave to Republican demands for a full tax rate repeal as his party’s up for 2012 election officials will be desperate to vote for the Republican rate repeal, giving Republicans a chance to over ride an Obama veto on the most important domestic issue.
This will be the worse of all words for Obama and the Democrats. They will get all the blame for a bad economy. And it will both embolden Republicans either way and depress Leftist/Progressives for the 2012 election cycle.
“This means the economy will tank in the first quarter of 2011 as the middle class gets clobbered with higher taxes and less disposable income.”
The problem is that people are not going to notice that tax increase on their 1040 until April 15, 2012 and the Democrats are going to attempt to play it as the fault of the Republican Congress that we are “fixin'” to elect this year.
(Had to throw in a bit of Texas there).
Crosspatch,
The Obama Administration will try to do that.
They won’t succeed.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by BA Klink, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: Gallup Stunner Coming!?!?: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/14564 […]
Guys, you are mistaken about a supermajority being required.
Most of the reforms that we want are negative. They don’t cost money.
Which means that if Congress does not appropriate any funds, or authorize their expenditure, those programs die. Dead. Very Dead.
THAT is how we kill Obamacare deader than a doornail.
Mike,
They will be without funds but still mandated law, waiting for the next political cycle for recycling. Also not funding them will more than likely mean a budget showdow with Obama. Republicans lost that one with Clinton in the late 1990’s.
Obamacare must be removed from the code of law. It will be difficult. Until there is a new President it will be impossible.
Republicans currently have no viable candidates for President.
oneal lane, that is exactly what I was thinking. Obama can veto each and every budget if the House defunds ObamaCare.
I got to thinking…well, defund another program that is very dear to Obama, let’s say, money appropriated for those Czars and Michelle’s staff and let Obama and the House negotiate.
I also cannot think of any Republican candidates that I would like to vote for in 2012. But I would like to see Herman Cain on the ticket because that will force many blacks to think twice about voting for a candidate only because he or she has a “D” next to their name.
Looks like today’s rally was a failure…a flop. The photos showed a heavy touch of Marxism and socialism. They also left a mess after the rally was over.
Their speeches were rather strange.
[…] going to produce their generic congressional poll numbers today using ‘likely voters‘. As Jay Cost noted last week, these numbers apparently are going to shake the political establishment to its core. It took me a […]