About Those Gallup Polls

lessons learned from '94? (0.00 / 0)

It's entirely possible that once Congress comes back to work and starts debating whether rich people ought to keep their tax cuts, or whether we ought to be handing out some form of tax incentives for hiring, or closing certain tax loopholes favored by Big Business, the momentum might swing back toward the Democratic side of the equation, especially if more Tea Party candidates start winning Republican primaries.  Hell, I was tempted for a little while to switch parties just so I could help nominate "I'm Mad Too Carl" Palladino for governor.

---

by: Steaming Pile @ Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 16:27:10 PM UTC

Media hype (0.00 / 0)

It's much more dramatic to talk about the possibility of Congress changing hands than to talk about nothing changing.

I think there is a reason for the switch; President Obama is finally getting off his @$$, getting out of the beltway and hitting Republicans on their rotten ways.  He's reminding people of who got us into this mess, and also of who doesn't want to help get us out of this mess.

If he keeps it up, pushing bills to a vote in Congress that will force Republicans to give him a victory or vote against helping America, and continuing to spread the word, I think you'll see, at most, a three-seat pickup in the Senate and a 25-seat pickup in the House.  And that will be trumpeted by [most of] the media as a major victory for Democrats.

Unfortunately, this smacks so much of Bill Clinton it makes me sick.  The White House had been deliberate ignoring the midterms for a year and a half, focuing all their energies on 2012.  I'm glad they finally got their act together (if, indeed, they have), but just between us (ha, ha) they should have done it six months ago.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 18:39:08 PM UTC

You're So Right Dan (0.00 / 0)

And they should have gotten off their rears months ago.  I agree that the media focuses more on the 10% Republican lead and not when the Dems cut that lead and tie.  I know I watch MSNBC and they've "mentioned" this several times.  I don't believe we will lose control of either house but as I wrote on another blog, it's up to all of us to GOTV.  I'm leaving for Italy on Sunday and don't return until the end of the month but when I come back I plan to do my part to get those sitting on the fence about voting to the polls.  We'll win if the Obama voters come out in 2010 like they did in 2008.

---

by: ROSALIE907 @ Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 19:23:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2012 is more important. (0.00 / 0)

Supreme Court Justices Kennedy and Scalia will both turn 80 before January 2017.  Justice Ginsberg won't live forever.  If President Obama loses in '12, I see the SCOTUS's rightward tilt being both reinforced and strengthened by the next Republican President, who is likely to make us pine for the days of George W. Bush.

Of secondary importance to 2012 would be the state legislatures and governorships.  Shift these to the GOPers, and you have a decade of gerrymandering to overcome.

Congress comes third.  I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.  If the Republicans won, and got cocky enough to start pushing stupid bills to the President's desk for sure vetoes, or did something really foolhardy like shut down the government or impeach the President for the hell of it, all while people were still hurting, that would be about it for them.  Remember what happened last time; the GOP advantage in both houses was cut by more than half, and that was during good times.  

I think if the American public really wanted to return control of Congress to the Republicans, they would need to be shown - noses rubbed in it, to put it bluntly - what the consequences of that would be.

---

by: Steaming Pile @ Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 11:56:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gotta disagree (0.00 / 0)

The 2010 races, at the state level, will determine redistricting for the next decade -- except, of course, for Texas, where Tom DeLay only does redistricting when it's convenient.  That's one area where this year's election is vitally important.

If we lose control of the House, it means gargantuan fights over all kinds of appropriations, including Medicare, Medicaid, education, infrastructure, etc.  Remember what happened in 1995, when Clinton shut the government down rather than cave in to Newt Gingrich?  That was a long time ago, and a resurgent Republican Party won't lose the battle again.

2010 is a precursor to 2012.  If President Obama loses control of the House he may not have the ability to bounce back and win reelection.  He probably will, but do you want to take that chance?

Finally, the economy is going to turn around in the next two years -- and the last thing we want is Republicans strutting around claiming that they did it.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 15:59:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On the other hand (0.00 / 0)

It would be a very good thing to see a Democratic president nominate successors to "Justices" Kennedy and Scalia.  We could provide some balance to the two W. appointees.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 16:01:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, that's good news, (0.00 / 0)

even though it's a BS question, as evidenced by a 10-point swing in one week.

But Gallup's been asking it since forever, so it's important and major news, at least when it favors the GOP.

Congressional races are not generic -- they are about individual Democrats and Republicans, fund-raising, campaign organization, message, volunteer enthusiasm, local media coverage, etc.

NO ONE votes one way or the other because of the Gallup generic poll.

NO ONE.

 

---

by: devtob @ Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 03:07:53 AM UTC