http://www.gallup.com/poll/141440/Democrats-Jump-Six-Point-Lead-Generic-Ballot.aspx?version=print
July 19, 2010
Democrats Jump Into Six-Point Lead on Generic Ballot
At the same time, Republican enthusiasm for voting in November surges
by Lydia SaadPRINCETON, NJ -- In the same week the U.S. Senate passed a major financial reform bill touted as reining in Wall Street, Democrats pulled ahead of Republicans, 49% to 43%, in voters' generic ballot preferences for the 2010 congressional elections.
The Democrats' six-point advantage in Gallup Daily interviewing from July 12-18 represents the first statistically significant lead for that party's candidates since Gallup began weekly tracking of this measure in March.
"The 51% of Republicans saying they are "very enthusiastic" about voting this fall is up from 40% the week prior, and is the highest since early April -- shortly after passage of healthcare reform."Whether the Democrats' edge is sustainable remains to be seen. Republicans held a four-point or better lead over Democrats in three Gallup weekly averages thus far this year, but in each case, the gap narrowed or collapsed to a tie the following week.
Movement Seen Among Independents
With Republicans' and Democrats' support for their own party's candidates holding steady in the low 90s this past week, independents are primarily responsible for Democrats' improved positioning. Thirty-nine percent of independents favor the Democratic candidate in their district, up from 34% -- although slightly more, 43%, still favor the Republican.
Republican Enthusiasm Spikes
Simultaneous with increased support for Democratic congressional candidates, Gallup polling last week found Republican voters expressing significantly more enthusiasm about voting in the 2010 midterms. The 51% of Republicans saying they are "very enthusiastic" about voting this fall is up from 40% the week prior, and is the highest since early April -- shortly after passage of healthcare reform. Democratic enthusiasm is unchanged, at 28%.
Bottom Line
It's possible the increased voter support for Democratic candidates this past week is linked with the Wall Street regulatory reform bill that passed in the U.S. Senate last Thursday, July 15. The financial reform bill is the second-biggest piece of legislation to get through Congress this year, after healthcare reform, and it enjoyed majority support. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll in June, 55% of Americans were in favor of legislation expanding government regulation of financial institutions -- including 72% of Democrats and 56% of independents. Only Republicans were generally opposed.
Last week also marks the second time that Republican enthusiasm for the fall elections has increased after congressional passage of a major Democrat-sponsored bill. Perhaps these events sharpen Republicans' focus on the opportunity to change Washington in November. Such animation could be crucial to turnout this fall, which could in turn determine the outcome of the midterms.
Since 1950, Gallup's final generic ballot measure, based on likely voters, has closely matched the total percentage of votes cast nationally for Democratic and Republican candidates in all 435 U.S. House races -- a statistic that bears a predictable relationship to the number of House seats won by each party. Gallup does not screen for likely voters until closer to Election Day, but historically, Republicans' turnout advantage in midterm elections changes the Republican-Democrat gap by five percentage points in the GOP's favor. Thus, if these numbers held through Election Day, the two parties would be nearly tied at the ballot box, with possibly a slight advantage for the Democrats.
But will President Carter, er, Obama campaign for them:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=XdZuyt6UVr
Conventional wisdom says that the mid-term election is often a referendum on the President's policies, and for some voters that's undoubtedly true. But in this mid-term we may be seeing a true difference in each party's approach to governance. On one hand, we have health care (insurance) reform and a halting approach toward increased regulation of the financial sector and energy production. On the other hand, we have a party that says "NO!" and holds its breath until it turns blue....er....red.
In all seriousness, the Republicans must jettison the crazies in their ranks. Otherwise, as those crazies drag the party ever more to the right, they'll lose the moderates they need to win elections.
There was a short run at getting rid of the crazies in 2008, with John McCain. But then he caved in when it came time to pick a running mate, so we ended up with Obama as reaction.
As an aside;
Got an interesting note from the NRA this week, endorsing and encouraging the election of Drew Edmondson for his efforts to preserve constitutional rights in the form of right to bear arms in the state of Oklahoma. (Yes, they are serious - the NRA has NO sense of humor and is very serious about this topic. As am I.)
And the RWRE think that Democrats are all anti-gun! Not the real ones. Just like not all Republicans are anti-people.
We hear a lot about how energized Republicans are, but I wonder how many conservatives like Bruce Bartlett are out there: (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/07/bruce_bartlett_deficit_economy_and_vat)
Quote"The monumental hypocrisy of the Republican Party is something amazing to behold. And their dimwitted accomplices in the tea-party movement are not much better. They know that Republicans, far more than Democrats, are responsible for our fiscal mess, but they won't say so. And they adamantly refuse to put on the table any meaningful programme that would actually reduce spending. Judging by polls, most of them seem to think that all we have to do is cut foreign aid, which represents well less than 1% of the budget."
In so many places, where the GOP has chased the more conservative vote than the more centrist vote, I will be interested to see who doesn't show up, rather than who does.
Quote from: we vs us on July 26, 2010, 11:12:34 PM
We hear a lot about how energized Republicans are, but I wonder how many conservatives like Bruce Bartlett are out there: (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/07/bruce_bartlett_deficit_economy_and_vat)
Um. Why is this guy saying many of the things I've been saying? Obviously he's under some sort of rabid left-wing mind control. :o
Who is Bruce Bartlett? Another staunch conservative like Andrew Sullivan? ::)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2010, 08:40:20 AM
Who is Bruce Bartlett? Another staunch conservative like Andrew Sullivan? ::)
He was a policy advisor to Reagan and in Bush I's Treasury Dept. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bartlett) Essentially a RINO. ;)
The Republicontin party and the Dummycrats both have been co-opted by extremists at each end. Gerald Ford was the last decent Republican President we had and Kennedy was arguably the last Democrat (maybe Truman). Each successive has been a bigger joke than the previous. No exceptions now.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 27, 2010, 12:41:23 PM
The Republicontin party and the Dummycrats both have been co-opted by extremists at each end. Gerald Ford was the last decent Republican President we had and Kennedy was arguably the last Democrat (maybe Truman). Each successive has been a bigger joke than the previous. No exceptions now.
You're showing your age, Hiero. Kennedy? Really?
It's the easy out to say that the D's and R's are equivalent in their looniness. It's easy and wrong. There are substantive and demonstrable differences between the two parties right now, and the level to which each has been co-opted. I'm sorry to report that the Democratic Party is in thrall to centrists, conformists, and in general, weenies and has utterly and entirely ignored its far left. You don't have to look any farther than the legislation that has been passed to date. A lot of the initial trial balloons that would've kept the base and its left happy have been scrapped in order to make the right more comfortable. The sad death of the public option is the quintessential case of the Administration jettisoning even mildly liberal reforms to chase down the approval of the right.
So it's a false equivalence, comparing the two, and we do so at our detriment. It further muddies the waters and introduces even more mistrust into the political system than maybe there needs to be. I mean, there're plenty of reasons of legit reasons to mistrust the D leadership, but being too radical just isn't one of them.
Quote from: we vs us on July 27, 2010, 02:15:25 PM
You're showing your age, Hiero. Kennedy? Really?
It's the easy out to say that the D's and R's are equivalent in their looniness. It's easy and wrong. There are substantive and demonstrable differences between the two parties right now, and the level to which each has been co-opted. I'm sorry to report that the Democratic Party is in thrall to centrists, conformists, and in general, weenies and has utterly and entirely ignored its far left. You don't have to look any farther than the legislation that has been passed to date. A lot of the initial trial balloons that would've kept the base and its left happy have been scrapped in order to make the right more comfortable. The sad death of the public option is the quintessential case of the Administration jettisoning even mildly liberal reforms to chase down the approval of the right.
So it's a false equivalence, comparing the two, and we do so at our detriment. It further muddies the waters and introduces even more mistrust into the political system than maybe there needs to be. I mean, there're plenty of reasons of legit reasons to mistrust the D leadership, but being too radical just isn't one of them.
I don't hear a lot of people on the right who are too happy about even the watered down legislation which has passed. They still view much of it as leftist socialism. I realize a lot of what gets spouted by the talking heads is hyperbole, but listening amongst my conservative bretheren, it's hard to find anyone who considers the HC reform, Financial reform, stimulus, etc. as being centrist in nature. Real or not, it's the perception which matters on election day.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2010, 02:37:11 PM
I don't hear a lot of people on the right who are too happy about even the watered down legislation which has passed. They still view much of it as leftist socialism.
Just because the usual talk radio suspects say it and their parrots repeat it does not mean that it is leftist. As I've mentioned before, the HCR bill is essentially Romney's plan, which is essentially what Nixon's plan in 1972 was.
Then you've got the Congressional Republicans who are more interested in disagreeing with anything and everything coming out of this Congress in a cynical attempt to improve their election chances. These are by and large the same people who were happy to pass Medicare Part D and otherwise balloon the deficit but now complain about expense when a new program is paid for.
It's really sad when the Democrats are the responsible ones and the Republicans are the ones whining like little children.
Quote from: nathanm on July 27, 2010, 02:44:41 PM
Just because the usual talk radio suspects say it and their parrots repeat it does not mean that it is leftist. As I've mentioned before, the HCR bill is essentially Romney's plan, which is essentially what Nixon's plan in 1972 was.
Then you've got the Congressional Republicans who are more interested in disagreeing with anything and everything coming out of this Congress in a cynical attempt to improve their election chances. These are by and large the same people who were happy to pass Medicare Part D and otherwise balloon the deficit but now complain about expense when a new program is paid for.
It's really sad when the Democrats are the responsible ones and the Republicans are the ones whining like little children.
Your
opinion and your
perception. Also how far left or how far right a piece of legislation seems to you depends on where your seat is on the political fence.
One cannot get an honest answer about the good or bad of legislation from a legislator because everything is engineered to gain or retain power, not to give constituents what is truly best for them, nor truly following their will.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2010, 02:51:21 PM
Your opinion and your perception.
Why don't you compare the three plans, on a factual basis. Perhaps then you'll realize that there is more in this world than opinion and perception. There are in fact facts. One of them is that the health care law is not a "liberal" law. It ain't a libertarian law, either.
Unless you want to make the claim that Mitt Romney is some kind of bleeding heart liberal. Which I guess you could. At worst it would be pretty funny. Maybe the case is there to be made and you will open my eyes.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2010, 02:51:21 PM
Your opinion and your perception. Also how far left or how far right a piece of legislation seems to you depends on where your seat is on the political fence.
One cannot get an honest answer about the good or bad of legislation from a legislator because everything is engineered to gain or retain power, not to give constituents what is truly best for them, nor truly following their will.
But the point that nathan (and I) was making still stands: historically, and by objective standards (ie comparing past legislation), most of the stuff the D's are passing is centrist, and lots of it has Republican origins. The R's perceive the stuff that's coming through as socialist and as a threat to America, but up till very recently it was considered good policy.
So the question is, why is the legislation suddenly suspect? The substance hasn't changed, but the people opposing it very obviously have.
EDIT: and nathan beat me to it.
Just because Nixon proposed something 40 years ago doesn't mean it's a staple of conservatism today. Nixon is regarded in many circles as the last great liberal President. He also established the EPA and Affirmative Action happened under his administration. His civil rights record would be considered liberal as well. He also proposed a "negative tax". Figuring out ways to lower healthcare costs to individuals has been around for decades, it's nothing new.
It's also hard to label a program like Romneycare as some sort of centrist or conservative program simply because Romney is a Republican. He's not the standard-bearer for the GOP (at least not the last election cycle). He was the governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation when that was pushed through. He had the help of an overwhelming Democrat Congress and Senate. If you will notice, he also did not garner the GOP nomination in spite of probably having the best overall resume as someone who might have been able to guide the country through the financial disaster. Blame it on the Mormon thing, blame it on open primaries and the liberal media pimping McCain. Point is, Romney apparently isn't the leader of the GOP.
Just FYI- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts lists 35 Democrats and 5 Republicans in their Senate. They list 141 to 19 in the HOR.
It's kind of hard to say there's an objective way to say that a plan like Romneycare was centrist when you had a supermajority in the HOR and Senate in Mass. approve his plan.
And again, it doesn't matter to someone on the right if more left-leaners like you think something is centrist. So long as it's to the left of their own spectrum, it's a leftist plan. Perception of what actions are is what will determine who winds up with an elected position moreso than the actions themselves.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2010, 03:51:55 PM
Just FYI- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts lists 35 Democrats and 5 Republicans in their Senate. They list 141 to 19 in the HOR.
My peeps. I will be there next month, if for no other reason than to lower my blood pressure a bit.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 27, 2010, 03:51:55 PM
Just because Nixon proposed something 40 years ago doesn't mean it's a staple of conservatism today. Nixon is regarded in many circles as the last great liberal President. He also established the EPA and Affirmative Action happened under his administration. His civil rights record would be considered liberal as well. He also proposed a "negative tax". Figuring out ways to lower healthcare costs to individuals has been around for decades, it's nothing new.
It's also hard to label a program like Romneycare as some sort of centrist or conservative program simply because Romney is a Republican. He's not the standard-bearer for the GOP (at least not the last election cycle). He was the governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation when that was pushed through. He had the help If you will notice, he also did not garner the GOP nomination in spite of probably having the best overall resume as someone who might have been able to guide the country through the financial disaster. Blame it on the Mormon thing, blame it on open primaries and the liberal media pimping McCain. Point is, Romney apparently isn't the leader of the GOP.
Just FYI- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts lists 35 Democrats and 5 Republicans in their Senate. They list 141 to 19 in the HOR.
It's kind of hard to say there's an objective way to say that a plan like Romneycare was centrist when you had a supermajority in the HOR and Senate in Mass. approve his plan.
And again, it doesn't matter to someone on the right if more left-leaners like you think something is centrist. So long as it's to the left of their own spectrum, it's a leftist plan. Perception of what actions are is what will determine who winds up with an elected position moreso than the actions themselves.
I agree, but that's the point. The right-leaning spectrum has shifted radically in the last 40 years -- and actually much more recently.
And regardless of Romney's state, or stance, or lean, he's undoubtedly a conservative and has advanced ideas that have gotten bipartisan support in the recent history. There're actually a lot of examples of these solidly conservative guys who've been left in the dirt by this titanic shift to the right. McCain is one, Arlen Specter is another. Charlie Crist in Florida is another.
We vs us,
I've been saying all along how old I am. Kennedy - yeah. Truman actually probably better, but his ties to organized crime (Kansas City families) were a little more subtle, so didn't impinge quite like the Kennedy clan. And before Ford, we had a great Republican President through the '50s - Dwight David. Both were exceptional men and Presidents.
Actually, the sound bite comments about extremists co-opting doesn't really quite apply to Democrats. It's more like Will Rogers said about being a member of no organized political party - he was a Democrat. They try to be SOOOO all inclusive that it is very difficult to achieve coherence. They are loonies mostly because of a lack of focus, or maybe too much focus on too many things. Too much like herding cats.
The Republicontins on the other hand have been just flat out hijacked by the - yes, here is comes again, because it is the reality - the Rupert Crew. You can hear it across their entire spectrum - all the players read from the same play book. The same script. Very well organized, focused, and as long as people "drink the Kool-Aid", successful enough to elect Bush II twice - well once anyway.
Conservatism isn't a real value in this country anymore - it is a warped distortion shaped by the Aussie and his buddies. The image that comes to mind is the difference between conservatism of Eisenhour, Ford, etc. (represented by normal Stanley Ipkiss) and today's Aussie conservatism (represented by masked Stanley Ipkiss).
Actually, the Cheney, Rove, Murdoch conservatism of today is more accurately represented by the masked Dorian Tyrell!!
Reference "The Mask" movie - Jim Carrey, et. al.
Which brings me back around to the John McCain disappointment...I still think he could have been good, but for caving in.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 28, 2010, 12:19:06 AM
We vs us,
I've been saying all along how old I am. Kennedy - yeah. Truman actually probably better, but his ties to organized crime (Kansas City families) were a little more subtle, so didn't impinge quite like the Kennedy clan. And before Ford, we had a great Republican President through the '50s - Dwight David Eisenhower (corrected for those too young to remember). Both were exceptional men and Presidents.
Eisenhower held interesting views for a general. Most people these days (including myself!) don't remember a time before the defense contractors had taken over the Government. His warning was eerily prescient.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUXtyIQjubU
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 28, 2010, 12:19:06 AM
Actually, the sound bite comments about extremists co-opting doesn't really quite apply to Democrats. It's more like Will Rogers said about being a member of no organized political party - he was a Democrat. They try to be SOOOO all inclusive that it is very difficult to achieve coherence. They are loonies mostly because of a lack of focus, or maybe too much focus on too many things. Too much like herding cats.
This is a lot more to the point. As I said, the D's just aren't fanatics right now. They absolutely have their own problems, but extremism just isn't one of them.
Quote from: we vs us on July 28, 2010, 09:23:16 AM
This is a lot more to the point. As I said, the D's just aren't fanatics right now. They absolutely have their own problems, but extremism just isn't one of them.
That is, unless you talk to an extremist on the other side, then what would be a moderate liberal to most everyone to them becomes a communist.
Quote from: we vs us on July 28, 2010, 09:23:16 AM
This is a lot more to the point. As I said, the D's just aren't fanatics right now. They absolutely have their own problems, but extremism just isn't one of them.
Careful when you start throwing the words like "radical" and "extremism" around, as it can be applied in many different ways to many political stripes right now. So are we saying radical as in crazy or vastly different?
Democrats have had their recent nuts to deal with:
Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan and a whole bunch of anti-war fanatics who mocked President Bush as being Hitler and worse.
The New Black Panthers appear to be aligned with the Democrats
To many on the right, Presdent Obama's whole crew is pretty radical.
As far as advancing a much more government-changing agenda and how government fits into people's lives, governs corporations, and spends money without seeming concern for the consequences of huge debt we've had very radical changes in our Federal government in the last 1 1/2 years.
When you speak of radicalism on the right I'm assuming you mean the Tea Party.
At it's core (yes I know it's pretty disjointed and not well organized so it's hard to tell) the Tea Party is about smaller government, less intervention, and preserving basic consitutional rights. Asshats showing up at rallies with signs mocking the President or even fewer asshats carrying their firearms openly at rallies aren't exactly what I'd call radicals unless you are willing to concede similar behavior at Democrat or liberal rallies is radicalism as well. In which case, I don't think you are willing to admit that a handful of weirdos defines an entire movement or major political party.
And I think we saw last night that the Tea Party was pretty irrelevant in statewide and local races. Kenneth Rice relied on it and got his donkey whipped by Rep. Sullivan. Brogdon got shellacked. Hartje- spanked.
I don't think a Republican can afford to tune out those who call themselves Tea Partiers, but I think there's a good number of us centrist Republicans who cast a wary eye at the Tea Party. Perhaps it's that lack of a cohesive organization or message which almost makes them appear anarchist, and some who seem to be wanting to govern from the pulpit. I don't know if you really can define that as radicalism.
Maybe it is radical (as in a vastly different approach) after an 80 year binge of ever-expanding government, deficits, entitlement programs, more regulations in everyone's lives to want a smaller government which has less of a thirst for our hard-earned dollars.
I'm not really sure what's so extreme or radical about people wanting more self-governance.
Liberty is the cornerstone on which this nation was built.
Democrats have had plenty of extremists over the decades, but they don't really get any more traction than any other segment...herding cats again!
Tea Party (tea baggers?) are a large group of people who feel so much like I do that it is uncanny. The frustration and anger about the directions we have headed is incredible. The biggest single problem/issue that I have with their implementation up to this time is that they have thrown in with the RWRE so much. What they are expressing/talking about is in great part CAUSED by the people who have sponsored their beginnings and nurtured the movement. It goes to the sellout of the American people by the hijacked Republicontin party and to a slightly less degree, the co-opted Dummycrat party. There is no major representative group with the American people in mind.
There has been a lot of talk about the recent tax cuts versus tax hikes. Stick with me here...it is going to get bumpy. If we had not sold out America in 2001 and 2003 with the ridiculous tax cuts that killed the budget, we would have been in tall clover right now. We were seeing surpluses in the $200 - 300 billion range that were 'scheduled' to continue for many years. IF we had just left the Reagan/Bush I/Billy Bob program in place, with the debt that was outstanding at the time, by NOW we would have been very close to $ 0.
Instead we got what we got.
And if anyone thinks that tax hikes aren't in the cards, they are negligently, if not criminally, ignorant. There literally is no other way. We have "tax cutted our way to economic success" to the point we are failing. Infinite tax cuts won't lead to infinite economic activity. Bush II and his lackey's/cronies had no understanding of history or how EVERY economic cycle since before WWII has worked. Again, we got what we got.
The real irony of the Tea Party's uneasy alliance with Republicans? The Republicans are the ones blocking more tax cuts.
As was said, time after time, the D's are now pushing and passing legislation essentially similar to the R's, but it's ALL about "just say no".
Obama and his Democrat buddies gave these people the biggest tax cut in the history of the world - anywhere, anytime. And all they do is grumble about it. Go figure.