House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern?



I don't take macro factors into account when projecting individual seats in my House forecast, but I do keep an eye on them. Over the last eighteen hours, two generic ballot polls have given me real pause. Pew just came out with a new generic ballot poll showing the Democratic lead in the generic ballot down to only 47%-43% among likely voters. This is a shift from 50%-39% last week, and the closest it has been in Pew since before Hurricane Katrina. The Pew numbers give more solidity to the ABC-WaPo numbers earlier in the day, which showed the Democratic lead down to 51%-45% among likely voters, after it was at 54%-41% two weeks ago. Granted, the Newsweek poll conducted during the same time period shows Democrats still ahead by a whopping 16 points, 54%-38%, and the Time poll (PDF) of likely voters shows Democrats with a fifteen point lead, 55%-40%. All of these poll still show large Democratic leads among registered voters (9%, 10%, 15%, and 16% for an average of 12.5%), and several more generic polls will be coming out between now and Tuesday morning. Still, this does certainly make me even more skeptical than usual of forecasts predicting a massive Democratic wave. Are people still eager to argue against me for being conservative in my forecasts?

Now, that being said, all available evidence still points to a Democratic takeover of the House, and my forecast hasn't changed much. The forecast has shifted ever-so slightly from a Democratic pickup of 24-28 seats to a Democratic pickup of 23-28 seats. I don't really take macro factors into account in this forecast, which is one of the reasons I have always predicted a smaller gain for Democrats than have most forecasters. Here are the specific changes to the new forecast:
  • IN-09 downgraded from "Lean Democratic" to "Toss-up"
  • NH-02 downgraded from "Lean Democratic" to "Toss-up"
  • FL-22 upgraded from "Toss-up" to "Lean Democratic"
  • NY-20 upgraded from "Toss-up" to "Lean Democratic"
  • NY-26 downgraded from "Toss-up" to "Lean Republican"
  • CA-50 downgraded from "Lean Republican" to "Likely Republican"
Count me in as growing a little bit worried, after being extremely confident just yesterday. I think it is easy for many of us to get a little carried away with wild predictions of 35-40+ seats in the House, accompanied with narrow control of the Senate. We desperately want to see the conservative movement crushed, but believing it will happen in one fell swoop is little more than wishful thinking. A narrow House majority would still be a big, big win. We'll just have to keep fighting after November 7th.

Also, Mystery Pollster has an excellent look at the "what ifs?" of district level polling in this election. Long story short, if you take out all the old polls, all the partisan polls, and all the Majority Watch polls, the Democratic advantage is significantly reduced. It is still an advantage that is very likely to produce a Democratic majority, but only a narrow one.



Display:


Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

How much of it is the media needing to sell a horse race?


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 06:24:21 PM EST

Good point (none / 0)

The media has always been trying to pump up the GOP throughout this election cycle.

If anything, this should just provide more motivation for all of us here to get out and do everything we can.


by PsiFighter37 on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 06:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

And how much is John Kerry's comment and the fact that these polls would have been taken during the 3-4 media cycles it was getting consistent play?


by MyDD Fan on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 06:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

I like how Republicans keep saying that this isn't a national election, but then try to win on Iraq, fear of a Speaker Pelosi, and calling John Kerry a jerk.  Way to focus on the local issues asshats.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:03:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

I agree with that, they keep saying it's all local, etc.  But then Bush goes out and says he's going to keep Rumsfeld, Nancy Pelosi would be scary, and John Kerry insults the troops.

They say it's all local then tout national unemployment numbers.  It's all local, but the New Jersey courts just said gay marriage should be allowed.  Yeah, it's all local lol


by MyDD Fan on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:06:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, You Know They're Lying (none / 0)

because their eyes are moving.

Old standard was, you know they're lying because their lips are moving.  But, the New GOP has made great strides in the art of lying.  Don't even have to be awake, much less open their mouths.  Long as they've got that REM happening in their sleep, you can be sure they're lying.


by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:24:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

PS I also love that nobody in the media ever points this out to Ken "435 elections" Mehlman and his army of rabid cabana boys.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:26:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

That's what Craig Crawford said today on MSNBC--the Kerry effect.

Hopefully, it and the Saddam verdict is working its way thought the system, as it were, and will be digested by Tuesday.


by Bush Bites on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:22:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (3.00 / 2)

A win is a win is a win.


by albagubrath on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 06:28:00 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

That's the truth. Shifts in control of the House are extremely rare. Any victory would be huge.
by Chris Bowers on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bowers, you big pussy (1.00 / 1)

You're optimistic 363 days of the year, and turn into a big pussy of the eve of the election? Where's your fucking balls man? You give up? I give up. What the fuck? A couple cheesey polls come out - out of a hundred going our way. House by 35+ and Senate by 6 - as a penalty - you can suck my balls Wednesday.


by Cleveland John on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:02:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As a penalty (none / 0)

On wednesday, I want you change your UserName to "Big Pussy Bowers"


by Cleveland John on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Likely voter screen (none / 0)

Is there any chance they have changed their likely voter screens?

Really disappointed to see the downgrade on NY-26.  There's one who really needs to go.  


by scientician on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 06:28:32 PM EST

NY-26 (none / 0)

  Aren't you glad that Emanuel went searching for the most conservative (former Republican) in
NY-26 to run against Reynolds?  Too bad he may also be the worst campaigner imaginable.  Gillibrand takes the lead on Sweeney's scandal, and Jack Davis lets Reynolds come back from the dead.  Thanks Emanuel.
Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 06:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY-26 (none / 0)

Who would you have rather run?


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:04:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know. (none / 0)

  Someone else.


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:10:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know. (none / 0)

Great.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know. (none / 0)

Your strategic prowess really puts Emanuel in his place. Good work.


by OfficeOfLife on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:39:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll say. (none / 0)

   I was just trying to say I don't know why Emanuel picked Davis to run.  Is it because he was conservative enough for the district?  Because Davis is rich?  It certainly not that he's a competent campaigner.


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:41:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll say. (none / 0)

I'm not an expert in the district, but there was a primary for the Democratic nomination which Davis won by a 2-1 margin, so it's possible that the Democrats of the district thought he'd be their best representative.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:47:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll say. (none / 0)

Davis ran in 2004, Rahm made a push to get a lot of the 2004 candidates to run again.  They start off with better name recognition, larger fundraising network, stronger campaign organization and more committed volunteers.

Think of all the "repeat" candidates this cycle that are leading or tied with their 2004 opponents.  Lois Murphy, Joe Courtney, Diane Farrell, Jack Davis, Baron Hill, Joe Donnelly, the list goes on!

Davis has a dep checkbook and willingness to use it.  He may not be inspirational but he's not hapless.


by MyDD Fan on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:50:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll say. (none / 0)

I've read in articles that he doesn't even actively campaign for the seat. Honestly, from what I can tell, he doesn't really give a damn about the race. If he did, Reynolds would have been buried long ago.


by PsiFighter37 on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:54:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll say. (none / 0)

He doesn't actively campaign for the seat. I heard an extremely, extremely well placed source (not in the Davis campaign) say, when the Foley scandal borke out, something like "I bet old Jack is stting in his bed crying right now, because he'll actually have to go to Washington." there is a lot of money there, but not much drive.

That said, he could still win. A lot will depdend on the turnout model.
by Chris Bowers on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll say. (none / 0)

OMG, is that funny!

That old coot.  Hey, I'll move there to take that seat.  (and, hating that area of NY, it WOULD take the promise of a seat to get me to move there).  I'll duck my head now, with the inevitable backlash from rochester/buffalo people.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How accuate has Pew been in the past? (none / 0)


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 06:30:56 PM EST

Re: movement within MOE (3.00 / 1)

Having looked at the generic ballot graph that was up a few days ago, the generic lead always shrunk at the end. Further, the lead is within the poll's MOE.
The Dem range would be 54-47 and the R range would be 43-35. All of these polls essentially report results in that range for Ds and Rs. The Newsweek and Time polls seem to be on the max/min D/R end
and the Pew on the min/max D/R end. I'd guess the Dem lead is between 5-10 pts.

by phillydem on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 06:36:52 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

 Why would an "undecided" voter, who ostensibly would be a questioning one, suddenly go with the Republicans on the eve of the election, after looking hard at the Democrats for the last couple of months?

 I can't come up with one single reason.

 And yet that's what's playing out in the polls.

 We have one galactically dumb electorate.


by Master Jack on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 06:50:56 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

maybe they're waiting to see whether, at the last minute, they can still stand Republicans?


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:06:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

have you seen this story that josh marshall is covering at TPM?

the NRCC is doing a new version of robocalling. the call sounds like it's coming from the democrat. a message starts, then ends and robocalls back... hitting voters 6 or more times. basically pissing them off at the democrat.

a story from NY-19:

I was handing out leaflets for John Hall yesterday at a grocery store. There were two tables, a democratic one and a Republican one.

When I was handing out palm cards, several people said to me something like, "I WAS going to vote for John Hall, until I got all those phone calls. I got seven or eight, right at dinner time."

The guy from the Republican table, who was a local district leader-- friendly and chatty, actually came over to me and said, "You know, most of those are coming from Sue's office, but don't tell anybody."

I don't know how high his connections are to the Kelly campaign, but that's the information he volunteered.

it's happening in New Hampshire. and Kansas too. could this be part of the reason for the shifting polls>


by irene adler on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

"Why would an "undecided" voter, who ostensibly would be a questioning one, suddenly go with the Republicans on the eve of the election, after looking hard at the Democrats for the last couple of months?"

Answer, two words:  John Fucking Kerry.

Okay, that's three, but still.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:57:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

If we didn't run a race strong enough to overcome something like that, we don't deserve to win.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:09:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

I'm not buying it.  I'm not worried about these polls (we've seen enough questionable polls to know to not worry about these), i'm more worried about all the voter suppression the repubs are working at.   People are fed up.   Have you seen those Ohio numbers?  And the poll that came out today that showed Gillibrand up over Sweeney had her with strong support in rural regions.  Enough people get it at this point.   And at least in NY I think we have enough reasons why the generic polls are meaningless.   Sweeney has serious problems.  Same with Sue kelly.  Same with Kuhl and Reynolds.   And Walsh's district voted for Kerry.    We've got better candidates, they've got serious problems.  

The goal was to win 15 seats.   I'm confident we will do that.  Anything else is icing on the victory cake.


by democracyinalbany on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 06:57:30 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

I think we all would like to see the conservative movement crushed, as you say, but we need the win, regardless of how it comes.  Buzzer beaters are alright by me.  

In order to defeat the conservative movement, what we really need to do is show the failure of their policies and the bankruptcy of their ideas.  And we need to be in power to be effective at that.


by Reece on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:01:57 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

Chris,

If you can go from "extremely confident" to "a little bit worried" in just 12 hours, it leads me to believe that this polling stuff is a lot of horseshit and we ought to just see what the results are on Tuesday evening.  Otherwise, we just make ourselves nuts with nervous number-crunching that doesn't hold up from one sunset to the next.


by global yokel on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:02:00 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

bingo- my problem is the psychology of this as well. it plays too much into what I think is the natural sentiment of a lot of people on the left rather than into any clear cut idea of whether the dynamics have changed- in 4 days? get real.


by bruh21 on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:36:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

Well, in Maryland the polls between OMalley and Ehrlich are now neck and neck and for some ungodly reason Steele is still in it --altho I don't think any sane person thinks he has a chance.  But if a blue state like ours is sticking with its pug gov then the anti-bush sentiment isn't as strong as we may have thought.

http://pollster.com/polls/?state=MD& race=governor_race


by aiko on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:08:23 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

It's hard not to get extremely nervous right before election. This winning stuff isn't easy, and while it's easy and oh-so-inviting to get swept up in fantasies of a large Dem majority in the House, there are no guarantees in life, just hard work to keep trying to achieve them.


by Mullibok on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:12:40 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (3.00 / 1)

Hey I'm gonna make a prediction that nobody's talked about at all.

I predict that, in safe Democratic districts, you're still going to see bigtime turnout in the form of outraged protest votes.  Then, I think you're going to get talking heads and online interpreters looking at national-level vote levels and saying that Democrats won fewer seats than their overall proportion of the vote should have delivered and suddenly gerrymandering breaks through as a mainstream issue.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:18:28 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

Polling, AKA the horse race, has been THE story for this election.
Not the candidates.
Not the issues.
Polls are all over the place.
They move from all Americans, to Registered voters, to Likely voters-different samples equal different numbers.  
The samples are subjective in the combination by gender, by race, by income, by region.

Another possiblilty in move to the Republicans: Push-Poll calls and nuisance calls-probaby part of their big GOTV effort.
I got a Push-Poll call that framed the stem cell issue as "Medical research on unborn babies."


by CLK on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:22:31 PM EST

We are no match for their dirty tricks (none / 0)

I dont know how effective are dirty tricks and sleaze Ads but what happened to McCain says it is effective.

Dems are no match for this--maybe they should have a clean version of robocalls--like :  Do you know Republicans will privatize Social Security and do not like to investigate war profiteering.  Do you know they rubberstamp all failed policies and dont want to raise the minimum wage


by jasmine on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:32:48 PM EST

Re: We are no match for their dirty tricks (none / 0)

I wonder what would happen if a candidate of either party pulled a full McCarthy the day before the election and and made some crazy, audacious claim like "My opponent has been sponsoring cockfights in his basement for 15 years and I plan to present evidence to the police and DA's office tomorrow"...that is, something that can't immediately be proven or disproven.  Would people be more likely to respond negatively to the accusor or the accused?


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:38:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

This is natural party realignment near the election. As it gets closer, more and more Republicans and Democrats (and indies who lean in either direction) come home to roost beside their party's candidate.

I don't see this as a big cause for alarm; it's just going to mean that the election will be a little closer than we would have liked. If the Dems don't take control of the House, then I'll be concerned. If we take the House and the Senate, I'll be partying for two solid days.


by Spiffarino on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:35:24 PM EST

No To Both (3.00 / 1)

We'll have to wait to see, of course.  But I reject both alternatives--that one election could possibly be the end of our long national nightmare, or that a major wave in the House is not possible.  As I've argued in a couple of recommended diaries here, a single wave election victory is huge step forward, but it's just a step up to another stage of struggle.  So it's not at all the hope for a silver bullet that has me excited about this election.

The Democrats have done a great deal wrong in this race, as we have all explained to one another for lo these many months.  A while back, I did a series of diaries comparing the generic congressional lead to other macro indicators--presidential approval, right track/wrong direction--and I concluded that the Democrats were not doing a good job of translating general discontent into a specific preference for Dems in Congress.

I bring this up now for one reason: it means that we could have run a much stronger campaign than we did run.  So even if we fall short of our highest expectations this time, it's not because we couldn't reach them, only because didn't reach them, for lack of doing everything we could.  We have still not reached critical mass, where our activism from below regularly blasts through the party hierarchy's stone walls of folly.  However we do this time, the real battle--in terms of what's hardest and most immediately important--remains the battle within the party.

Until we win that battle, election outcomes will necessarily reflect the divided, internally conflicted nature of our party--not to mention the rightwing media environment, the punditalkcracy, etc.  They will not be true measures of what we are capable of.  They will be measures we easily could have, and should have exceeded.  This is not to downplay their importance, not for a minute.  Particularly in these last few hours, they are all that counts for us.  But they are not us, nor even a reflection of us.  They are a reflection of the struggle going on in our party--a struggle that begins again in earnest the day after election day.


by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:45:19 PM EST

Re: No To Both (none / 0)

paul

could you elaborate on this comment


The Democrats have done a great deal wrong in this race

I'd like to hear what someone who is stating that a few days before the election thinks.  Are you denoucing Rahm?

PS.  I know you don't like Obama, so let's skip that.  


by democracyinalbany on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What Dems Have Done Wrong (none / 0)

Just for starters:

(1) Early on, they failed to capitalize on an extremely negative political climate.  See my diaries "Dem's Congressional Lead Lags Indicators" (through April), "Dem's Congressional Lead STILL Lags Indicators" (though May), and "Dem's Congressional Lead Upticks ONE Point In June" (through June).

(2) They ran away from Iraq.

(3) The DCCC ran a narrow, targeted campaign, which was only broadened because of the grassroots, Dean's 50-state strategy, and candidates themselves.

(4) The DCCC ran conservative candidates against more progressive, more aggressive grassroots candidates who ran previously in 2004, rather than support those who had already established a beachhead, and recruiting new candidates for seats where there wasn't someone already running.


by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 03:18:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

What are the chances that these sudden and odd changes in the overall numbers are due to some sort of polling fraud, either by polling outfits themselves, who are sympathetic to if not run by the GOP, and/or caving into massive GOP pressure and enticements, or by the GOP's having found some other way of gaming these polls (e.g. getting a hold of the lists of people to be polled or people calling them, and getting them to favor the GOP), in order to set up a more favorable polling context in which to steal the election?

Sorry to be putting on my tinfoil hat here, but this just seems strange to me, that so many people suddenly switched back to the GOP at the last minute due to Kerry's joke, the Saddam verdict, and other last-minute developments. And I wouldn't put ANYTHING past these thugs at this point. They are so desperate not to lose, and so lacking in scruples and decency, that I'm not ruling anything out on their part, including physical violence.


by kovie on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:47:24 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

I suppose it's possible, but it seems unlikely that polling firms would risk that since if, as a pollster, your numbers are consistently wrong, nobody cares about the numbers you produce.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:49:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

Not consistently wrong, just every now and then, or just by a few points. Successful cheaters know not to cheat too often, or too much, or else they'll tip people off and be revealed.

I have absolutely no proof that any of this is happening. It's just that with the stakes so high for the GOP this election, and with their proven reputation for doing whatever it takes to win, you almost have to assume that they'll at least TRY to do this, if it helps tip things their way.

The reasoning behind skewing polls is dual. One, to deceive enough voters into either staying at home or voting GOP, and discourage Democratic GOTV workers and operations, by convincing them that things are a lot tighter than they really are, and thus making the difference in tight races. And two, by making it easier to steal elections by creating the impression that they were tighter than they really were, and thus not likely to have been stolen.

Anything who thought that GOTV only meant Get Out The Vote to the GOP is naive. Their "Plan for Victory" entailed far more than visible and "legitimate" efforts. And I wouldn't at all put it past them to try to skew last-minute polls, and get the cooperation of at least some polling firms. After all, the media's been subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) helping them out, so why not polling firms?


by kovie on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:11:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

Perhaps the most likely scenario is that none of our predictions will come true, because so many races will be super-close and unresolved for weeks or months after Nov. 7.  I'm expecting the coming months to be big-time ugly, with lots of challenges, lawsuits, recounts, and electoral chaos of all sorts.  This thing could be up in the air for quite awhile....


by global yokel on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:51:26 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (3.00 / 2)

I am less concerned about all these polls and feel confident the Dems will gain a majority in the House. Why?

I've been out canvassing all day in a very Repub leaning district where Bush got over 60% in 2004 and the incumbent Repub has the machinery and money while the Dem challenger had very little money and practically no help from Rahm. The neighborhoods were all working class. Most folks know about the election but not sure if they'll have the time to get to the polls. Those that were certain were all voting Dem. And those that have already voted absentee by a 8-10 margin said they voted Dem. Then there were those that will vote Repub as they have always voted that way.

This race were the Dem should have no chance will be close. If this true in all other districts then  the likelihood that some of these races will flip is high. Simple probabilities insure that the Dems will win a majority as these competive races mostly have Repub incumbents.


by ab initio on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 07:59:33 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

And this is exactly why it's time to take a hiatus from poll-fretting and get to work on the ground. Once you knock on a few doors and make a few calls, you'll see what the real folks are feeling.

Great post.


by Spiffarino on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:56:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

Looking at the internals for this poll, their LV screen seems flawed to me. There is a definite bias toward upper income, Southerns and caucasians. While some of these groups may be more likely to vote, the numbers seem to be weighted too heavily in their direction. Also, the likely voter split is 50% male and 50% female. What's the norm on that?


by chrisj on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:01:31 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

I think that the Dems will pick up 20 or so seats and get a slim majority in the House, 4 or 5 seats in the Senate, and as many as 7 Governors race.  No matter how you slice it, that is a major ass-kicking.  Dreams of picking up both houses and 50 or more seats were probably a bit premature, but just winning enough to control the House is a major victory.

Furthermore, look at the nature of the victory.  Look at states like Montana, where the Senate race is neck and neck with a GOP incumbent (even if it's an incompetent one), and Idaho, where a Governors race and a House race are still in play, and Wyoming, where the House seat is still in play, and South Dakota, where the Dems are up 40 points to hold the House seat.  The Democratic Party could come out of this election with both Senate seats and the Governor's mansion in Montana, the Governor's mansion and one of the House seats in ID, and the only House seats in WY and SD.  All of these Upper Plains state and Mountain West states are VERY libertarian.  Libertarians have stuck with the GOP through the years on the issues of taxes and the NRA.  However, other important libertarian issues are small government, balanced budget, personal freedom, and non-intervention foreign policy.  Libertarians are completely against Iraq and any foreign policy misadventures and are very strongly opposed to laws like the Patriot Act and the recent pro-torture bill that give the government almost unchecked power to intrude on any part of a person's life.  It appears that the strong showing in these highly libertarian areas are a sign that that part of the GOP base is eroding.

Also, look at races like NC-11, where Shuler, an evangelical Christian is running as a Democrat, and IN-08, where the evangelical Christian Republican is getting trounced.  Evangelicals, at least those that recognize that God's will actually does not include mass slaughter for oil money and trouncing on the poor at home, are leaving the party as well.  These are fundamental shifts in party alignments as the Democratic party reclaims moderates of all stripes as the GOP gets more an more radical.  Even if the House victory is slim and the Senate is a little short, these are trends that the Democrats should capitalize on and take command for good in 08.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:04:14 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

It's all about the expectations game.  The media, all the CW heads, and all the Republican preachers of the faith are setting things up so that, no matter what, Democrats should have done better when we arrive in the post-election spin zone.

If the expectation is that they can't tie their shoes and it turns out that they can, then Dems come out as the gang who couldn't shoot straight yet again.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:12:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

I agree that the West is ripe for picking up independents and libertarians if the Dems know what they are doing, but I am not sure they do.  People like Tester do, sure, but he is from the area.  Not sure the party big wigs in Washington understand that we need to take stronger stands against things like the Patriot Act and the Torture bill if we want to convince the libertarians to vote for us.

If we do make that messaging and policy shift and win the West, then combined with the death of moderate Republicanism in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, we could actually control the House for years to come.

But at the end of the day, we will only win long term if 1) we have a national message with better framing and talking points; 2) we learn to attack Republicans more to undercut their base (i.e. evangelicals); 3) we do something useful once in power to show that progressive policies work for all Americans.

The polls are tightening because some Republicans are coming home to roost.  But assuming no dirty tricks, we should win not because we have sold our agenda, but because independents dislike of Republicans.


Better Progressive Messaging www.progressivemovement.net
by parmenides on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 01:17:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

I recall the polls were tightening before the 1994 mid term.  No one predicted the size of the Repugnican's overwhelming win that year.  I also recall the polls pretty tight just before the 2002 midterm and of course the thugs won handily that year too.  I believe we are in for a good night.  I, too, believe that a win is a win. Of course, we can all hope for a tidal wave.  


by sbbonerad on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:11:53 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

The Time poll was LV too. Unless something happened on the 4th that changed everything, then this is just noise as the cons decide the vote.... maybe Haggard did it for them.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 09:01:21 PM EST

Re: House Forecast Update: Cause For Concern? (none / 0)

There will be fewer Republicans in Congress after Tuesay. It would be nice if you people (and the MSM) would get that through your thick skulls.


by spirowasright on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:51:46 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.