MyDD :: Dems Maintain Double-Digit Generic Congressional Ballot Lead

Dems Maintain Double-Digit Generic Congressional Ballot Lead

by Jonathan Singer, Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:27:47 PM EST

Over the weekend Rasmussen Reports released its latest congressional ballot numbers, which show the Democrats maintaining their substantial advantage over the Republicans.

Date	Democrats	Republicans	Net
10/4/07	48	36	D+12
9/4/07	50	32	D+18
8/1/07	47	37	D+10
7/17/07	46	37	D+9
6/21/07	46	34	D+12
5/31/07	45	38	D+7
5/3/07	47	36	D+11
4/10/07	45	35	D+10


3-Month Ave.	48.3	35.0	D+13.3
7-Month Ave.	46.8	35.6	D+10.2

This polling bodes poorly for the GOP not only in the short term but also in the long term. Not only have the Democrats held a double-digit lead for three state months and the Republicans have failed to even come close to 40 percent support in the last seven months, but the Republicans are getting trounced by an even wider amrgin among younger voters, who will be sticking around in the electorate for a few decades to come. Specifically, Rasmussen finds that the Democrats' lead among voters age 29 and under is a remarkable 62 percent to 30 percent.

This last number comes on the heels of new polling from The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, which showed that young white Evangelicals, a group that traditionally has been overwhelmingly supportive of the Republican Party (giving Bush an 87 percent Republican in 2002, when only 80 percent of Evangelicals age 30 and above approved of him, and a 70 percent approval as recently as 2005), now are less likely to approve of the President than disapproving, with just 45 percent giving him good marks. What's more, just 40 percent of this group now self-identifies as Republican, compared with 55 percent in 2005.

Update [2007-10-8 20:9:23 by Jonathan Singer]: The Pew numbers have been fixed.

Tags: Democrats, 2008, House 2008, Senate 2008, Generic Congressional Ballot, Young Voters (all tags)

Permalink :: 9 Comments :: Post a Comment

Congressional Ballot Lead (2.00 / 1)

Did you copy somebody's diary and delete it for them? Please, address the question. You deleted somebody's non-offensive comments for noting that your diary was almost exactly the same as his.

Romney runs away from questions. (See HuffPo article on the person with Muscular Distrophy and medical marijuana) I'd expect better from you.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:33:32 PM EST

Re: Congressional Ballot Lead (none / 0)

I didn't delete anyone's diary (you can find Leftist Addition's diary here), but I deleted comments falsely and baselessly accusing me of plagiarism. I won't countenance potentially libelous statements on this site. Sorry.

My Direct Democracy

by Jonathan Singer on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Congressional Ballot Lead (2.00 / 0)

You missed the point in the first statement. I guess it was poorly written though. I was noting that random/reckless deleting of comments, that would eventually lead to deleting diaries for no reason. By that time, why couldn't you delete somebody's diary and copy it? Why not?

If you didn't plagiarize, then why not leave his comment which had a link to HIS diary up?

"I won't countenance potentially libelous statements on this site."

So why can people free-shoot on candidates all day long and no one says anything? I mean, people could practically write a diary about how (candidate's name here) slit a babies throat and nothing would be done by an admin.

The definition of libel - "defamation by written or printed words" is rather broad, although apparently there's a giant double standard being used here.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:50:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Congressional Ballot Lead (none / 0)

Correct. There's a difference between attacking candidates and attacking users of the site. Read the guidelines of the community:

Users who are bashing or attacking any other user on the site, including authors of diaries and frontpage postings, will be banned. Candidates and politicians are fair game.

Note that I go through and routinely warn and ban users who are excessively or needlessly attacking one another, and take down inflammatory comments and posts along those lines. I don't catch everything, and I'm sorry for that, but when I see something, I try to deal with it.

My Direct Democracy

by Jonathan Singer on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:58:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Congressional Ballot Lead (2.00 / 1)

"I won't countenance potentially libelous statements on this site. Sorry."

So you meant to say,

"I won't countenance potentially libelous statements directed towards front page bloggers and possibly other diarists on this site."

Got it. But still, I don't remember his comments exactly, (since they are deleted) but I took his post as though he were asking you if you were doing a diary off of his diary, rather than accusing you of plagiarism. I think you're dramatizing his comments a little.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 06:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More pick ups (none / 0)

Heather Wilson announced on Saturday (10/6 AP story) that she will run for Pete Domenici's open Senate seat. Wilson won her seat by 862 votes in 2006 with possible voter suppression being part of the US attorney scandal. Wilson had been pushing hard for federal legal action that would effectively keep down the Hispanic vote.

We have a really good chance of a two fer there picking up the vacated House seat plus Domenici's Senate seat as well.

John Warner was pushing the candidacy of a Virginia GOP congressman to succedd him (rather than Gilmor). John Warner mentioned three names: Eric Cantor, Goodlatte, and Tom Davis. A vicious primary with three vacncies? Sounds good to me. Casntor has become a force for the rabid right in the House and his departure would be a plus.

by David Kowalski on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:34:31 PM EST

Pew Study (none / 0)

I think you may have been examining the incorrect chart in the Pew study when you commented about the self-identification of young white evangelicals.

The percentages you cite refer to Bush's job approval numbers of that group. The Republican identification numbers currently stand at 40% Republican (not 45%), down from a high of 55% in 2005. This group never had anywhere close to 87% Republican ID -- that was instead the job approval number for Bush in 2002.

by Hoyapaul on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:37:54 PM EST

Re: Pew Study (none / 0)

Despite these polls there is the deluded Tom Cole and equally deluded David Broder and the most deluded of them all..the Washington Post...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501894. html

"That may seem implausible, but Cole has history on his side. In 1992, as he notes, incumbents were hammered, 24 of them losing in November, 17 others failing in their primaries. The Republicans achieved a net gain of 10 House seats that year, a feather in the cap of the executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Tom Cole. Now, no longer a hired staff man but the chairman, Cole faces a familiar challenge. In 1992, the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton for president -- and he won. But his party, nonetheless, lost House seats. Cole is out to make history repeat itself."

Why Is This GOP Strategist Smiling?
Like I said he is deluded.

by Boilermaker on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 11:36:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems Maintain Double-Digit Generic Congression (none / 0)

The people my age I talk to who support the GOP and are not Fundamentalist theocrats generally do so for purely money reasons. They hate taxes.

Otherwise it's almost all indies, democrats.

by MNPundit on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:20:49 AM 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.