GOP take 10 point lead in midterm election polling

[Brettmcd]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142718/GOP-Unprecedented-Lead-Generic-Ballot.aspx

Apparently the 10 point lead is the highest ever seen in mid-term generic polling by gallup. Normally the dems have a lead in such generic repub vs dem voting polls.


We are getting relatively close to the election and it seems the GOP is moving towards gaining a large number of seats in this midterm election. I am interested in what people here think are the reasons behind this.


I have no great love for the GOP, they are not really different from the dems in how they govern in most areas, primarily in spending. But even with that I hope they win at least the house or senate as that will at least slow down what happens in washington. And the less that Washington does the better off the country as a whole is.

[Rob_Merritt]

Can Washington be slowed down? Have they actually done anything in the past 2 years except provide bandaids to critical wounds?

The big issue is the country isn't better off than it was 2 years ago. Sure the scare tactics of the Republicans are working somewhat but it really comes down to things aren't much better.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

The reason is that the economy is shitty and the GOP has way better PR than the Dems, and probably always will.

[charmtrap]

538 addressed this poll today:



Still, even if the poll is an outlier, that doesn’t mean it should simply be dismissed. Instead, the question is: an outlier relative to what? If the Democrats’ true deficit on the generic ballot were 5 points, it would not be all that unusual to have a poll now and then that showed them trailing by 10 points instead, nor would it be so strange for a couple of polls to show the race about tied. Indeed, that seems to be about where the generic ballot sits now. No non-Internet survey has shown the Democrats with a lead larger than 1 point on the generic ballot for over a month now, whereas their worst results of late seem to put them in the range of 10 points to 11 points behind.


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/the-democrats-new-normal/#more-463

(tl;dr version: probably an outlier, but not a huge one)

[wahoo]

Can Washington be slowed down? Have they actually done anything in the past 2 years except provide bandaids to critical wounds?




You mean other than the huge stimulus bill and the Health care bill? Washington has been extremely active recently, although not as much as some want.

[Sarkus]

American's generally prefer divided government. When Clinton was elected in '92, the Dems controlled both houses and the presidency. That lasted two years because the Dems didn't do enough with their majority (or did too much, depending on your point of view). That's what we're seeing now - people expect more accomplishments from the Dems (or don't like what has been done) and figure we might as well go back to a divided government.

It arguably worked out pretty well the last time a Dem president had to work with a Repub controlled House.

[Eric T Cheng]

How many years did the GOP control the White House and both houses during Bush Jr's administration?

[Sarkus]

How many years did the GOP control the White House and both houses during Bush Jr's administration?

They controlled the house for the first six years of his presidency. The Senate was even or Republican controlled during the entire time, though by very slim margins the whole time.

[jeffd]

American's generally prefer divided government. When Clinton was elected in '92, the Dems controlled both houses and the presidency. That lasted two years because the Dems didn't do enough with their majority (or did too much, depending on your point of view). That's what we're seeing now - people expect more accomplishments from the Dems (or don't like what has been done) and figure we might as well go back to a divided government.

It arguably worked out pretty well the last time a Dem president had to work with a Repub controlled House.

There's very little evidence to support this. The simpler explanation for the GOP's upcoming victory is basically twofold:

1) Economy sucks.
2) The Democrats are defending more seats.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm unaware of any polling showing that people favor divided government, or long-run election results showing a tendency for that. I'm not sure how you'd separate it from regression to the mean.

Also, lol Brettcmd outlier poll.

[unbongwah]

When Clinton was elected in '92, the Dems controlled both houses and the presidency. That lasted two years because the Dems didn't do enough with their majority (or did too much, depending on your point of view).
Alternatively, one could argue that Clinton raised taxes and that cost the Dems the `94 election, much as raising taxes arguably cost the first Bush his re-election.

It arguably worked out pretty well the last time a Dem president had to work with a Repub controlled House.
But did it work out well because of or despite Congress and the president being from opposite parties? Then again, I think having a Democratic Congress put the brakes on some of the worst excesses of the Bush administration wouldn't have been a bad thing, so...

In 2008, the economy tanked and the Republicans took it on the chin for it. In 2010, the economy still sucks and the Democrats are about to take it on the chin for it. I can understand people's disappointment at the Dems' inability to turn things around. I don't think I understand why they think the GOP will do any better after a disastrous decade. It makes about as much sense as handing your son the keys to your Maserati after he totaled your Porsche last week: "I'm sure he learned his lesson!"

[Lorini]

^upvote

[wahoo]

Also, lol Brettcmd outlier poll.


It's not much of an outlier and the reality is a larger Republican advantage than this poll indicates. Nate warns Dems that things are going to get really ugly b/c this is a RV and not a LV model and LV models are +4 R.

So in the polling booth, this is more a R +14...

[Jason McCullough]

As Nate points out, the average is +5, and the trend has been for various polls to bounce around within +/-5 of that.

The likely voter shift is going to be another 5 though, yeah.

[John Reynolds]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/27/krauthammer/index.html


It is indeed difficult to believe that the country will so quickly return to power the same Republican Party -- in an even more warped and primitive form -- that virtually destroyed the U.S. over the last decade through a mix of extreme corruption, recklessness and lawlessness. But nothing is more foolish than underestimating the dangers that come from this potent mix of economic oppression and the aggressive fanning of racial and ethnic resentments.

The Right is simply far more adroit at anger misdirection.

[Doug Erickson]

yep, when you're in a recession, there's nothing like INCREASING washington gridlock to help us out! why, that makes perfect sense!

[Rob_Merritt]

You mean other than the huge stimulus bill and the Health care bill? Washington has been extremely active recently, although not as much as some want.

Both of which were timid and were more or less non solutions to huge problems.

[Brettmcd]

yep, when you're in a recession, there's nothing like INCREASING washington gridlock to help us out! why, that makes perfect sense!


Im glad that you understand that what washington does makes things worse, not better.

[HumanTon]

Thing is, Generic Republican won't be the ballot. Neither will Anyone But the Incumbent or Throw the Bums Out or Politics Sucks, despite their excellent polling numbers.

Once you start substituting actual candidates with actual names and actual positions in for Generic Republican, things may change considerably. For example, even though Nevadans do feel that Harry Reid is Satan Incarnate, they actually hate challenger Sharon Angle slightly more.

Which is not to say the Dems are headed to victory, only that the actual results are sure to be more complicated than the generic ballot suggests. Will the Teabaggers best the renegade Crists and Murkowskis or vice versa? Will this election cycle produce a credible leader for the Republlican party or will it continue to be be a headless beast? Will the Republican freshmen boldly declare a new Contract with America, and if so will they botch things as quickly and as thoroughly as Newt did?

The resulting chaos will be ... interesting ... if nothing else.

[Robert Sharp]

yep, when you're in a recession, there's nothing like INCREASING washington gridlock to help us out! why, that makes perfect sense!

Actually, if you are a believer in free market and natural corrections, it DOES make perfect sense. Clearly you do not believe in those things (i.e. you believe the government must be part of the economic solution), which is fine. But let's not pretend that it's obvious to everyone, or that there is something silly in believing that the government should stop interfering so much.

Note: I'm not taking a side on this either way; just pointing out that it would indeed make sense to many people.

[bago]

Im glad that you understand that what washington does makes things worse, not better.

So you agree that we should disband the Pentagon? I mean that motherfucker eats up half of our budget.

[Hiredgoons]

I'm unaware of any polling showing that people favor divided government, or long-run election results showing a tendency for that.

In the last 40 years, a single party has simultaneously controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency only 13 of those 40 years, or about 1/3 of the time.

So, 2/3 of the time the control of the presidency and the legislature has not been concentrated in the hands of a single party.

This preference for divided government didn't always exist. Quite the opposite in the earlier parts of the 20th century (FDR's time and previous to him).

These last 40 years of electoral results could be reasonably interpreted to reflect a preference for divided government. It could also be due in whole or in part to the tendency for both parties to reach beyond their mandate when elected to the White House. The public then supplies an electoral correction every two to four years.

[Jason McCullough]

Sure, but I haven't seen anyone actually produce some numbers supporting that. "The public tends to reverse direction every election" is just as explanatory and doesn't require divining intent. I don't know how you'd separate the two, though.

Polling on divided government itself splits even (http://www.gallup.com/poll/139742/americans-lack-consensus-desirability-divided-gov.aspx) across don't care, favor, against. Long term numbers would be interesting, I guess you'd have to back out partisanship. Polling asking people this sort of thing is very bad at predicting outcomes though; their actual behavior tends to wildly diverge.

[John Reynolds]

So you agree that we should disband the Pentagon? I mean that motherfucker eats up half of our budget.

Privatize that bitch, let some free market magic work its wonders.

[LMN8R]

You mean other than the huge stimulus bill and the Health care bill? Washington has been extremely active recently, although not as much as some want.
Yeah. Other than the tremendous amount of legislation put forth under the Obama administration, destroying the country etc. etc., the Obama administration is a WORTHLESS DO-NOTHING ADMINISTRATION.

Just like how Obama the Muslim has a horrible Christian Pastor Jeremiah Wright.

[Calistas]

Im glad that you understand that what washington does makes things worse, not better.

...says the guy on the Govt. invented Internet!

[Sarkus]

So you agree that we should disband the Pentagon? I mean that motherfucker eats up half of our budget.

More like a quarter. Or in other terms, you could eliminate DoD entirely and we'd still be running a deficit.

[malchior]

The best part of the upcoming House change of the guard will be watching the tan man all puffed up as he unleashs wave upon wave of bluster and endless investigations of the administration. We're in for a ugly few years just when we most need leaders who aren't about fighting and are about solving problems.

[Houngan]

More like a quarter. Or in other terms, you could eliminate DoD entirely and we'd still be running a deficit.

Not after the tax cuts expire. We could use a little gridlock on that, let's paw some wealth away from the fucking baby boomers (who are the real cause of all our problems) while they're still employed and making the most money. They're going to sink the country in the next twenty years, so let's get a taste now.

H.

[unbongwah]

So you agree that we should disband the Pentagon? I mean that motherfucker eats up half of our budget.More like a quarter. Or in other terms, you could eliminate DoD entirely and we'd still be running a deficit.
Depends on how you look at it. DoD makes up only ~20% of all federal spending; but it takes up about half of so-called discretionary spending. ~60% of total spending is on mandatory programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

EDIT: of course, since payroll taxes are collected separately from income taxes, one should be careful about lumping all spending & revenue under a single heading.

[Omniscia]

Will the Republican freshmen boldly declare a new Contract with America, and if so will they botch things as quickly and as thoroughly as Newt did?

A Contract with America, or a Contract on America?

[Skipper]

Depends on how you look at it. DoD makes up only ~20% of all federal spending; but it takes up about half of so-called discretionary spending. ~60% of total spending is on mandatory programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

EDIT: of course, since payroll taxes are collected separately from income taxes, one should be careful about lumping all spending & revenue under a single heading.

Those percentages mean nothing if not in context. That's approaching, or perhaps will even surpass the 50% mark for WORLD military spending within a few years, given it's track record and current placement.

A very common tactic in discussing our defense spending is to say, "well it's only XX percentage of our budget," neglecting the fact we are deep in the hole, and this relevant data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures).

Lets call it like it is: way out of proportion to what it probably should be.

[Houngan]

Those percentages mean nothing if not in context. That's approaching, or perhaps will even surpass the 50% mark for WORLD military spending within a few years, given it's track record and current placement.

A very common tactic in discussing our defense spending is to say, "well it's only XX percentage of our budget," neglecting the fact we are deep in the hole, and this relevant data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures).

Lets call it like it is: way out of proportion to what it probably should be.

And the crazy bit is that we're surrounded by friendly nations. You have to go to another continent to find anyone who would even vaguely consider doing something militarily against us.

[Jason McCullough]

Banana republics and petrostates aren't going to overthrow themselves, you know.

[unbongwah]

A very common tactic in discussing our defense spending is to say, "well it's only XX percentage of our budget," neglecting the fact we are deep in the hole, and this relevant data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures).
I was not attempting to justify how much we spend on national defense, which personally I think has been far too much since WW2 (barring the occasional actual war we've engaged in). As you say, any such discussion means putting these numbers into as much context as possible. I was merely pointing out that as much as we spend on defense, we spend a lot more on "mandatory" programs like Social Security et al.