GOP In Same Position In Generic Matchup As In 2008 And 2006
Don’t look now, but by one measure, the GOP is in the same position as it was heading into the 2008 and 2006 elections, both of which resulted in crippling landslide losses for the Republican Party.
If you look at the generic Congressional matchup in the internals of the new Washington Post poll, you’ll see that the Dem advantage over the GOP is virtually identical to what it was heading into the two previous Congressional elections.
Right now, the poll finds that when respondents are asked whether they will vote for a Dem or a GOPer in the 2010 elections, 51% pick the Dem and 39% pick the Republican.
In June of 2008 (the most recent historical data in the WaPo poll), Dems led the generic matchup 52%-37%. And in early November of 2006 the Dem lead was 51%-45%. Today the spread is largely unchanged.
Despite this, GOP cockiness about the midterms is widespread. As GOP Rep John Shadegg put it, speaking about health care: “If they pass this bill, I wouldn’t want to be a Democrat standing for reelection in 2010.”
It’s true that there are plenty of other factors to weigh against the above numbers. Anti-incumbent fervor is running high. The GOP base, while dwindling in size, is fired up, while the Dem base could prove demoralized if Obama and Dems punt on the public option. Other polls have found a much tighter generic matchup.
But the above numbers suggest that whatever travails Dems are suffering may well be partly offset by the utter failure of the GOP to translate Dem difficulties into any real gains. By the above measure, at least, the end-zone dancing by some in the Republican Party seems way premature.
***********************************************
Update: A Republican writes in to object that the WaPo poll is polling adults, rather than only voters, which the Republican claims historically favors Dems. But I’m told that Wapo polls always sample adults, rather than only voters, this far in advance of an election because it’s not easy to gague so far in advance who’s likely to vote.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Shhhhhhhh, stop telling them!
In all seriousness: if Dems pass HCR with a strong public option, then move onto a populist financial reform…oh man Republicans are screeeeeeewed.
I’ve been saying it for a while within my local political circles, that 2010 is about holding serve. Dems clobbered Reps in 2006 and 2008, and if they make it through 2010 without major losses (there’s no more competitive districts to win!) that we’d be looking at a total breakdown of the Republican party come 2012.
That GOP primary is shaping up to be glorious…
Kos has another great analysis of the poll:
Only 20 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, little changed in recent months, but still the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983. Political independents continue to make up the largest group, at 42 percent of respondents; 33 percent see themselves as Democrats.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/19/795010/-ABC-WaPo:-Republicans-In-Disarray
The kos piece also links to Cilliza’s piece, worth a read too:
Less than one in five voters (19 percent) expressed confidence in Republicans’ ability to make the right decisions for America’s future while a whopping 79 percent lacked that confidence.
Among independent voters, who went heavily for Obama in 2008 and congressional Democrats in 2006, the numbers for Republicans on the confidence questions were even more worse. Just 17 percent of independents expressed confidence in Republicans’ ability to make the right decision while 83 percent said they did not have that confidence.
“”"“If they pass this bill, I wouldn’t want to be a Democrat standing for reelection in 2010.” “”"
Yeah, uh huh. Use the neocon-to-english decoder and this statement reads: “if they pass this bill, the Dems are going to be rocking in 2010″
What a typically stoopid statement from a repug.
“If they pass this bill, I wouldn’t want to be a Democrat standing for reelection in 2010.”
Then, why don’t let you let them (pass the bill), you moran ?
“If they pass this bill, I wouldn’t want to be a Democrat standing for reelection in 2010.”
That’s the same kind of alternate universe statement they’ve been making on the Public Option. Remember, Boehner said he hadn’t met one person who supported it, then was immediately flooded with calls and emails.
Even Max “need to get to 60″ Baucus is beginning to talk about some form of PO in the bill. Finally!
The goal, Baucus said, was to include something in the bill that keeps premiums down and keeps insurance companies honest. “We just need to find ways to help reach that goal, in addition to the provisions in the bill,” Baucus said.
Baucus cited several permutations of public option proposals under discussion, including what he described as “Medicare light [the robust public option], even playing field [proposed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), there’s co-ops–that’s private, not public–there’s opt in, opt out,” Baucus said.
“It’s alive,” Baucus said. “We’re trying to see what makes the most sense.”
The Republicans believe their own press.
Of course, the Democrats will gain seats in 2010.
I hope that gets embedded into the nutroots psyche.
Imagine the outrage from the nutroots if the Republicans manage to repeat the 1994 election results.
‘GOP Rep John Shadegg put it, speaking about health care: “If they pass this bill, I wouldn’t want to be a Democrat standing for reelection in 2010.” ‘
As with any concern troll, and other examples include Tucker Carlson and Lanny Davis, you keep doing whatever it is they say will cause you problems. You can’t go wrong.
“Of course, the Democrats will gain seats in 2010.”
No, they won’t.
A great 2010 election cycle for Dems would be gaining 4-5 Senate seats, and movement in the house below double digits (max 5 loss/win).
A solid 2010 election cycle for Dems would be gaining 1-3 Senate Seats, and loosing less than a dozen house seats.
A below average 2010 cycle would be losing 1-3 Senate seats, and losing 10-25 seats in the house.
A terrible outcome would be losing more than 4 Senate seats, and more than 25 house seats.
All the above options could still happen…but only the rosiest of options do the Dems gain seats on a whole in 2010. I think the “solid” option is likely…maybe with a couple more house seats lost. But I’m hoping for “great”.
Astonishing tweet from HoekestraFail:
“Heading to Lansing. Docs are in town protesting taxes/crazy funding scheme. Hospital in district cancelled some surgeries so docs could come”
Josh Marshall: “this is the first time I’ve seen a hospital canceling surgeries so doctors could protest. To be clear, this is a protest over a proposed new state law in Michigan”
still… canceling surgeries to protest? wtf?
Nawww. I’d say that the conventional wisdom should now be – at least if one is to believe this poll – that the Dems will see moderate gains in 2010.
Now that it has been revealed that one in every three votes that Karzai received, had to be thrown out, because they were votes that had been falsified:
How can he ever be viewed as a legitimate partner, even if he wins the runoff?
If the election commission uncovered that 33% of the votes for Karzai were fraudulent, then you can be sure that they also missed some more. I would not be surprised if up to 50% of the votes for Karzai were fakes.
Clearly Karzai did not believe that he stood any chance of winning an honest election; how else can one explain his motivation for setting up such a systematic massive vote rigging scheme.
I find it absurd that Karzai gets caught, red handed, and still gets a do-over. For cripes sake; he tried to steal the election; so he should be disqualified and put on trial. Instead he gets a second chance to become the legitimate partner we are seeking in Afghanistan.
It does not get much more bizarre than that. I heard Secretary Clinton say, just a few days ago, that since Mr. Karzai got just under 50% of the vote in the first round, he should have no trouble winning a runoff round. Think about that for a moment. Our top diplomat, openly predicting that Karzai will be the winner. So why are staging this elaborate charade about seeking an honest election, and having an honest government in Afghanistan, if our top diplomat is openly stating that Karzai will be the ultimate winner. He is a big time criminal, and we are trying to whitewash that fact.
Do we really want to train and equip a 400,000 man army to be put at the disposal of such a despot?
How many thousands of young American soldiers are we willing to sacrifice, in order to prop up the corrupt Karzai regime?
What was it about the Bush/Cheney administration that led them to try and install guys like Ahmad Chalabi and this guy Karzai. Bush/Cheney claimed that their missions were intended to bring Democracy to Iraq, and Afghanistan, but they sought out two career crooks to try and install as heads of the governments, where Democracy and rule of law were then supposed to flourish.
Haven’t we seen this picture before, when we installed the Shah, supported Saddam, and various other Despots around the world.
Why are still willing to get thousands of our troops killed, or maimed in order to prop up the likes of Karzai or those dubious characters that finally gained power in Iraq, after several off our previous choosen ones, fell flat on their faces.
Can we get back to going after Al-Qaeda, and stop getting side tracked with massive efforts to install and maintain despotic regimes.
Rohrabacher: House GOP leadership ‘constantly trying to play a political game’
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) took shots at his own party’s leaders in the House currently, and blasted fellow Republicans for having failed to have reform healthcare during the first six years of the Bush administration, when Republicans held Congress and the White House.
…
“The Republican leadership in the House right now is constantly trying to play a political game every day to try and get a headline, and I don’t think that’s going to take us anywhere,” he added.
…
“The American people rightfully think the Republicans are just complaining, because we had power — we had both houses of Congress and we had the presidency,” Rohrabacher explained. “What did we do with it? All of these changes that we could make to have improved our healthcare system we didn’t do during the Bush years when we had both houses in Congress.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/63709-rohrabacher-house-gop-leadership-constantly-trying-to-play-a-political-game
Thanks Dana. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Oh wait, yeah I can: Ya’ll on the Right are USELESS.
“How can he ever be viewed as a legitimate partner, even if he wins the runoff?”
Ask Obama – I just heard him praising Karzai…
“President Karzai’s constructive actions established an important precedent for Afghanistan’s new democracy,” Obama said in a statement issued earlier Tuesday. “The Afghan constitution and laws are strengthened by President Karzai’s decision, which is in the best interests of the Afghan people.”
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton welcomed Karzai’s announcement as a boost for Afghan democracy. …
“We remain committed to partnering with the Afghan people and their government on our shared objectives of strengthening good governance, tackling corruption, increasing economic opportunities and improving security for all Afghans,” she said in a written statement.
It is like A Hans Christian Andersen tale. Karzai has been exposed. He has no clothes. He is a naked crook, for all the world to see.
The President and Secretary Clinton are making fools of their selves by trying to persuade the world that after the next election, Karzai will have a lovely new costume, woven out of fine spun virgin honesty, on an immaculate voting loom.
It is very disheartening, to see this administration not stand up for honest government, and for no coddling of despots.
They are making the same mistake that the US has done in the past when it threw it’s lot in with known despots and tyrants.
They are settling for the same old failed policies of the past;
They are eager to place the crown on:
Our Dapper Don In Kobul.
Edit;
Kabul
Liam paints a much more pessimistic version of Afghanistan than I think the situation warrants, I think I fall between Andrew and the post he links here. Somewhere between skepticism of the effectiveness of our staying and cautious optimism is the right way to go about this. Karzai could still be considered a legit partner if we get decent elections and a power sharing government.
Karzai is corrupt and incompetent. There is no way to whitewash over that reality.
He has not achieved one worthwhile thing to improve how government works, and he has had plenty of time to have done so. Guys like him never change. He is not going to surround himself with good government types. He has, and will continue to surround himself with like minded corrupt cronies.
I see no reason to send more of our fine young troops to die, just to prop up such an incompetent despot. Hell, he is so incompetent, even his efforts at vote rigging were clumsy and easy to spot.
This is absurd; we are going to hold a run off just so we can proclaim;
Now we have a reliable partner in Afghanistan.
We will hoist a giant banner that proclaims:
THIS TIME THE CROOK WON HONESTLY.
Ethan
Be careful when you quote Rohrabacher, he also is quite fond of saying Obama has Marxist roots. Don’t believe for a moment he isn’t hoping the President fails.
I hate Dana. He is as much a GOP troglodyte as anyone, but he is actually right on this one.
lmsinca: Did you know that Rohrabacher spent a vacation with Barney Frank and his partner, and surfed with Barney’s man?
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=ECC4CD1A-18FE-70B2-A88E204FDAC772E8
“We have them set up at surfers hotel,” says Rohrabacher, joking that Frank “will probably have to lie on the beach like a whale while the rest of us are in the water.” …
“Nevertheless, whatever you call the activity itself, you can call the Frank-Rohrabacher gathering an example of some true beach-based bipartisanship. Aside from their agreement on the issue of medical marijuana, the two members are on fairly diametric ends of the political spectrum. And even if Frank ends up staying supine on the shore, Rohrabacher says he hopes the experience will have a pacifying effect on his irascible colleague.”
“How can he ever be viewed as a legitimate partner, even if he wins the runoff?”
Likely the same reason that we viewed Pres. Bush as legit, even though he didn’t win the popular vote and likely didn’t win FL (and the Presidency). Because you respect the office, as best you can.
Karzai is still a corrupt jacka**, I’m just saying.
The WaPo is a **** poll.
It has a partisan split of 33% Dem and 20% GOP.
Are you kidding me?
The fact that this blog finds this a credible poll says a lot about the credibility of this blog.
You honestly believe 20% of voters are Republicans?
SERIOUSLY?
You guys are freakin’ amateurs. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
and Gullible.
Laim, I think you are pretending that Afghanistan is a democracy. It isn’t. I don’t understand why we keep trying to impose a form of government on nations where it doesn’t actually work well.
This election is about optics for America/Europe, not governance in Afghanistan. The people there don’t really understand or care about the “sanctity” of their vote – nor should they really. Regardless of outcome, the citizens have to deal with their local warlord not the head of a central government. 400,000 troops might be (barely) enough to hold the cities, but it certainly is not enough to control the nation. (that’s another problem with the McChrystal strategy … the math is unworkable).
I think the important point related to the fact that ABC/WaPo polled all adults is to make sure that you are comparing apples and apples.
Let’s see at polling report. June 2008
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 12-15, 2008. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS. Results below based on registered voters.
Polling Report has 54 D vs 38 R (rounding up I guess)
oops. Now vs June 2008 is an apples vs oranges comparison.
OK now November 2006
ABC/Washington Post LV 11/1-4/06 45 51 4 6 D
that is Dems over Reps 51 to 46 among likely voters
Double oops that’s an apples and bananas comparison.
In general and in recent polls Republicans do better in polls of registered voters than of all adults and better in polls of likely voters than in polls of registered voters.
The 3 ABC Washington Post polls which you compared are not comparable.
Bummer.
I was hoping to reach the other conclusion when I began typing this comment and surfing over to http://www.pollingreport.com
WaPu polls adults instead of likely voters because they know more republicans will show up at the next election. The young people and minorities who elected Obama won’t be there for the midterms, and the Dems are going to be in a world of hurt. The WaPu polls actually help the republicans because it’s folling some dems into thinking they don’t have to work as hard because they have a “majority” behind them. Republicans are angry, independents have stopped drinking the kool ade, the minorities could care less, and they young have better things to do than stand in line to vote for some old fogey they’ve never heard of. I’m so looking forward to it, I’m even sending money to Nevada to help unseat Reid, and I live in Texas.
Sounds like Dave C has “the math”.
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the great work Look forward to reading more from you in the future.