Some Perspective on 2006

Things look pretty good for Democrats right now when it comes to retaking the House, or at least making noticeable gains. The generic congressional ballots, which do matter, speak for themsevles (source):
Most Recent Generic Ballot Polls, 2005
Poll	   DNC	    RNC     Date
NBC	    48	     39     10/10
News	    47	     42     9/30
Fox	    40	     32     9/28
DCorps	    48	     39     9/21
Winston     48	     40     9/15
Pew	    52	     40     9/11
Mean	    47.2     38.7
Median	    48	     39.5
The most recent polls from the six organizations that have conducted generic ballot polls in the last two months show Democrats looking pretty strong. However, had I conducted the same sort of poll round up in early August of 2004, during the peak of the Democratic campaign, the situation would have looked much the same:
Generic Cong. Ballots, 2004
Poll	   DNC	    RNC     Date
DCorps	    51	     41     8/05
AP	    48	     44     8/05
Gallup	    49	     44     8/01
News	    51	     41     7/30
CBS	    46	     37     7/15
NBC	    44	     42     6/28
GW	    49	     41     6/23
LAT	    54	     35     6/08
Time	    49	     37     6/04
Mean	    49.0     40.2
Median	    49	     41
During this two month period, which included the selection of Edwards as VP and the Democratic National Convention, Democrats held a nearly identical lead in the congressional generic ballot. And this included the most recent poll from nine different organizations over a two month period.

Now, I am not one to argue that previous early leads by Demcorats didn't matter. to the contrary, imagine how badly we would have been wiped out in 2004 had Republicans been tied up in these polls in August. Republicans can close strong with enormous, negative ads buys attacking Demcoratic candidaes in the final two weeks of an election. Their large monetary advantage and ruthlessness always makes that possible. Howver, amid stories discussing Republican recruiting woes and Democratic optimism, it is useful to have some perspective.

Generic congressional polls matter, but they also seem to have more flexibility than Presidential polls. That is not particuarly surprising, since some Republicans can win in districts where Kerry or Gore won nearly 60% of the vote, and some Democrats can win in districts where Bush received nearly 60% of the vote. Congressional elections consistently provide more cross-over votes than Presidential ones, and thus generic congressional ballot polls can be expected to have more fluidity than Presidential ones.

Right now, beyond polls, recruiting candidates is the key to success in 2006. The more we can stretch Republicans by finding challengers in all 435 seats, by reducing the number of lightly challenged seats to an absolute minimum (ala Project 90), by taking it right to the Republican leadership, and by lining up as many immediately competitive challenges as possible, the better positioned we will be for 2006. Big leads in congressional generic ballot polls, plus a thinly stretched Republican incumbency, is the basic formula to 2006 success. Of course, a lot of money to run ads in the last two weeks, plus a great GOTV system, won't hurt either.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Comments

17 Comments

One thing for sure
This table looks pretty good in firefox.
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-13 09:20AM | 0 recs
Chris is right too..
The process Rove uses is very similiar to one that the Pharisees used against Paul. The scum and slime are part of the new GOP catechism. As I recall, the big beef against Paul (i think its in colossians) was that Paul had cancelled his meeting with them. So they slime him, and his letter responds (this is the one that says give and give again I think) and Rove remembers this.

Here's a Rove trip theough the bible.

Revelation 2:23:

"I will put her children to death; and all the churches will see that I am he who makes search into the secret thoughts and hearts of men: and I will give to every one of you the reward of your works"

Rev 2:25
He who overcomes, and keeps my works to the end, to him I will give rule over the nations, "

2:26
And he will be ruling them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of the potter they will be broken, even as I have power from my Father

2:27

And I will give him the morning star.

Colossians 2:20

"I say this so that you may not be turned away by any deceit of words"

Colossians 2:14-15

Having put an end to the handwriting of the law which was against us, taking it out of the way by nailing it to his cross

Having made himself free from the rule of authorities and powers, he put them openly to shame, glorying over them in it

-=-

Rove, in a nutshell. My vote here is that we go after texas.  I want that lone star state.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-13 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris is right too..
Hopefully the indictments of Delay and- maybe- and indictment of Karl Rove will help slow down the GOP slimefest. Also, this time around (as compared to '02) Bush's approval ratings are about 25% lower. Now they may or may not inch up a little, but I'd be surprised to see Bush break 50 again for a long, long time. So the forces are pushing against the Republicans this time around, but we do need a lot, lot of money to counterattack.
by AC4508 2005-10-13 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris is right too..
why not simply a strong arm, like hackett? he didn't have a lot of money just a very real, very focussed message. the internet has become a great place for good ideas to be heard... do we need to finance our candidates to buy TV ads? I mean, if we do, then hey, we gotta. But  the saturation advertising in Iowa 2004 didn't help gephardt or dean and it probably won't do any better this season.
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-13 12:42PM | 0 recs
Polling vs. Reality
The problem, of course, is that people are never faced with a generic ballot when they go to the polls -- they're faced with two named candidate, each with their own strengths and flaws.

People almost always hate the legislature, but tend to love their own legislator.

by Mr Moderate 2005-10-13 09:59AM | 0 recs
You have a lot of if statements-
One big if is whether on the House side they will be going for a broader strategy than the most endangered R seats. Has something changed there where they are broadening their recruitment efforts?
by bruh21 2005-10-13 10:10AM | 0 recs
A List
Is there a current list of which CDs have definite candidates recruited?

Basically, how many R seats, as of this time, are unchallenged?

by LiberalFromPA 2005-10-13 10:57AM | 0 recs
Reid should step down
I would like to see Reid step down as Dem leader in the Senate sometime soon, with someone more capable of political leadership stepping up to replace him.

Obviously it would have to be someone who will not be running in 08... Obama would be perfect, although his inexperience might preclude him.

by GrahamChristopher 2005-10-13 10:58AM | 0 recs
wha?!
Reid is doing a fine job, far better then I ever imagined, and even if he did step down the next in line to get it would be Dick Durbin the Senior Senator from Illinois.

There's a heirarchy to it, and first term Senators don't even come close.

Having said that I would like to see that some day, but I rather see Barack as President or VP.

-C.

by neutron 2005-10-13 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: wha?!
Reid is kicking ass and taking names.
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-13 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Reid should step down
Remember that this is the same guy who offered Miers' name to Bush, for the SCOTUS nomination. And look what it has created......fighting and debate within the Republican party, so Reid knows exactly what he is doing. I think Reid is doing a great job.
by indydem72 2005-10-13 04:45PM | 0 recs
2006
I think 2006 is going to be for us like 1994 was for the Reps.  
by alhill 2005-10-13 11:21AM | 0 recs
one word

Redistricting.

Or, if you prefer, gerrymandering.

One reason the repugs can win more CDs with weaker support is that they've redrawn so many states to pack dem majorities into a minority of the districts. So first, we must take the legislatures.

by spandrel 2005-10-13 11:42AM | 0 recs
Can't take any poll with more than +3 seriously
Not nationwide. It's a polarized nation and will continue to be. If a major midterm were held TODAY, we'd be life and death to make significant gains. For all of last year, any poll that gave either Kerry or Bush more than a 3 point lead was rubbish. I posted that elsewhere repeatedly, if not here.

I really don't understand why that isn't more obvious. The other side has shown up in equal zeal and will continue to do so. We have done virtually nothing with longterm significance to win  support, but merely relied on implosions from the GOP. Lately and delightfully, of course, there have been plenty. But 13 months away it really doesn't mean anything, no more than the current USC football team with Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush and Lyndell White figures to resemble the Trojans of November 2006, when all 3 are likely to be gone.

by jagakid 2005-10-13 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Can't take any poll
I've been making similar arguments about how 13 months is a long time to rely on the implosions of your enemies as a political strategy. Just made the same statement re: Brown v. Hackett debate. Where the pro Brown people seem, at least in part, to be relying on the imploding OH Republican party as their justification for believing that Brown will have a better shot than he has had in the past. Sometime a long the lines of "well Ohio would elect a rubber duck over the present leadership" seems to be the view.  No one has yet to answer what happens when the assumption, as it most certainly will, prove to be less than we expect because the Republicans will start to fight back, even if its will lies? Which candidates out there will fight as hard. Have we been developing our discicpline, and strengthening sufficiently the local ties? What risks will we take? How will we adapt to changed circumstances? None of these questions seems to be reflected in a poll that is really just a snap shot of short term dissatisfaction. Only 11 months ago- these same polls had Bush winning an election and his party solidifying his control over Congress. I got to wonder if we are at a point where things have tipped, or is it like the spring 2004 where the numbers for Bush was starting to dip, but a few months later, after the the Swiftboating of Kerry, we never seemed to gain any traction. Afterall, one of the things that I think is missing from this is the power of intertia to hurt the party out of power. Are voters saying "it's time for a change" or are they saying "these people suck, but when really given the choice- will they choose to make a change or go with the devil they know?"  
by bruh21 2005-10-13 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Can't take any poll
totally dude. the gop uses stealth. if we want to win, we should post a list (diary idea !!) of the GOP candidates running and dig up everything and anything we can about them now.. and keep a running public diary on them., read only mode - posting any real revisions or updates. that would blow the lid off their stealth mode attack. They are digging in the dirt right now for anyone even dreaming of running dem
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-13 12:44PM | 0 recs
Complete Statistical Error
Much as I share Chris's optimism, this is a very dangerous poll to use.

This poll was likely taken of voters nationwide. By that very construction, it will be ineffective in determining what the complexion of Congress will be. The poll is more than likely to pull someone from an urban, populous state. The breakdown of Congress is not decided there unfortunately, but in the less populous states and CDs. This isn't to say that we automatically will lose because of this...rather...six out of ten of the people in the poll are not going to have any say, one way or the other in how the election turns out.

by risenmessiah 2005-10-13 07:48PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------