Generic Congresional Ballot Polls

by Chris Bowers, Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 12:39:18 PM EST

Donkey Rising has the info:A newly-released poll for National Public Radio gives Democratic congressional candidates an early lead in the 2006 congressional campaign. The poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research 2/15-17 indicated that 42 percent of respondents would vote for the Democratic candidate and 36 percent would vote for the Republican candidate in their district, "if the election for Congress were held today." The 6-point Democratic advantage was in line with a GQRR poll conducted in January that gave the Dems a 5-point advantage in '06. A December Ipsos-Public Affairs poll gave the Dems a 7 point advantage in response to the question "And if the election for congress were held today, would you want to see the Republicans or Democrats win control of Congress?" This is good to see. Interestingly, as teenagelunatic notes in his diary on the subject, "the non democratic polls show us ahead by more."

Unfortunately, even if this hold for twenty months, this does not necessarily spell success, For example, Democrats actually won the popular vote to determine the current 100 Senators, but Republicans still have fifty-five people in the Senate.

Aaarrgghh. I grow extremely frustrated whenever I remind myself of that fact. Sometimes it feels as though everything is stacked against you.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Comments

8 Comments

Sort by

permalink

2006

Yes, we are ahead in the polls for Congress in 2006, but the problem is the way that the system works. Our Democratic candidates win by huge margins in places like CA, NY and other blue states. This goes back to the Electoral College problem too.

by Max Friedman 2005-02-27 12:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

It's probably worse than we think

This is a very, very important problem for Democrats. I haven't checked into it for a few years now, but I believe that Democratic candidates have outpolled Republican candidates by several percentage points, for every election since 1994 (when the GOP actually polled more).

This means we have been winning and winning Nationwide, but since Demo Candidates haven't made an issue of it, democratic voters haven't been aware of it. It is another significant hurdle we must clear in our race to become the "Majority" party again.

I figured out once, that it took something like thirty percent of the population to elect 51 Senators that the GOP has, and it took only EIGHT PERCENT of the population to elect the current working majority in the Senate GOP Caucus. The 19th. Century English Parliament wasn't this imbalanced.

Can anybody say "Election Reform" and mean it?

by scribble 2005-02-27 01:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: It's probably worse than we think

The obstacle to reform is that an overwhelming majority of the Senate would have to vote to make the Senate powerless.

Second of all, the minority wields a good bit more power in the Senate due to the filibuster. The House is more democratic on paper, but you can run your entire agenda with a majority of only a few votes out of 435.

by wayward 2005-02-28 02:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

The danger of the "we won" rhetoric

There are idiots out there that think (somehow after almost 14 years) that the Democrats control Congress, or at least the Senate.

We need to remind people that complete wack jobs are incharge. Point out the crazies that the GOP make Chairmen of important committees like taxation, Judiciary, Environment, etc. Show the world what they are really all about. They can do that "if you vote for a democrat, they will put this guy in the chairman's seat" argument, but it is too attenuated for most people to get.

If you point out there are far, far right people in charge of things you care about going against popular will, and the GOP put them there, that is an easier rhetorical sell.

We need to push that Democrats=change/reform. And if you like the way things are going vote GOP, but if you see the US economy and prestige sinking like a stone like I do, vote Democratic.

by DaveB 2005-02-27 02:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

Reading that Poll

Most of the recipients thought Bush would do a better job reforming Social Security, even though it was by a close margin.

Remember too...as Maxgray says...a national poll means that forty percent of these recipients might be in California or Illinois or New York where Democrats are a solid majority.

Lucky for us that this whole "personal accounts" business isn't playing real well in the South.

by risenmessiah 2005-02-27 03:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

We play too nice

It's time to gerrymander the shit of our turf. We should fire a few shots, with Illinois being a starter. If the GOP doesn't get the message, then we do it everywhere we can.

by jcjcjc 2005-02-27 05:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: We play too nice

But you can't gerrymander the Senate.

by wayward 2005-02-28 02:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

No more "safe" states

This is why we must get boots on the ground and run in all 50 states.

We could win the Presidency with a regional strategy (which seemed to be a strangely popular idea in 2004), but we still need to win in the more conservative heartland to control the Senate. We obviously must compete in every district we have any shot of winning, but even in "safe" House districts, running ANYONE will help keep the local Republicans at home instead of out campaigning for their buddies in national/state/local elections, and it will keep our message alive in areas where it is not often heard. Unfortunately, too many people have only heard about the Democratic message from Republicans!

by wayward 2005-02-28 03:00PM | 0 recs