Chris

You might be somewhat too pessimistic here.  The effect of partisan gerrymandering is to maximize your seats by spreading your support more efficiently, i.e. instead of 2 60% democratic districts, make three 54% districts.  This is fine in most normal elections, resulting in minimal losses of seats.  But in a wave election which seems increasingly likely to occur now, partisan gerrymandering actually makes the majority party more vulnerable.  Thus, while 13-16 might seem reasonable right now, one or two percentage points might actually be the difference between 15 seats and 50.  Look at the huge swing that occurred in '94 from 7 percentage points.

Great comments, Chris!  First, I must say that I'm excited about this lead!  Really excited!  However, I'm also worried.  Republican's are now armed for winning elections (even when they don't technically "win"!).  Their extensive talk-radio and right wing media will repeat a very consistent, focuses, and often deadly message (even if that message is a lie).  They are very good at finding messages that stick (e.g. flip-flopper, cut and run, etc...).  Their "Voter Vault" surgically targets their likely votes and ensures they show up at the polls.  They are well connected with the election administrators and voting machine vendors (e.g. Blackwell in OH and Katherine Harris in FL).  They (read "Rove") have continually been successful at destroying a candidate's character (albeit with lies) and rendering them "unelectable" (e.g. Ann Richards' sexuality in TX and McCain's love-child, and with Pelosi right now).  Lately, I've been listening to some right-wing talk radio (during commercial breaks on Air America), and they tell a confident convincing story for somebody who doesn't have the full set of facts (I am continually appalled by how they unabashedly still spinning the Foley sex scandal as a Democratically lead political ploy and not about the actually sexual harassment of minors that it really is).  They have a ton of cash.  They don't mind lying.  They have the advantage that their spokes person is the leader of free world (that would be Bush) and will always draw a crowd and free press.  Most of this infrastructure did not exist so strongly until recently.

As a scientist, I have trusted data my whole life, and therefore love these polls and the whole approach taken by Chris and the MyDD team!  However, I have also observed that the Republican war machine (that is, the machine that consistently wins elections) is aimed, armed, and desperate.  They are still on talk shows saying that they will keep control (despite come counter examples) with great confidence.  When Ed Gillespie was on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart asked him (somewhat rhetorically), "Why are the Republican's so effective at managing/winning elections, but so bad at governing?" (not direct quote).  Winning elections is what this group does best.  

So, my question to this group is this:  Despite these great poll results, why shouldn't I be worried about Chris's caveats and everything else I just mentioned above?  I don't want to wake up with the same hangover I had on November 8th, 2004.  

Right now, most polls show us picking up 15-20 seats.

Has anyone ever studied how many seats we might pick up under the 1990's apportionment?  That would be interesting to see. I suspect it would be around 50?

Thanks for that information, Chris. I sure hope we pick up 25-30 seats.

Have you ever considered looking into the impact of gerrymandering?  If we went back to the 1990s apportionment, approximately how many seats could
we pick up?  I realize this would be a very rough
approximation, but it would shed some light on the issue of so many non-competitive districts and politicians picking their voters rather than voters their politicians.

Mr. Bowers,

Thanks for taking the time to post these cautionary notes.  It's very easy to get sky-high about the possibilities, but prior to an election that euphoria can actually undercut the results we're trying to achieve.

While I hope for decent pickup in the House, my only real goal is to win the House, even if only by one seat.  The amount of power that would change hands in that case would still be enormous, and the Bush White House would be constantly on the defensive for the next two years.

Again, thanks for the context.

I will be very happy with strong gains but no control in either chamber.  We are on the verge of historic, humiliating failure in Iraq, and it will be best for us if the Republicans take the blame all by themselves.

But the funny thing about hawks, is, they can only hold their heads up high if the country delivers them a win, isn't it.

Jack Murtha was stating that this election will be a blowout victory for Democrats.

Here in georgia, however, we have the core
of the party and its bitter partisanship centered in. The gubernatorial over here is
"moving day".

It seems to me, that it would be a good idea to try to shift the ideology of the party - centered here in the mega churches that George HW Bush visited, and the Christian Coalition that newly fragmented last week or so.

It seems to me, that the disconnect between generic and individual ballots lies in the fact that the world has truly changed, and a voter, at the ultimate decision, has to decide whether to attempt to dismantle government (which USED to be the republican vote) or influence it by other means (ie, vote democrat) and at that moment of truth , ideology matters.

Right now, its probably clear to many people that what is going on is the october surprise.
my husband (who has a background in physics) has
posted that North Korea, for example, didn't detonate a nuke - it was a 4.2 kiloton yield. The lowest yield ever off critical mass was 20 kiloton. He said you can get 4 kilotons off about 110 pounds of TNT or maybe some HKX compound and that if the North Koreans are for real, then what they've detonated is likely a test of the trigger + they will have to follow on here in a week with a real test.

But having them choose to push the button here , its not so much of a surprise, is it?

Seriously - can the Democrats articulate something that just speaks to what we now know as the new reality of our times - of the internet?

Can the Democrats be the CONNECTED party?

I'm with Chris in that 30 seems a best case scenario. It will tighten - there is no way the Repub generic ballot number stays in the 30s. Best guess is it ends up something like 53-45. I reckon that should firm up around October 20. Interesting to me that for those who put weight on the betting markets, Tradesports now shows GOP control of the House in the 30s and the Senate in the 60s. If anything the drop rate has increased since the news out of North Korea yesterday. Am gonna stick with my prediction of a 20 seat gain in the House for the moment. But am revising the Senate projection to +5. I just see the irony of Lieberman winning and being the swing vote and all the power that entails being inevitable.

We can't forget who owns and controls the voting machines. Is there a statistical entry for that variable? I've heard people sy, "That's why we have to get out the vote in huge numbers." There's something wrong with that theory if machines can be programmed to flip D to R by a percentage. My organic garden theory gives a third to the pests, a third to disease, and I keep the rest. This theory won't work on hacked machines.