Generic House Ballot Compendium

by Chris Bowers, Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 08:08:03 AM EDT

Right now, polling report has this useful graphic on the right. In the eight generic ballot polls that have been released over the past month, Democrats hold an average lead of 50.4%--36.5%, or just under 14%. Going back through the last four election for the House, here are the percentages of undecideds Republicans have scooped up from final pre-election poll averages, and the percentage of third-party votes in each election:

Year RU% TP%
1998: 50% (3.2%)
2000: 65% (3.8%)
2002: 76% (3.1%)
2004: 59% (2.4%)
(Note that in the source link I was wrong about the Democratic percentage on 2002. I wrote that Democrats received 47.5% that year, but they actually received 45.9%. These numbers reflect the accurate totals).

Now, given these totals, let's look at the absolute worst case scenario for Democrats right now. The worst case is for third-parties to reach 3.8% of the total vote, and for Republicans to scoop up 76% of the undecided vote. In that scenario, based on the current generic poll average, the final national vote totals would 52.6% Democratic, and 43.6% Republican. In 1994, the vote totals were 52.3% Republican, 45.5% Democratic. Even in the worst case scenario right now, things look worse for Republicans than they looked for Democrats in 1994.

The best-case scenario for Democrats, 2.4% third-party vote and 50% of undecideds, yields a final result of 55.7% Democratic, and 41.9% Republican. That result would be twice the Republican margin in 1994.

If you want to know why Republicans are worried and losing it, this is why. The situation they face right now is much worse than the situation Democrats faced in 1994. Now, I don't expect the race to stay this close, and sophisticated gerrymandering might mute the Democratic advantage in several areas. Then again, Democrats need to win significantly fewer seats in 2006 (15) than Republicans needed to win in 1994 (42), and the Democratic recruitment advantage should provide us with a boost from the final polls to the final results. I am also not worried about a huge fall off for Democrats when polls shift from registered voters to likely voters, since Democrats appear to be turning out at much better rates than Republicans this time around. The situation could hardly be any better. We need to make sure we keep up the pace.

Tags: House 2006, polls (all tags)

Comments

7 Comments

Sort by

permalink

gerrymandering

"In that scenario, based on the current generic poll average, the final national vote totals would 52.6% Democratic, and 43.6% Republican. In 1994, the vote totals were 52.3% Republican, 45.5% Democratic. Even in the worst case scenario right now, things look worse for Republicans than they looked for Democrats in 1994."

Congressional districts are gerrymandered for Republicans. That puts them in a much better situation.

by EricJaffa 2006-08-14 08:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: gerrymandering

It does up to a point, and then it really doesn't.
Imagine you have an area with a population equivalent to five congressional districts, with the overall area being 53% Republican in an average year. The Republicans can draw five districts that are each 53% Republican. But if they do, and there's a movement of just 4% toward the Democrats, they can easily lose all five seats, while getting 49% of the vote.
There are areas where the Republicans used their redistricting power in this way to maximize the number of seats they could win, and other areas where, in the above circumstances, they'd try to draw three 57% Republican districts, one 58% Democratic district, and one district, possibly for a strong incumbent, that's 52% Republican.
Each state is different, and Republican control of redistricting was used for different purposes in different states.

by Ron Thompson 2006-08-14 09:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Exactly

Gerrymandering works well assuming status quo, but if there's a big shift towards the other way, it actually hurts the party that the gerrymander is intended to favor, because gerrymandering frequently takes, say, a really safe district and a competitive one, and makes two kinda safe seats. But if the shift is bigger than the "kinda safeness", they lose both seats, where they would have only lost one before. Gerrymandering makes small shifts harder and big shifts easier. And it looks like there's going to be a big shift our way this time.

by Geotpf 2006-08-15 02:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Is fear-mongering working though?

One notes that the average of the first 4 august polls is a 15.5% spread, but the Newsweek poll shows only a 12% spread. That's a bit ominous. We'll have to wait for the next poll, preferably from one of the other July/August pollsters, to see if these is a trend.

Democrats need to hit back hard on this "Weak and Wrong" meme (some counter memes: Democrats on national security and Iraq: "Sane, strong, responsible"/and Bush-Republicans on security:"Humpty, dumpty, running on empty", for example).

Reader referred to my diary from yesterday about favorables for both parties (did NewsWeek release party favorables?): Republican Party: 51% UNFAVORABLE!.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-08-14 09:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Generic House Ballot Compendium

I would caution that the undecideds in this poll are very likely Republicans and Republican-leaners who have not yet been whipped into line by the campaign of fear and smear their party will throw at them. The support for Democrats very likely includes a huge majority of Democratic voters, a very large majority of voters who usually lean Democratic but often split their ballots, and a significant majority of the true Independents, who probably only constitute 10-15% of the electorate.
If the Republicans can't recapture their weak supporters, the Republican-leaning Independents, and a decent share of the true Independents, they're in real trouble, not just now but going forward as well.

by Ron Thompson 2006-08-14 09:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Generic House Ballot Compendium

Well, that's undoubtably true. But there's a lot of discontent in Republican ranks too about the direction in Washinton. Nobody much is happy about things, it's a question whether these voters will sit out the election or reluctantly turn out for their party. Some will and some just won't.

Certainly unhappiness among Republicans is depressing their polling numbers. At least SOME of these Republicans and Republican-leaning independents will just stay home and not vote.

As we've seen from past elections during the Clinton years, trying to get people to turn out to vote for the party when they're unhappy with the President is tough. The argument, "the other guy is worse" only goes so far. That was basically the Democratic mantra from 1994 on throughout the Clinton era and the party lost seats, mostly because they didn't give people much reason to be FOR Democrats other than that they weren't Republicans.

That's why it's so important to stand firmly for something, and not be wishy-washy, so voters have a clear identity of who you are. None of this "I was for it before I was against it" crap. It's necessary to motivate your voters to turn-out; something the Republicans mastered in 2000 and 2004, but will have trouble replicating this year, given all the failures to produce by the party.

by Cugel 2006-08-14 10:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: From the Generic to the Specific

There is a district in North Carolina where voter registration is 3:2 Independent & Democrat vs Republican. There is no democratic performance, as this district has been dominated by a 75 yo. republican first elected in the republican sweep year of 1984. No one has even bothered run against the old gentleman for the past two congressional elections.

Although many of the independent voters have voted for republicans and, indeed, for Bush in 2004, they were largely supportive of democrats prior to 1984.
I believe at least some of them, are sorry for that 2004 vote.

Is this a seat that could be put into play, or should NC democrats put all their efforts into NC 11 and 08 ?

by blakehoo 2006-08-14 06:24PM | 0 recs