Gallup’s latest polling on the Generic Ballot—which measures whether registered voters would rather vote for a Republican or Democrat in the House—has media folk reaching for souped-up adjectives and congressmen reaching for Nancy Pelosi’s throat. Here are the findings from the Gallup report by Frank Newport published yesterday:
Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP’s largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup’s history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress [since 1942].
The largest GOP lead in Gallup’s history! “Tidal Wave?” asked Politico. “Electoral Armageddon?” wondered Chris Cillizza. Perhaps. But it’s also important to put the figures in context and downplay the world-ending assumptions some might easily and sensationally read into them—particularly given that just six weeks ago the Dems led in the same poll, and particularly because there are still eight weeks before Election Day. It’s also key to note that the poll does not account for the idiosyncrasies of individual races. It’s a mood poll, and moods change like the weather. Or, like a Democrat reading this poll.
Despite the dramatic headlines, there’s been plenty of astute reporting about the poll. Politico actually made a valiant effort—at least for Politico—to position the polls somewhat delicately, tempering those who might rush to the “wave is coming” meme, while not underplaying the seriousness of the poll’s results for Dems.
The generic ballot poll is not necessarily an indicator of how House races will go district by district, but is more of an indicator of the national mood of the electorate. Yet, the ominous poll numbers suggest that the strategy of Democratic leaders to stay below-the-radar during the August recess has been a failure. That strategy has been driven by a desire to limit the connection between vulnerable House Democrats and their party leaders in the nation’s capital, said a House Democratic leadership aide.
Shaky Dems turning to poll prodigy Nate Silver for comfort, lately at home at The New York Times’s website, would have been left cold. Notoriously finicky about which polls to trust and precise about his reasons why, Silver chimed in this morning—even though “I don’t usually like to comment on individual polls”—calling the poll a likely outlier. Still, he argued, the news is likely to get even worse for Democrats than some have been saying:
Making matters worse still for Democrats, Gallup’s survey — and some other generic ballot polls — are still polling registered rather than likely voters, whereas its polls of likely voters are generally more reliable in midterm elections. At FiveThirtyEight, we’ve found that the gap between registered and likely voter polls this year is about 4 points in the Republicans’ favor — so a 10-point lead in a registered voter poll is the equivalent of about 14 points on a likely-voter basis. Thus, even if this particular Gallup survey was an outlier, it’s not unlikely that we’ll begin to see some 8-, 9-, 10-point leads for Republicans in this poll somewhat routinely once Gallup switches over to a likely voter model at some point after Labor Day — unless Democrats do something to get the momentum back.
In a sharp and brisk analysis of the Gallup poll and a recent conflicting poll reported by Newsweek, Pollster.com’s Mark Blumenthal stresses the importance of looking at the averages among various competing polls on the midterms. He writes that:
We could obsess further over the consistent differences (“house effects”) among pollsters, but what is far more important, is that the averages show a GOP lead that has been trending in the Republican direction all summer. That trend is consistent with the historical pattern identified here on Friday by political scientists Joe Bafumi, Bob Erikson and Chris Wlezien, the ‘electorate’s tendency in past midterm cycles to gravitate further toward the “out” party over the election year.’
That historical context is something for outlets to note on their way to grab off-the-record moanings from those Dems aiming their slingshots at Obama and Pelosi. But if there’s one lesson about yesterday’s Gallup poll, it might be this: Whether or not an electoral Armageddon is on the horizon, this is bad news for Democrats that could just get worse, no matter how it’s spun. As Blumenthal concludes:
So while the “unprecedented 10-point lead” reported by Gallup probably exaggerates the Republican lead, any result showing a net Republican advantage on the so-called generic ballot is bad news for Democrats. Bafumi and his colleagues estimated their 50-seat gain for the Republicans assuming a two-point advantage for Republicans on the generic ballot, which they project will widen to a six-point lead by November. If the Republican lead on the generic ballot is already that wide (or close), their projection for the Democrats would worsen.
I'm not exactly sure what this analysis is trying to do - put polls in perspective, or implicitly defend our energetic, smash-mouth partisan, and practically brainless Speaker of the House from the wrath of at-risk members of her own party, and urge them instead to embrace the flower of Bay Area politics.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 3 Sep 2010 at 05:05 PM
What needs to be recognized from these results is that Obama's support has shrunk, but that those polls don't reflect the cause.
Conservatives hate Obama, largely for imagined reasons broadcast by people with little to no integrity. They have hated Obama since 2007 and they will continue to hate Obama until he's buried in the ground, hopefully in the distant future.
But that demographic isn't the major player in these polls. Yes, the ranks have swelled a little bit due to the propaganda pushes and the general confusion of the electorate, but those increases are marginal parts of an overly active and vocal group, which is why their candidates have a hard time achieving general electoral success.
The major problem for Obama is that he was elected as a repudiation of conservative policies / Bush policies, he represented change. To a large extent he has not broken with Bush policies, nor their embedded staff, in the justice department, the federal reserve and treasury, the energy department just to name a few. Progressives, on the other hand, have been shafted and sidelined, delayed and dismissed, by the government consistently and Obama's right hand man is fond of saying "F*ck'em" to major democrat constituencies. Obama has kissed up to conservatives, letting his policies languish and get negotiated backward in the hopes of attracting conservative votes that will never come.
The result has been a conservative administration who has largely kept the line and continued the approach of the previous administration. Not to say that there hasn't been any improvement, but far too little to satisfy the demands of the change mandate Obama was handed.
This is because he has been lead by DLC voices who lose elections regularly. Their approach lost Gore the contest to Bush, despite Bush being the far far weaker candidate their approach energized the Nader people to run against Gore which helped Bush.
Their approach cost Hilary Clinton the primaries against Obama. People were sickened by the staff choices she made and went to Obama because he was a contrast at the time.
Their approach is now costing Obama these midterms, at least. Despite the Republicans being an insane and the largely responsible party of the crisis, despite their role in delaying and blockading solutions to the crisis, they stand to gain because the DLC approach has been ineffectual in terms of returning things to normal during the crisis. People don't like conservatives.
So it becomes hard to vote for the right party when they consistently appear on the wrong side for weak reasons. Enthusiasm drops and democrats lose elections, we've seen this movie before. The deficit commission attacking social security is a new twist, but the plot itself is sooo old.
What we have also seen is that the media usually interprets this as the American public rejecting nonexistent overliberalism. Then media and the Washington class savage the democrats for being to left for the public and encourage them to do some right wing stupidity like NAFTA or tax cuts while dropping any attempts at climate regulation, which further erodes voter enthusiasm.
It's the DLC who is out of touch, it's the conservatives who are out of touch, it's the vocal 20% who think Obama is a muslim maoist who are out of touch, not the liberals. That's in spite of conservatives making their case forcefully and repeatedly on their media while liberals are silenced and marginalized.
If you ask someone who is making more sense, Mitch McConnell, who's meeting with and defending banks from regulation, or Bernie Sanders, who's demanding the government re-regulate the banks and do SOMETHING to rebuild the middle class, they will side with Bernie.
The problem is far far too many democrats will to side with Mitch McConnell, and that includes Barack Obama and his economic team.
That's what's costing the democrats the polls. Cha
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 4 Sep 2010 at 02:50 AM
Yep..
When I think of "conservative", no other man comes to my mind than Barack Obama, small government, pro-corporate visionary that he is.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 4 Sep 2010 at 08:13 AM
Hmmm, a Gallup Polling prediction!!! Well, maybe. Certainly Obama and his concilliation at all costs approach hasn't been that impressive in the media's eyes. Lord knows what the voting public thinks. And with the little effort being made by the Democratic Party leadership (if that's not an oxymoronic phrase) to focus public attention of the Republican Party's zero contribution rate to the good of the people over the poast several decades, it's no surprise that the public is bewitched, bothered and (as usual)politically bewildered. But let us not forget:
"Nov 3, 1948 - The Chicago Daily Tribune even plastered "Dewey Defeats Truman" on their front page, on November 3, 1948. But incumbent Harry S. Truman (Democrat) trounced Dewey, in spite of Gallup Poll predictions that Dewey would win,... Most papers predicted a Thomas E. Dewey win: The New York Times proclaimed "Thomas E. Dewey's Election as President is a Foregone Conclusion.” Life Magazine also predicted a Dewey win, when months prior to the election they published a photo of Dewey with the caption: “The Next President of the United States." The Chicago Daily Tribune even plastered "Dewey Defeats Truman" on their front page, on November 3, 1948. But incumbent Harry S. Truman...."
We all know the end of that story. Some times the media tries real hard to reorder reality. Some times it works and some times the public suddenly awakens to the real world beyond the corporate media rhetoric.
#4 Posted by Jack, CJR on Sat 4 Sep 2010 at 10:25 AM
"When I think of "conservative", no other man comes to my mind than Barack Obama, small government, pro-corporate visionary that he is."
When I read things like this:
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/david-dayens-portrait-of-hamp-failures/
And this:
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/back-rortybomb-goes-to-treasury/
"- They are sticking by HAMP. The narrative seemed to change from helping homeowners to spacing out the foreclosures. I asked them to repeat it, because the idea that billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent to smooth out foreclosures for banks struck me as new narrative – it’s explicitly extend-and-pretend, and also fairly cynical.
- There was talk about how fiscal policy can’t move through Congress. I asked them about only 0.5% of HAMP being spent and how that could be used without Congress’ permission. Before I suggested that the remainder of the $50bn be divided into two funds, the Digging Holes Across States (DHAS) fund and the Filling Holes Across States (FHAS) fund, two far more socially productive means of spending the HAMP money than what is currently being done with it, I was told that the entire $50bn is expected to be spent by the time the program is over. I didn’t believe it; we will see.
- Overall, there seemed to be a sense of “we are done here” from the meeting. Maybe it was the fact that it is August, the informal manner of the meeting and a news cycle is driven by insane things, but there was a sense with the financial reform bill passed, deadlock in Congress and a Federal Reserve tip-toeing around its mandate things were going to slow down and options are more or less removed from the table. Which is a very scary thought with the economy the way it is."
What else can you think. He's one of the bankers' men, his staff is overflowing with bankers' men, and there's been nothing but a couple of empty speeches containing a few minimal 'tsk tsks' to indicate otherwise.
And if you buy the Maoist line, then you're one of the spoon fed idiots that is eroding America's democratic ability.
No one who is observing the facts thinks Obama has governed anything other than like a luke warm lib.
What you need is another FDR, and what you got is a cross between Harold Ford and Clinton.
And though the public is unsatisfied, the alternative is another Bush as a best case scenario.
If you remember the whack job / blow job 90's, you know you want to keep subpoena manic folks like Darrell Issa away from relevant chairs, but you can't blame voters for not having the back of DLC dems when they say "Fuckem" behind theirs.
I hope that voters remember how much worse it was under republicans and how insane the republicans have acted lately, but the press has failed in portraying this reality because the DLC dems have failed to make to make it an issue. Reality is not reportable news unless a politician says it.
If the dems lose, it's because Obama didn't bother to win. Winning involves fighting and Barack Obama is just so above that, unless it's a progressive or the professional left.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 4 Sep 2010 at 11:58 AM
Obama, the liberal.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2010/09/table.html
"Public works projects are off the table.
Social Security benefit cuts are on the table.
These are both obviously bad policy positions.
These are both obviously bad political positions.
Many of us have asked why Obama and the Democratic leadership are so deeply committed to these obviously bad policies, even to the point of risking the House majority, not to mention adding to rather than reducing American human misery.
Eventually you have to consider the possibility they are getting the policies they want to get."
http://www.openleft.com/showQuickHit.do?quickHitId=15758
"When Barack Obama made his famous remarks about Ronald Reagan being transformational, it was misinterpreted as being political, an attempt to reach out to the other side. It actually was, as some feared, philosophical. It really did mean, sincerely, that except around the edges, he thought that Reaganism-Thatcherism was irreversible. Just as Bill Clinton does, just as Tony Blair does.
The Third-Wayers are serious about this. Seriously deluded, perhaps, but dead serious. There was never an attempt to triangulate the "independent center", those who still believed in Reaganism but were distressed by the partisan cultural meanness. That was sincere. Those who were played were the Democratic base. They would have to be satisfied with corporate-style knockoffs of social-democratic ideas (health care being the most obvious example). Labor reformers would have to be mollified with "we don't have 60 votes". And symbolic gestures devoid of content like inviting Pete Seeger to the White House.
Why didn't this work? Why are the Dems SO wounded by a bad economy? A better economy was absolutely crucial to the Third Way plan. They didn't think it would get this bad. If it hadn't gotten this bad, they might have been able to pull it off. People would be working, the craziness wouldn't have gained so much traction, people would have been able to laugh at Sarah Palin, Dems would have been fat and happy. But that way depended on bubble economics, which the neolibs mistaken thought was permanent. They may not even believe they depend on bubble economics, they may even delude themselves that they truly stand in the middle. But when push comes to shove, they never move to the left.
Instead we have this worst of all possible worlds - Obama falsely accused of "socialism" and "socialism" - his toothless attempts to counter bubble economics - all that neoliberalism will allow - blamed for the economic failure.
When the pundits say "America is a conservative country" I have to say, in opposition to most left thinking, they're right in a way. Our counterargument has been poll numbers. This is not an effective counter because they have enough power elsewhere to spit on poll numbers, to manipulate them and to make the inconvenient ones disappear. Thus we hear endlessly about polling on the the "Ground Zero Mosque". Not so much about Social Security.
When we say "the Dems hate the Left" or they're beating up on "dirty fucking hippies", what we're REALLY saying is that, for the Third-Wayers, neoliberalism vs. social democracy is actually the whole ballgame. The last vestiges of American social democracy - the New Deal and all its accoutrements - must be wiped out, at all costs.
They haven't been able to say so - because they need the votes of the "little people". But there's almost no play left in that gambit. With each disspiriting election betrayal (Clinton and NAFTA, Obama and Health Care, Obama and Social Security) the Democratic brand gets weaker and weaker.
We on the Left, the "netroots", etc., need to understand the centrality of this
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 5 Sep 2010 at 06:11 AM