Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Well, the trend is shifting that way, but much more slowly in the House race than it is in the presidential race. RCP says that if the Democrats win every single close race, they still wouldn't have a majority. The direction doesn't have to change, but the velocity would have to change in a BIG way.

I hypothesize several causes for Congressional-election inertia:

• Obama is probably the strongest Democratic candidate right now, but Romney isn't the strongest Republican. The parties are just structured differently and take different approaches to hierarchy. Bachman might actually get taken down, but her opponent is a Democrat with business experience who can appeal to a broader group of people than most of the Democrats currently running.
• Republican legislators and governors swept in with the Tea Party wave have been busy "cleaning up" voter registration rolls and redrawing Congressional districts to protect Republican majorities.
• Corporate money is favoring House Republicans even more than it is favoring Obama over Romney.

It's possible, sure, in the sense that almost anything is possible. It is very, very unlikely, though, unless some sort of scandal implicates the entire Republican party at once.

and for a different take -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ere-expecting/

Instead, the Republicans appear to be in a shambles — while the Democrats seem incredibly united, and increasingly, dare I say it, enthusiastic. (Mark Blumenthal sees this in the polls, but it’s also just the impression you get.)


How did that happen? Partly it’s because this has become such an ideological election — much more so than 2008. The GOP has made it clear that it has a very different vision of what America should be than that of Democrats, and Democrats have rallied around their cause. Among other things, while we weren’t looking, social issues became a source of Democratic strength, not weakness — partly because the country has changed, partly because the Democrats have finally worked up the nerve to stand squarely for things like reproductive rights.

And let me add a speculation: I suspect that in the end Obamacare is turning out to be a big plus, even though it has always had ambivalent polling. The fact is that Obama can point to a big achievement that will survive if he is reelected, perish if he isn’t; health insurance for 50 million or so Americans (30 million from the ACA, another 20 who would lose coverage if Romney/Ryan Medicaid cuts happen) is enough to cure people of the notion that it doesn’t matter who wins.

All of this in turn has an implication that Republicans won’t like — assuming that Rasmussen doesn’t have a special insight into the truth denied to all other pollsters, and that Obama does in fact win with a solid margin. The right is already set up to blame poor Mitt, claiming that he lost because he wasn’t conservative enough. But that’s not what we’re seeing; it looks as if voters are rejecting the right’s whole package, not just the messenger.

As I said, not the election anyone was expecting — but a happy surprise for some, and a nasty shock for others.

Oh, and the Republicans are THE scandal

_______________________________________

p.s. you're also not taking into account demographic change. For example, annual Hispanic pop growth in Fl now equals the entire Jewish pop in that state. I'm sure similar eye-popping numbers can be found in other states like Texas and Arizona (a 140K increase in registered Hispanic Dems since 2008). We're also becoming more urbanized, more female, which are Left-ward leaning process. I think 2010 was the high water mark for the GOP; without significant changes related to those demographic changes it is becoming a regional party whose fence line is going to get smaller and smaller. Some may have gotten a clue of that from a Virginia or North Carolina becoming battleground; others will still be clueless when Texas converts. Maybe when Utah goes, they'll finally get it.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Well, the trend is shifting that way, but much more slowly in the House race than it is in the presidential race. RCP says that if the Democrats win every single close race, they still wouldn't have a majority. The direction doesn't have to change, but the velocity would have to change in a BIG way.

I hypothesize several causes for Congressional-election inertia:

• Obama is probably the strongest Democratic candidate right now, but Romney isn't the strongest Republican. The parties are just structured differently and take different approaches to hierarchy. Bachman might actually get taken down, but her opponent is a Democrat with business experience who can appeal to a broader group of people than most of the Democrats currently running.
• Republican legislators and governors swept in with the Tea Party wave have been busy "cleaning up" voter registration rolls and redrawing Congressional districts to protect Republican majorities.
• Corporate money is favoring House Republicans even more than it is favoring Obama over Romney.

It's possible, sure, in the sense that almost anything is possible. It is very, very unlikely, though, unless some sort of scandal implicates the entire Republican party at once.

Real Clear is really behind the curve on the House. Their estimate has not shifted in months. There is very little polling in particular races, and their estimate is not based on any polling. Insiders say these races are more competitive and there's a chance for a Democratic win. It would be amazing that people would reelect these tea party fanatics they just put in, after seeing what they have done, and given the very low approval ratings of congress. House elections can shift quickly, just as they have in recent years.

There will be Boomer leaders, but they will mainly be DISCO-WAVE Boomers along with Jonesers, the War Babies and Aquarians are getting too old. The 1943 cohorts will be starting to turn 70 in just a few months.

It is folks in Mid-Life who mainly control the government, folks in Elderhood mostly play a role as the "wise old guys" in Congress who know the ropes and help their younger colleges. The Boomers' role in Elderhood is not running the government, it is vision and moral support for the new order being built by Xers and Millies.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Real Clear is really behind the curve on the House. Their estimate has not shifted in months. There is very little polling in particular races, and their estimate is not based on any polling. Insiders say these races are more competitive and there's a chance for a Democratic win. It would be amazing that people would reelect these tea party fanatics they just put in, after seeing what they have done, and given the very low approval ratings of congress. House elections can shift quickly, just as they have in recent years.

If you have better polls... I'd love to see them! I'm using RCP because it is the best district-by-district breakdown I've found and Brian just sourced them as his proof for the argument. Meta-polling organizations are always going to have the best accuracy, and Zogby is pretty much out of the picture, so...

It is true that "Generic Congressional Ballot" has shifted about 3 points to a slight Democratic advantage (over the same time period that Obama gained about 5 against Romney), but once you figure for the shape and demographics of the districts, a one-or-two point lead doesn't translate into a majority.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

About that three-term limit for party in the White House rule: there are two historical exceptions. The Republicans won every presidential election from 1860 until 1888, when Grover Cleveland broke their streak. (Andrew Johnson was a Democrat but was only elected Vice-President.) (And although Lincoln didn't run on the GOP ticket in 1864, everyone knew he was a Republican.) That's SEVEN consecutive wins.

Also, the Democrats won every election from 1932 to 1948. That's FIVE consecutive wins.

Note what Turning each of those long streaks started in.

All bets are off.

That's a good point.

Several pollsters and pundits have been hinting at something more going on in the polls that just Romney farce. The crosstabs showing people are more confident of their economic future - highest reading in 3 years in fact.

This may shed some light on the mystery -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive...a_big_deal.php

This Is Sort of a Big Deal

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has issued a revision of the jobs picture through March of this year. And they found 386,000 net additional jobs. And yes, that’s quite a few jobs. In fact, the total number of additional private sector jobs was 453,000 but they’re counterbalanced by a decrease of 67,000 government jobs.


One thing to note is that this apparently puts President Obama past the net jobs creator threshold — a meaningless economic statistic but one that carries some political weight and one I suspect we’ll start hearing on the campaign trail.

But what really strikes me is this. It’s been something of a mystery across the political spectrum why President Obama has been able to weather the soft economy as well as he has. There are many factors — context of the Great Recession, personal favorability of the man himself, etc. But if this sort of upward revision continues for the numbers in the summer and fall of 2012 it may turn out that there’s another explanation: that the economy was in at least somewhat better shape than we thought and this was showing up in the political numbers more clearly than in the first draft economic data.

Of course if you think the conspiracy over the poll numbers has reach hysterical levels, this is going to drive the aluminum hat guys absolutely bonkers -

Calling magic pony people,come in magic pony people...

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

But to re-iterate the more analytical view of the polls: it seems clear that the polls are not measuring changes among people who have not made up their minds, but rather they are reflecting varying predictions among the pollsters about who will turn out to vote.

Given that true swing voters barely even exist anymore, that's the only way to reliably take a poll.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

In that regard, there may be quite a bit of wishful thinking factored in, meaning that the polls reflect the biases of the people who run them. And those people are mostly left-of-center.

No, what it means is that likely voter screening questions indicate high turnout for Democratic leaning portions of the electorate. Why does everything have to be a conspiracy theory for you?

Originally Posted by Odin

There will be Boomer leaders, but they will mainly be DISCO-WAVE Boomers along with Jonesers, the War Babies and Aquarians are getting too old. The 1943 cohorts will be starting to turn 70 in just a few months.

It is folks in Mid-Life who mainly control the government, folks in Elderhood mostly play a role as the "wise old guys" in Congress who know the ropes and help their younger colleges. The Boomers' role in Elderhood is not running the government, it is vision and moral support for the new order being built by Xers and Millies.

The Disco Wavers and Jonsers run pretty conservative. They are the reaction to the Aquarian excesses in the 60s and early 70s. Even more to the point, they were the ga-ga children of the Reagan Revolution. If you're looking there for politicians, look in the GOP. In fact, the TP is even more to their communal taste, assuming libertarians can be communal of course.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

If you have better polls... I'd love to see them! I'm using RCP because it is the best district-by-district breakdown I've found and Brian just sourced them as his proof for the argument. Meta-polling organizations are always going to have the best accuracy, and Zogby is pretty much out of the picture, so...

It is true that "Generic Congressional Ballot" has shifted about 3 points to a slight Democratic advantage (over the same time period that Obama gained about 5 against Romney), but once you figure for the shape and demographics of the districts, a one-or-two point lead doesn't translate into a majority.

Whenever I look at any of the races RCP puts up as in play, I see no polls listed. Polls are really slow to appear for many states, even in the presidential race. The RCP estimate is based on their thoughts about the districts, their history, the candidates, etc. and it hasn't shifted in months. Their proposed map has remained "coming soon" for a couple of months now. I don't think they know yet how it is shaping up. The generic race shows Democrats leading by about 2 points, as of several weeks ago. That could have shifted too by now. If Obama continues to pull ahead, the Republicans could be in trouble in the House. But I think Obama is remiss in not challenging them in the campaign. He needs to think more than just about his own career now. He can't accomplish anything with this House, except to give in like Clinton did on welfare. That would not be an achievement, but a disaster. As "the judge" said about "the kid" on The Prisoner, "I think someone should tell him!"

I don't have any specific poll reference right now, but I have gotten emails from folks in the campaign saying they are gaining. If I get any more info I'll post it.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

If you have better polls... I'd love to see them! I'm using RCP because it is the best district-by-district breakdown I've found and Brian just sourced them as his proof for the argument. Meta-polling organizations are always going to have the best accuracy, and Zogby is pretty much out of the picture, so...

It is true that "Generic Congressional Ballot" has shifted about 3 points to a slight Democratic advantage (over the same time period that Obama gained about 5 against Romney), but once you figure for the shape and demographics of the districts, a one-or-two point lead doesn't translate into a majority.

Actually, that's not so true as it may seem. If the gerrymandering was particulaly aggressive, then many of the majority districts (mostly GOP fromthe last census) will be only slightly strong to create as many desired districts as possible. In a wave election, that becomes a serious weakness, and many seats can change hands.

The GOP is trying to supress voting in Ohio.

Originally Posted by Odin

There will be Boomer leaders, but they will mainly be DISCO-WAVE Boomers along with Jonesers, the War Babies and Aquarians are getting too old. The 1943 cohorts will be starting to turn 70 in just a few months.

It is folks in Mid-Life who mainly control the government, folks in Elderhood mostly play a role as the "wise old guys" in Congress who know the ropes and help their younger colleges. The Boomers' role in Elderhood is not running the government, it is vision and moral support for the new order being built by Xers and Millies.

Agreed on this account. That is the role of Elderhood in general. FDR in his first two terms were indeed surrounded by Missionaries. His last two terms found him surrounded by Losts--and its usually the second two terms that have been seen as the most lasting of FDR's presidency.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Why many in samples do not identify with the GOP.



Denial.
And it's also a form of bargaining.
The depression and anger come in November.
Acceptance by the start of the 1T. :

i'm going to pile on here. read michael tomasky. he basically says the same thing. people are turning away from the gop.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

i'm going to pile on here. read michael tomasky. he basically says the same thing. people are turning away from the gop.

Yea, Tomasky finally answered the question of why Romney isn't doing as well given the state of the economy, etc. People just don't like Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is not likable. He laughs like he just swallowed some local food that tastes like crap but he has to like it to win favor. He doesn't like the job and it shows. People are starting to realize that they don't want to listen/look at him for four years.

Bad news for the Tea Party in Indiana

http://howeypolitics.com/main.asp?Se...ArticleID=8128

WASHINGTON - The findings of our recent Howey/DePauw Indiana Battleground Poll yield two fundamental conclusions about the U.S. Senate election, clearly the marquee contest in Indiana this year.

First, with GOPers Romney and Pence holding solid double digit leads yet Democrat Donnelly ahead narrowly, Hoosiers are once again showing the ability to “split” their tickets along the lines of 2008 (narrowly voting for Barack Obama, giving Mitch Daniels a landslide victory, and maintaining a Democratic majority in the Statehouse).

Second, without discounting Joe Donnelly’s appeal as a statewide candidate, some credit also must go to the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party for Richard Mourdock’s possible defeat: We may be seeing a repeat of 2010, when Democrats were able to win U.S. Senate seats in Colorado, Nevada, and Delaware (despite the worst political environment for congressional Democrats since 1938) because Republicans nominated Tea Party candidates in those states.

Indiana is conservative, but it isn't crazy.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

take out the last three words and you've got it.

and the answer is -- because we think we have the better ideas for governing this country.

but on the subject of likability -- romney comes across as a clueless, arrogant putz. most people don't like those kinds of guys and don't think they would do a good job running much of anything.

his track record at bain backs up that impression. he's callous and greedy.

think of romney's attitude as if you were interviewing him for a job. you wouldn't hire him.

...or i wouldn't at least. would you?

I'd hire him and I'd succeed with him.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The big man of what....The magic pony land?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I do really like Romney/Ryan, but in all honesty,
I wish Benjamin Netanyahu was our president.

Prince

He's to f-n mean and scary for America.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'd hire him and I'd succeed with him.

And which guy would you be?

The magic pony's ass or the one that gets to sniff the other guy's?

Let's be fair. It wasn't specified what we'd be hiring him to do. He's got a great track record as a financial parasite and cannibal. If that's what you want done, he's your guy.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, everyone wants that. Being popular is just as important in politics as it was in high school ... and for much the same reason.

You can have all the prom kings and Mr. Popularities and I'll accept all the effectively successful a-holes.

I had been making a test run of responding to some people I had on ignore. With only a couple of exceptions, there has been no improvement, so that experiment is over. This thread, and this forum more generally, presents proof positive that Boomers, entering old age, are more childish and immature than Xers and Millenials.

With that I have one observation to provide: RealClearPolitics has comparisons between their averages from 2004, 2008 and 2012. The one from 2004 is worth paying attention to. After the conventions, Bush led Kerry by an average of about 6 points. Once the debates started, Bush's lead narrowed to about 2. After the debates it edged back up to about 2.5, and he ended up winning by 1.5 points. Obama has led by an average of about 3 after the conventions. If this year followed the trajectory of 2004 exactly (a big "if", and purely hypothetical), Romney would end up winning by 1.5 points.

Which is to say, the over-confidence of Democrats at this point is extremely misplaced. I have no idea what will happen, and I've said that repeatedly here. Those who say they do, and have started talking about the Democrats retaking both houses of Congress, are living in magic pony land. But all Boomers live in magic pony land. It's who they are.

A few things are clear when you look at 2008. One is that McCain trailed Obama throughout the summer, by as much as 7 points. Romney has been much closer. The other is that Obama's margin was greatly exaggerated by the stock market crash in September.

Who knows what will happen this year? Not me. We'll find out.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Let's be fair. It wasn't specified what we'd be hiring him to do. He's got a great track record as a financial parasite and cannibal. If that's what you want done, he's your guy.

I've already determined that we're on coarse for a major split of some sort. It's destiny.....

Originally Posted by Odin

JPT, for all your hatred of Boomers, you sure act like them.

If I act like anything other than an Xer, I act like a GI. You just don't get it.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I've already determined that we're on coarse for a major split of some sort. It's destiny.....

I disagree. I think the Boomers have injected a massive strain of unreality into American society from top to bottom, which is the cause of all the seeming division in the country. Reality is making itself heard, and it has been for 11 years. The Boomer world view is being exposed for the fiction that it is. It took decades for that mindset to become ingrained. How long it takes for our mindset to align with reality will determine how much louder reality has to get before we do. Internal divisions and superficial Boomer conflicts will be erased by economic ruin and foreign hostility. It's just a question of how much, and for how long.

America is like an alcoholic that is hitting rock bottom, but still doesn't want to admit it. If Obama wins it'll be four more years of drunkenness, but the kind where it's 2 A.M. and you're hanging onto the toilet for dear life.