Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: 46% Republican, 38% Democrat (Zogby 7/27-29)

Topics: National , poll

Zogby
7/27-29/10; 2,389 likely voters
Mode: Internet
(Zogby release)

National

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
46% Republican, 38% Democrat (chart)

Obama Job Approval
43% Approve, 57% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 76 / 24 (chart)
Reps: 9 / 90 (chart)
Inds: 38 / 61 (chart)

Congressional Job Approval
22% Approve, 76% Disapprove (chart)

State of the Country
29% Right Direction, 60% Wrong Track (chart)

 

Comments
CUWriter:

Love the numbers.. but I never take Zogby seriously.

____________________

Steve:

Zogby's not the most accurate pollster, however, this is the SIXTH polling organization in the last two weeks to show a GOP advantage of at least five points.

____________________

scottkj:

If reps run on repealing health care, they will win big. MO's voting 71% to nix Obamacare mandatory tax is huge. when is the last time anythign has received 71% of vote.

Obama is so out of touch!!

____________________

tjampel:

There's no doubt that Repubs have the lead in the generic ballot right now among likely voters.

Zogby isn't to be taken seriously. However this particular result just happens to square with both Gallup's and Ras average over the past few months. Gallup is at parity and Ras is R+8. The difference may largely be attributed to LV/RV

Dems have their work cut out for them---to energize their voters. They need to move the LV differential down to around +3= +4 by November. They can hold the House that way.

There are some on both sides that say it's better to let the other party have the House. I say that's political posturing. It's always better to have the House because, even if none of your bills pass, at least you have the power to subpoena (or to deny the other side's partisan wishes to use the subpoena) and the power to set the agenda very rigidly.

____________________

melvin:

When the Democrats keeps control of the House and Senate,i wonder what these pollsters going to say come the next day? What excuse they're going to have.So many pollsters are putting they're credibility on the line come November.Most of these pollsters thinks Blacks and Hispanics are not going to vote in November,they think the vote is going to be over 95% White,this is not 1994 or 1966.If the Republicans is leading by 8%,it means they should pickup over 100 seats in the Congress,and over 14 seats in the Senate.The Democrats haven't had under 200 seats in the Congress in almost 100 years,so whats the odds of that happening.The Minority vote is going to be much bigger then 1994 or 1966,that's why these numbers don't add up.Zogby and Rasmussen must have the GOP getting over 70% of the White vote in November,which is unbelievable.

____________________

The Vorlon:

Obviously anything from Zogby is always taken with more than a few grains of salt.

That being said, it seems Obama's approval has moved out of the 45-50% band to be right around the 45% mark.

USA Today/Gallup, Gallup, fox, quinnipiac, NBC, even CBS have found approvals at or below 45%.

The congressional ballot is always a dicey one, historically it is worthwhile from a trend point of view, but has not done well in terms of predicting the absolute values on election day.

One more (highly shaky) data-point on the graph

____________________

seg:

The Vorlon:
Most of the shakiness of generic ballots is due to consistently but erratically underestimating rep strength, especially polls of RV.

Everything I see tells me that it will take a seismic event to change the pattern at this point. Of course, seismic events do happen, but they do not always favor incumbents. 9-11 worked for reps not only because of the rally around the flag effect, but because reps are the "daddy" party and the public wanted protecting from EXTERNAL threats.

Since the economic news looks worse and worser, it is probably already too late for the economy to turn around enough to save dems. It is conceivable, but not likely, that a complete swoon by the economy could help the dems by making the public fear they needed the safety net desperately. More likely: doomsville for dems.

So, looks like only a black swan could save the House dems, and black swans are rarely good for incumbents. On the other hand, the reps are probably going to take fewer senate seats than were in reach for the taking.

____________________

Far Left And Stupid:

I'm new here. Is Melvin retarded, or
just illiterate?

____________________

melvin:

This is what a high profile writer wrote on the Demographic changes that is facing the Republican party in the coming years: It wasn't that long ago that Lindsay Graham seemed like the only voice of reason -- well, comparative reason -- in the Republican Party. Through 2009 and early 2010, even in the face of vicious opposition from within his state, Graham appeared determined to work with Democrats on comprehensive immigration reform. His actions led David Brooks to describe him as "the bravest politician in the country, bar none."
But bravery, as it turns out, has its limits. Graham backed out of immigration reform negotiations months ago, blaming health care reform -- not his party -- for making the climate for its passage impossible. And now he's done a genuine about-face. Last week, Graham told Fox News he was considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would repeal the birthright citizenship that is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

During the 2008 campaign, it didn't seem that the Republican party could move further to the right on immigration. Back in 2007, when Mike Huckabee endorsed the idea of an "anchor baby" amendment, the backlash was so severe that he was forced to recant within days. But just a few years later, the Republican's most sensible senator on immigration is standing behind the very same amendment. And the party's number two leader, Senator Jon Kyl, is endorsing it too. "The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to provide that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what. So that question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?"

What Kyl doesn't seem to understand -- and what Graham has clearly forgotten -- is that the stakes on this issue are, politically, at least, far greater than most. It's a fact that Karl Rove tried, but failed, to get his party to wise up to:

You can no longer win the presidency without the Hispanic vote.

Over the last ten years, 80 percent of the population growth in this country has been fueled by minorities, and most of that has come from Hispanics. George W. Bush was able to win reelection largely because his support for immigration reform earned him 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. But John McCain only won 31 percent of the Hispanic vote, which led him to lose Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Florida -- and the White House.

That shift among Hispanics hasn't dissipated, even as President Obama's approval has waned among the larger population. His job approval is still at 57 percent among Hispanics, according to an AP/Univision poll taken in late July. Meanwhile, the Republican party has decided en masse to stand behind an anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic agenda that's even further to the fringes than they're used to. This will almost surely solidify the Hispanic vote behind the Democratic party for good.

How then, the GOP ought to be wondering, could a Republican nominee possibly win the 270 electoral votes needed to secure the presidency?

Consider the numbers: Obama won 365 electoral votes in 2008. A successful Republican nominee would need to pick off 95 electoral votes in 2012 from states Obama won in 2008.

Let's assume that in 2012, the Republicans are able to hold onto Arizona, despite its Hispanic population growth, despite John McCain not being on the ballot, and despite its newfound anti-immigrant infamy. Let's also assume that the Republican nominee will win every single state that John McCain won. Where will the remaining 95 electoral votes come from?

They won't be from Colorado, New Mexico or Nevada. Those states went blue in 2008 largely because of the Hispanic vote, and they show no signs of reversing. That's 19 electoral votes off the table.

They won't likely be from Florida either. Though the state has been traded back and forth between parties for multiple election cycles, changes there, too, are likely to cause it to fade from the battleground. Florida has, at times, appeared to be a Hispanic vote anomaly. Cuban Americans have dominated the Hispanic vote there for years and have always been extremely conservative. In fact, Obama won a higher percentage of the Cuban vote than any Democrat in history, and he didn't even break 40 percent.

But as older Cubans are supplanted in the voting population by their grandchildren, the Cuban vote will no longer be a place where Republicans can run up their totals. Among Cuban voters over 65, 80 percent voted for John McCain. But among those under 45, 51 percent voted for Obama. What's more is that Florida is experiencing a huge surge in non-Cuban Hispanic population growth. Cubans used to make up half of the Hispanic vote in Florida. Now they make up only a third. And President Obama won 70 percent of the non-Cuban Hispanic vote in 2008. As that population growth continues, and as the Cuban vote margin narrows for Republicans, Florida will be poised to turn reliably blue.

Without those four states, Republicans wouldn't win the White House even if they retook North Carolina and Virginia and Ohio and Indiana and Iowa and New Hampshire. That would only get them 70 electoral votes. To put the party over the top, the Republican nominee would have to win all of those states, plus a state like Michigan or Pennsylvania, which Republicans have competed aggressively for, but haven't won in more than two decades. No serious Republican strategist could expect to put them in play.

That all but rules out Republicans reclaiming the White House in 2012. And in 2016 and 2020, when Hispanic growth in Arizona and Texas puts both states squarely in play, it will make it even harder for the Republican party to claw its way back.

In that context, Democrats should count themselves relieved to see Senators like Graham and Kyl floating this kind of anti-Hispanic agenda. It's going to cost the party the White House for an entire generation

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Farleft and stupid.

Melvin is both. However he gives you some insight on the morons that voted for Obama. Very scary. People that stupid shouldn't be allowed to walk out side by themselves.

____________________

melvin:

It makes me feel good to know my message is coming across to all the right-wingers on here.Some of you right-wing nuts wants to get me banned from pollster, that means i must be getting inside some peoples head on here,i just love it.

____________________

Emily Swanson:

TeaPartyRules and "Far left and stupid" - please read our comments policy and keep your comments intelligent and civil. In addition to not insulting other users, please note 2) Don't pick an a screenname that is, itself, profane or abusive of other commenters.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Wow, BOBO's dis at 57?

That'll leave a mark. (on the averages, at least)

____________________

shabby:

I'm really starting to take these generic polls with a very large grain of salt. It's strange but as the generic polling coninually shows an increasing level of support for the Republican canidate, local races are showing the opposite trend. If you look at Rasmussen, the trend appears to be moving towards the democrats on their Balence of power summary of individual senate races. Most other polling is showing the same things. It's as if voters don't like the concept of democrats right now, but when they get tpo know what their local republican stand for, they move right back towards the Democcrat. Should be an interesting election and I really think in the end, the local dynamics will determine the extent of seat losses, not the generic polling.

____________________

shabby:

I'm really starting to take these generic polls with a very large grain of salt. It's strange but as the generic polling coninually shows an increasing level of support for the Republican canidate, local races are showing the opposite trend. If you look at Rasmussen, the trend appears to be moving towards the democrats on their Balence of power summary of individual senate races. Most other polling is showing the same things. It's as if voters don't like the concept of democrats right now, but when they get tpo know what their local republican stand for, they move right back towards the Democcrat. Should be an interesting election and I really think in the end, the local dynamics will determine the extent of seat losses, not the generic polling.

____________________

shabby:

I'm really starting to take these generic polls with a very large grain of salt. It's strange but as the generic polling coninually shows an increasing level of support for the Republican canidate, local races are showing the opposite trend. If you look at Rasmussen, the trend appears to be moving towards the democrats on their Balence of power summary of individual senate races. Most other polling is showing the same things. It's as if voters don't like the concept of democrats right now, but when they get tpo know what their local republican stand for, they move right back towards the Democcrat. Should be an interesting election and I really think in the end, the local dynamics will determine the extent of seat losses, not the generic polling.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Emily do ever read Melvin's comments, or do rules only apply to conservatives.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Emily

Melvin = ignored

____________________

StatyPolly:

TeaPary, using an insult as an alias is a greater offense than an occasional line-crossing in the heat of the battle. IMO

____________________

Emily Swanson:

TeaPartyRules -- if you notice any comments that seem to violate our comments policy, please email us at questions@pollster.com. I don't care what views you or anyone else espouse, but our policy does prohibit name calling against other commenters.

____________________

iVote:

Wow....

New CNN poll shows that 41% of Republicans don't believe that Obama was born here. If so many Republicans are that gullible and believe in such myths, it's no wonder Obama's approval is where it is. These people are plain stupid.

____________________

Where are the regional breakdowns on these mysterious "generic Congressional" polls? A Republican in the South that increases his/her vote margin from 65-35 to 75-25 doesn't gain any seat. Nor does a Republican in the midwest who reduces his/her deficit to an incumbent Democrat from 60-40 to 53-47.

We need real sensitivity analysis on the so-called generic ballot question, to look at both regional breakdowns, as well as breakdowns in districts where the most recent voting was within a 10 point range. Nothing else make a bit of difference.

And also, Senate race polling is of no significance in discussions relative to the generic Congressional polling, since Senate elections are statewide and based on actual individual characteristics, rather than just plain party ID.

Finally, the CW of "likely voters" and "enthusiasm gap" should be dismissed out of hand as having virtually no significance. I ask all of you this question: What is the election result when a flag-waving wildly enthusiastic Republican voter pulls the lever for his favorite candidate in one voting booth, while a bored Democratic voter reluctantly pulls the lever for his favorite candidate with a "ho-hum/who cares" shrug in the next voting booth?

I believe the answer is a 1-1 tie!

____________________

Gtfan4ever:

"I ask all of you this question: What is the election result when a flag-waving wildly enthusiastic Republican voter pulls the lever for his favorite candidate in one voting booth, while a bored Democratic voter reluctantly pulls the lever for his favorite candidate with a "ho-hum/who cares" shrug in the next voting booth?

I believe the answer is a 1-1 tie!"

Sure if the Democrat decides to show up and that's the thing alot of Dems may just decide to stay home this year.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

Melvin: Excellent Post
Well informed, as opposed to those who criticize you. (Tea Party Rules)
The demographics of America are headed away from the Republican Party.
Remember, Democrats have won 4 of the last 5 Presidential Elections (including 2000, which was stolen).
One not about Arizona, which I think will be competitive in 2012: McCain carried Arizona, his home state by less than Bush did !

____________________

AlanSnipes:

Melvin: Excellent Post
Well informed, as opposed to those who criticize you. (Tea Party Rules)
The demographics of America are headed away from the Republican Party.
Remember, Democrats have won 4 of the last 5 Presidential Elections (including 2000, which was stolen).
One not about Arizona, which I think will be competitive in 2012: McCain carried Arizona, his home state by less than Bush did !

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Not a single right winger called this what it is?!?!?!

It's an INTERNET poll.

Moving on . . .

Let's create narratives with real polls.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

If you can get a representative sample of lower income whites, blacks, and latinos through an Internet survey, this might have some value, but you can't.

There is a bias built into Internet polls.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Shannon,

The first poster noted it was Zogby and thus of little value. But the consensus is certainly pointing to a solid 4-6 points LV lead for the GOP on the generic.

____________________

@Field Marshal. You may recall that in early September 2008, John McCain led Barack Obama by about 6 points in consensus polling. Who was it that was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009?

____________________

Bigmike:

A few random, and somewhat brilliant, thoughts from yours truly.

It is an internet poll and should be taken with a grain of salt, as many others have said.

Some Libs don't do reality really well. That is why they are Libs. Reality is all signs, as of today, point to a bleak Nov for the Dems.

Three months is a long time in politics. I won't be happy unless I see numbers similar to this in mid Oct and after.

We conservatives know what you are going thru. We had the same experience two years ago. Please take it like a grown up.

Which is a particularly brilliant lead in to my next point. I expect in the near future we will see less of various people who comment on this site. Middle schools across America will be opening soon.

If Libs want to count on demographics for future victories, they may get a real surprise. This whacky Lib administration and Congress is making conservatives of a lot of minorities.

Forgetting the ridiculous demographic arguments, and focusing on the near term, 2010 and maybe 2012, where is the upside for Dems? I don't see them turning this around, at least this year, without divine intevention.

Unemployment numbers Friday will be important but won't seal the deal unless the numbers are catastrophic, which I believe and hope they won't be. But I also do not expect particularly good news either.

Every liberal court which stays the AZ immigration law or knocks down same sex marriage bans is another stake in the Dem hearts for Nov. Those are losing issues.

71% in MO voted for a proposition that would basically gut Obamacare if it holds up. Some much for that abomination gaining acceptance as time passes. Go ahead BO, file another lawsuit. I dare you. You will be cutting the throats of Dem candidates everywhere. Especially MO.

I grew up in a conservative district in MO. But they have sent Ike Skelton to Congress for the last 34 years. Because he is a blue dog and even more importantly because he is a darn good man. I hear his seat is in jeopardy thanks to the liberal agenda pushed by BO and his congressional cronies. Health care doesn't mean much if you can't pay the rent and put food on the table.

Charlie Rangel will not take one on the chin for the party. He will have to be forced out and the publicity, especially getting closer to election day, will cost the Dems a few more seats. There will be a Rangel effect.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@Bigmike

Why do you even bother to throw numbers in your posts?

"Some Libs don't do reality really well. That is why they are Libs."

"Which is a particularly brilliant lead in to my next point. I expect in the near future we will see less of various people who comment on this site. Middle schools across America will be opening soon."

"Unemployment numbers Friday will be important but won't seal the deal unless the numbers are catastrophic, which I believe and hope they won't be. But I also do not expect particularly good news either."

Your analysis is just poor. It's baseless speculation tied around what you hope will be true.

I'm not trying to demean you but Charlie Rangel's failure to pay taxes or whatever he's accused of isn't going to matter one iota in November.

Sadly, when Republicans drive the narrative on what it means to be a good American, things like Charlie Rangel's situation pale in comparison to a married man soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom stall. Being a slum lord isn't going to drive anyone to the polls.

It might be a good idea to stick to discussing policy matters. November is a long way away, and who knows who will be hiking the Appalachian Trail next.

____________________

Bigmike:

@Shannon,Dallas,Texas

If you can't have just a little fun why would you want to be here? OK, I do admit to having a strange sense of humor.

I have regularly been called racist, ignorant, and evil on here, and those are the nicer terms. Should I not sink to their level? Maybe. But I can make a pretty good argument that those who want to stick those labels on people just because they are conservative need to push back the keyboard and visit the real world occasionally. You missed the point that the current reality looks grim for Dems. That is not baseless speculation. I can point to plenty of evidence that it is true. Just look at the top of this page for starters.

Unemployment numbers will indeed make a difference in Nov. And there aren't many releases of the numbers between now and Nov. If the numbers are going to improve enough to help Dems in Nov, they need to start making a positive move. That is just stating what I believe is fact. I am indeed one who does not want to see people lose their jobs to help my personal political cause. I would rather win because our ideas are better.

Scandals matter. There is plenty of history to prove it. If Rangel has to be dragged out kicking and screaming and the process is still ongoing in late Oct or early Nov it will cost the Dems votes. I do admit that if this goes away tomorrow, by any means, most people will have forgotten it by election day and it won't really matter.

I didn't use a lot of numbers, but I stand behind every one of them.

This isn't really about policy. It is about polls. And polls are mostly about elections. Sometimes policy plays a big role and sometimes a lesser role. Filing suit against AZ is a policy that I believe has hurt the Dems. Passing a HCR bill that a majority disapprove of is a policy that I believe has hurt the Dems. But more important, I believe, is the perception that we got change in a direction we didn't want to go.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Good, clever posing, BigMike. Plenty of readers here appreciate it.

____________________

Bukama:

From MSN Money:

Will the unemployment rate rise?
The report will come out at 8:30 a.m. ET Friday, and most economists expect the national unemployment rate to rise to 9.6% from 9.5% in June.

Nonfarm employment is expected to decline by 60,000, but much of the decline will be due to release of workers hired to do the national census.

Private-sector employment will be watched more closely. The consensus is for a gain of 70,000 jobs. That would be the seventh straight month of gains in this category. So far, private-sector employment has grown by 593,000 jobs, or about 99,000 jobs a month.

The tension over the report rose today after the Labor Department said initial jobless claims increased by 19,000 to 479,000 last week, the most since April. Most economists had been looking for a decline.

The increase in jobless claims means "employers lack the confidence to expand their production because they’re uncertain how much momentum is out there," Alan Gayle, senior investment strategist at RidgeWorth Capital Management in Richmond, Va., told Bloomberg News.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Health care doesn't mean much if you can't pay the rent and put food on the table."

You won't be able to work if your health takes a dive. Then health care is extremely important.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR