Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: 46% Republican, 40% Democrat (Rasmussen 9/20-26)

Topics: generic ballot , National , poll , Rasmussen

Rasmussen
9/20-26/10; 3,500 likely voters, 2% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

National

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
46% Republican, 40% Democrat (chart)

 

Comments
iVote:

Surprisingly close. First time the Democrats have been @ 40% in a Rasmussen poll in 1 year.

____________________

cmbat:

I've been saying this for a while. As usual, the Republicans peaked in August (remember, McCain/Half-Governor were up in August two years ago) and last August was when the Republican assault against healthcare was in full motion. Seems to me all I kept hearing about on these boards from the right was that once Raz switched to LV, there would be about an 11-12% edge to Generic Rep versus Generic Dem.

We're starting to see things turn back toward the Democrats. Reid and Boxer are locking up their races. Delaware is done. WA is done. The real races here are going to be (in the Senate): CO, WI, PN, KY. Sestak's campaign is run by pros and will hit their stride at the right time. KY and CO will be interesting. If the Republicans win both of those, then the Tea Party gains national clout. If they lose those (they will lose NV and DE), then they really hurt the Republican party. Winning in FL doesn't help them because of the 3-way split. Rubio won't get 50% of the vote. Alaska doesn't matter.

Dems will retain the House.

This comes down to focusing on about 15 House seats and the 4 or so Senate seats above. The rest will take care of itself. Watch the Democratic message push from October 8-22. Therein lies the whole election.

And this will be the best chance for the Republicans for the next 4 years.

____________________

Rightward:

"Dems will retain the House."

That's your heart talking and not your head. All objective indicators point to 2 to 1 odds that the Republicans take the house and even a 25% probability they take the senate. Check out fivethirtyeight.com or intrade.com for objective analysis.

____________________

paulmw98:

This is interesting --- but only if it continues to shift in Democrats favor. Everything is local, too, and Wisconsin still looks terrible for Feingold.

What this does show, however, is an undecided race --- nobody has hit the coveted, important 50% metric, meaning this will be a wave election decided on the final day!

____________________

Farleftandproud:

"cmbat:
I've been saying this for a while. As usual, the Republicans peaked in August (remember, McCain/Half-Governor were up in August two years ago) and last August was when the Republican assault against healthcare was in full motion. Seems to me all I kept hearing about on these boards from the right was that once Raz switched to LV, there would be about an 11-12% edge to Generic Rep versus Generic Dem.

We're starting to see things turn back toward the Democrats. Reid and Boxer are locking up their races. Delaware is done. WA is done. The real races here are going to be (in the Senate): CO, WI, PN, KY. Sestak's campaign is run by pros and will hit their stride at the right time. KY and CO will be interesting. If the Republicans win both of those, then the Tea Party gains national clout. If they lose those (they will lose NV and DE), then they really hurt the Republican party. Winning in FL doesn't help them because of the 3-way split. Rubio won't get 50% of the vote. Alaska doesn't matter.

Dems will retain the House. "

I like your optimism, and most likely, I think you are right, but I am not taking my chances. I think after Scott Brown's upset, I think Dems have to spend money in CT for governor and senate, and in Mass, VT and MN for the governors races. They have to continue to keep the momentum in CA. and they have to continue to fight for Manchin in WV, yet distance him from the National Democratic party. NV is a must win too.

____________________

Stillow:

What on earth are you liberals seeing that no one else seems to be seeing? Dems are still getting killed on geenric balloting....don't you realize that type of polling has an ebb and flow to it...

Dems almost always out poll the GOP o nthe generi cballot, yet we see leads for the GOP in nearly every pollster with the exception of some internet polls. Not to mention a lot of people think there's about a 3 point hidden lead for the GOP on the generic balloting.

We all know you liberals are very emotinal creatures and not real big on facts and logic....your going to be very depressed coe election day. I think we are headed for antoehr moment where we will all turn on CNN and see James Carville with the paper sack on his head.

The left is going to lose no less than 6 senate seats which will effectively kill the lefts agenda i nthe Senate...and lose no less than 45 house seats.

Somtimes I really would pay real money to get inside your liberals heads...as it seems very convenient to avoid reality so often.

____________________

Stillow:

...and before ivote tries his normal spin, I am talking about leads outside the MOE. Generic polling is difficutl to poll because of regional differences, so leads outside the MOE are what you really want on this particualr type of polling.

____________________

iVote:

lmao honored by the shout-out, Stillow.

Gallup numbers just released--tied at 46/46. Democrats have continued to keep the gap close.

Regardless of what happens in November, and the Republicans are just so sure of what that'll be, only a few weeks afterwards we'll all be shifting focus to the 2012 primaries.


____________________

Stillow:

Yes but if you read the Gallup article it says the GOP are poised for large gains....since Gallup is still using registered voters and not likely voters in there generic balloting. also i nthe same Gallup release GOP enthusiasm continues to be way out ahead of Dem enthusiasm....

Why gallup is still using RV's is anyones guess, but even they realize a tie among RV's equates to large gains this fall for the GOP.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"the Republicans are just so sure of what that'll be,"

Republicans everywhere are so smug and self assured right now. It's quite annoying. But I guess we dished it to them the last few years.

A five point generic ballot advantage probably indicates house gains in the 50 seat range, possibly as high as 60. We should recall that democrats gained 56 seats the last two cycles so anything less than that is no more than a reversion to the highly partisan environment we exited in 2000.

I think we are entering an era when party switches will happen more often. Prior to 1932 party control switched about once a decade. It took 40 years for republicans to take the house after losing it in 1954, then 12 years for democrats to take it back, then 4 years for republicans to take it back again (maybe). If republicans do take over, it'll be a fairly vulnerable majority, and I'd wager it will change back to democrats within 3 cycles.

I'm more interested in individual house district polling. If you look at that, you'll find the majority of incumbent democrats are ahead, albeit marginally in a lot of cases. Democrats are going to lose most if not all open seats.

I'm a little wary of of hanging my hat completely on vague indicators like the generic ballot or enthusiasm gap. It's things like that that made democrats think they were going to gain 40+ more seats in 08, that Obama would win by 12 points, and they would have big majorities for the next two generations.

It reminds me of all the sports analysts that before the season say teams look good "on paper." Half the time the "good on paper" teams under-perform because of incidental factors like chemistry. *Ahem... Cowboys...cough.*

____________________

Stillow:

Your only flaw aaron is that the crappy Cowboys don't even look that good on paper...

For once I actually may agree with you...we will probably enter an era of constant party changing....and even a string of one term presidents. starting with Barry.

Almost certianly after this fall we will ahve a very close senate and House. I beleive you posted in another thread a while back you felt if the Dems do keep the House they need to do so by 10+ seats....anything less would cause them problems keeping everyone in line. And that it may actually benefit Barry if the GOP takes one of the chambers for his 2012 bid.

Right now IMO the best case scenario for the GOP is to win the House....and get to at least 45 seats i nthe Senate. Stretgically speaking I think its best if the GOP only wi nthe House and not the Senate. They need 45 in the senate though which I think everyone agrees they will get to. That number allows them to hold a filisbuster and let the usual rino's defect. However if the GOP get to 48 or 49 seats look for party flops to occur from Ben Nelson, Mary Landru and possibly even Leiberman. ben and Mary know they cannot win there next elections as Democrats.

But taking the House is vital to stop this radical left wing agenda. Defunding obamacare, etc.

The enthusiasm game is important...for the first time in a long time, maybe even first time ever...the GOP have a real energetic ground game thnaks to the tea party. You've seen the same stat I have about for the first time in decades, more republicans voted in the primariies than did Dems by several million people. That just never happens....that in itself is a key indicator on how much more energy is coming fro mthe right.

____________________

Stillow:

The reason I think its best if the GOP only take the House is so in 2012 they can still point and say look, Dems still control 2/3 of the mojo around DC....Politically they can kill Barry's agenda, but still poitna nd blame the Dems for having more power.

Politics, ain't it sweet...

____________________

kariq:

I think both sides have part of a point, here. At the beginning of September, Republicans had a 6 point lead in generic ballot and things looked disastrous for the Democrats. now the lead is down to around 2 points and things merely look very, very bad. It's still far more likely that the House will switch than not.

Stillow: Gallup is still using Registered voters instead of likely voters because they know that their likely voter screen isn't terribly effective until very close to the election, a few weeks at most. The unacknowledged secret is that no pollster has a likely voter that is very good until that time, and a lot of the "movement" we tend to see in polls close to elections is actually the result of the likely voter screen starting to work.

By the way: show some decency and refer to the man by his actual name, even if you don't like him. It's Barack Obama.

____________________

cmbat:

@stillow-

Because I was here on these very boards 2 years ago when the Republicans were so sure McCain had it locked up, that Palin was a great pick, that the country would never go for an "extreme lefty with ties to terrorists who wasn't born here and was black." And the whole time, I called them out on it. And not one of them ever said after the fact, "Guess we were wrong." Because that's the Republican way. Never admit that you did anything wrong. That's how you go through the worst terrorist attack on US soil, starting a war with lies that costs thousands of US lives, and Katrina without anyone at the top level of government losing their job...because you never admit that you are wrong.

And I agree with kariq. It's all well and good to disagree with someone and vote, but the President of the United States deserves your respect to call him by his name. Anything else is just anti-American, but...

____________________

Stillow:

kariq - Your request is considered and denied. Its quite common to refer to presidents by a nickname. Most people call Bush just W.

So lets leave the hypersensitvity stuff out of it shall we.

____________________

Stillow:

cmbat - LOL....thanks man...that was the best liberal rant on here in several days....its amazing how much you actually squeezed into that small post. Nicely done, that would make even melvin jealous. You managed to slam W on 9/11, katrina, called him a lair and blamed him for the deaths of thousands of people all in one small paragraph....and i nthe next breath requested that respect be given to the president.

Barry should be proud to have you as a supporter! Keep u pthe good work...and I mean that genuinely!

____________________

cmbat:

Hey stillow-

You were one of the ones that was wrong in 2008. I never forget a name.

____________________

Stillow:

cmbat - My freind, elections are a gamble. Its fun to predict, but if everyone could predict the future, we'd all be rich wouldn't we? Most libs on this site said no way christie can win in NJ...hell no a republican can win teddy's seat in MA with HCR on the line. Anyone claiming to predict every race correctly is a great fool and anyone who claims they've never missed an election is a greater fool.

____________________

lat:

Stillow,

It's ok buddy...LBJ type landslide coming for "Barry" in 2012. You and Field Marshall will have to get used to saying President Obama for another 6 years. Oh by the way your taxes are going up in January.

____________________

kariq:

If a nickname is affectionate or neutral, it's fine. But clearly that is not your intent. If someone had persisted in calling Bush "Shrub," I would have made the same objection. I expect adults to show some level of respect, and I assumed you were one. I was clearly wrong.

____________________

niikeb:

What your seeing now is a GOTV increase in likely voters. Anything 2 or more results in a Republican house. Right now the Dems are in high gear for base mobilization. Reps are also starting GOTV, so there should be a LV increase. One thing that happens is that the party in power loses votes because any screwups or bad job #s from now till Nov 2nd (they will happen), will mobilize the other party. I thought McCain was a dead in the water loser when he won the primary, I think the Republicans take the House and the Dems hold the Senate. Neither of those are remotly risky bets at the moment.

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

stillow:

I have to call you out on some of the things you say on here. You really think Lieberman (correct spelling, Landrieu (that's how you spell her name btw), or Nelson would switch parties. No way!!!! Not after what happened to Castle, Murkowski, Grayson and the other moderates running for the Republican. Not to mention what will happen to SNowe in 2012 and would have happened to Specter in 2010 if he had remained a Republican. They will lose the primary for sure. However, all three of them have a chance in 2012. No one even knows what the environment will be like for any of them really.

____________________

Cederico:

This is a lot closer than Rasmussen usually shows but still not very favorable to DEMS. If the GOP wins the generic vote by a few points they definitely win the House.

Sen. Ben Nelson has already been asked about whether he would switch. He said absolutely not...he is running for re-election in 2012 as a Democrat. GOP Nebraska Gov. Heiman will be running for the seat in 2012 and he would wallop Nelson in GOP primary.

Landrieu and Lieberman are not going GOP either. They like Nelson are far too moderate for the Tea Party GOP. These senators all voted for the Obama's main agenda (Stimulus, healthcare reform, financial reform) and they would never be acceptable to the GOP right.

So if DEMS get 50 seats they keep control.

____________________



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