Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Generic Ballot (Gallup 8/23-29)


Gallup
8/23-29/10; 1,540 registered voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)

National

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
51% Republican, 41% Democrat (chart)

 

Comments
Anthony Gonzalez:

Damn. Better start packing. The next flight to Toronto leaves in a hour. :)

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

Better start packing. The next flight to Toronto leaves in a hour. :)

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

Took the damn outta that second post, cause im nice and not vulgar. :)

____________________

Bob in SJ:

Ooof. Well, maybe this is rock bottom. Interesting how it moved in comparison to Rass, and that they're still using RVs.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

I thought Late May was rock bottom. Maybe if all things go well, well have at least 1 democrat in the House.

____________________

Dave:

Recovery summer!

____________________

Travis:

Well, I'm sure this will generate a lot of attention. LOL

Unfortunately, none of that attention will be devoted to the fact the MOE means that, statistically speaking, there was no change from last week to this week in their poll.

____________________

CompCon:

Largest republican lead in the history of Gallup polling and the democrats are still in denial. I've never seen such a bunch of ostriches in my life.

I hope all you democrats stay home on election day since every poll in the country is wrong . Democrats are going to tiptoe through the tulips to keep the house.

____________________

JMSTiger:

If this is accurate and if the election were held today, the GOP would be looking at picking up 50-60 seats in the House and taking over the Senate.

____________________

Bob in SJ:

@ Compcon

I'm not in denial. It looks bad. Could get worse. If the election were held today, the Dems would loose the house, and the Senate would be very close.

But it also could get better. And Republicans can overplay thier hands. And the Dems have lots of cash.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

CompCon, chill out my friend. I completely agree with you that Democrats are going to be crying on November 3. The only reason i can joke about it is that while the Democrats will lose in November, the Republican party will be dead by 2020. I could care less if Rasmussen came out tomorrow showing Mikulski trailing by 20 points (wouldn't surprise me tho) because at the end of the day (or decade technically), the Republicans as we now know them will be done, finished. Maybe then we can get a responsible center-right party comparable to what Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan and every other developed nation has. The USA is the only country where there is no center right party. It's center-left and far-right. By 2020 that will change and people like you with your crazy ideas wont be given two cents worth of time. That's why im not commiting suicide over Gallup's latest numbers. Even a dead cat bounces when dropped :)

____________________

Paleo:

Where we these folks a week ago when the lead in Gallup went from 7 to 3? As I said in the other thread, Obama had a bad week on Gallup, so it's not surprising that Republicans had a good one.

And remember that races are decided on an individual basis. NM-2 is generally considered one of te Democrats 10 most vulnerable seats. Yet a poll came out today showing the Dem ahead by 3:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/08/30/heinrich_teague_lead_in_new_mexico.html

____________________

nick283:

Not sure who considers that one of the ten most vulnerable, but seems like AR-2, TN-6, LA-3, WA-3, ND, SD, VA-5, both new hampshire seats OH-1, and IN-8 are all way more vulnerable, but hey if this makes you feel good...

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

Actually, Harry Teague's seat is seen as the 7th most vulnerable according to the political wizards at NBC. Here's their list: http://www.bucshonforcongress.com/content/msnbc-first-thoughts-first-reads-field-64 The actual list is on their site but for some reason it's really slow to load so here it is from a different site.

____________________

Paleo:

The Dakotas, WA-3, and both NH seats, are not considered more vulnerable than NM-2 in any ranking I've seen.

____________________

nick283:

WA-3 definitely should be. Latest SurveyUSA poll has the democrat down by 13. If you're not happy with New Hampshire, MI-1 and OH-16 are easily more vulnerable, at least if we are to believe polls.

____________________

Paleo:

SUSA had Heinrich trailing in NM-1, while the poll I cited has him ahead. SUSA has been the most Republican-friendly pollster so far this cycle. Even more so than Rasmussen.

Dems could very well lose WA-3, but it's still a district that has been held by a Democrat for over a decade, unlike NM-2.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

Profile: WA-03

Danny Heck-Cash on Hand: $707,840
Jaime Herrera-Cash on Hand: $113,839

Results-
2008 64% Baird-D 36% Delavar-R

Those are the good for the Dems. The bad is everything else pretty much.

____________________

Paleo:

The Cook PVI for NM-2 is +6 Republicans, while the PVI for WA-3 is even.

____________________

Paleo:

Also, except for the four years Linda Smith held the seat in the 1990s, it's been held by a Democrat for the last 50 years. Which is not to say that it can't flip, but that it's not in the top 10 of seats likely to flip.

____________________

nick283:

Republican share of the jungle primary vote in WA-3 this year 53.6%. Democrat share 42.6%. Latest Fundraising report I see has herrera at just over $200K, and that was from early July. Is your number more recent? Just checking.

____________________

Chantal:

Alan Abramowitz just exploded.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

My number comes from the NYTimes Political Website as of July 28. Not sure how recent yours must be but im not sure how he could be at $200K. Seems too low since he hasn't even gone full salvo with TV ads yet so im not sure whether 200K is right.

____________________

nick283:

Sorry, that was Herrera's amount. Would be up from $113K

____________________

Field Marshal:

The only reason i can joke about it is that while the Democrats will lose in November, the Republican party will be dead by 2020.

Well, the Democratic party will be dead by 2016!

____________________

Alan Abramowitz:

No, I haven't exploded. My forecasting model is already predicting big Republican gains this year, over 40 House seats right now, so this is not shocking. I do think that this is an outlier though. Average of other recent polls is closer to GOP +4-5. Even Rasmussen with his secret likely voter screen is only at R +6 right now. But midterm results have no predictive value for future elections, even the next presidential and congressional elections, so I would strongly advise against reading anything into the outcome about Obama's prospects in 2012 let alone the long-term outlook for the parties. That will depend more on the performance of the economy in the future and long-term demographic trends that do not look good for the GOP unless it changes its message.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

To Field Marshal: Oh, yes of course Democrats will be dead by 2016... wait, what? How?Demographically? Minorities are Democrats and increasing in proportion to the population, so Nope. Ideologically? Youth are more liberal than the average Americans, so nope. Okay ill admit I dont get your prognosis of the Democrat's death and I havent read Revelations. Please enlighten me on the Democrat's decline, im dying to hear your talking points.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Anthony,

The libies have been calling for the death of the GOP because of "demographics" since the 1930's. 80 years ago, the social net platform as well as the flock to the city was the reason the GOP was on the brink of extermination.

Betting on that as the future of the democratic party instead of finding better, more qualified candidates as well as toning down its anti-traditional, anti-American message will be its downfall.

____________________

nick283:

Minorities are not uniformly democrat and there is little reason to think that asians and hispanics are necessarily going to keep voting democrat by the margins they did in 2008.

Young voters voted for Obama in 2008 partially because it was cool. There is no reason to think that will continue long-term, especially as more of those young people become taxpayers, have kids etc.

Another interesting trend is the increase in the white evangelical christian vote. Rapidly increasing as a portion of the electorate indicating that white voters are likely to continue growing more conservative, but we'll see. Predictions beyond a few years are generally BS anyway. We had a lasting conservative majority in 2002 and a lasting liberal majority in 2008. Both of those ideas seem pretty dumb now.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Anthony,

I was joking when i said the democrats would decline. Personally, despite the demographics, i will bet you that party ID will remain almost identical to where it is today in 50 years with some oscillation. Youth grow up and the population is aging. Older people tend to vote GOP. Minorities, especially hispanics are slowly venturing towards the GOP in various votes as they reach middle and upper class.

Saying that one party is going to die out is ludicrous and akin to seeing the world through rose-colored glasses. But, i would encourage you to keep believing that rather than build a better political platform and coalesce the party's subgroups.

____________________

Alan Abramowitz:

Nothing is certain of course, but there is no evidence that Hispanics or African Americans or any other nonwhite group is trending Republican at all. If anything the trend has been in the opposite direction. And younger voters didn't vote for Obama because it was cool but because they are consistently more liberal in their views on social and economic issues. I don't expect the GOP to die out, however. I expect it to do what political parties eventually do when they find themselves in decline--adapt.

P.S. It's nice to see at least something approaching an intelligent debate here instead of just more partisan shouting.

____________________

nick283:

Younger are often that way and then become more conservative when they get older. For example, Dole won less than 35% of voters under 30 in 1996. In 2008, roughly the same group of voters then aged 30-44 gave 46% of their votes to McCain.

____________________

seg:

Travis:
One swallow does not make a spring, but two should at least make you wonder.

Alan Abramowitz:
"And younger voters didn't vote for Obama because it was cool but because they are consistently more liberal in their views on social and economic issues."

When I was a liberal way back when, I remember we McGovern campaign workers consoling each other with EXACTLY the same assessment. When Nixon resigned, dems triumphed. A few years later, the triumph of Reagan conservatism, which lasted all the way through Clinton and until Bush.

I also remember that back then old folks were "yellow dog democrats" who would always vote dem.

Finally, I remember when the NE and CA were strongly rep and the south was strongly dem.

The youth vote is like the joke about Brazil: "It is the country of the future and always will be."

I will add that, except for some social issues (gays) the country is considerably more conservative now than it was in the 70s. Unlike many issues, acceptance of gays is sweeping all generations now. It is not a matter of old fuddy-duddies dying out; people are changing their minds.

Dems should be concerned about two precedents:
(1) the Great Depression blighted reps for 40 yrs. If the economy keeps sinking, it could blight dems similarly.
(2) in just a few years in the 70's, the dems turned liberal into the "L-word" that it still is today. Even Obama avoided that tag. Dems are well on their way to creating the P-word for progressive.

For the reps:
You stunk up the place for 8 years. Dems have stunk it up for 2 yrs. The next iteration will get 1 yr. You better do something worthwhile when you sweep to power.

____________________

RussTC3:

LOL

Gallup has lost so much credibility. Their swings are so massive you can't help but laugh. Then again they were the only polling organization to show both McCain and Obama winning Election 2008 by double-digits.

Rasmussen is also not very good -- until of course the election season hits -- but at least they're consistent in their polling.

Gallup is all over the place that you have no choice but to ignore them. Well, ignore is probably too strong a word. I suppose if you adjust their results to their MoE (4%) you get a more accurate reflection reality: Rep 47, Dem 45.

____________________

jack:

Gallup swings wildly often. Take this with a grain of salt.

____________________

Alan Abramowitz:

Keep in mind that a big reason for Obama's strength among younger voters was that nonwhites made up a much larger proportion of that age group. And each younger cohort entering the electorate in the next 20 years will have an even larger proportion of nonwhites. So unless the GOP can increase its appeal among nonwhites, it faces a bleak future. Can it do so? Yes, but no with its current policies.

____________________

melvin:

The GOP is going to be dead by 2020...FM this is not the 1930s when the Minority vote was 0%,the Minority vote is going to be they're downfall..I just don't see how the GOP can compete after 2020,unless the voting machines start switching votes from Democrat to Republican...The GOP wont have the numbers after 2020 its just that simple...The GOP would have to get 70% of the White vote just to break even with the Democrats.

____________________

melvin:

Why don't Gallup stop saying this is the biggest lead in Generic history,because its not,the Dems had leads of 32%,20%,and 28%...This is the biggest lead Republicans ever had in the Gallup poll 2 months before the Elections..The Dems back in 2006 had a 20pt lead 2 weeks before the Elections,so this poll don't mean jack..like i said before its not about the generic poll anymore,its all about the Demographics,and the GOP is an deep trouble with the Minority vote..The Minorities only need to be 16% of the vote in Nov to stop the GOP from winning over 20 seats,back in 1994 the Minority vote was only 8% of the total vote,but most political experts are predicting the Minority vote is going to be 20% of the total vote,which is going to be very big trouble for the GOP.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

Not to belabor the point but I clearly elaborated that the Republican party of today will be dead by then. I believe that 100%. I further said that hopefully that will lead to the rise of a more responsible center-right party akin to the CDU of Germany or the Conservatives in Britain. To be fully honest, ive been shocked at the efficiency and moderation of the ruling conservatives in the UK. They seem to think only about the welfare of the British people and though they are center-right, nobody can argue that they are in the pocket of big business, big oil, the wealthy and the oligarchs. In America, our center-right party is a far-right party bent on using wedge issues and religious distortion to pass a radical agenda of wealth redistribution, but to the rich! Call the Democrats whatever you like but the Republicans are unarguably the anti-Robin Hoods. The agenda of tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts is not only shallow but it is ignorant and irresponsible. The argument that Government is too big but we need to monitor every pregnancy so abortion doesn't happen and we need to inspect every bedroom to make sure gays arent trying to build families is ironic, hypocritical and outdated. The Republican party of today is an outdated party. 70% of youth support gay marriage. By your logic all of those youths will blow out their 40th birthday candles and suddenly realize gay marriage is bad. I dont buy that. Just like many in the 1980s grew to believe in the naivete of conservatism, the current generation believes and will believe in a more liberal, globalistic approach to the world, no matter how much that pains you to believe. Im not a ideology that walks in lockstep with Democrats. I would gladly vote for an alternative to the current administration that seems to have lost its "aura". But given the choice between current Democrats and current Republicans, i would never, ever consider voting for a Republican. Im not the only person who feels that way and if the Republican party does not address it, then will be dead by 2020, on that you can bet on.

____________________

melvin:

Because of the Demographic change this year the GOP will need to be up by 12% to win back the House come Election day...The GOP was up by 5% in 1994,but the Minority vote was only 8%,that's why they gain bigtime,but in 2002 the GOP was up by 5% in only gain 5 seats,because the Minority vote shot up to 14%,which stopped the GOP from gaining almost 40 seats..Go check it out right-wingers before your heads get to big...The GOP by 2014 will need a 16pt lead to win over 40 seats,the Demographics is going to kill they're party in they don't even know it....The media is not talking about this major problem facing the Republican party in the near future..I went back in did alot of math in the numbers dont look good at all for the GOP..So what if the Dems lose a few seats this Nov,because the future looks so bright for the Democrats all because of the Minority vote,which the Democrats controls bigtime.

____________________

melvin:

When the GOP only gains between 20-25 seats this November all you right-wingers are going to be saying what happened?..ILL tell you what happened the day after the Elections.

____________________

cmbat:

Senate will be:

Dems 54
Republicans 44
Indies 2

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

54 Democrats is maybe a bit optimistic. Id say 52 Democrats and 2 independents is probably my guess. If Sestak and Fisher stop sucking maybe 55 and if Bennet or Giannoulias survive, then maybe 56. If Marshall surprises, and either Conway, Carnahan, Hodes, Crist, or hell, McAdams wins, then the Democrats are the luckiest SOB's on the planet :)

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

I will say that those who think this General Ballot means anything have to look at history. Remarkably Reagan was in exactly the same shape Obama is in now. A weak economy and a general ballot that in October 1982 showed the Democrats with an 18 point lead. An 18 point lead!!!! He even had a 42% approval rating comparable to Obama 43%. That Dem-advantage only got the Dems 27 seats however. And Reagan left office with a 64% approval rating a naive movement that some idiots still admire to this day. In 1994, the Dems were behind by 1point and lost 50+. General ballot means nothing beyond hatred towards the national government. Everyone hates congress but loves their congressman.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Alan A,

"I don't expect the GOP to die out, however. I expect it to do what political parties eventually do when they find themselves in decline--adapt."

And it seems to be doing just that. To the tune of the largest generic ballot lead ever. In over 60 years of polling. And if this week's sample is an outlier, the poll two weeks ago was all time record at the time. Gallup never had GOP at over five point lead in 60 years. So it's adapting pretty well. How? Sharp right. The more right it veers, the better it polls.

GOP had both champers for 12 years from 94 to 06. That was unprecedented. Bush took it to a mushy middle by not being a staunch fiscal conservative. Mushy middle didn't win any converts for GOP, but it did lose them some of the base. Iraq was the final nail in 06.

As an aside, the trend is good, as more voters self-identify as conservatives than ever.

Proof is in the polls, baby.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

To Polly, Please read my above post. Short term political gain does not make up for long term political suicide. You cant honestly say the Republicans will have a generic ballot lead in 2012 can you? Of course not because that's when regular Americans vote and the fringe crazies lose their power. The Republicans aren't popular whatsoever. In fact, they're less popular than the Democrats. Don't be brainwashed into believing the Republicans have gained their mojo back. They've managed to use wedge issues and a fizzling economic recovery to their political advantage in the short term. Chances are very likely that the current situation the R's are exploiting will backfire in 2012.

____________________

StatyPolly:

I've read your previous post, Anthony. It's mostly obnoxious, and exhibits a complete lack of understanding of how generic ballot predicts House elections.

You latest post is better, and yes, today I cannot predict generic ballot in 2012. On the other hand, I am certain that BObama, while he may end up winning, will never again be anywhere near as hot as he was in 08. You won't dispute this, will you?

Dem party as a whole, is gonna have to do a 180 on it's agenda, in order to regain voters confidence. It's the only way.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

This was a bad week for the Democrats. I highly doubt if Rasmussen's generic was 6, that Gallup must have also underpolled Democrats. Gallup varies so much week to week, as do many of these Generic polls. I think they are a lot of hot air if you ask me.

I think all trends of past elections are void this year. 3 weeks ago we thought Lisa Murkowski and Bill Mccullum would be the GOP's respective nominees in their states. That did not happen. Likewise, I think the country has gone so mad, who knows what will happen?

Democrats who are losing hope in Obama better get busy and get active, because they will have a huge bloodbath on their hands this fall otherwise.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Melvin is right. 2010 might be the last right wing storm that just may gain momentum. The tactics and the ideas will be so horrifying if these Tea party and conservative governors get in power, that they will cause such a stir, that down the road in the next elections, the younger voters and minority voters will wake up and realize they made a mistake by not voting and taking 2010 seriously.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

I agree Obama has probably lost the divine status (apparently that's moved to Glenn Beck). Then again, i supported Hilary Clinton in the primary knowing full well that Obama would not do what he promised and what he did would be done in a rudimentary, non-political way ensuring his political death. As i feared President Obama has fallen victim to the bipartisanship bug believing full well that all we need is Sugar, Spice, Bipartisanship and everything nice. For such a smart guy, he made his largest mistake when he signed up to the idea. But Obama does not mean the Democratic party. The democratic party would have won in 2008 whether Obama had been the nominee or not. The linking of Obama's demise to the demise of the Democratic party is extremely immature imo. The democratic agenda has not become some far left conspiracy. In fact Obama's biggest drop in support has been from disenchanted liberals. How the Democratic Party's current problems somehow equate with its long term viability is moot. The Democratic party has been gaining in the long term the support of the fastest growing segments of our society. Hispanics, Blacks, Muslims, Asians, Gays, and Youth. Can you deny that? Can you honestly say the long term demographic changes benefit Republicans without going into that crap of people turning conservative when they turn 40? There is not one single indicator in the Republican's favor as to their long term viability. And if they choose to go far right in 2012, theyll be dead by 2014. And i say this as a person not partisan at all. If given a responsible center right party, i might even be tempted to vote for it about now :)

____________________

StatyPolly:

Anthony, in a democratic system no party will have any sort of a permanent majority. Things change and move around. Blacks voted overwhelmingly GOP before 1960's. Italian and Irish immigrants voted Dem for a couple of generations. Texas and the rest of the South was solid Dem, and CA, VT, IL were solid GOP not that long ago. Look at this map.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1976.svg

Young people DO get more conservative as they age, and Hispanics will also get more conservative as they assimilate and gain wealth. I can't predict which party will cater to which constituency, but most people will continue to vote with their own economic interests first and foremost.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"80 years ago, the social net platform as well as the flock to the city was the reason the GOP was on the brink of extermination."

This doesn't make much sense, since 80 years ago, it was people from rural areas voting democrat, particularly the rural south. Business-minded people in the cities voted republican, except for cities like Chicago with democratic machines. Look at a PA election map from 1968, for example, to see the reversal that's taken place. Philly suburbs used to be staunch republican country, while the southwestern part of the state was staunchly democratic.

Plus, from 60s to the 80s, people fled the cities for the suburbs & exurbs, leaving the inner cities to the poor. They started returning in the late 80s, 90s, changing the character of many cities.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

To Statypolly: Oh, so its in the economic well interest of poor White Alabama farmers to oppose Healthcare Reform and Social Security? No sir. People dont vote out of economic interest. If they did only the top 2% in the USA would vote Republican. Cultural wedge issues and petty scandals (Jeremiah Wright, Liberation Theology, Mosque, Pirates, Katrina, Oil Spills, etc, etc) mask any economic interest so that every election is based not on economic fact but on petty culture wars. This year will be different of course because the economy is clearly out of step and it is very obvious that the recovery is floundering not to mention midterm election history. But in two years when the recovery revs up, we'll be back to Abortion, Stem Cell Research, Gay Marriage, and Terri Schiavo like events in a snap. Saying people vote out of economic self-interest is broad and very politically astute on your part, but dead wrong. 2) Hispanics wont assimilate if the Republicans dont let them and if they do assimilate they wont forget about which party was on their side. You correctly brought up the fact that blacks were GOP supporters till the 1960s. You disingenously left out why. Because the GOP became the party of an anti-black social mantra. Not because of economics, but because of cultural isolation. 3) The map doesn't mean anything. What do you see changing in the next 20 years? Where do you see conservatism gaining ground from 1980 to 2030. Colorado is becoming more liberal by the year. As is Virginia and North Carolina, and Nevada, and New Mexico. If the Republicans survive they do it by becoming center-right instead of far-right and cementing a new hold on Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Without those 3 states and given the future loss of the 5 states afforementioned, the Republican party will have no chance to win and will therefore be dead for all intensive purposes.
PS-In 1976, a party realignment was occurring whereby the South was leaving the pro-black Democratic party and joining the more intolerant R's. All 1976 shows you is the beginning stage of a change in political strongholds created by cultural and social issues. What realignment do you see happening by 2030? 20 years isnt that far away. I see the R's dead in 10 years. Surely Alabama wont be ardently blue then, will it? Thanks for giving me evidence to argue my point btw. Im glad you at least elaborate on your points instead of the typical conservative bullcrap most of your political friends write on here. Cheers to intelligent argument my friend :)

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Italian and Irish immigrants voted Dem for a couple of generations."

It was more like 100 years. The democratic grip on the Irish Catholics has only subsided in the last few decades. Irish Catholics were strongly democratic from their early days in the mid to late 19th century through Kennedy.

"Young people DO get more conservative as they age,"

People say this because the baby boomers *appeared* to get more conservative, and they are the dominant generation now. Although they as a whole were never that liberal. There were just very loud liberal minority elements, esp in the 60s and 70s.

There is a strong body of work that indicates this is not true. Rather, people that come of age during conservative eras tend to be more conservative throughout their lives and vice versa. The boomers were polarized in the 1960s and they remain that way.

Furthermore, the notion of "conservative" changes. When today's 65 yr-olds were 18 (1963), it was not "conservative" to support Martin Luther King, like Glen Beck does. Polls from 1963 indicate most of the public saw him as a rabble-rouser and the (moderate) conservative position was a very slow, gradual integration process. Conservative democrats supported segregation.

At least with my family, no one has become more conservative. My uncle was a liberal in the 60s, still is. My dad was a conservative, still is. My mom was moderate, still is.

Psychological, sociological, and marketing research also backs this up. Generally, people are set in their ways by the time they hit their early 30s. It's extremely hard to change fundamental worldviews or prejudicial beliefs after that. Why do you think the most coveted group advertisers want to reach are teenagers and young adults? You build your preferences between ages 15-30.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Here's a couple articles refuting the age-conservatism relationship.

From 1974:

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/415/1/176.abstract

from 2008:

http://www.livescience.com/health/080310-liberal-seniors.html

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

What will happen in the future wrt to the parties is obviously all very speculative speculation ;)

Republicans started out being very liberal (1860s-70s), then more conservative, then liberal again (1890s-1900s), then conservative again (1920s). They were moderate for the most part from the 1930s-1960s, when the conservative wing began to take control again, and they still have it, despite both Bushes, neither of whom were doctrinaire conservatives.

A realignment will probably happen when the baby boom begins to die off, which won't start to happen until the 2020s. Who knows what the issues will be by then.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

Strangely, i was listening to a radio program called Coast to Coast a few months back and they had a guest talking about how generations change the political realignment of the nation for years. According to the scholar, the USA worked in 50 year cycles. Namely that every 50 years, America has seemed to alter drastically its political orientation. According to him, the USA will remain a center-right nation from 1980 to 2030 as it was center-left from 1930 to 1980 and how it had been center-right again from 1880 to 1930, etc, etc. Wish I could give you an article. Very interesting theory tho.

____________________

CompCon:

@melvin: "Why don't Gallup stop saying this is the biggest lead in Generic history"

Because they're white.

____________________

havoc:

Melvin

lets do a little thought experiment. Could it be any thing other than demos that caused the Gop to GAIN fewer seats in 02 than 94 with the same generic lead?

Come on man think. You can do it. I know its hard for you believe but it has nothing to do with race.

Think.......

Ok I'll help you out. Think starting point. Youve got to be kidding me man.

____________________

havoc:

A couple thoughts on demographics.

Remember when white women would never vote for the Gop.

Conservitive families have more children then Liberal families do.

Bush won 44% or 46% of the latino vote way back in ancient history 2004. And before you libs think "thats just because of the cuban vote" Bush won a majority of Latinos in Texas in 1998.

100 years from now the largest single demographic in US elections will be White people.

As the Latino vote grows it marginalizes the black vote. How long before resentment in party influence leads to decline in support. Dems cant continue to pander to everything they think certain minorities want and expect to get 90%+ of the black vote. For example how does amnesty play in the black populace. How does Gay marrige play among the black population. How does the ground zero mosque play among the black population.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Exactly right Havoc. Instead of focusing on good policy with good mainstream candidates, the liberals are *hoping* for demographic changes to keep their majorities. In the meantime, they are losing the largest demo, whites.

Secondly, given budget constraints, its going to be very difficult for the dems to pander for the purchase of ethnic and other subgroups' votes in the future. The Dem party is based on pandering; pandering to minorities, to unions, to gays, to enviroloons, (the list is endless). With a budget deficit soaring, its going to be extremely difficult to keep this up meaning that they will start losing some of these subgroups support.

____________________

CompCon:

I would be ecstatic is there was no republican party left by 2020 - as long as there was no democratic party left by 2018.

There is nothing worse in the world than a republican - except a democrat.

melvin: does your teacher know you are posting on the internet during school? You're going to get called down to the principal's office if you keep that up.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Conservitive families have more children then Liberal families do."

This is largely a myth. The richer a society gets, the fewer children it has. The white demographic as a whole is barely reproducing at replacement level. We would probably have a declining population like Europe if not for hispanics and immigration contributing to most of our growth. The under 5 population is only about 50% white, compared to the over 65 generation that is about 80% white.

____________________

havoc:

Aaron:

True: Those whites who are reproducing are by and large conservitive. If you dont believe me then head to an evangelical church and watch families go in. Then head to the local starbucks (or where ever lib whites hang out) and compare family size.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"As the Latino vote grows it marginalizes the black vote."

You're assuming the two groups are at odds with each other. I don't think they are. People used to say that they were opposed to each other in the 2008 primary, it proved to be untrue.

"For example how does amnesty play in the black populace. How does Gay marrige play among the black population. How does the ground zero mosque play among the black population."

Who knows? The fact is that the racial gaps have existed in more or less the same form since 1988, despite all the changes in issues since then. The only thing that's changed is their relative stregnth and the movement of Asians from republican to democrat. Other races have maintained a fairly stable level of support. The whites are the most stable group, voting within 54-59 for republicans or right-leaning independents (perot) and between 39-43% for democrats. Very little movement among that group in the last 25 years. Obama isn't turning off any more white people that weren't turned off by Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, or Kerry.

So far, 2004 is an outlier as far as hispanic support. Although thinking about that you should wonder what made George W. Bush more popular with them? Think his immigration stance had anything to do with it? As governor he was well-liked by hispanics as well...he was always a dove on immigration.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"If you dont believe me then head to an evangelical church and watch families go in."

I was going to mention that. Problem is there's a general decline in religiosity among the population as a whole that mutes the effects of people like the Duggars. SOME evangelical churches are very large, but church attendance nationwide is indisputably declining, particularly among younger people.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

I love how the Democrats on here work: We post detailed analysis or intellectual rants with facts and get no counterargument. The Republicans wait until Melvin's all alone then all attack his grammar. It only shows the R's empty rhetoric that they have to gain up and personally attack someone to claim victory in discussions. Then again isn't that how they've worked for years? Since they can't stand up to the Democratic coalition, they use wedge issues and culture wars to divide the nation so they can beat up on the daily pariah. Who's the pariah today Republicans: Feminist grannies in Boca Raton, crippled Jews in Detroit? Before you attack Melvin's grammar, go take a look at 95% of your base in the the South. Im sure their grammatical genius rivals that of Capote, huh?

____________________

seg:

Aaron:
Great posts. I have read the same analyses, and you can certainly see an association when the generic poll is broken down by age group.

On the other hand, if there was a wave of like-minded conservatives or liberals going through and the effect was important, I would think you would see larger differences.

Question: Did the comparisons include every decade for many decades, or did it simply compare the age cohorts at two points in time? If so, you have the strong possibility of confounding with other things that might affect current views by age. Such coincidences always plague associations involving cyclic phenomena.

For example, the oldest group is now the most pro rep when their parents were the most pro dem. Is that because one wave of oldsters passed on and another with different loyalities filled the age group? Or could it be that the issues changed from when they were young in a way that affects them now. My parents went from strongly dem to vehemently rep over the single issue of Obamacare. Why? Because they are already having trouble getting doctors to see them because of the very low payments by Medicare (they also are embarrassed that the docs lose money when treating them). Second, Obama cuts $500B from Medicare Advantage and other programs (the sole source of the alleged "savings" from Obamacare other than new taxes). Add to that Obama's serial incredibly insensitive comments about his grandmother, and you have an enduring issue. Remember, old folks feel they earned their retirement but know very well that younger people actually carry the burden. They also know that end of life medical care is hugely expensive. It is completely rational for them to fear that the government would favor insidious policies that would amount to relative neglect. In fact, Rahm's brother and others have published papers arguing that is only rational to allocate medical care more to the young to those at the end of their lives. That may be true, but it is omininous if you depend on the government.

It has been true since FDR that benefits to the retired and disabled is the 3rd rail of American politics, whoever is foolish enough to grab it. In the past dems used social security to tarnish reps with retired folks. Now they are being hurt by their own actions.

I think there are also issues that affect other age groups. Those under 30 will be hit with huge costs for medical insurance due to Obamacare because it forces insurance companies to level costs across age groups in a way that forces younger folks to pay far more than they receive (unless they receive large subsidies). It will be about 3 years before they are hit with it, assuming the reps don't stop it. Could they turn against the dems if it stays in place? Stay tuned.

Similarly, students will soon be dealing almost exclusively with the feds on student loans. Will that buy their loyalty or convince them that the feds are chronic f**kups? Stay tuned.

Finally, as I write about every now and again, for many reasons I believe that preferential treatment by race, however benign the intent, should be ended in favor of preferential treatment based on income. Dems will never agree to that because it is the sole "gift" they have left for blacks and one of two for Latinos. Without racial preferences or a return to perpetual welfare, I think you would find that black support for dems would shrink rapidly over time.

I am not saying that blacks like needing the racial preferences or prefer to be on welfare, but they are not stupid. They see them as things they may well need at some point and that those close to them need now.

Finally, why did Italians and others support dems so strongly in the dem century of supporting state racism? Coincidence? I really do not know. Perhaps it had more to do with the fact that patronage jobs in big cities were controlled by dem party bosses or dem union bosses. Is that a possibility? If so, that carrot really does not exist today in big cities. Patronage and union jobs are still dominated by whites, usually those who live outside the city. Furthermore, it is becoming more urgent over time to reduce the numbers and total costs of public employees. Their pension and medical costs will bankrupt every large city and every blue state in the country. When the total compensation is greatly reduced, they will become mostly black and Latino, but the jobs will not be such sinecures.

____________________



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