Pollster.com

Gallup's generics, like their presidential horse race polls, have always tended to have wide swings. One thing is sure: the media hasn't given this poll anywhere near the attention it did last week's poll.

Paleo;

Last week's Gallup was historic. This weeks poll puts Dems where they've been for most of the past 9 months.

Overall it's an interesting irrelevancy until Gallup shifts over to LVs.

Dems need to light a fire under their folk's butts very quickly through some new piece of legislation, event, or cause. Obama's hoping this new mini-stimulus plan will do it.

I think a Medicare buy-in option for people 55+ or eliminating payroll taxes for those making 20k/yr or less, paid for by a payroll tax on the rich (Robert Reich's suggestion) would be better ways but a mini WPA would be far better than more new tax cuts for the richest Americans (by extending the expired "temporary" tax cuts for millionaires "in need")

@Paleo

That's because CNN, NBC, ABC, and Rasmussen all had polls showing huge republican generic ballot leads. That got the news. It makes gallup appear as an outlier in this poll. Gallup generic polls are something I take with a grain of salt, as they do have these ridiculous swings.

ABC showed GOP+2 among RVs, and GOP+13 among LVs. NBC/WSJ showed a tied among RVs and GOP+9 among LVs. So, its possible that this weeks Gallup, Rasmussen, ABC and NBC/WSJ are all showing the race at approximately the same place, the GOP with a tie or slight RV lead and a big LV lead.

If people lose interest then Gallup loses traffic, so Gallup has to pretend it's a tight race.

These generic polls don't mean anything,because CNN,Ipos,Gallup,WSJ,ABC,all had the Dems up by over 12% a week before the Midterms in 2006,and the Dems only won 31 seats up from 205 to 236...In 2002 Ipos,WSJ,CNN,ABC,FOX,all had the GOP up by over 8%,the week before the Midterms,but the GOP only won 5 seats up from 224 to 229....The only oddball year was 1994 when most polls had the GOP up by only 5%,but they won 52 seats,which was very very strange,and 18 of those House races was decided by less then 2%,and 10 was decided by less then 1%...My best guess why the GOP won so many seats in 1994,was because the Minority vote was only 8% that year...In 2002 the Minority vote climb to 16% which kept the GOP from gaining over 20 seats,because the GOP had much bigger leads in the generic ballet in 2002 then they did in 1994...Most political analyst was predicting a 30 seat pickup for the GOP,because the GOP was using fear tactics like 911 to win votes in 2002..CNN had the GOP House lead increasing to over 250 seats,but it only increased from 224 to 229.

Lastweek Anthony Gonzalez asked a very good question on here,he wrote why do the Major Media always predict the GOP winning over 50 seats when they have big leads in the generic ballet? But when the Democrats have big leads in the generic ballet like they did in 2006,and 2008,the Major Media only predicts a slight gain for the Democrats....Back in 2006 the Dems had a 20% lead in the Mason-Dixon poll 1 week before the Election,and the Dems had a 40% enthusiasm gap lead in most polls,but still won only 31 seats in 2006

Why would maintaining current tax rate levels be considered a "new tax cut?" I think most Americans would see that as maintaining the status quo. It is true that most Americans wouldn't view raising tax rates on people who earn over $250,000 as a tremendous burden, but many Americans are motivated by a sense that it is unprincipled to be taxing - any people - 40% or more of their earnings.

Combined with some state income taxes and property taxes, there are well over 1,000,000 people in America that pay well over 50% of what they earn to government. And this does not even count Corporate Taxes which, in truth, are paid either by shareholders (in reduced dividends) or consumers (in higher prices for products and services).

As Ben Franklin predicted "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Right now, about 43% of the populous pays no income taxes. In 2010, it is estimated that the top 5% of income earners (folks starting at about $235,000 annual income), earn about 55% of all the income earned in the US. They pay about 80% of income taxes, 85% of corporate taxes and 40% of Payroll taxes (FICA, etc.), for a total of about 66% of all Federal taxes. IMHO, this is progressive enough.

The current Federal deficit cannot be balanced solely on the backs of this 5%. 1) it is unfair, and 2) it won't work, because the top 5% will react to attempts to tax them more by defering income, creating tax shelters, etc. Effective tax rates always end up falling between 20 and 28% on the upper half of wage earners.

Try to push it up, and the upper half of wage earners find ways around increased taxes, because taking more than roughky a quarter of what a person makes just strikes most people as confiscatory. Also, See Hausers Law (no matter the tax regime, government tax regimes always end up collecting about 19.5% of GDP). The way to raise government revenues is to raise GDP.

"Combined with some state income taxes and property taxes, there are well over 1,000,000 people in America that pay well over 50% of what they earn to government."

A typical error. You make the mistake of taking the top marginal tax rate and applying it to all the taxpayer's income. A taxpayer, who qualifies for a top rate of, say, 39%, on pays that rate on income over a certain level, say, $250,000.

@melvin

Democrat is the default U.S. party. There are consistently more registered dems than republicans. A majority of people like generic dems, but they want their version of a dem. They like the old-time conservative dems, rather than the big spenders we have today in washington. Therefore, a tie means that republicans will pick up seats. a small dem lead in the generic ballot means there will be a tie, and a greater than 5% lead means dems will pick up a few seats.

When you have a GOP 10% lead........watch out!

If you don't get what I mean, think of it this way. Dems are considered the big tent party. There are ones that are fiscally conservative, ones that are socially conservative, ones that are both, but yet oppose war, ones that aren't anti-war war but are big spenders, ones that are environmentalists, ones that are progressives, ones that....etc...etc..etc.

when you think of republicans, you have fiscally conservative members, socially conservative members, and ones who are both. however, most conservatives have similar beliefs, whereas dems are more split.

So, let's say someone from Nevada prefers a generic dem who can help bring down the deficit......but at the same time, thinks Rory Reid is too liberal. Sandoval is popular, so they will go with him.

Let's say a different person from nevada prefers generic GOP person......generic gop usually means fiscally conservative and socially conservative. Someone who prefes generic gop probably would never cross over to vote for rory reid. Does this make sense?

this is why a gop generic lead automatically means gop gains seats, but a small dem generic lead wouldn't necessarily mean that dems gain seats, because some could think the dem running is too much of a liberal. older people especially might think that way.

"his is why a gop generic lead automatically means gop gains seats, but a small dem generic lead wouldn't necessarily mean that dems gain seats, because some could think the dem running is too much of a liberal. older people especially might think that way."

This used to be the case, but I think the generic ballot no longer has that hidden republican handicap. Conservative, reagan democrats are a dying breed. There is no reason they shouldn't be republicans.

"They like the old-time conservative dems,"

You mean republicans. The "old-time" dems were mostly from the south. They were conservative. They are still conservative, but now they are republican. That process began in the 60s, it is almost fully complete now.

Another old saw from that bygone era that I still hear in the media is that Americans trust democrats more on bread and butter issues, republicans more on foreign policy. I sensed that was false in the 2004 campaign, when Kerry seemed to have the upper hand on FP and Bush seemed to hold his own on domestic issues, at least in my opinion. Before the debates everyone thought Kerry would walk away with the domestic debate. Similar phenomenon occurred in 2008. Obama overperformed expectations in the FP debate, McCain did better than expected in the domestic debate (Joe the Plumber stuff that put Obama on the defensive.) 2006 and 2008 were largely centered on reaction to the Iraq War. On domestic issues people are fairly evenly divided, or lean toward the republicans somewhat. This is possibly a reason Hillary Clinton's approval is so much higher than Obama's, and Obama gets his strongest ratings on FP issues.

It probably has to do with the simplicity of the message. Democratic domestic policy takes a lot of explaining and justifying. It used to be they had the populist message simplicity. Now republican domestic policy is easy - lower taxes, less spending on other (undesirable or undeserving) people. Done and done.

Fred,

I agree. I still think the future of the democratic party is one that is split, not the GOP. The Tea Party movement will eventually be folded into the Republicans. However, the Democratic party is far more fragmented. YOu have so many disparate groups, like minorities who are socially conservative but liberal everywhere else. Then white northern liberals who are liberal socially and fiscally, then southern conservodems who are mostly conservative on social issues and some fiscal ones. Lastly, you have your single issue groups like the enviroloons, gays/lesbians, and unions.

Each of which you have to please. Way too many moving parts to keep together when your in power. Which i think its too bad that they will lose their legislative control. I think a few more years and you would really see things unravel.

Both groups have diverse coalitions. The moderate business wing of the republicans don't have a whole lot in common with the southern evangelical Christian wing.

Most countries have 5-6 significant parties, and several smaller ones. All of our disparate groups are forced into one of the two.