Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Generic Ballot (Gallup, Rasmussen 8/16-22)

Topics: National , poll

National

Gallup
8/16-22/10; 1,600 registered voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
47% Republican, 44% Democrat (chart)


Rasmussen
8/16-22/10; 3,500 likely voters, 2% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
47% Republican, 38% Democrat (chart)

 

Comments
gabe:

Well this spread is not that surprising. I thought the Gallup polls among RV's exaggerated the GOP lead a little bit. However, that said I expect among those who plan and will vote in November the GOP has a far larger lead like RR shows.

____________________

In the WA general election preview vote this past Tuesday, there was no difference between Dems and Republicans in 'enthusiasm.' If anything, Democrats were more enthusiastic, since they had nothing to vote for, but still turned out in very high numbers, while Republicans, who had a spirited primary, didn't really register any great numbers.

I think this so-called 'enthusiasm' gap is limited to the GOP South, where the teaparty middle-aged white rednecks are the largest majority of voters.

____________________

CUWriter:

Nothing to vote for? Washington has a jungle primary system; had Murray supporters not shown up at all the Nov. race would have been between Rossi and Dider.

____________________

CompCon:

@gabe:

"I thought the Gallup polls among RV's exaggerated the GOP lead a little bit. "

No - gallup polls among RV's traditionally understate the GOP lead by 5 to 8 points compared to their likely voter model. That puts both of these polls within the margin of error of each other.

____________________

nick283:

nelcon, I admire your optimism in the face of reality, but things in Washington don't look great for the Democrats. Its pretty clear Republicans are going to win the 3rd district, in which the D got 64% last time. The senate race looks pretty even. Republican candidates got more votes than Democrat candidates, granted the margin is razor thin and could even change before they are done counting.

Keep in mind, this is a state the Obama won by 17% on his way to winning by 7% nationally, and Patty Murray has been brining pork to the state for years. The fact that Republicans are doing this well, bodes pretty ill for Democrats.

____________________

Mogando669:

I dunno where you get this info from (maybe some random blog i dunno about, either anecdotal or a real poll), but think for a second - people who even bother showing up at primaries are always the base, which is always enthusiastic anyway. It's the enthusiasm of the "occasional voter" that swings a close election or even throws things totally out of control (like Scott Brown winning MA).

The fact that we're even discussing WA, CA, IL, and WI this cycle bodes poorly for dems. I still remember 2 years ago when the discussion was upon flipping ND, SD, IN, and NC. What a drastically different set of states!

My current guess is 46 worst case scenario for R, around 47.5 expected, and 49 best case scenario. The true "wave" shows up in the House and Gov contests instead.


"In the WA general election preview vote this past Tuesday, there was no difference between Dems and Republicans in 'enthusiasm.'"

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Considering the bad week of misinformation and mass hysteria against the president whom many think isn't an American, I would say Democrats trailing by 3 points is better than expected.

I think that turnout among Republicans will be huge, but I think turnouts among moderate and progressive Democrats will be excited to vote in November too.

Of course you have the 35 percent the most conservative of Americans who most of whom will vote, ad the 30 percent of Center/left folks will show up, I think a lot of the success of the GOP will come down to how many Pure independents show up and are excited to vote.

This could very likely make Democratic losses not as bad as polls say. We are active and doing everything we can to contribute and volunteer, and I think the GOP won't do as well as expected.

____________________

Juan Chin:

Nelcon: YOU SAID IT BEST! So keep it up because it burns the righties on this website up!!!

____________________

nick283:

I understand what you liberals are going through. Its the same thing we went through in 2006. All the polls showing our guys losing... not believing it could really be true.

Dont worry, this will give you plenty of good targets for 2016 when Romney, Daniels or Christie is running for reelection.

____________________

Field Marshal:

All I need to see is that Congressional Quarterly moved the WA race to a tossup from leans Dem. Additionally, they shifted CA and WI to tossup as well. THAT has to burn the lefties on this website up!!!

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003725329&mp=Most_Viewed

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I actually don't care for huge sunami elections and I think it is always a huge shock for the country to move in one direction too quickly. 1994 was a horrible year for the Democrats and it was not easy working out differences. I think that is when the bitter lack of bi-partisan got worse. 1996-2000 were years that were good for both parties.

Even though Bush barely won Florida, Democrats picked up 5 senate seats. 2002 Bush was popular do to America's patriotism and the attacks, that Democrats sort of felt cheated that we weren't able to get big gains in the house and senate. We did win some governors races in many states.

2006 and 2008 made the GOP angrier and more bitter, and I would actually preferred Democrats taking control of the house and congress in 2004 and seen a slow decline of GOP control.

The era between 1980-1988 Democrats had some very good years despite the fact Reagan won big in 1984. The bi-partisanship was there, and there were fewer extremes.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Democrats had some tossup seats on some polls that the GOP won in 2006 and 08. Kyl, Mcconnell and Saxby all had shots at losing, but it was less likely because they are redder states. I predict the dems will get CA, CT, WA and IL and the GOP will probably keep LA and KY

____________________

@nick283: It's laughable that you can find a silver lining out of the WA results for Republicans. Murray slaughtered Rossi by more than 13 points -- not too far off Obama's margin of 17 and way ahead of Gregoire's massacre of Rossi by 7 points last time.

Keep using those rose-colored glasses; maybe you'll find other contests that look good for you.

And just for the record, it's a myth that in WA top 2 primary, you add up all the Republican votes and all the Democratic votes to get a general election total. In 2008, Rossi + other Republican votes outpolled Gregoire + other Democratic votes in losing the primary by just 2 points (48-46). In the general, Rossi picked up -- nothing! -- and ended with his same 46%. Gregoire added a massive additional 6% and won the general by 180,000 votes 54-46.

Are your glasses still showing a rose tint for Republicans after hearing real facts?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I saw part of that debate on CSPAN. Gregoire is an amateur compared to Patty Murray. Maybe Murray can win this year and ROssi can try to defeat their other woman Maria Cantwell.

____________________

Dave:

nelcon: Even die hard liberals like the people at SSP say that you add up votes in jungle primaries to get a decent idea of how the election is looking. You look ridiculous with this "slaughtering" nonsense.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

@nick283;
In oreder to run for re-election, don't you have to be elected first?
Or do you plan to steal the 2012 election like you did 2000?

____________________

AlanSnipes:

@nick283:

In order to run for re-election, don't you have to be elected first?
Or do you plan to steal the election of 2012 like you did 2000?
You won't be able to steal it, it won't be close enough to!

____________________

Dave:

Alan: I know this is going to be a hilarious conversation, but please explain how the 2000 election was stolen?

____________________

@Dave: Well, since the 2008 WA primary was the only modern "jungle primary", and adding up the Dems and the Reps didn't match the final results in that year, I'd say your citation of pundits that match your rose-colored glasses simply makes you wrong.

Rossi+ other Republicans outpolled Gregoire+ other Democrats in the 2008 WA "Jungle Primary." Guess what? Rossi got ZERO additional percentage votes and Gregoire went on to slaughter him in the general.

And by the way, I believe that the Dino Rossi that ran THIRTEEN points behind Sen. Murray last Tuesday in this year's WA Jungle Primary may actually be the same guy who didn't get any additional votes in 2008. Or do your rose-colored glasses think it's a different Dino Rossi?

____________________

AlanSnipes:

Dave:
You have to learn to research facts. I know it is difficult for you. If I have to explain it to you then that means you don't know how to do research, which of course means you are a right winger.
You assumed that your side will win the election of 2012, just like your side assumed it would beat Clinton in 1996 after the Democrats lost control of congress in 1994.
So, I was wondering how you would win the election of 2012 when you haven't nominated a candidate yet.
There is an old saying in politics that you can't beat someone with no one, and looking at the list of potential Republican candidates in 2012, no one has a great chance of being nominated.

____________________

Dave:

Alan, I wasn't the one making comments about 2016. I was the one asking how the 2000 election was "stolen". And you've done a fantastic job of ducking the question.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ nelcon1551

You are whistling past the graveyard if you think conservative voter enthusiasm is limited to the "redneck tea party GOP South". Even if it were, there are 33 held Democratic seats in the South/border states alone that are competative, many of which are already lost by the Dems.

As for your comments about the South and the Tea Party, you are fairly ignorant. The Tea Party does not originate in the South. In fact, it is probably far more popular in places like the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains states than here. The Tea Party movement is libertarian at its core. Libertarianism has never been popular in the South. That is one reason Rand Paul is not doing better in Kentucky. Many conservative Southerners get far more animated over cultural issues than they do economic or size of government questions and that is what drives the Tea Party. Nice try though.

____________________

Fred:

really? seriously? alan, would you have really wanted Gore / Lieberman in the white house? Dems don't seem to like Lieberman, and Gore is in the middle of scandal all the time. You're also lucky that Kerry / Edwards didn't win, because of what Edwards did. Really, you should be thankful that Bush won two terms. Without him, your boy Obama probably wouldn't be in the White House right now.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I liken the Bush stole the 2000 election to the people who say ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama- both are crazy.

____________________

CompCon:

FM: Don't forget - Bush also stole the 2004 election because a bunch of voting machines were made by Diebold and there were some people who at one time worked for Diebold that might have voted for Republicans more than democrats and those people might have known other people who worked for Diebold who might have known how to reprogram the voting machine computers so that they might have counted votes for republicans that were actually cast for democrats even though the machines didn't know one from the other and they were set randomly.

There. That proves it beyond a doubt. Bush stole the 2004 election.

____________________

Bob in SJ:

Minor election fraud is a natural outcome of the system. Most of the time, each side cancels the other out, but there are occasions, like 2000, where the errors and inconsistancies matter because the margin is so close. That being said, there was very likely not any systemic fraud in favor of Bush in 2000

____________________

melvin:

FM: Nobody said Bush stole the Election,the liberals was upset, because the Supreme Court stop the recount,so you can say the Supreme Court gave Bush the Election...Bush was selected not Elected in 2000.

____________________



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