Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Generic Ballot (Gallup, Rasmussen 5/3-5/8)

Topics: Generic House Vote , National

National

Gallup
5/3-8/10; 1,600 registered voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)

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


Rasmussen
5/3-8/10; 3,500 likely voters, 2% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
44% Republican, 38% Democrat (chart)

 

Comments
Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Registered voters versus likely voters. Isn't that the question? I tend to think that the likely voter scenario is more accurate for primaries rather than general elections.

If I were an incumbent Republican, I might be concerned because clearly they've lost the support of their base. If you're a Democrat, you're simply trying to get your base out to the polls.

I think the registered voter polls are going to prove to be more accurate for the general, with the exception of Fox's polls (biased outlier).

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Was Rasmussen around in 1994? Most people are using 1994's generic results as a baseline for their projections, but I believe Gallup was the one that tracked it then.

____________________

lat:

Well now with Elena Kagan looking like she is going to be our next Supreme Court Justice The GOP will fail again. And our good nazi friend Rush Limbaugh said today that he is upset that there are no longer any protestants on the court? Sorry you pill popping nazi fool if that doesn't sit well with you. Yup attention disciples of Rush (Herman Goering) Limbugh your next justice will be a gay jewish woman! I cannot wait to see people like Jeff (I left my sheets in the laundry) Sessions go absolutely berserk over this. It will be fun to watch!

____________________

Field Marshal:

lat,

You are obviously an anti-Semitic bigot and a racist by writing that.

I find it hilarious how the left bemoaned Harriet Meirs' almost appointment to the supreme court due to her lack of judicial experience but somehow now support Kagan. Very interesting.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Comparing Rush Limbaugh to a Nazi is understandable. He clearly embraces the ideas of white seperatisim.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I am sure that if Kagan is a lesbian you won't hear it publicly by just Rush Limbaugh, I am sure those good godly Senators like Kyle, Sessions and Coburn will grill her on it too.

____________________

Huda:

well Field Marshal, I don't recall Harriet Miers having any legal background and experience in either government or in a Court of law. Neither the Conservative nor the Liberal judicial and legal experts have ever considered Miers an intellectual weight or a legal scholar, something Kagan is and proven through out her career. There is a reason Miers was nicknamed, Bush'a cleaning lady and denigrated even among Conservative intellectuals and judicial groups.

Historically, America did select non-judges to the SC by looking at someone's qualification in the academic and political world. Its only been since the 1970s the tradition was stopped. Kagan is in good company with among the best in our history.

Anyway, pertaining to this generic poll, I'm thinking the facts is somewhere in between, closer to Gallup results.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Huda,

How is Kagan an intellectual weight? She hasnt done a thing except write about how military recruiters should be banned from Harvard and how the first amendment should be curtailed?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-01/the-next-harriet-miers/full/

____________________

Field Marshal:

"Comparing Rush Limbaugh to a Nazi is understandable. He clearly embraces the ideas of white seperatisim."

Here we go again! The lunatic fringe is out in full force today!

And Barack Obama is clearly a NAZI too since he clearly hates white people.

____________________

Huda:

FM, its extremely rare for many of our SC Judges to have much of a paper trail from a legal rendering, unless they have been on the bench for decades. I remember many arguing against Thomas and Alito for their lack of legal and intellectual depth. However, in the case of Kagan, the only negative impact is that she was never a sitting judge in any court of law, which is something unique in the latter part of the 20th century to the 21st.

However, Kagan is the first Solicitor General of the United States, having been nominated by President Obama on January 26, 2009, and confirmed by the Senate on March 19, 2009. Kagan was also, dean of Harvard Law School and Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law at Harvard University. She had been a professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School. During the administration of President Bill Clinton, Kagan served as Associate White House legal Counsel.

Its one thing to argue she does not have much of a controversial legal paper trail on all the hot button issues because she never sat on the bench, only defended the government on cases pertaining to terrorism or argued for her clients in the past; but she is qualified for what she's been nominated for.

____________________

Travis:

Field Marshall,

Apparently, you've forgotten that Harriet Miers bombed her interviews with the Senators during her rounds on the Hill, causing Republican Senators, who were already questioning Miers' bona fides, to publicly revolt against Bush's choice.

So, Republican Senators pulled the plug on Miers because she confirmed during her interviews what everyone expected -- that Miers was not qualified for the job.

The same won't happen with Kagan. Why? Because she's taught the law, worked in policy, and has served as the US Solicitor General. Because she's gone toe-to-toe with intellectual legal heavyweights, and they've come away impressed with her intellect. Because in this White House, the President is an attorney (not a business exec.) and former law teacher and the Vice President is an attorney (and intimately involved in the process of choosing a nominee), and even the First Lady is an attorney. People who have worked so intimately with the law would never put forth someone who is incapable of thriving in a position that is held with especially high esteem among legal scholars.

Bottom line: The Miers comparison is absurd. But, that will become apparent as the trajectory Kagan takes is decidedly different from the one Miers' nomination took.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Travis,

I do recall that and remember thinking that she was not qualified. The same as Kagan in my opinion. Being an administrator at a University makes one qualified for the bench how exactly?

If you consider being a tenured professor qualifications for the SC, then how does Meirs' nearly 30 years practicing law, clerking for a federal judge, first female president of the Texas Bar, and a former city councilwoman.

I'm just trying to ascertain the reasoning here. I already know the answer by the way.

The comparison is only absurd in your mind because since Kagan was nominated by a Dem, she's okay, but if Bush has nominated her, you would be on here with the same bogus arguments.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Remember Travis, Kagan has no scholarly writings so how is she toe-to-toe with the intellectual heavyweights? I'm not saying she isn't bright, far from it, but i cannot understand how you reach that conclusion based on her experience.

____________________

Huda:

I believe the left have a better argument against Kagan, specially during her tenor as 1st female SG for the US government. Her arguments in defense of state secrecy and expansion of executive power in the court hold troubling sign for any legitimate constitutionalists/civil libertarians. No one with any intellectual honesty or legal depth will ever challenge her qualification. If Bush nominated her, no one would have challenged her on the merit. Its one thing to play political partisan, its another to nominate a legal joke, which is what Mier was.

____________________

Field Marshal:

LOL.

Yeah, a person with Meirs' qualifications couldn't bag my groceries! What's the old saying? Those who can't do, teach. Man does that apply well to Kagan and Obama for that matter!

Obama is just trying to win back the Jewish vote which has abandoned him (probably because he's a NAZI) and the gay vote which is also starting to lose faith in him. For Obama, its all about buying off votes; governing and doing the right thing is secondary. That's what happens with on-the-job training.

____________________

Huda:

wow FM, whenever I think you are a worthy conservative to discourse with, you use the right wing idiots analogy with hyperbole nonsense. Obama is a Nazi? Can you guys come up with a better historical framework instead of the same old sad cliche that makes you look like a clueless inept trying to play with the big boys?

Since Jewish American approve of Obama between 70 -59% according to the latest poll from Gallup to the Economist, its kinda hard to spread the mythical message of Jews hating Obama. For one it argues a racist point of view that says Jewish American only loyalty is to Israel and not to their country of birth, where most of them live, defend and die in. Another thing, even Israelis don't consider Obama their enemy, according Haratz and Jerusalem polls within the country.

If Obama wanted to buy off a vote, he'll nominate a white male. He does not have to buy the votes of people who already support him and will vote for him when facing any future Republican candidate.

I like some of your argument FM, please stop these silly comments more suited for right wing blogger or radio talking heads.

____________________

Travis:

Field Marshall,

But, Kagan does have scholarly writings -- highly regarded scholarly writings about the First Amendment and presidential administration, etc. Perhaps, you should seek them out. One should not make the assumption that simply because she did not serve as a judge that she has no scholarly writings. That's a fallacious assumption that's being perpetuated by the uninformed.

And I understand why you can't follow the logic here. Erroneously, and curiously, you've reduced this to a stale question of partisanship (i.e., "If Bush had nominated her...").

First, this is not a partisan exercise; this is a question of the nominee's merit. That question has no regard to partisan (if any) affiliation or origination. Second, we're not dealing with hypotheticals; Kagan was nominated by President Obama, not Bush. Thus, engaging is hypotheticals about how her nomination would have been viewed had it come from another president is a fruitless exercise. Third, Kagan has not simply served as an "administrator at a University," she's taught the law -- at legal institutions with world-renown.

Additionally, Kagan has clerked at the Supreme Court, an opportunity reserved for a select few intellectuals who are often on a trajectory toward the Highest Court in the land. And with regard to that job that you minimized as an "administrator at a University," Kagan served as Dean of Harvard Law School. Said position is much sought after and highly esteemed; it's not a position granted to any and all comers.

Clearly, you see parallels between the Miers and Kagan nominations. I think the parallels you see are the result of combination of factors, namely ignorance about Kagan's actual scholarship, a curious diminishment of Kagan's prestigious accomplishments at the nation's (if not the world's) top law schools, and embrace of the notion that partisanship was the paramount factor in Miers' demise; it was not. As I noted before, Republicans (who did not know Miers and were not impressed with her actual interviews) took down the Miers nomination. [Many Democratic Senators already know Kagan and are familiar with her intellectual capabilities, because she's worked in the federal government, specifically with some currently serving Senators, for a while now.]

I understand that I will not be able to dissuade you from making your erroneous parallels. That is why I've said that you should simply observe how the process unfolds for Kagan. If you're secure in your questionable assertion about the "parallels" between Miers and Kagan, you must believe that Kagan will also be derailed by the confirmation process. If that's the case, why go out of your way to impugn Kagan? The process will take care of her.

But, if I'm right, then Kagan will be confirmed. And ultimately, you're here attacking Kagan's bona fides because you fear just that. On some level, you seem to recognize that the process will not derail a qualified nominee. Ergo, you're here attacking a qualified nominee, in an attempt to perpetuate falsehoods about her, because you want to do whatever you can to derail the process of a qualified nominee.

If you believe what you've asserted, just trust the process, Field Marshall. I do.

____________________

Louis:

I have avoided commenting on this site because I have the quality of the arguments generally too low to be worth my time. But "field marshalls rants" deserve a reply. I agree with lat. Which apparently would make me an anti-Semetic Jew.between 1900 and 1940 I got tired of counting after that at least 13 people were appointed to the Supreme Court these include Charles Evan Hughes, Louis Braindeis, Owen Roberts, William O.Douglas. I assume you have political differences with some of them but they were all qualified to be on the Supreme Court.
Why do you want to fight about harriet miers when the issue is Kagen. You will find that very few of your Senate Republican fiends will join you in this nonsense. Find a better issue to argue about or better yet how about actually discussing polling whis is the purpose of this site.

____________________

Louis:

I have avoided commenting on this site because I have the quality of the arguments generally too low to be worth my time. But "field marshalls rants" deserve a reply. I agree with lat. Which apparently would make me an anti-Semetic Jew.between 1900 and 1940 I got tired of counting after that at least 13 people were appointed to the Supreme Court these include Charles Evan Hughes, Louis Braindeis, Owen Roberts, William O.Douglas. I assume you have political differences with some of them but they were all qualified to be on the Supreme Court.
Why do you want to fight about harriet miers when the issue is Kagen. You will find that very few of your Senate Republican fiends will join you in this nonsense. Find a better issue to argue about or better yet how about actually discussing polling whis is the purpose of this site.

____________________

Louis:

Sorry the critical point that thes 13 were without judicial experience was left out of the last post.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I am not going to feel badly for ever calling Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh racist because they clearly are. THe bottom line is I think that most elected republicans are not racist at all, which makes it unfortunate they get associated with Limbaugh even if they don't agree with him.

It seems as though the nicer Republicans in the Senate have been the ones most vulnerable. John Mccain and Bob Bennett are the more likeable ones. Kaye Huchinson is well liked by many Democrats in the party, yet she couldn't beat Rick Perry who is an absolute crazy man. The party has been trying to purge the more rational conservatives in favor of the radical ones. I am sure if Richard Lugar was up for Re-election you would see a mean angry anti-immigration, radical anti-choice candiate running against Lugar.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Louis,

I'm simply trying to show the hypocrisy of the left. To say that Kagan is qualified and Meirs is not requires a leap of ideology which i'm not prepared to make.

She has very little scholarly work, especially for someone who has attained the positions she has occupied.

Whether is is actually qualified for the court, I would say she is definitely smart enough. My only contention with these posts is to make you liberals think and look back at the Meirs nomination. If one was not qualified, how is the other?

Again Travis, it is being reduced to a partisan argument because, in the end, that's what it amounts to. Is Kagan more qualified than Meirs? I have no idea. Is she smarter? I have no idea. And i think you have no idea either. Have you read one of her "scholarly" essays? I know i haven't so i cannot comment on her intellectual capabilities. You are simply trusting what OTHERS have said about her and using frame dependence heuristic , namely representativeness, by associating her Dean of Harvard Law and equating it to her being an intellectual and qualified for the court.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Louis, welcome back. I would agree with you on the discourse here. My posts over the past few days were meant to be looked at as 'rants'. They are an attempt to bring realization to the far-left nutjobs on the board who continually bring their lunatic discourse. Lat and Obamalover call everyone who disagrees with them or Obama racist. Now we have Farleft joining the crazy crew. So, its time to call out the whackos.

Poll: Obama has Lost Almost Half of his US Jewish Support

____________________

Field Marshal:

Huda,

Poll: Obama has Lost Almost Half of his US Jewish Support

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137449

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Dean of the Harvard Law School is one of the most prestigious legal positions anyone can possibly attain. If someone who has held that job is not qualified to be a supreme court justice, I don't know who is. You're talking about someone in charge of PRODUCING the greatest legal minds in the country.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

For the record, I thought Harriett Miers was reasonably qualified, but a crony of Bush.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron,

THANK YOU! There are no qualifications for the Supreme Court and i think both Kagan and Meirs are qualified. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy and its in abundant on this thread.

____________________

Chris V.:

Field Marshal, I don't think Miers was as unqualified as people said she was, but I do think Travis raises a good point. A lot of the GOP senators who interviewed her thought she was unfit for the high court...that takes some of the air out of what seems to be your implication that Miers=Kagan.

Anyways, in our current divisive political climate, a President could nominate Jesus to the Supreme Court and most of the opposing party would still oppose it. Just be careful what you wish for...I wonder how many of the Dems who trashed Miers are glad that Alito wound up on the Supreme Court instead of her. I'm guessing none.

____________________



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