Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: National Survey (Ipsos/Reuters 8/19-22)

Topics: National , poll

Ipsos / Reuters
8/19-22/10; 1,063 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Ipsos release)

National

State of the Country
31% Right Direction, 62% Wrong Track (chart)

Obama Job Approval
45% Approve, 52% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 74 / 24 (chart)
Inds: 37 / 53 (chart)
Reps: 11 / 86 (chart)

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
All adults: 45% Democrat, 43% Republican
Registered voters (N=950): 46% Republican, 45% Democratic (chart)

Party ID
Initial: 33% Democrat, 22% Republican, 45% independent (chart)
With leaners: 48% Democrat, 40% Republican, 12% independent

 

Comments
StatyPolly:

Nice unbiased polling there.

Initial Dem 33, GOP 22.

One can only imagine where the numbers would be had they asked a representative sample.

____________________

melvin:

The GOP have to have a 10 pt lead if they're going to take back the House in November...It appears the voters still wants to Dems to control the House in Senate,but they're very apprehensive about Obama right now.

____________________

Paleo:

Not a bad number on the generic ballot given the rest of the poll.

____________________

CUWriter:

45/52... with adults... from Ipsos? Ouch.

By the way the party ID should be 33%, 22%, 45% for "initial"

____________________

StatyPolly:

In a heavily Dem sample, among REGISTERED voters, GOP still has a lead.

This is easily R+10 generic ballot poll.

____________________

CompCon:

Has anyone else been watching the realclearpolitics poll summaries? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map.html

For those of you that want to know by seat rather than just an overall national percentage, this is the place. They have just updated their figures and it is disastrous for the democrats.

They now show 148 safe seats for democrats and 164 safe seats for republicans. Add in the likely category and they show 196 democrat to 205 republican - that is another 10 seat gain for republicans since last week.

That means that republicans only have to win 13 of the 34 toss-up seats to take over the house.

The senate is really bad news for the dems too. RCP now shows 48 dems and 44 reps with 8 toss-ups. CA, WA, WI, IL, NV, and WI have now been moved into the toss-up category.

____________________

melvin:

The blue dog Democrats are running the same campaign that was run in the Penn-12 race earlier this year,they're running ads criticizing Obama policies,this has the GOP worried,because it worked in Penn-12,and all the Dems need is to win 15 of the 40 Districts Mccain won back in 2008...Back in 1994 the Dems won only 5 of the 52 Districts BushI won,that's why the GOP captured the House very easily...The Dems back in 1994 didn't run ads criticizing Clinton policies...If the Democrats hold on to 15 of those seats Mccain won,they should only lose 20 seats.

____________________

CUWriter:

I think it's safe to say that melvin is a troll, ignorant or, more likely, both. GOP needs a ten point lead on the generic to win the House? Are you serious? Republicans won the popular vote 52-45 in 1994 and emerged with a 25-seat majority. A similar swing from 2008 to 2010 would leave the GOP with a 49-51 gain.

It's been well-documented that the generic ballot, even with RVs, underestimates GOP support by 5-7 points. So let's be conservative. Let's say this one underestimates the GOP by five. That's a six point lead... and you'd end up with almost the exact scenario listed above. Let's be even more conservative. Let's say RVs underestimates GOP support by just three points. That's a four point lead of 52-48. In that case the election would be close, but Swingometer says that yields a 45 seat gain and would be enough for a five-seat margin for the GOP.

Do you seriously think, based on all the numbers you've seen that the midterms will go 52-48 in the GOP's favor? That small of a margin? The Pollster average is five points and most of those polls are with RVs. This thing is almost set in stone. Senate and governors races can change quite a bit based on gaffes. The House doesn't work that way too often unless you get a big scandal.

The GOP is winning the House. Period. It would be shocking if they did not. I doubt the Senate falls though.

____________________

Paleo:

"For those of you that want to know by seat rather than just an overall national percentage, this is the place. They have just updated their figures and it is disastrous for the democrats."

This is the last place you want to look for an unbiased assessment. It's not called Real Conservative Politics for nothing. Right Tom Bevan?

Stick to Sabato, Cook, Rothenberg and the like, if you want an unbiased look at the lay of the land.

____________________

melvin:

The Whitehouse is not to happy about what the blue dog Democrats are doing,but they understand...The GOP was caught off guard by this move by the blue dogs,but its a great strategy by the blue dogs,because its going to prevent the GOP from reaching 200 seats in the House.

____________________

Mike E:

Ipsos/reuters are poodles of the Rethuglican conspiracy. When you correct for their Nazi bias Obama is up one thousand percent.

____________________

melvin:

CUWriter: The Dems had a 8 to 20pt lead the last day before the Midterms in 2006,but only won 36 seats...The GOP had a 5 to 8pt lead in 2002,but won only 5 seats,so what do that tells you..The only strange year in the history of the Midterm Elections was 1994,when the GOP had a 6 to 8pt lead in won 52 seats, now that was very strange,because the numbers didn't add up at all...

____________________

melvin:

CC: Don't get to excited,the best website you can go to is CQ politics,and they have the Dems at 219-180 with 36 tossups,and the Dems with a Senate lead of 48-39 with 13 tossups...RCP always have a conservative point of view.

____________________

CompCon:

Paleo: what a conspiracy nut. Real Clear Politics is conservative? Let me guess: 9/11 was a Bush inside job, right?

But let's look at some of those wild-eyed conservative articles RCP has links to on their front page today:

Mitch McConnell's Tax Cut Lies - Joan Walsh, Salon

Reasons for Hope in Mideast Talks - David Makovsky, Washington Post

A Case of Mental Courage - David Brooks, New York Times

No Compromise on Mosque - Richard Cohen, Washington Post

Oh my! Look at all of those conservative articles by the right wing authors.

RCP composite charts use the same pollsters as pollster.com with the exception of the internet polls - which they don't use because they are worthless.

But you democrats are living in complete denial. If you don't like the polls then it is because of a vast right wing conspiracy. It's pitiful.

____________________

CUWriter:

melvin:

The more seats you are protecting, the more you need to win by a higher margin to preserve those seats. Since every seat is up in the House, you have to win at least 50-51% of the vote in order to preserve a two-seat margin. It doesn't work EXACTLY like that but it's close.

In the case of 2006, the Dems already had 202 seats. They won the election 53.6% to 46.4%; a seven percent margin and basically exactly in line with the generic polling underestimating GOP turnout. Nevertheless the Dems won 31 seats to create a big majority. The reason the pickup wasn't gigantic when a similar result in 1994 resulted in sea change? Simple. The GOP had fewer seats in 1994 and thus had a greater pickup. The margins after the election were almost exactly the same incidentally. In 2007, the Dems had a 233-202 advantage in the House when the new Congress was sworn in. It was 230-204 for the GOP when the new Congress came in 1995.

In 2006 the GOP won eight seats by winning the popular vote 50-45. The polls, if you're not pulling numbers out of your backside, were on the money in that case. Of course, the reason the GOP had only an eight seat gain was that it was already in the majority. Had it been in the minority, that five point advantage would have swelled its ranks considerably.

See my point? Since all seats are up for grabs, a 50-50 split on popular vote leads to a near split in the House for seats. The only reason pickups in 1994 were so huge and will be so huge this November is because the GOP had and has far fewer seats than the Dems prior to the election.

____________________

Paleo:

"RealClearPolitics is a Chicago based political website founded in 2000 by John McIntyre and Tom Bevan. Every day a wide range of columns and news stories from across the Internet are aggregated on the website, although many typically have a conservative slant."

http://newstrust.net/sources/real_clear_politics


In an interview with the conservative magazine Human Events, McIntyre described the philosophy behind the Web site as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions." He further stated, "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics

And I was referring to the columns written for the site, not the ones linked to which have no connection to the site.

And I was not referring to their poll aggregator, but to their prognostications.

____________________

CUWriter:

RCP doesn't pull a Charlie Cook or a Stu Rothenberg when it comes to its predictions. They are solely based on aggregate polling data. You should well know that Paleo.

And seriously, it bears repeating: The only way the Dems preserve its House majority is if it wins the popular vote or loses by the narrowest of margins. Even the most die-hard liberal has to look at a five point deficit from poll aggregates and realize that is a tough, tough road to hoe.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Paleo,

You're losing it. RCP makes no determination in their classification of house, senate, and governor seats. They use Congressional Quarterly's analysis.

The conservative nature, or lack thereof, of RCP is irrelevant.

____________________

Paleo:

If this is based on CQ's "analysis," whatever that means, there's no referenct to it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map.html

And some of the rankings are ludicrous. NY 19, OH 13, OR 5, NY 13, CA 11 and FL 22 are not tossups. And WI 7 does not lean Republican.

____________________

Dave:

WI 7 most definitely leans Republican. Not historically obviously, but Duffy is a clear favorite there this November.

____________________

CUWriter:

Having met Stu Rothenberg multiple times, I assure you that there is some bias there. Not saying he's not a good prognosticator. He is. He's also objective as he possibly can be and then mixes in his "gut" to come up with predictions. RCP is pure numbers baby.

By the way, Sabato had the GOP gaining 32 seats in that analysis. And that was back in early July; the ratings have not been updated since July 8. You don't think things have moved in a GOP direction since early July? You don't think the scales have tipped slightly enough to predict a pickup of just seven more seats? I certainly do and so does Charlie Cook who has a 35-45 pickup prediction and added that it's more likely that he's low than high.

____________________

Mogando669:

"Paleo:

For more realistic, and unbiased, rankings:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/category/2010-house/

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/ratings/house"

The thing with Rothenberg and Sabato is that although they're highly reputable, they're very cautious when listing a non-open seat in the other party's column. And they also assume incumbency creates a few percentages of inertia that requires the challenger to poll +2 or +3 in order to classify it as a toss-up.

i also noticed that Sabato's rankings were not updated since early July. Zzzzz.

if you don't believe these numbers, also take a look at InTrade contracts that price just around 50. That's the market expected number of seats gained by Republicans. Poll all you want, but when money is actually on the line, the market is more accurate than not (these markets are even more rational than securities market because participants don't have split-second knee-jerk mentality)

____________________

Farleftandproud:

This is better than last week's poll. That Florida poll is nonsense. Charlie Crist's approval is not that bad.

____________________

@Mogando: Intrade is not an accurate predictor or leading indicator at all. They're, at best, a follower. I've seen Intrade showing some candidate as a 75% favorite and then when some obscure poll appears that gives the opponent a slight edge, the trade goes down to 52% or something. Two or three days later another poll appears with the original candidate showing a 15 point lead and the trade goes right back up to 75%. That's hardly predictive.

Also, they have a strong built-in pro-Republican bias, for the simple reason that most of the players there are people who are familiar with playing regular market-driven stock options. And most of those people are typically Republicans.

The theory that people put aside their personal bias when it comes to money is totally false. Just take a look at sports betting; many people knowingly bet on their favorite teams even when logic says they're going to lose the upcoming game.

You'll lose your shirt if you actually follow Intrade futures on candidate elections.

____________________

Cederico:

The House is very tough for DEMS as this poll and most others shows them behind in the generic vote. With Obama being underwater, I think its safe to say the GOP will win very significant number of seats.

The key to DEMS holding onto a diminished majority in the House is going to come down to how aggressive they want to come after the GOP ideas and paint them as throwbacks to Bush II. The strategy has some chance of success in that the public 1) still blames Bush more for the economic mess, 2) still has a very unfavorable view of the GOP and 3) thinks the GOP is obstructionist.

Even if a significant number of people don't buy the argument they have to try it to blunt the impact of negative economic news and the glum direction of the country numbers. Having a coherent message against the GOP could be the difference between say a 25 - 30 seat loss and a 40 - 50 seat loss.

Here is the template. In the PA special election the DEM managed to run away from the unpopular health care law, aggressively focus on local concerns and attack the GOP opponent using Bush II. Many a DEM can survive this fall by distancing themselves from Obama, focus on local issues and slam the GOP opponent on tax cuts for the rich, wanting to privatize Social Security, etc.

____________________

melvin:

Part of the GOP plans just came out on what they're do when they take over Congress: (1)Cut taxes in half for people who makes over 1 Million (2)Eliminate Medicaid in Medicare in favor of a voucher program (3) Raise taxes 900 dollars a year for people who who makes between 25.000 in 200.000 (4) Privatize Social Security....This is what the GOP is going to try in force Obama to do...90% of the people who is going to vote for the GOP is going to suffer under they're plans..This have got to be the best brain washing in history,the American people is so dumb...Think about it? there aint one thing the GOP is proposing to help working people,in fact they're going to wipe out the middle class period under they're plans if they take back Congress....This is very scary.

____________________

melvin:

What is the Democrats waiting for..Paul Ryan just released the GOP plans for the House,and the bone head Minority leader likes the plan....The Dems have better jump all over this,because if the American people knew this,it would certainly keep the GOP in the Minority from now until eternity.

____________________

melvin:

John Boehner launches campaign for Speaker
by Jed Lewison
Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 08:32:03 AM PDT
Earlier today in Cleveland, House Republican Leader John Boehner delivered a speech framing the central themes of the GOP's campaign to retake control of Congress and deliver him the Speaker's gavel. In the speech, Boehner presented five different priorities, each of them structured as a demand on President Obama. In order of delivery, Boehner identified his priorities as:

Extend Bush tax cuts for wealthy.
Pledge to veto EFCA or energy reform legislation passed by Congress after the November election but before the new Congress.
Tell Democrats to support the GOP's effort to repeal a provision of the health care law that Boehner claims would require businesses to itemize all expenditures over $600. (Note that Republicans actually blocked a vote to repeal the mandate in House and the small jobs bill in the Senate, currently being blocked by the GOP, is also a vehicle for repeal.)
Submit a massive spending reduction package to Congress.
Fire his entire economic team.
The thing about that list is that there isn't a single thing about what Republicans would actually do. It's just a list of demands on President Obama and except for the first one -- in which Boehner demands Obama extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- they are purely rhetorical in nature.

To be fair to Boehner, in the conclusion of his speech he actually does circle back to his fourth point -- the one on spending reduction -- and offers some specifics to flesh out his plan.

Republicans on the House Budget Committee, led by Congressman Paul Ryan, have already identified $1.3 trillion in specific spending cuts that could be implemented immediately.

These are common-sense steps – like canceling unspent ‘stimulus’ and TARP bailout funds – that put the brakes on Washington’s out-of-control spending spree.

Obviously, two sentences really isn't that specific when it comes to outlining spending cut proposals, but at least it references a specific plan -- Ryan's -- and mentions two programs (the stimulus and TARP). Of course, Boehner would like you to forget that he actually voted for TARP and with respect to the stimulus, canceling it would require raising taxes since one-third of the package consisted of tax cuts.

As for Ryan's plan, Boehner is endorsing a proposal that would:

Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program and replace them with vouchers to defray the cost of private health insurance.
Pay for partially privatizing Social Security by cutting benefits to 1950 levels when half of elderly Americans lived below the poverty line.
Cut taxes in half for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, including an average cut of $502,000 per year for families earning more than $1 million and $1.7 million per year for the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans. These tax cuts would be on top of the Bush cuts, if made permanent.
Raise taxes on families earning between $25,000 and $200,000 by an average of $900 per year (relative to a continuation of current tax rates).
Despite positioning itself as a plan for fiscal austerity, the Ryan roadmap wouldn't actually solve our long-term budget problems. Why? Because he simply doesn't count the cost of his tax cuts when calculating his proposals final price tag.

In other words, far from being some brilliant new innovation, Ryan's Roadmap is basically the same sort of economic mumbo-jumbo peddled for years by the Bush administration and conservative Republicans.

And it's now the centerpiece of John Boehner's economic platform as he campaigns for Speaker, which brings us back to the central question voters will face this November: do they want to allow Democrats to continue trying to revive the economy, or do they want to give up on the Dems and go back to the Bush economic policies of the Republican party....This sounds so scary people.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

@CUWriter:

Get your facts straight. You said the Republicans won 8 seats in 2006 by a 50-45 margin.
DUH-Democrats gained thirty seats in 2006 and 21 in 2008. They also gained 3 seats with special elections during this time.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

And Melvin, I predict that the first Bill the GOP would expect to send to Obama's desk won't be a Immigration bill, it will be the Obamacare rearrangement bill.

Probably Congressman Anthony Wiener will start attacking people, including Michelle Bachman, on the house floor. It will be like one of those basebrawls.

Obama will in a collective tone, make a comment about it the next day, and admit that "nothing will change washington".

I also predict that he will be heckled again if not once, maybe twice in upcoming years. I predict that if the GOP continues to nominate people like Ken Buck who want to get rid of the 17th ammendment, and the anti-latino Republicans who believe in terror babies, and getting rid of the 14th ammendment.

The losers in the end I predict, after our country learns a painful lesson of electing these freaks will be not a happy one.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

This may sound crazy from a progressive, but Rand Paul doesn't quite scare me as much as some GOP candidates more mainstream. I can't say I agree with him, but at least he is honest about what he believes. I guess Kentucky had a pretty right wing senator already.

Angle is truly the creepiest of all the candidates,Accusing house members of being terrorists and communists, and unAmerican, is really terrifying

Toomey's ideas are out of the mainstream. I think Fiorina and Ron Johnson are out of touch for their state. I find both of them are way too far to the right for their respective states. There is no oil in Lake Michigan, because if their were it wouldn't have come out of the imaginations of GOP leaders this election cycle.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

It should be noted that Rothenburg and Sabato both completely missed some calls in 2006. R's lost some races that weren't even on their radar.

Also in 2008, the dems gained the low end of predictions in house seats than most of the pundits predicted. In general pundits were predicting dem gains of 20-40, leaning towards the higher end. They got 20. Obama's coattails weren't that long. In fact, I think political scientists should retire the coattail concept, as it doesn't seem to apply much anymore. Like the Bradley/Wilder effect.

Oh, any regular reader of RCP can tell its inclination. The articles & op-eds they link to are usually about 2:1 conservative. Just look at the comments of any article or the "most read" section. It's always conservative. Although I do like the way they graph presidential approval better than pollster. They throw out garbage internet polls.

As for their house ratings..... well, we'll see. They have TX-23 as a tossup, but the only polls I know of are Canseco internal R polls that show him up by less than 3 or 4 with big MoE and lots of undecided. A much more legitimate hispanic republican, Henry Bonilla, lost that election to Rodriguez fairly handily. He has a strong democratic machine in south San Antonio. I don't think Canseco is up there, but it is possible. Media climate is not favorable for the republican, even in the more conservative local papers. CQ calls it likely democratic.

They have TX-27 on the watch list... that is a freaking joke. That's where I grew up and Solomon Ortiz has been the rep since I was born. There is no way in hell he loses to local lawyer Blake Farenthold. No legitimate pundit is calling that seat anything other than solid democratic. I suppose there's the slight possibility that one could be a surprise but I doubt it. His immigration stance alone is enough to kill him in that district.

____________________

Paleo:

"@Mogando: Intrade is not an accurate predictor or leading indicator at all. They're, at best, a follower. I've seen Intrade showing some candidate as a 75% favorite and then when some obscure poll appears that gives the opponent a slight edge, the trade goes down to 52% or something. Two or three days later another poll appears with the original candidate showing a 15 point lead and the trade goes right back up to 75%. That's hardly predictive.

Also, they have a strong built-in pro-Republican bias, for the simple reason that most of the players there are people who are familiar with playing regular market-driven stock options. And most of those people are typically Republicans.

The theory that people put aside their personal bias when it comes to money is totally false. Just take a look at sports betting; many people knowingly bet on their favorite teams even when logic says they're going to lose the upcoming game."


Agree. IEM is better though, because it's been around longer, is smaller, and probably the players have a higher political IQ. But it has shown the Democrats' chances in the House falling like a rock the last month. To where it now has Republicans chances of winning the House at over 70%. Yet, unlike intrade, it still has the Democrats' chances of holding the senate at 80%. This adds to its credibility.

In any event, I've reached the conclusion that if the election were held today, the Democrats would lose the House. I've bumped my losses up from 35 to 40. Obviously, the trick for Democrats, if they do lose it, is to come close to 218 as possible. Because I think they will snap back in 2012 on an increased turnout and reaction to the far right Republicans running the house. Of course, redistricting is a wild card.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"I've bumped my losses up from 35 to 40. "

I've been saying low to mid 40s for a while. I used to say low to mid 50s but that was before PA-12.

I don't think republicans will get more than 55 because that would mean they have to win EVERYWHERE, including swing districts like PA-12 and D+1-3 districts. The possibility is there, but the low favorability for congressional republicans and their general lack of focus makes me less bullish on their chances.

They seem disorganized. Boehner's putting out an odd message - in favor of the Ryan plan that basically eliminates medicare/medicaid and puts in vouchers.... wtf? And then calling on Obama to fire the whole economic team and no suggestion for who to replace them with?

Called on Obama to veto "job-killing legislation?" WTF, that doesn't mean anything.

The only substance he talked about was a specific portion of the health care bill involving small business tax reporting. Other than that it was a bunch of vague platitudes.

Newt Gingrich that guy is not. Gingrich is on record saying that the reason they won in 1994 was because they were not just "no," they were *for* something.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"Also in 2008, the dems gained the low end of predictions in house seats than most of the pundits predicted. In general pundits were predicting dem gains of 20-40, leaning towards the higher end. They got 20. Obama's coattails weren't that long. In fact, I think political scientists should retire the coattail concept, as it doesn't seem to apply much anymore."

Aaron, after all my hard work, you're still not looking at it the right way. Obama won by 7.2 in 08, while House Dems beat House GOP candidates by 10.65 in popular vote. So Dems outperformed Obama in congressional races. That's why we hear about the blue dogs from districts where McCain won.

You just cannot call an election a "loss" if you lose some seats from prior Congress, can you? Imagine if Dems controlled 300 seats going into 08 election and wound up with 290. Yeah, they lost 10 seats, but they still beat GOP by about 2 to 1. A huge huge win, but just a tad less huge than in 06.

So in fact, the coattails were so long in 08, they wound up ahead of the coat wearer.

I don't recall seat forecasts for 08. You say it was 20-40. Can't really find an aggregate of generic polling for 08, except I see one for Gallup. They had D+12. Actual vote was D+10.65. That 1.35 difference could have accounted for as much as 10-15 seats, because it was a 1.35 that was beyond the initial several points of difference. That's the law of amplified returns at work. Meaning that a single additional point of difference in a close matchup accounts for fewer seats, than a single additional point of difference in a not so close matchup.

____________________

Bias or no, RCP has proved a valuable reference for election watchers for some time now. My question for CC and Field Marshall is, what is the specific methodology for their House rankings. As an example, Fl-8 is rated as a GOP leaner, yet no recent polling data is available in a seat with a Democratic incumbent. RCP's House rankings do skew away from the other professional sites now doing evaluations of the mid-term. Much like my feeling on Rasmussen, I think if a site or pollster is consistent (biased or neutral), then its results have value...even as a boundary-setter.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

This is what Rothenberg said right before the 08 election:

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/news/article/2008-house-outlook

He saw dem gains of 27-33 with 40 a possibilty and less than 25 a "good night" for republicans.

I recall most pundits were surprised there was not more turnover in the house. Sabato said basically the same. Cook doesn't have archives free and I can't find what he said, but I think it was similar. Those guys tend to operate like a herd.

I think people are overestimating republican enthusiasm, kind of like they overestimated it in 2008 with things like the "gallup expanded" poll, etc...

"You just cannot call an election a "loss" if you lose some seats from prior Congress, can you? Imagine if Dems controlled 300 seats going into 08 election and wound up with 290."

I would call that a poor result, but it would depend on the expectations. I don't think losing seats is good for your party, period.

I understand your PoV, I just think you have to be careful using statistics to predict human behavior. But we're arguing about the margins here. You think reps will gain over 50, I think they will take the house but below 50.

The elephant in the room is republican favorability lower than democrats. Every poll shows that, or at best tied with democrats at a low level. That's bound to have an effect. Republicans are strutting around like their s*** don't stink, when the people think it certainly does. They're obviously not happy with the democrats either.

This tells me that there's a good possibility any gains republicans make this year will be short lived. Such low favorability comes with low tolerance. They'll have one chance to fix things and do it quick, or else people will start blaming them, and Obama would really like someone other than democrats to blame.

If they don't find a way to clarify what they're *for,* they'll end up being like the republican congress of 1952-54. Again, Boehner's not helping here.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Good points, Aaron.

I agree that GOP's leadership is lacking big time right now, but they're beginning to state what they are for.

Boehner's speech of two days ago had some specifics.

http://johnboehner.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=203967

Just look over the bold text points at least. Economy is the elephant in the room, and most business leaders agree that what's holding it back are the unfriendly policies and promises of more unfriendly policies coming out of DC.

Boehner did promise a full GOP platform to be revealed after Labor Day.

I personally think that being the party of no is enough to help the economy. Once there is some certainty that no significant new laws will get enacted for the next two years, business activity will perk up.

We shall see how it goes.

____________________



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