Polls And Pundits Are Grim For The GOP, Sparking Desperate Smears

by DemFromCT

Steve Singiser puts up a Following The Polls diary at Daily Kos worth checking every evening. From yesterday's, we see four national polls released:

PEW RESEARCH (COMPLETED 10/22)
Pew released today, but completed their poll over the weekend. Among likely voters, they find little good news for the GOP. President Bush's approval ratings lie at 38% (53% disapproval), while the generic congressional ballot gives the Democrats an 11-point edge (50-39).

DIAGEO-HOTLINE (COMPLETED 10/23)
The Diageo-Hotline poll has an interesting phenomenon that has grown pretty common in this election year. Among LIKELY voters, the generic edge for Democrats is larger than it is for REGISTERED VOTERS. Here are the numbers for likely voters: Bush job approval at 40% (59% disapproval), and the generic ballot at an all-time high for the Democrats in this poll: 18 points (52-34).

FOX NEWS (COMPLETED 10/25)
Finished on Wednesday, Fox News (perhaps not surprisingly) is the most favorable for the GOP. But it would be a real stretch to call it favorable. Bush's job approval rests at 40% (53% disapproval), which is unchanged since two weeks ago. The generic ballot creeps out a couple of points, as Democrats move into double digits in this poll as well, with an 11-point lead (49-38).

AP/AOL (COMPLETED 10/25)
The numbers from Ipsos, which are distributed by the AP and AOL, show the bleakest numbers for the GOP. The Bush job approval is down to 37%, with a rather stout 61% voicing their disapproval. Among likely voters, the generic ballot test is now a Democrat lead of 19 points (56-37).

For the four polls released today, we see an average Bush job approval of 38.8% (better...but not good), and an average Democratic lead in the generic ballot test of 14.8% (51.8%-37.0%). Again, this is among LIKELY voters.

the headlines of these polls certainly captures what they say, such as Fox's Democrats Preferred on Most Issues and AP's Middle Class Voters Abandoning GOP. Given this, and the continued predictions of Charlie Cook:

Another week has gone by and little has changed. The Republican Party still seems to be headed toward a very tough election.

    In the House, Republicans are most likely to see a net loss of 20 to 35 seats, and with it their majority. In the Senate, the GOP could lose at least four, but a five- or six-seat loss is more likely. A six-seat change tips the chamber into Democratic hands.

and Stu Rothenberg

With the national environment being as it is - and given the last round of redistricting, which limits possible Democratic gains - Republicans probably are at risk to lose as few as 45 seats and as many as 60 seats, based on historical results. Given how the national mood compares to previous wave years and to the GOP's 15-seat House majority, Democratic gains almost certainly would fall to the upper end of that range.

The paucity of competitive districts limits Republican risk, but how much? Unfortunately, I don't have an answer. But if redistricting cuts that kind of wave by half, Democrats would gain between 22 and 30 seats next month. And if the new districts slice Democratic gains by a smaller but still significant one-third, Democrats would pick up from 30 to 45 seats.

Dangerously big waves can be very strong and very unpredictable. They can bring widespread destruction and chaos. Republicans now must hope that this year's midterm wave isn't as bad as national poll numbers suggest it could be, because those national numbers suggest a truly historic tidal wave.

It looks like tough times for the GOP. The GOP GOTV is only good for a point or three, and that's apparantly not enough for Ohio this year. So what does the GOP do? Get desperate.

On the brink of what could be a power-shifting election, desperate candidates resort to alleging moral bankruptcy and sexual perversion.

While no one ever went broke overestimating the discriminatory powers of the voter, this year will likely set new records for scraping the bottom of the barrel for the GOP. We all "know" negative ads work, but typically you need to have some shread of respect and regard from the voter to pull it off (it wouldn't work for Mark Foley). if the Republicans lose the House, maybe, just maybe, we'll see the end of the downward ad spiral. Maybe they've gone too far with taking on Michael J. Fox. But it'll take a win to make that happen. Otherwise, the talking heads will just cluck about how negative ads always work.

Comments

[emptypockets]

My understanding was that TN and VA Senate seats, which had been trending away from the Republicans, are swinging back to anyone's guess (which in traditionally red states I read as likely R). What was looking more like a possible rout of both chambers a few weeks ago seems more likely a split Congress. Still, perhaps, "grim for the GOP," but not as grim as I thought it was going to be, or am I reading it wrong?

I'm reminded again of the last inning of the Mets playoffs, with the Republicans in the unenviable role of the team from Flushing. Two behind, two out, but bases loaded.

[DemFromCT]

i think MO, TN and VA are unpredictable. I think momentum in MO and TN will be D, though if it's enough depends on the size of the wave.

Also, let's not fall for the bigotry of low expectations for the GOP. An 18 seat loss for them in the House is huge, and 25 seats is historic. If we get that and the Senate is 50-50, it's an earthquake.

[emptypockets]

Earthquake? Better call FEMA.
Oh, wait, that's how they got into this mess...

[Crab Nebula]

Good lord, TN, VA, and MO are all I can handle paying attention to. DemCt, I'd say calling winning both chambers an "earthquake" is an understatement. I'd say one chamber is a quake. Any good metaphor for both would have to be bigger than the '06 SF quake.

Seems like it would be more of a nuclear explosion. Potentially could cripple the Republican party for many cycles, if the Democrats are deft and economic conditions comply (this latter part will happen.....)

[demtom]

I've been actually meaning to comment for a day or so on the seeming dichotomy between House and Senate predictions. Every day the number of House seats deemed competitive appears to grow, but the three most important Senate races (the ones everyone's mentioned) are stagnant or moving GOP. It's a bit like having a day when the Dow jumps 250 points, and the S&P declines 10 -- does not compute. I understand that the House meltdown is more meta than the narrowly-focused Senate races (except for a few districts, like Reynolds' or Foley's), but I still wonder.

It's also struck me: why has everyone stopped mentioning the usually popular "incumbents under 50" precedent? By that standard, Allen and Talent's problems remain serious (of course, it also puts Menendez on the endangered list).

My guess --and hope -- is still that a wave could take Allen, Corker, Kean and Talent out (maybe Kyl, too, if it's a once-a-generation sort). I recall, in 2000, Bob Schieffer doing a report from MI in late October, saying Gore was leading in the state, but the GOP was relieved that Sen Abraham had withstood his challenge from Stabenow. The Dem wave of 2000 (knocking off all the vulnerables from '94 except Santorum) was a surprise, and it occurred in a 50/50 environment; why not expect at least as happy/unexpected and outcome this time?

Though I agree, DemfromCT -- our expectations shouldn't float so high that we consider "merely taking" the House, and losing the Senate by 1, a crushing letdown. Given the paucity of open seats or clearly vulnerable incumbents, even that result would have been considered earth-shaking a year ago.

Crab Nebula, as you know if you've been here lately, I'm totally with you on the coming economic difficulties. Today's weak GDP number (and yesterday's housing figures) are omens being widely downplayed in the press. Here's how I see the Bush economy: We had a recession, one that lingered so long, in terms of job creation, that government powers never really knew when to call it over; job creation rose to barely acceptable levels for a fairly short time, but fell well short of what usually follows recession; even much of that growth was a result of the housing bubble, which is now undeniably over; job growth has now retreated to unacceptably low levels, and businesses see far leaner times coming; the deficit, in the meantime, has been driven up to staggering levels, making it more difficult to take Keynesian steps to improve the situation. Yet, just as before the Iraq war, people who see all this are being either kept out of the discussion, or dismissed as alarmist. I see the next two years being even worse for Bush (and America) than the last two -- but it will present an opportunity for Dems to wean a good chunk of the country from their unfortunate habit of supporting the GOP.

[vachon]

My head is spinning from all the spinning. I've taken to zooming past any polls I see and getting to whatever text accompanies it/them. I remember how devastated I was after the Kerry loss so I ain't going there again.

That being said, I sent in my absentee ballot 2 weeks ago and it felt so good to vote against every single republican (majority) candidate on the ballot, I'm still high from it.

[ab initio]

The senate races are the bellwethers. IMO, the races to watch are the senate races in TN, MO, CT & VA. These races are all very close. If the senate has to flip it will come from these races. If there is a wave we will see the results in these races. 2008 will be more difficult as the Dems will be defending in tough Repub leaning states.

I believe in the House races, although there are expectations of a blowout in NY, PA & OH they will be a lot closer and we will lose some. For example Reynolds will pull ahead of Davis and Fitzpatrick over Murphy. The Dems will gain a 20 seat majority but the corporate media punditocracy will claim the Repubs surged and there is no mandate for the Dems. And the DC Dems will run the House still afraid of the Rove bogeyman. As the Dixie Chicks noted one of the biggest problems we face is media consolidation. And I will add the lack of fight in the DC Dem leadership, although some of the new crop of Dems that will get elected will strengthen the backbone at the margins.

[Jodi]

I bet that all of you watch paint dry.

Do what you can to help your people, but then relax a bit. It isn't like the jury is out considering your death sentence.

Relax. In two years there will be another chance. Even bigger.

[orionATL]

will these ads work?

they often do.

from now on, the nationwide polls, especially polls about the president, mean nothing.

in each congressional (and senatorial) district it is a question of locally run ads and local efforts to get out the vote.

how else to explain why incumbent congressmen and senators with terrible records for representing their constituents are still in the running?

richard pombo or peter roskam, for example, or george allen, or joe lieberman.

increasingly, i believe, ads rule. and they will rule increasingly.

until ads are created that immunize ignorant voters from electoral fluff and dreck.

[freepatriot]

Detroit lost the World Series

another sign of a Democratic win

if you believe in that sort of thing ...

[Chris Loosley]

I bet that all of you watch paint dry.

I used to, but recently I've found something even more satisfying. I come here and read Jodi's posts.

[Jodi]

Lose ly,

I think I could have done even better with the one/two liner.

~I used to, but recently I've found something more unsatisfying. I come here to tread Lose ly's posts.~

(just a little humor on a beautiful Saturday morning)

[katie Jensen]

Ugh. I had a scare yesterday. One of my clients came in and as we were leaving she shared concern about voting for a candidate in our district. She is a staunch democrat, but she was considering voting for the republican running for senate against Ben Nelson. The challenger (who's name deserve no mention) has more money than God and is just putting out one attack ad after another. Now Ben Nelson is not by any means my favorite democrat, but coming from a republican controlled state, my preference for senate is still Nelson. My job requires that I practice a certain detachment about these things but I did say "you might want to check the facts on those ads, AND encouraged her to check her facts first. (this is a part of the therapy we do of practicing a nonjudgmental stance), but it worried me that these ads are pretty powerful. She's pretty smart and reads alot, but was swayed.

[katie Jensen]

Also I just read some of the newer posts!! They are double teaming us, we must be good!!