Think The GOP Will Make Big Gains In 2010?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2010 Election, Democrats, Polls, Republicans
I suppose it’s possible, but more and more evidence is pointing to the contrary.
Here’s some telling info from a Washington Post/ABC News poll out yesterday…
Poll respondents are evenly divided when asked whether they have confidence in Obama to make the right decisions for the country’s future, but just 19 percent express confidence in the Republicans in Congress to do so. Even among Republicans, only 40 percent express confidence in the GOP congressional leadership to make good choices.
Only 20 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, little changed in recent months, but still the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983. Political independents continue to make up the largest group, at 42 percent of respondents; 33 percent call themselves Democrats.
The wide gap in partisan leanings and the lack of confidence in the GOP carries into early assessments of the November 2010 midterm elections: Fifty-one percent say they would back the Democratic candidate in their congressional district if the elections were held now, while 39 percent would vote for the Republican. Independents split 45 percent for the Democrat, 41 percent for the Republican.
There’s some pretty startling numbers in there and the GOP should definitely be concerned.
- When less than 20% of the voting population has confidence in your leadership abilities and only 40% of your own diehards trust your opinion, you know something’s wrong. I’ve been saying this time and time again over the past 9 months, but the Republicans can’t just be the opposition party. They need a new Contract With America…and fast.
- Only 20% of voters ID as Repubs. 13% more ID as Dems. That’s a huge gap. And if Dems pass health care reform with some key Repub votes, expect the gap to get bigger since Indys will view the legislation as bipartisan as was possible.
- On a generic ballot, voters go for Dems by 12%. That’s landslide territory. And Indys would have to break for Repubs almost two to one to make up the gap. We all know that won’t happen.
Now, do I think the GOP may gain a few seats next Fall? Quite possibly. But the balance of power should remain roughly where it is right now.
More as it develops…
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 and is filed under 2010 Election, Democrats, Polls, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:13 am
The rise of the Independent candidates?
October 20th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I guess it’s hard to get people excited with a platform of “the best thing to do is nothing”. It’s truly astonishing to witness the GOP’s loyalty to that position. Hasn’t it crossed their mind that maybe in the face of such incredible challenges, they should maybe think of something to “do”?
October 20th, 2009 at 11:35 am
I think it’s almost a given that the GOP will make some gains. Big? Only a fool would make judgments about that now, a year ahead of time.
Politics is local. Congressional elections won’t be decided on the basis of general sentiment about parties and so on. Not how it works. Suppose I like democrats a little bit better than republicans in general, so I answer a poll saying that I identify more with democrats. Is that sentiment going to make me vote for a democrat if the election in question pits a very moderate republican against a very progressive democrat? Of course not.
Now, the 2010 mid-terms will to some extent be a referendum on the Obama admin.That’s almost invariably true. So it makes sense to wait and see how folks feel about the way things are going as the election nears. As next spring turns to summer, that’s when I think you can see trends.
What I am going to guess is that the Obama admin is going to feel that it needs to try to get away with at least one more really, really, REALLY big bout of deficit spending, due to the state of unemployment and consumer spending. By that I mean overspending at the rate of the last Bush and first Obama budgets. For at least political reasons, they’ll need at minimum to extend unemployment benefits, which will cost a ton.
Then we’ll spend the summer arguing about whether this overspending is saving or destroying the country. [For reasons I don't entirely understand, many will assume that this argument is best solved by caring more about GDP growth than overspending]. Then, in the fall, people will vote for whichever candidates are closest to their views,without primary regard for which party represents their views better. Affiliation sentiments will play some tie-breaker role.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:54 am
The GOP will make gains. Obama had some coattails, and they won’t apply in 2010.
And if the GOP base remains fired up, and shows up, they may take the whole thing.
35% turnout makes many things possible.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
KK has most of the right answer. But even more than politics being local, gains in Congress depend, to an enormous degree, on just how the districts in each state have been gerrymandered. If there are no seats that are even close to being swing seats, then no seats will move — no matter that opinion is shifting by a dozen percent or more.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Gardner and Mr. Meta, deviger. deviger said: Donklephant Think The GOP Will Make Big Gains In 2010? http://ow.ly/vvaA Agree disagree? What does this mean, if anything, in #megov race [...]
October 20th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
The key to all of this is that the GOP shows no sign of being concerned.
October 20th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Historically, the party with the Executive branch loses congressional seats in the off-year elections. How many they lose will depend on the situation at the time, including (and most importantly) the economy. But they always lose some seats. The other factor is who actually shows up to vote. Republicans tend to show up at the polls more reliably, and the party in opposition tends to show up more reliably, a double whammy that should provide a much higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats at the polling place.
The real number to watch is the number of people who call themselves “independent”. It isn’t shocking that the party so recently drummed out of power is still viewed unfavorably. But this sentence is the one that should send chills down the back of every Democratic strategist:
“Independents split 45 percent for the Democrat, 41 percent for the Republican.”
Independents are the swing voters that decide most elections. Depending on congressional district, those calling themselves “independents” can make up to 30% of the voters. The minority Republican party only has to show up if the independents swing more toward the Republican candidates, especially with the traditional low Democratic turnout in off-year elections.
If the Republicans would nominate more libertarian Republicans, the GOP would have a chance in some blue states as well. California missed its chance in passing up Larry Elder’s bid.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Given that the solution proposed by most of the GOP power structure is to stay the same as they currently are while attacking the opposition and proposing no real solutions (Sorry, but their proposals are jokes that will accomplish nothing except fatten the pocketbooks of Big Insurance and Big Pharma.) I doubt they’ll draw very many independents to vote for them.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
What is your position on ending state licensing of Insurance poviders so that they can pool insurance across state lines, and and allowing individuals to deduct individual plans from their taxes, rather than their employers, so they can choose their plan themselves? These are some of the proposals from the “Patients Choice Act” proposed by republicans in congress.
Would you welcome a bi-partisan bill that includes those provisions? or are they bad because the Obama administration opposes them so that means they’re bad and republicans like them so they are more bad?
October 20th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
This would be really good reasoning if independent voters actually did agree with you that the Republicans’ primary goal on healthcare reform is simply to fatten the pockets of related industries like insurance and pharmaceuticals.
But lets think about the idea that conservatives just want to help big business at the expense of the rest of Americans. This is a longstanding traditional liberal perspective that many independents think is at best an oversimplification, and at worst, grossly paranoid and misguided.
Independents aren’t really likely at all to simply buy into the notion that conservatives are in big business’s pocket. Independents think there’s much more to the issue than that. This is something that I find liberals have great trouble accepting or even understanding.
As a longtime independent myself, I know that every time I have suggested something like this to a liberal, I usually get a response that begins by making an attempt to agree with to my contention that an issue is complex and that some conservative views have merit. But the response generally moves on quickly to insist that this time it really is true (again! surprise!) that the Republicans are precisely as the liberal has just contended previously.
And Jim, I am not saying this in an attempt to invalidate what you’ve expressed. I am sure you’re convinced that the GOP proposals are jokes. I am only trying to point out that you are predicting how independents will respond in the next election based on your perception of the issue.
But Independents will respond based on their perception of the issue, which is likely to be substantially different from your perception.They’d respond as you have predicted if they thought as you did. But they don’t think as you do. I mean, that’s why such folks are independents and not progressives, right?
October 21st, 2009 at 12:55 am
The only thing more pointless than prognosticating about an election a year from now is to do your prognosticating with a poll of “adults,” not voters. About one in 10 adults in the US cannot possibly vote (non-citizens being the largest group). Beyond that, we know that 35 or 40 percent of eligible adults actually voting in a off year would be a big number.
While this WaPo.ABC poll has the Dems up 12 points on the generic preference question, Gallup’s most recent poll of registered voters had the Dems up by only 2 points, by way of contrast. And Rasmussen’s poll of LIKELY voters puts the GOP up by 5 points! The RCP average now is plus-5.5 for the Dems, hardly overwhelming.
Frankly, I wouldn’t put much stock in Rasmussen’s likely voter approach at the early stage; it’s just to hard to figure that a year out and to appropriately weight your sample. Still, alongside Gallups registered voter approach, it belies the significance of the WaPo/ABC result.
There is a value in the WaPo polls, of course, if you focus on CHANGES over time in the results for the same questions.
Taking all the polls together — those on the generic choice, plus those on approval of Obama, Congress, the parties and those measuring party affinity — there simply is no doubt that the GOP is on a significant upswing. Whether that continues for 12 months is anyone’s guess.
Then, there is the matter of the extent to which national polls tell you much, if anything, about what might happen in at most 50 Congressional districts in a year. Of course, they don’t — except for the steady movement of independents away from Obama and the Dems and toward the GOP. The districts where the GOP has a chance to pick up seats are mostly conservative areas where moderate Dems won in 2006 and 2008 witha lot of support from independents and moderate Republicans, and the classic swing districts. Rasmussen now has independents favoring the GOP on the generic ballot question by 40 to 23. Gallup’s most recent poll (conducted a couple of weeks ago) had independents favoring the GOP by 45 to 36. A year ago, the Dems had independents by a strong margin. This is a clear and major change that means the Dem would lose a lot of seats if the elections took place next month.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:16 am
And, in this case, independents would be perfectly right. The current health system is simply unsustainable. If we don’t fix cost increases soon the $800 Billion stimulus will be chump change. They know the changes could royally screw them (especially insurers — it’s very easy to imagine a health system without them), and that Obama will get something through; therefor they’re all at the table negotiating.
The GOP’s primary goal is pretty simple: stop Obama. They’re doing this mostly for political, not ideological , reasons. as is shown by the fact that in early August the Individual Mandate was an acceptable compromise, but a month later it had magically become the first step to Fascism. Either their ideology radically changed, or they’re being dishonest.
————-
Guys, do not over-estimate the GOP’s current standing with the electorate. If you look at the polls Obama is more popular than Congressional Dems, who are more popular than all of Congress, leaving the Republicans dead last.
There’s no question the GOP has a great electoral opportunity. But they are perfectly capable of screwing that up. To take advantage of it they have to produce the goods on health reform by defeating Obama, keep the birthers happy, bring independents into the party, AND beat Obama’s turnout operation.
The situation reminds of the 2006 Michigan election. Granholm and the Dems were known as ineffective do-nothings, who couldn’t pass a budget for the life of them, and sucked at handling the economy. But their opponent was a fairly extreme religious conservative (he’s pro-intelligent design), with no political experience, no charisma, and a resume consisted mostly of getting hired by his dad.
Here’s another situation — in the current New Jersey Governor’s race an incumbent everyone has hated for years may actually win because the GOP candidate has equally crappy approval ratings and there’s a strong third party challenge.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:34 am
Jimmy said:
I can’t speak for Jim, but the simple truth is the GOP has had multiple opportunities to get all those things. You’re getting a single national set of regulations in the health insurance exchanges. If any, and I literally mean ANY, GOP Senator said he would not filibuster the bill on the condition there only be one exchange nationally, and it be open to anyone, you’d get it in a heartbeat.
And, according to you, that alone would be enough to solve the health care cost crisis. You remember the crisis that helped bankrupt GM, and is almost entirely responsible for the Entitlement program crisis Bush talked about so much?
As for patient’s choice you could have supported Wyden-Bennet in January. With 20-30 GOP votes it would have been a lot easier for Wyden to outmanuever the unions, and their allies in Human Resources, and break the link between a job and health care. With Bennett on his side, and a couple guys paying half-hearted lip service to bi-partisanship, OTOH, it was doomed.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:54 am
The country is in dire need of effective leadership in the Congress. The Republicans just react to Obama-knee jerk variety. That is no leadership. There’s hardly a statesman among the lot. Democrats aren’t much better- truth be told !
October 21st, 2009 at 9:00 am
We are sorely in need of effective leadership in Congress!
October 21st, 2009 at 11:07 am
I hope the GOP picks up seats. With the current level of dissatisfaction with Republicans and Democrats in congress, I hope that would mean the people picking up the seats would be principled conservatives with a plan and maybe a willingness to look beyond party lines and politics.
I hope the Democrats pick up some seats to, unseating some of the political hacks that call themselves conservatives but are really just party wonks.
My vote is up for grabs for whichever candidate(s) are interested in solving problems; I don’t care what party they are from.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
[...] Even among Republicans, only 40 percent express confidence in the GOP congressional leadership to Source: Donklephant RSS Feed [...]
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
The primary interest of Republicans is to keep things as close as possible to the current situation. None of their proposals do anything but make minor tweaks to the current non-system. How does anyone expect that to make enough of a difference to significantly improve any of the problems we currently have? This applies to the proposals that Jimmy cites, as well.
KK, exactly where do you find anything the Republicans have done recently, including the decisions of their Supreme Court, to contradict my statement? Is there anything in any of their proposals that would have the slightest negative impact on insurance company profits? Do you actually think that our current situation can be helped by anything that leaves them alone? Have you actually not heard the statements that specifically say that their reason for opposing the public option is the potential negative impact on the insurance industry? I used to be a registered Independent. I voted for moderate Republicans. Now there are no moderate Republicans in Missouri to vote for. If I did vote for one at either the state or national level the only thing it would accomplish is to give more power to the extremists who run the party at both of those levels.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Which statement? The one where you said that the GOP was in the bag for big industries? I’ll assume that one. What reform supporters really don’t get is that many independents share the GOP’s concern that reform will make things worse, for one by establishing an expensive new entitlement program. Telling independents that the GOP is in the bag for big business does not address these concerns. Neither do claims that the CBO says the plan is in balance for 10 years. Independents all expect that once established, the plan will get bigger and bigger. They are also concerned that the middle class will get hit the hardest. Lower income folks will get subsidized starting at over 90% at the 2x poverty level, and that can’t be done simply by eating the rich. In finding ways to pay for this plan, it’ll come heavily to the middle class. That’s what worried middle class independents worry about.
Not really all that interested in debating the details again. Much better for us to agree to disagree, you’re entitled to your views. I was simply pointing out that independents by and large just don’t agree with your take. It’s all well and good to ask independents why they don’t, so that you can debate the details and try to persuade them.
But the fact seems to be that you haven’t so far. Independents are less supportive of reform than they once were if polls are to be believed. They apparently aren’t seeing things as you do. Again independents will act in vote based on how THEY see things, not based on how YOU see them.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
So, independents are just Republicans ashamed to admit it? Every belief you claim independents have certainly seems to sound like it. And isn’t the middle class getting hit the hardest by the current system? But these independents you cite aren’t capable of seeing that?
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:50 pm
@ KK: What reform supporters really don’t get is that many independents share the GOP’s concern that reform will make things worse, for one by establishing an expensive new entitlement program.
What entitlement program? The “public option” is “patient-pay medicare” (which is what I think we should call it). It’s paid for with premiums paid by customers. right?
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I used to like the GOP 20 plus years ago, but they sold out and never apologized for screwing things up so badly – every facet of our society has suffered under their rule. I honestly don’t see them making any gains at all – but I do see the power of independent candidates and possibly 3rd party candidates really coming into their own in 2010 and beyond.
True conservatives will leave the GOP and the Rep party will encompass the wing nuts who have come to dominate it. Even after 10 months of Dem rule, I still don’t see one concrete idea the GOP has come up with. Their meat puppets and talking heads continue to smash any of their party members who try and do the right thing for the American people regardless of party affiliation. That’s not politics, it’s almost like a cult or something. Power for powers sake, not because they can in fact do something with it when it is granted, but just to have it.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Especially since it’s verifibly false in this case. Pharma’s onboard. The insurers were, too, until Baucus made some remarkably stupid proposals.
Right now the stingiest plan provides subsidies up to 300% of poverty. means 48% of the country would qualify for subsidies on the Exchange.
If the House plan passes that goes to 400%, which means 61.5% of Americans would be eligible.
There’re an awful lot of independents in that 60%
Data is from the Census bureau:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/cps_table_creator.html
And this will be a change?