In Context

I'm reading some sentiment that maybe the Democrat's large lead in generic congressional balloting doesn't matter, because Democrats always lead in generic balloting. Here's Gallup's table of historical context for the numbers:

Long story short, the fourteen point lead is a big lead by historical standards. It's February right now and the election's in November. That's plenty of time for things to change so in that sense it's not necessarily very significant. But the size of the lead is genuinely large.

Comments

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=718696

Obama just got the endorsement of the major Wisconsin paper, two days before the primary in that state....

Posted by vinnie's cousin | February 16, 2008 1:56 PM

A 23 point lead in early October 2006 dwindling to a 7 point lead just before the election one month later makes me think that this generic survey is worthless.

Posted by gordonminor | February 16, 2008 1:58 PM

Matt,

I think the complaint/observation is that Democrats lead in generic polls farther out from an election, but then the Republicans close up the gap as the election approaches.

On your table there, you only have one February result, and the rest are mostly examples from the fall- and only a couple others that aren't.

For example, 2006 Oct. 6-8 shows the Dems with a 23% lead, but then by a couple weeks later, in the 2006 0ct. 20-22 poll the lead has been narrowed to 13 points.

So it's clear with your bits and pieces of data here, you haven't showed us anything about what the annual trend is at all. You'd need a lot more data points rangin across several years to show that.

Posted by Swan | February 16, 2008 2:15 PM

Matt wrote:

But the size of the lead is genuinely large.

How can you say that when you only have one February on your table there, and the rest are mostly from the fall? Over October 6-8 2006 we had a 23 point lead (59 percent) and then with a couple of weeks we lost ten points of that lead!

Needless to say that was a larger lead closer to the election. And yet you call a smaller February lead large. We've got plenty of time to lose ground, and the Repubs have about $250 million to spend on 527s in the presidential race.

I just want to make sure we all understand we've got to work hard and make sure we win this thing. We can't take a victory for granted at this point at all.

Posted by Swan | February 16, 2008 2:20 PM

I'm reading some sentiment that maybe the Democrat's large lead in generic congressional balloting doesn't matter, because Democrats always lead in generic balloting.

If Democrats always led in generic balloting, then we'd always win every election, probably. So I doubt anyone is saying that. Maybe you messed up this sentence.

Posted by Swan | February 16, 2008 2:23 PM

You can't begin to imagine how terrible it is going to be for the Republicans.

The heart and soul of the upper middle class and upper class is going to abandon the party. The only ones left are going to be the dead enders.

"The two brothers handed much of it to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. with marching orders to make only the most conservative, cashlike investments. Within weeks, however, they had lost access to more than a quarter-billion dollars."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120295439920567161.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
This stuff is going on in the better neighborhoods all over the nation. Right now, right this moment. I've got anecdotes galore.

While the credit bubble and the Wall Street paradigm were nurtured and then institutionalized under Clinton the GOP isn't going to spin the economic collapse, yes collapse, on
the Democrats.

McCain is clueless. The Clinton's are the king and queen of the third way, which as its crowning achievement killed off Glass Stegel. Obama is virtually guiltless in these matters.

The market in hope talk has only just begun its bull run.

Posted by rapier | February 16, 2008 2:25 PM

It's also important to remember that this is happening during a time of relatively good news for the Bush administration. By that, I meant that isn't anything overtly awful happening that is dragging its poll numbers, and that of the Congressional Republicans, down. The disagreements over FISA are probably too complicated for the public to be briefed on, and while the economy isn't great, what is happening is sort of old news, even we are still feeling its effects.

But even if you disagree with that idea, perhaps a better indicator of what's happening is the number of Congressional Republicans jumping ship. They probably have a better idea of what is to come than anybody else, and as we all know, the number is almost thirty.

Posted by Brian | February 16, 2008 2:48 PM

wrt to that +23 lead - it seems to be a combination of an outlier (democrats at 59% when all the other polls around that time had a low 50's) and a suggestion that a lot of republican voters were disappointed about their options (the 36% for the republican party) but returned to their normal party.

in any event you can certainly say that the big lead indicates which party has the most work to do if they want to win.

Posted by gkoch | February 16, 2008 2:48 PM

Those 2006 numbers are bizarre -- wasn't October 2006 a period in which Mark Foley was in the news constantly? And the Democrats lost 16 points in a month?

Posted by Martin | February 16, 2008 2:58 PM

Given the results of the 2006 elections, I am not at all troubled by the way these numbers narrowed during a campaign. That's normal. Clearly it didn't really the Republicans very much, though.

Posted by soullite | February 16, 2008 4:01 PM

I think I read somewhere (years ago) that for the Democrats to break even they need 5 point advantage in the generic poll on the election day. Something about identifying 'likely voters', perhaps.

Posted by abb1 | February 16, 2008 4:01 PM

generic ballots like this are totally useless, only serving time after time to give a false sense of security. it all comes down to the candidates, the media narrative surrounding them. haven't we known this for a long time though? forever Dems led the generic ballot, and then when it became specific R. candidates it was suddenly tied. Dems think they're about to just coast to victory and it is not going to be that easy. maybe it will, but we can't count on it! turnout numbers during the primary indicate an advantage for Dems, but that will evaporate for the general election. and yeah, this always happens. Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Clinton's 1st election was closer than expected and had Perot in there making things weird. this won't be a gimme election for Dems.

Posted by onceler | February 16, 2008 4:06 PM

Was there discussion of the polling in the DCCC conference call yesterday? I didn't call in and listen.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | February 16, 2008 5:25 PM

Re: The Clinton's are the king and queen of the third way, which as its crowning achievement killed off Glass Stegel.

I wish someone would please explain what the old Glass Stegal act has to do with the current housing meltdown mess. Glass Stegel forbade deposit banks from trading in securities, since banks doing this accounted for a large fraction of post-1929 bank failures. However companies like Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley (and the others who securitized mortgages and then lost billions) are not deposit banks: they are brokerages who have been trading in securities for years and years.

Posted by JonF | February 16, 2008 8:27 PM

Those kind of figures are useless to even bother with for the House. One word is all you need to clarify the situation:

gerrymandering.

Don't get your hopes up. I would say especially beware of the people who no longer like Bush and his minions but still very much like their own "very different" Republican representative. And also especially if, in the general presidential race, Obama plans to continue to make cooing sounds about all getting along across the aisle. Suprise surprise, if Independents and swings are part of what helps lift him to victory, those coattails could include Republican House members.

Posted by artappraiser | February 16, 2008 11:02 PM

The thing about Republicans (and, e.g. self-styled Libertarians who nevertheless vote Republican consistently) is that they spend a lot of time telling pollsters (and themselves) how they're thinking independently and making up their minds. But when decision time arrives, they believe what they're told to believe and vote as instructed. That's a big part of what makes them Republicans.

Posted by ask | February 16, 2008 11:41 PM