Gallup–Republicans Appear Poised to Win Big on Tuesday

The final USA Today/Gallup measure of Americans’ voting intentions for Congress shows Republicans continuing to hold a substantial lead over Democrats among likely voters, a lead large enough to suggest that regardless of turnout, the Republicans will win more than the 40 seats needed to give them the majority in the U.S. House.

The results are from Gallup’s Oct. 28-31 survey of 1,539 likely voters. It finds 52% to 55% of likely voters preferring the Republican candidate and 40% to 42% for the Democratic candidate on the national generic ballot — depending on turnout assumptions. Gallup’s analysis of several indicators of voter turnout from the weekend poll suggests turnout will be slightly higher than in recent years, at 45%. This would give the Republicans a 55% to 40% lead on the generic ballot, with 5% undecided.

Read it all. We shall see–it is not over until it is over.

print

Posted in * Economics, Politics, * International News & Commentary, America/U.S.A., House of Representatives, Office of the President, Politics in General, President Barack Obama, Senate, State Government

15 comments on “Gallup–Republicans Appear Poised to Win Big on Tuesday

  1. Sarah says:

    I agree about waiting until it’s over. The media — shills for their particular political worldview — are catastrophising and hysterical at this point, and I take all of their prognostications with massive cannisters of salt. It’s mainly fear talking at this point.

  2. TWilson says:

    Interesting, but I’m not aware of any “national generic ballot.” It will boil down to individual races in the House, and the particulars of which seats are open in the Senate. I think it is fair to say the Republicans will gain the House, but I can’t see them taking the Senate. Taking Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin gets GOP to 49. PA has gotten more solid, but Colorado, Illinois and Nevada are still only leaning (70-30 GOP) if you check the money on Intrade. Even-money bet that one of those three stays blue (Colorado on the merits, Illinois or Nevada maybe with some “help”). And even if they win 49, GOP still needs one more – West Virginia? Possible but unlikely. California? Even less likely. I think the only shot is Washington where Murray can’t seem to close the deal. Bottom line: I can’t see GOP doing better than 50-50, and while it may be good PR to force Joe Biden into public more, it’s a long way from 51 and control.

    I also think the GOP faces some of the same dynamics as the Dems did in 2008 – a lot of anti-status quo anger in the run-up that allows a “We’re not them” message to work very effectively until it comes time to actually govern. Then the hard reality sets in. Just ask the President, who was larger than life and pitch-perfect during the 2008 campaign and somehow seems to have simultaneously shrunk and lost touch while in office.

    Cards on the table: I will vote GOP tomorrow, but not because I expect miracles or even much directionally positive impact. Best I can see is a check on the worst of the bad ideas and abuse of procedure (remember “vote the bill so you can learn what’s in it” and not passing a budget?), a better shot at less crushing taxes short-term, and gridlock.

  3. APB says:

    As one commentator put it, the last time anything like this happened, Ronald Reagan was still a Democrat. 🙂

  4. Katherine says:

    Like TWilson #2, I will vote Republican tomorrow. I will thereafter begin a regular program of emailing Republican leaders to encourage them the enact structural changes in the House to change the way they’ve been doing things. There is no excuse whatsoever for bills being passed without careful reading and extensive debate, nor for any spending to be passed without notice and public debate. I’d like to see an end to the practice of lumping unrelated items together in huge bills. This is how bad laws are passed. I am hoping that Republicans learned their lesson, as they have been saying they did. We should push them to keep this in front of them.

    TWilson is right, though, in saying that a dramatic reversal of decades of bad practices and out-of-control spending will take time. Even repealing the health care law, which a majority of the public now favors, cannot happen without President Obama’s consent. Tomorrow will be at best a beginning of improvement, if elected legislators keep their promises.

  5. Sarah says:

    Hmmm — I agree with much of the tenor of the above comments. But I don’t know that there will be a beginning of improvement so much as maybe a slight lessening of the really really bad stuff.

    The public’s approval of Republicans is pretty darn low too. Here’s an interesting quote from one story I read that I think summarizes a part of the election:

    “Here’s the part of this that bothers me the most: This is not an embracing of Republicans. It’s a rejection of Democrats,” said Andrew Myers, a veteran Democratic pollster who worked on several House campaigns.”

  6. William P. Sulik says:

    I think the closing lines from Scott Rasmussen’s [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703708404575586063725870380.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop]op-ed in the WSJ[/url] nails it:
    [blockquote] In this environment, it would be wise for all Republicans to remember that their team didn’t win, the other team lost. Heading into 2012, voters will remain ready to vote against the party in power unless they are given a reason not to do so.

    Elected politicians also should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves. [/blockquote]

  7. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) says:

    I’ll be blunt. I do not need or want “leaders.” Having spent six years in elective office I am particularly suspicious of the crushing majority of politicians in both parties who fervently believe they somehow know better than the people they are supposed to serve … what is ‘good’ for those people.

    The real issue is this — a government worth struggling to control is probably too powerful. Full Stop.

    Big Business cannot hurt me. It does not have the power to tax. It cannot create regulations that may well destroy my business. It does not have the power to send heavily-armed men to seize my goods and property. Big Business cannot force me to do a single thing.

    The [i]ONLY[/i] threat to my success, prosperity, and well-being is Big Government. The great failure of Republicans in the last 15 years is their decision that Big Government is okay as long as it is imposing [socially] conservative ideals instead of liberal ones.

    Existentially Epic Fail. They shall have one more chance, or they will become this century’s Whigs.

    I repeat (from earlier comments), there is one and only one sustainable political position in America, which is:

    a) Strong on defence and security
    b) Very conservative about taxation, spending, and the size of government.
    c) Socially, more or less libertarian.

    Republicans had better figure that one out. Even here in Kansas the fury against get-along-go-along Big Government Republicans is palpable. After 2012 — their very last chance — all bets are off.

  8. New Reformation Advocate says:

    I agree with Sarah and especially Bart’s #7. The whole remarkable Tea Party phenomenon shows the swelling (and justified) fury against politics as usual, from either side of the aisle.

    It’s true that it’s not over until the last vote is counted. So everyone be sure to vote tomorrow. And throw the bums out who got us into this mess!!

    David Handy+

  9. Scott K says:

    I don’t identify with nor feel any loyalty to either party. Throughout the ’90s and ’00s I mostly voted Republican; in the last five years or so more of my votes have gone to Democrats. Tomorrow I plan on voting for a Democratic congressman and a Republican Governer.

    I don’t particularly care which party is in power, as long as they are working for the good of everyone (not just the richest or most powerful) and as long as they are willing to speak well of their opponents and work together with differing viewpoints to move the country forward. I will avoid voting for anyone who is uncompromising or overly partisan, regardless of party.

  10. TridentineVirginian says:

    #6 true enough, but on the other hand that is the case for Obama’s victory too: he didn’t win so much as the Republicans lost after 8 years of an increasing unpopular president. He took that election victory to mean something it didn’t and now he and his party are paying the price. I hope the GOP remembers that before they yield to the temptation to go hog wild at the public trough.

  11. midwestnorwegian says:

    Just watch the cheating, vote stealing and desperate actions that come out from “Left” as tomorrow unfolds. These folks will stop at nothing. Car trunks full of ballots to steal the election (like the Franken Senate election), voter intimidation, illegals voting, etc. Just watch….

  12. Katherine says:

    Bart Hall, I think we do need leaders; we just need leaders with the vision you talk about.

    midwestnorwegian, my nightmare is a Senate majority hanging on recounts in Washington State. Horrible to think of Rossi losing a Senate seat the same way he lost a governorship, by the miraculous appearance of just enough votes to put his opponent over the top.

  13. Terry Tee says:

    Folks, over here in the well-governed UK (I was joking) I do not have a dog in this fight, but as an interested observer I am struck by the lack of a credible GOP presidential candidate looming on the horizon for 2012. If one or even both houses goes to the Republicans, they are still stuck if they cannot produce a presidential candidate who will court the electorate starting now. We may exclude Sarah Palin from this discussion.

  14. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) says:

    Terry-T: As to credible candidates — and I lived over 20 years in parliamentary system, so I understand your perspective — for US President, I would suggest you observe Mr. Christie (governor of New Jersey), Mr. Daniel (governor of Indiana), and Gen. Petraeus, any of whom would most probably function quite well in the office.

    I would not be surprised by a Republican move to draught Gen. Petraeus with either of the other two gentlemen as Vice-Presidential candidates, though I will say I would vote for Gen. Petraeus even if he should stand under the Democrat banner.

  15. Terry Tee says:

    Thank you Bart. I will be very interested in the progress of those names. Intriguing to think that the general might be a new Eisenhower.