The Generic Ballot and the Midterms
Andrew Gelman offers a more detailed perspective on the current generic house ballot polls and the 2010 midterms:
Bafumi, Erikson, and Wlezien’s analysis doesn’t go back before 300 days before the election, but if we take the liberty of extrapolating . . . The current state of the generic polls gives the Democrats .412/(.412+.377) = 52% of the two-party vote. Going to the graph, we see, first, that 52% for the Democrats is near historic lows (comparable to 1946, 1994, and 1998) and that the expected Democratic vote–given that their party holds the White House–is around -3%, or a 53-47 popular vote win for the Republicans.
Would 53% of the popular vote be enough for the Republicans to win a House majority? A quick look, based on my analysis with John Kastellec and Jamie Chandler of seats and votes in Congress, suggests yes.
Looked at this way, Democrats had better hope the economic situation starts improving (in the sense of conditions actually improving, rather than rate of change looking better) and that improvement starts lifting their fortunes. Alternatively, an optimistic congressional Democrat could try to take solace in the extreme unpopularity of the GOP. But I actually wouldn’t count on that. The electorate’s first choice may be for the Democrats to lose seats without John Boehner becoming Speaker, but individual voters have no way to ensure that their preferences are aggregated that way.
33 Responses to “The Generic Ballot and the Midterms”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 24th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Remember that could well be the low point for the Democrats. Health care is controversial, and has not passed, so Obama has not yet gotten credit for being a strong leader (which he will get when it does finally pass). And absent a double-dip recession, there will be practical improvement in the economy.
What the Democrats need is for their base to get fired up. Passing health care reform will do that, and demobilize the right-wing base to an extent.
September 24th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
And of course the electorate is going to be just thrilled
to buttons with the ObamaCare taxes.
Yes yes I know they aren’t taxes because Il ObaDuce says they are ObaDildos or some such but we have the inconvenient truth that they are fucking taxes on middle class Americans.
And of course a public already soured on the ObaStimulator is going to love reruns of Il ObaDuce saying he saved the economy and would keep unemployment under 8%.
And you know the WH is worried about truth catching up with the ObaLiar when he is willing to engage in a public spat with one of America’s only two sitting black govs.
Can we say Over Reach?
September 24th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Thank heavens that the republicans look as nutty as hubris in comment #2. Confusing Obama with Mussolini is a pretty sure sign of a party in the thrall of loons.
September 24th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
These numbers aren’t that bad. As you stated in a previous post, Obama’s piss-poor poll numbers in the south throw off his overall approval rating which isn’t bad in the rest of the country. If you’re a Southern Democrat, you’re not looking at a good November in 2010, even if the economy turns around. But if Obama campaigns strong for Democrats in the Northeast, their majority will stay intact.
Still, count those conservative Democrats out of any votes on controversial bills, such as healthcare and you can pretty much forget about climate change legislation.
September 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Am I having deja vu, or did this post appear yesterday?
September 24th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Well, you can always beat the shit out of some anarchist demonstrators. That might give you a lift.
“PITTSBURGH – Protesters and police are clashing on the streets of Pittsburgh after police tried to break up a march oppposing the Group of 20 summit.
Protesters rolled trash bins toward police and a man in a black hooded sweat shirt threw rocks at a police car, breaking the front windshield. Some protesters also are using pallets and corrugated steel to block a road.
Officers fired gas at the protesters. Some of those exposed to the gas were coughing, complaining of eyes watering and stinging.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_on_re_us/g20_summit_protests
September 24th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
…not to defend the use of tear gas or anything, but why is that something worth reporting? Isn’t “coughing, stinging and wattery eyes” the entire POINT of Tear Gas?
September 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
What the Democrats need is for their base to get fired up. Passing health care reform will do that – Greg Abbott
It will? I think that, in my late 20s I was a typical member of the Democratic base: over-educated and (temporarily) under-employed (e.g. not making what I could have been making given my educational attainments, albeit because I was essentially an apprentice working toward a particular career goal). As such, I did not receive health care through my employer, I made too much money to really get meaningful subsidies to buy health care but not enough to afford decent health care.
Current “thinking” on health care compromises would involve forcing someone in my former position to purchase health care (if my employer had to pay for health care, he likely couldn’t have afforded me, which would have met I may have been without a job entirely, FWIW) with a minimum of subsidies (to be fiscally responsible) provided. Moreover, by making health insurance mandatory, you would increase demand for health insurance raising prices even more (especially without meaningful competition to the insurance cartel such as via a public option).
So how does passing a plan that financially hurts your base, even one committed to income redistribution, energize your base?
September 24th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
My guess is the Dems will lose a few dozen House seats next year, but the GOP won’t make truly major gains. The reason for that is (as Tom DeLay just pointed out) the Republicans are rudderless and confused … the closest thing to a GOP leader right now, is Glenn Beck.
MARCU$
September 24th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Given the regional disparity of the move away from Obama and the Democrats – ie, it’s concentrated in the South, barely perceptible in the West, and absent in the Northeast and Midwest – the effect of this movement in the national polls is likely to be mush less than this model predicts.
September 24th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Now now Don!
Beating and gassing rioting protesters is only a bad thing on the streets of Tehran.
In American cities, not so much.
Well, at least not when it is our own Obatollah overseeing it.
September 24th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Not many people know this, but the President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Chief Diplomat, Chief Executive, and Commander of the Pittsburgh Police Department Riot Control Division.
Go away, idiots, we’re trying to talk about grown-up stuff.
September 24th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
There are a dozen reasons why this early polling really isn’t worth thinking hard about.
The atmospherics will change. A small number of data points may, or may not indicate something.
We are closer to the 2008 election than we are to the 2010 election.
Having said that, I assume the professional Democrats are thinking about the 2010 elections.
And one point that I agree with is that the regionalization of the Republican Party means that the generic polls need to be tweaked. I’ll leave it to Nate Silver do that. Matt can go back to posting unintelligible graphs
September 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Gee joe do ya’ think there is any FBI/Secret Service presence and coordination with local law enforcement in Pittsburgh?
Were you born an idiot or is that the product of extensive training?
September 24th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Yeah, what everyone said about the regional distribution. If a bunch of Blue Dogs lose, and GOPpers win their gerrymandered districts 70-30 instead of 65-35, then not much changes.
Still, I hate to invoke Petey, but midterms are base-motivation exercises, and if Dems don’t have something to vote for, they may just stay at home.
September 24th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Obatollah,
Please don’t compare Pittsburgh police to the theocratic despots in Iran. Iranian secret police brutally raped and tortured Iranian citizens who were protesting a fixed election. Pittsburgh police are firing teargas at trust-funded hippy duechebags who were lighting trashcans on fire.
Anarchists protesting the G-20 enjoy being beaten and tear-gassed. Its why they’re there in the first place so they can go cry later about police brutality.
September 24th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
The Obama-whatsit troll was tedious when he was ‘JD’ or whatever his handle was, and he’s tedious as a shapeshifter.
September 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Re Joe at 12: “Not many people know this, but the President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Chief Diplomat, Chief Executive, and Commander of the Pittsburgh Police Department Riot Control Division.”
————-
Well, he sure as shit is paying for and running security at the G20 Summit.
From Pittsburgh Radio KDKA:
“SECURITY INFORMATION FOR THE PITTSBURGH SUMMIT ANNOUNCED
First phase includes plans for perimeter near David L. Lawrence Convention Center
(Washington, D.C.) – The United States Secret Service in cooperation with its local, state
and federal security, public safety and military partners, is developing the overall security
plan for the Pittsburgh Summit. The summit will take place Thursday and Friday,
September 24 and 25, 2009.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has designated the Pittsburgh Summit as a
National Special Security Event (NSSE). When an event is designated an NSSE, the
Secret Service assumes its role as the lead federal agency for the design and
implementation of the operational security plan. The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police and the
Pennsylvania State Police, as well as a number of other federal, state and local agencies,
will play a critical operational role in securing the summit and resources will be deployed
to maintain the necessary level of security. These same agencies have been involved in
developing the overall security and transportation plans for the summit.
The first phase of closures announced today affect the area near the David L. Lawrence
Convention Center. …
…to provide secure airspace over the Pittsburgh metropolitan area. A Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) advisory listing enhanced restrictions was
released on August 24, 2009 (amended August 31) and can be accessed online at
Airspace Security….
…The U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port will establish a
waterside security zone starting at 6 a.m., September 24, which will be in effect
through 10 p.m., September 25.
Water Security: There will be an enhanced security presence on the waterways ”
Ref: http://www.kdkaradio.com/pages/5172006.php?contentType=4&contentId=4653737
I’m kinda curious who those unnamed “military partners” are.
September 24th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Hmmm. Above KDKA notice was actually a copy of a notice issued by the Secret Service: http://static.cbslocal.com/station/kdka/G-20_SecurityInformation.pdf
“Resistance is Futile. Prepared to be butt-stroked.”
September 24th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
It is truly hilarious watching you all pretend that everything is hunky dory in the face of evidence to the contrary.
People never really trusted Democrats to “keep them safe”. Democrats still managed to get elected. This is a zero-sum game. The other side wins if you lose. They don’t have to win themselves.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Matt can go back to posting unintelligible graphs
======================================================
Well that is one of his strengths. Right up there with spelling.
I particularly enjoy his penchant for have y-axes without lables.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
That’s “having”. See, it’s contagious
September 24th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
soullite Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
It is truly hilarious watching you all pretend that everything is hunky dory in the face of evidence to the contrary.
========================================================
Many are quickly falling into the Republican habit common in 2005 – 2006 of spending immense amounts of time and energy telling us why polls can’t possibly mean what they say
September 24th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Democrats 52% of the two-party vote….is around -3%, or a 53-47 popular vote win for the Republicans.
Wouldn’t that be… ahhh… 49-50??
September 24th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
This kind of extrapolation of future results based on the average dynamics of the past is really pretty useless. This is not some clockwork already set in motion, and the results will be determined in part by future events not yet reflected in current polling.
Many are quickly falling into the Republican habit common in 2005 – 2006 of spending immense amounts of time and energy telling us why polls can’t possibly mean what they say
The polls say the Democrats are still ahead on the generic ballot. Ironically, you need to spend “immense amounts of time and energy” to come up with Gelman’s projection.
September 24th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Wouldn’t that be… ahhh… 49-50??
Gelman is projecting that if the Democrats have a +2% in polling now, they will end at a -3% as of the actual vote. In fact you could simplify further and say that since the Democrats’ polling looks now like it did roughly this far in advance of the 1994 elections, they will get the same result as they got in the 1994 elections.
Which, in my view, highlights how Gelman is asking for more from this data than it really can provide.
September 24th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
And that is the $64,999.99 question isn’t it. Where will the Republicans – currently polling in the mid-20s in terms of popularity – get that 53 percent of the vote?
There’s all this doom-and-gloom about the Democrats’ prospects, but why do I get the feeling the pollsters are overlooking the fact that the Republicans aren’t doing a DAMN thing to improve their own pathetic polling numbers? Just because the Democrats’ numbers are getting lower doesn’t mean the Republicans’ will automatically go up to balance out…
September 25th, 2009 at 2:07 am
I saw this analysis earlier today and it is complete farce.
It is far too numbers-only based and completely misses the southern white male ONLY appeal of the GOP.
They have retrenched as an ubber-conservative southern party which may work well in sweeping the south.
But there is no way to win a majority with only that constituency.
They will likely gain seats, but not a majority.
And since the Dems are not a single caucus and have many conservative members, there is virtually no difference between 60 Dem senators and 51 Dem senators.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I gave up on this statistical prediction shit last fall. I spent every morning reading all Nate Silver’s crap and obsessing over statistical models, and in the end it was completely useless. You just can’t take an opinion poll a full year before an election and plot some stupid line that’ll predict the results. This whole thing is just a masturbatory exercise for people who are addicted to the political horserace. (Sorry to mix metaphors and give the impression that people are jerking off to horses.)
September 25th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
DTM Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
This kind of extrapolation of future results based on the average dynamics of the past is really pretty useless. This is not some clockwork already set in motion, and the results will be determined in part by future events not yet reflected in current polling.
Many are quickly falling into the Republican habit common in 2005 – 2006 of spending immense amounts of time and energy telling us why polls can’t possibly mean what they say
The polls say the Democrats are still ahead on the generic ballot. Ironically, you need to spend “immense amounts of time and energy” to come up with Gelman’s projection.
=====================================================
I agree that predicting a year out is silly. All you can really say now is that the trends aren’t good for the Democrats right now and that they have a year for the trends to possibly change in the other direction.
My “time and energy” comment was directed at those trying to deny that the *current* trends don’t favor Dems
September 26th, 2009 at 5:09 am
“Well, you can always beat the shit out of some anarchist demonstrators. That might give you a lift.”
Yes. Ignoring this vital voting block will surely seal the doom of democratic candidates across the nation. Because the American people have a long history of identifying wholeheartedly with ‘anarchist demonstrators.’ I mean, just look at all the races in the last two decades that have been carried by the ‘anarchist demonstrator’ vote.
It’s been proven to be wildly decisive time and time again.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:37 am
“Anarchists protesting the G-20 enjoy being beaten and tear-gassed. Its why they’re there in the first place so they can go cry later about police brutality.”
Well, I think you’re overstating the resolve of your average protester at this sort of thing to actually be on the receiving end of things. What most really want is to enjoy it from the safety of a second hand remove- that is, to be able to say that “I was there when people (none of whom were me, although I won’t let that get in the way of a good yarn)were…”
Otherwise, this exactly.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Useless extrapolation. Republican strength is concentrated in specific parts of the country and Democratic strength is concentrated everywhere else. Predicting seat losses as if the dropoff were evenly distributed gives nonsense.