Generic Republicans Blood the Way to Midterm Landslide!

Have you heard that tomorrow is Election Day?

By 55%-40%, those surveyed say they plan to vote for the Republican candidate, the widest margin since Democrats' advantage in the 1974 elections held in the wake of Watergate.

"If history holds, then this is the prediction of a Republican wave of genuinely historical proportions, possibly beyond the 1994 election," when Democrats lost control of the House and Senate, says Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. With Republican voters reporting record levels of enthusiasm, the GOP is poised for gains well beyond the turnover of 39 seats it needs to take control of the House.

Those numbers are based on a USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,500 likely voters. Republican triumphalists take note: "In the USA TODAY poll, 29% identify themselves as Republicans, fewer than in 2008." Translation: You suck less than the other party. Don't screw it up (again).

More here, via USA Today.

Comments

[C'mon man]

Republicans' rock! They should easily be able to cut 10 million of waste out of the budget. Easily.

[Rich]

You suck less than the other party. Don't screw it up (again).

*When* the Stupid Party screws it up again we will see the end of the two-party system.

[waffles]

I like your optimism, but do you really think this country has the guts to do it? It seems like the Dem/Rep cycling is getting faster and faster. Maybe it will reduce to a singularity and either end the two-party system or create a gigantic explosion.

A political big bang.

[Rich]

I do think the country has the guts. The so-called Tea Party stuff is not going away.

On a less optimistic note, however, the end of the two-party system could be a result of a gigantic explosion.

[The Other Kevin]

I noticed that cycle getting shorter too. Right now someone is trying to figure out a way to make national electsions every 1 year instead of 2.

[Spoonman.]

If only.

[Pitchforks and Torches R Us]

I predict that Republicans, doing what they do best, will be good for our business.

[Greg]

It is hard to tell the purpose of this comment. I first read it as, "will be good for business in this country" but on second reading, it looks more like "good for our interests (business)" If you mean the former, perhaps it is worth considering what is good for businesses in the country is good for all of us as well.

[Rich]

Consider the source.

[waffles]

I usually get my pitchforks and torches at Sears. Perhaps this more dedicated business model will better serve the future needs of angry mobs.

[Pitchforks and Torches R Us]

We here at Pitchforks and Torches R Us believe that there is a market for a more customer-centric approach to supplying the fine products that we sell. We have many innovative ideas for providing a more satisfying individualized buying experience.

One of our more popular ideas has been to provide in-store pitchfork tine sharping free-of-charge for all of our cash customers. We were initially surprised to find that many of our walk-in customers were unaware that the tines on most off-the-shelf pitchforks are really quite blunt. Grinding a wicked point onto each tine invariably puts a smile on our patrons faces and generates a noticeable increase in word-of-mouth business.

[R C Dean]

Without tar and feathers, you can't really service your target audience, you know.

[Pitchforks and Torches R Us]

Without tar and feathers

We've had some trouble with our suppliers. Our tar supplier claims that they've tried to find workers to gather tar off the gulf coast, but they can't find anyone who isn't soaking up rays while collecting unemployment. We have had some success gathering some of the feathers flying over the backroom dealings in the Florida Senate race, but it hasn't been enough to keep up with demand.

[Rrabbit]

what is good for businesses in the country is good for all of us as well.

False. For example, it is "good for businesses" if businesses are allowed to dump toxic waste into lakes and rivers without fear of being sued.

[Greg]

Wow Rrabbit way to take my statement way too literally. Perhaps I should qualify every statement with a statistical analysis of exactly when business interests align with the interests of the general population. Or perhaps you can take the point that my statement is in contrast to the commonly held liberal belief that business interests are usually at odds with the interests of normal folks (note the use of folks, the O's favorite new term, and the careful insertion of usually so as not to confuse you)

[Trillion $ Deficits Forever]

Because Republicans are planning on rolling back all environmental rules. Every. Last. One. The boogeyman is in Olberman's head, not yours. As far as you know.

[Joe M]

I'm curious to see how people will react when they see nothing change with the GOP back in power. Probably the rampant hypocrisy of only bitching when the other guys do it (whether "it" is out of control spending, warmongering, or whatever else) will continue.

Couple of things though: the Tea Party candidates DID knock out a lot of establishment-endorsed Republican candidates during the primary, and a decent number of them will win. They are not quite the same old same old politicians. It would be cool to see them forming a faction that battles against the larger chunk Republicans over taxes and spending and such. They're not exactly libertarians, but at least some kind of foothold for discussing reining in government in the actual Congress would be nice.

[John]

I think things will change to some degree for two reasons. First, as you point out, a lot tea party candidates did win. If the Republicans were taking the majority with Charlie Crist and Murkowski and Mike Castle, and Arlan Specter, things would definitely not change. But they are not. Rand Paul, and Rubio and Angle and Miller and O'Donnell and McMahon really are different. And they are going to give the Republican establishment fits.

Second, there are a ton of Democratic senators from the class of 06 who are up for re-election in 2012. If the election is a blowout, are they really going to be keen to die on the hill trying to save Obama's agenda? I don't think so. You can see some of that already. Ben Nelson voted against Elana Keagan. If it is a blowout, those guys are going to turn and run and try to make themselves into center right bi partisan get things done deal makers. That is not going to go over well at the Whitehouse.

[CommentArrrr]

Unfortunately, it is way too early to be certain these new candidates will be able to give the establishment fits.

It's all nice for them to do so via media and campaigning, but it's another story to do it on Capitol Hill. How many of them really have the spine to drive change as a Freshman Rep?

[Spoonman.]

It will also mean that business will continue as usual in Congress, with all the scared Dems turning into slimy dealmakers. That's always bad.

[John]

When the slimy deal maker is making deals to sell out the other side, they don't seem so slimy.

[Spoonman.]

Selling out TEAM BLUE for TEAM RED or vice versa leads to more of some politician's agenda getting made into law. That's bad.

[John]

I am wondering if maybe the reality is much worse for the Democrats than they appear. Suppose the Democrats really are behind big. You can manipulate the poll results by weighting the respondents for one party or another. If the real internals show the Dems down big, the Dems would not want that to get out because it would kill their fund raising. The Republicans really wouldn't either for fear that it would sap their base's motivation. Why make an effort to vote if your party is going to win in a landslide? It is possible that both parties have weighted their polls towards Democrats.

We will see, but I am starting to think that tomorrow is going to be much worse for Democrats than even the media thinks. Also, the generic national ballot shows the GOP with a big lead. That doesn't mash with the state by state polls. If the Republicans have that big of a lead nationally, they should be doing better in some of these Senate races. One of those polls has to be wrong.

[Chupacabra]

Aren't generic polls usually meaningless?

It's one thing to prefer nameless Republicans over the Dems. But it's another to vote for candidate X after weeks of scary ads about him/her.

[John]

Not really. If you go back and look the generic poll results have been a pretty good indicator of which side is going to win in the aggregate. They don't tell you anything about a specific race. But they tell you the overall picture.

[Joe M]

My understanding is that, historically, polls have always tended to over-estimate Democrat support, for whatever reason(s).

[Alan]

Would that reason be voting machines built by Republicans?

[Geotpf]

The main reason is that Dem support is high amoungst the poor, younger voters, and minorities, and turnout amoungst those groups traditionally is weak (2008 being an exception).

[SIV]

Why make an effort to vote if your party is going to win in a landslide?

Bandwagon effect."Everybody" likes to back a winner.W/O anything to back it up I'd guess lopsided poll numbers energize majority partisans and sway swing voters.

[P Brooks]

Republican triumphalists take note: "In the USA TODAY poll, 29% identify themselves as Republicans, fewer than in 2008."

Translation: "When the only tool you have is a hammer, you have to just keep hitting incumbents with it."

[CrackertyAssCracker]

I don't call myself a Republican. But this might be the first time in my life I go vote a straight R party ticket. Probably won't, but I am considering it.

[sloopyinca]

So from the accompanying picture, we can expect more grown men to do one of these three things (sfw)?

I bet Larry Craig wishes he'd have gotten back in the political ring then.

[Dave]

Ah! *that* explains the fascination that Liz Taylor holds for gay men.

[Nick]

Reason #972 to never join a frat.

[Sam Grove]

The advantage of electoral politics: you can compare the two parties.

The disadvantage: it takes the voters a looong time to learn how much both parties suck.

[Sam Grove]

The advantage of electoral politics: you can compare the two parties.

The disadvantage: it takes the voters a looong time to learn how much both parties suck.

[Geotpf]

It's nowhere near this clear how big a gain the Republicans will have in the House. From Nate Silver:

Gallup's generic ballot poll has Republicans up 15 point among likely voters, or at least their traditional model does; their higher-turnout model has Republicans up 10 instead.

Fox News, whose models haven't had a Republican lean in the past but have something of one this year, has Republicans up 13. CNN has them up 10. Rasmussen, up 9. YouGov, plus 8.

The CBS/New York Times poll has them up 6, as does the survey from Pew Research, as does an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that asks voters which party they'd prefer to see control Congress (not technically a generic ballot poll, but the questions usually produce similar results.)

The Politico/Battleground poll has Republicans up 5. The ABC News/Washington Post poll has them 4 points ahead. Bloomberg has them up 3. Marist shows a tie. Newsweek, somehow, actually has Democrats ahead 3 points among likely voters.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n.....o-predict/

Polling is a mess this year. I believe Nate's prediction of the Republicans gaining between 23 and 81 seats in the House, with ranges smaller than that being "superstition" (his term).

The Senate is much clearer, with the Dems ending up with 52ish seats (counting Lieberman and Sanders as Dems and Murkowski as a Rep if she wins (Crist is toast)).

[John]

23 and 81? That is really going out on a limb there. That range is so wide as to render the prediction meaningless. I am not buying anything Nate is selling if he would put out that number as some kind of valid prediction.