Google Ads


Site Stats

GQR/Democracy Corps poll: GOP House majority in jeopardy already

by: brownsox

Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 5:57 PM EDT


Buyer's remorse is setting in quickly, according to Democratic pollster Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

GQR polled 50 House districts currently held by Republicans which are expected to be major Democratic targets in 2012. The results indicate that the Republican House majority is already endangered, less than three months into Speaker John Boehner's regime.

From GQR's polling memo:

The Republican incumbents in these districts, 35 of them freshmen, remain largely unknown and appear very vulnerable in 2012 (depending on redistricting). In fact, these incumbents are in a weaker position than Democratic incumbents were even in late 2009, or Republican incumbents were in 2007 in comparable surveys conducted by Democracy Corps.

These incumbents, identified by name, have an average approval rating of 35 percent across the 50 districts, with 25 percent disapproving. Another 38 percent were not able to give the candidates a rating, suggesting lack of visibility. This is about 10 points lower than the approval rating Democratic incumbents held in July of 2009 (with comparable disapproval rating).

More importantly at this early point, just 40 percent of voters in these districts say that they will vote to reelect their incumbent (asked by name in each district), while 45 percent say that they "can't vote to reelect" the incumbent.

This leads to a congressional race that is dead-even in the battleground. After winning these seats by a collective 14 points in 2010, these Republicans now lead generic Democratic challengers by just 2 points, 44 to 46 percent, and stand well below the critical 50 percent mark. The race is dead even in the top tier of the 25 most competitive seats‚ 46 percent for the Democrats versus 45 percent for the Republicans. In the next 25 seats, the Republicans have a slight 42 to 47 percent advantage.

You can find a list of the 50 districts polled here. House junkies will recognize most of the usual suspects there - IL-13 and IL-16 are probably the biggest surprises.

In the summer of 2009, the 40 vulnerable Democrats tested in this poll actually had a six-point lead; 36 of them wound up losing. And at this time in 2007, the 35 most vulnerable Republicans had the same six-point lead; 19 of them lost reelection.

Compared to that, a 2-point lead for GQR's 50 most vulnerable Republicans doesn't look very strong. And if even half these seats are lost, there goes the Republican majority.

Now, the Republican incumbents have a couple things on their side. One is time; a lot can happen in the next year and a half. Another is redistricting; while Republicans don't control the redistricting process for all these incumbents, they can make some of them safer, and they can also endanger a few of the remaining Democrats to balance out losses.

Still, these are bad early indicators for the new Congress. Voters don't know their new representatives very well, and they don't like them especially well, and they seem quite prepared to vote Democratic in 2012.

brownsox :: GQR/Democracy Corps poll: GOP House majority in jeopardy already
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Bottom Line.
These are the twelve Republicans on that list I found that represent districts that went for both Obama and Kerry; please add more if you find any, on the list or not.

Allen West
Bobby Schilling
Chip Cracaack
Charlie Bass
Ann Marie Buerkle
Jim Gerlach
Pat Meehan
Mike Fitzpatrick
Lou Barletta
Charlie Dent
Dave Reichert
Sean Duffy

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)


Bob Dold!
man, I am obsessed with that.

[ Parent ]
God, how did I forget Bob Friggin' Dold!
Thanks.

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)

[ Parent ]
Pretty irrelevant list due to redistricting
All of the GOPers in PA will likely have more favorable districts, and Gerlach would probably hold on anyways (he always does somehow).

Its difficult to see how Duffy wouldn't get a better district in 2012, but Wisconsin is certainly a state where increased Dem turnout could overcome so many obstacles in 2012.

Its hard for me to see NH swing from 2 Dem congressman in 2008 to 2 GOP in 2010 back to 2 Dem's in 2012...has that ever happened in NH?

As others have suggested, IL is the golden re-districting opportunity, then hopefully FL and CA.  I'm not that optimistic on the upper midwest anti-GOP vibe holding up and delivering significant house seats in 2012, but then again I don't know if anything significant will be needed from those areas.


[ Parent ]
Pennsylvania
The GOP is maxed out. Not everyone in eastern PA on that list is going to get a better district, since to strengthen one of them is almost by definition to weaken another.  

The only beneficial things the GOP can do in the Philly area is throw Schwartz a few blue precincts in the suburbs and bury a few more with the expansion of both Philadelphia seats.

In a strong Dem year, all of them could go down, even under new maps, unless the GOP decides to really throw one of them to the wolves and lock down the other districts. But I don't see them doing that.


36, M, Democrat, MD-03


[ Parent ]
PA Incumbent protection
They'll all get better districts, and I'd wager money Dent and meehan win.  Gerlach could lose to a strong challenger but he wins all the time so I'm not sure if Trivedi in an Obama year could beat him.That being said, of the 12 more than half will have noticeably different districts, likely to be more favorable, which is why I don't think the list means much.  

I'd be stunned if half of the people on this list weren't in Congress in 2013.


[ Parent ]
More on PA
But they can't ALL get better districts. You can only stuff so many Democratic precincts into those three Philadelphia-based seats. Beyond that, whatever help you give to one district comes at the expense of another. Fitzpatrick in particular looks really boxed in. Bucks County is pretty uniform, and it's not like they'd really want to take anything unusually red you'd find up north of Philly away from Barletta or Dent.

(Well, you can help Gerlach out a little bit by handing some tough territory to Joe Pitts, the closest thing to a truly red district you'll find in the vicinity. But since Pitts is an arch-conservative with zero crossover appeal, trying to add a whole bunch of more liberal suburban voters to that district is not the best of ideas.)

It is true that Dent and Gerlach have proven they can win tough districts, and that Meehan seems to have the profile of someone who could similary survive a tough district.    

36, M, Democrat, MD-03


[ Parent ]
Good points.
But I think you miss the main one. Of those congressmen, only Gerlach, Dent and Reichert have won multiple elections during presidential election years. All the others are either freshmen or reruns who lost in 2006 and made comebacks in 2010. Reichert and Barletta are the only ones likely to get districts MUCH more favorable than their current ones. Dent, Gerlach and Meehan will get better districts, no doubt, but they'll still be swing district, and there's not much you can do to strengthen Fitzpatrick.

For Buerkle, all the signs have been that one Republican in Upstate NY is likely to see their district get chopped up, and one Democrat in New York City is. That R is probably going to either be Buerkle, Gibson or Corwin (assuming she wins Lee's old district). Buerkle may get a more favorable district, but that's putting a lot on the line for Repubs in NY, and she's the least likely upstate Repub to have any crossover appeal in a swingy area.

The easiest way to strengthen Duffy is to give him some more of northeast Wisconsin and to swap Portage County out for St. Croix County, but both those things really make life much more difficult for Ribble (another freshman who can probably afford to take on some more Dem territory) and Petri and strengthen Kind. And even then his district will still be Dem-leaning.

Bass barely won his old open seat back in 2010, and his district is a good more Democratic then Guinta's. Both districts usually swing about the same, but the 2nd is about 2-4 more points Democratic on average then the 1st.

Cravaack will almost certainly either get a more condensed Iron Range/northern Minnesota district, or see his home in the northern Minneapolis/St. Paul exurbs be drawn into Bachmann's district. Either way, he's probably toast.

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)


[ Parent ]
Actually...
Charlie Bass has won with a Democratic president winning at the top of the ticket (1996 popular vote/electoral college, 2000 popular vote), and three times (1996, 2000, 2004) with the Democratic nominee winning his district, but I think my point for him stands.

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)

[ Parent ]
Cravaack
I actually can see a realistic scenario for him to return to Congress. Bachmann is probably more likely than not to run for President at this point, and there is a strong chance that Cravaack's home gets drawn into her district. If that happens, he's probably the odds-on favorite to win the new MN-06 (with MN-08 returning to the DFL.)

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
In that scenario, you're probably right.
I was writing under the assumption that Bachmann would run for reelection to her house seat, but if she really does run for president I see no reason why your scenario would not happen. I have to admit, though, that I still have a nagging suspicion that Bachmann won't run in the end, but what do I know?

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)

[ Parent ]
*Won't run for president in the end...


20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)

[ Parent ]
putting Cravaack's home into
Bachmann's district would be pure Democratic gerrymander and really start packing GOPers.  Especially since if you put in Chisago County, also goes in Isanti, and that's over 60k pop. on top of a district that needs to shed roughly 90k.  Although at the same time, by having to shift MN-8 more into MN-7, MN-7 into, MN-1, and then MN-2, well MN-1 is rural and the only rural territory MN-2 has is very Republican, it could equal out to a fair trade off.

Bleh, why do I even argue about imaginary lines that can be drawn in hundreds of ways that prove me wrong.  


[ Parent ]
Encouraging
that they polled 8 (!) Illinois Republicans.  As I've mentioned before, I expect Illinois to be the state with the biggest number of turnovers, as their vulnerable freshmen (and even longtime incumbents) struggle in new maps with Obama at the top of the ticket.

Having a huge sweep in Illinois would really get us closer to taking back the House...after that it gets tricky and our best hope for large gains elsewhere seems to be that midwest and northeast states swing back hard towards Democrats and even GOP gerrymandering can't save their freshmen.


Todd Young is on that list.
I hope that a miracle happens and redistricting isn't as bad.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

[ Parent ]
Between Obama and Dem Redistricting
being on the table for 2012, the Republicans are going to get DESTROYED in Illinois in 2012.  I think the Democrats are going to go +5 at the very least there.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

[ Parent ]
Excellent
This is definitely good news. Let's just not count our chickens before they hatch.

24, male, Democrat, VA-06 (currently in Italy), went to school in VA-05

Was hoping for a NY-13 poll.
Not that I expect redistricting to do us any favors.  But if Obama can bring great North Shore African-American turnout again and McMahon runs again (as most people expect he will)... could be a good race.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

Expand the map.
I think I'm ready to call for a new rule, which is that if there's a presidential campaign presence in the state, every single congressional district should be looked at--in 2012, at least. This is even more called for if there's a competitive senate race. I get that we would need a great year to win some of these red seats, or whatever they end up as after redistricting, but if we are going to have a lot of extra money to throw around, what better way to use it? In a different thread, I wrote the following, which describes one particular long shot district. Tell me if I am off the deep end:

Just to follow through a little with what I was saying before, the link below tells me that there were 464,904 voters in the district. Yet, only 282,142 people voted in the House race, a difference of 182,492, including those who voted for the Libertarian, for a turnout rate of 60.68 percent. Pence received 180,608 votes compared to Welsh's 94,265 votes, a usually huge victory.

How might have Welsh overtaken Pence? Well, let's assume that, for whatever reason, turnout went up to 70 percent. That would bring 325,433 voters out, or 43,291 more. Let's say that 65 percent of these additional voters went to Welsh, giving him an additional 28,139 votes for a total of 122,404. That would bring him up to 37.61 percent of the vote. So no, he's not really close. But assume that Pence either didn't get an additional 15,152 votes, or rather did but lost that many votes from previous voters. Let's say that, instead of getting an additional 15,152 voters, he wouldn't get those, and would in fact lose 10,000 more. Welsh would then be up to 137,556 votes, or 42.29 percent.

That's a huge jump, yes, but if Pence went down 10,000 votes, that's about a six or seven percent drop--not exactly huge. If Pence saw a full ten percent drop, he'd have been down about 18,249 votes, to 164,243 total. We already gave Welsh all of the 43,291 additional votes from increased turnout, but let's give him ten percent of Pence's voters, the full 18,249. That would bring him up to 155,805 votes, or 47.87 percent. The difference separating the two would then be 8,348. An additional 10,000 voters, just to give Welsh a buffer, would bring him up to 50.94 percent.

So, in this scenario, Welsh would have gone from 94,265 votes to 165,805, or 71,540 more votes. That's almost an 80 percent increase. Sounds incredible, right? No, impossible? Absolutely, positively, out of the question? Well, maybe not. For starters, out of that 71,540 votes, 18,249 of them, about 26 percent of that came from Pence's total. Maybe some will claim that's an unrealistic total, but again, that's only shaving ten percent from what Pence would otherwise have had, so I don't think so. That leaves the other 53,291 votes. Out of that number, 43,291 would come from increased turnout from that already existing voter pool. Maybe that sounds like a lot, but it represents going from 60.68 to 70 percent. That would a pretty big increase, but entirely doable. Now, what about those extra 10,000 votes? Well, we could always find new voters and register them. If we found 20,000 new voters and registered them, we'd increase the voting pool by about four percent. That sounds doable. And if we could have a mediocre success rate of just 50 percent, we'd have our additional 10,000 voters.

Perhaps this just won't work, because there aren't enough voters, registered or unregistered, that would really consider voting for a Democrat. But I think Obama's percentage completely undermined that claim. Maybe it's different for legislative races in this district, but at the very least, they aren't so reflexively Republican that they won't ever vote for a Democrat. That, at least, gives us a chance. We'd need a good candidate and the right resources to get over the hump, but the template is there.

http://www.in.gov/sos/election...

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?


I'm sorry but GQR's spin on this one is bunk, I'm with Nathan Gonzalez of Rothenberg Report on this one......
I would love for GQR's spin to be right, but they have the GOP up 46-44 in the generic ballot, and what people here are missing is that that number is in the ballpark of polling last year.  Yes it's a little tighter than the pre-midterm average, but there were in fact plenty of generic ballot polls last summer and fall that showed this kind of small GOP lead, and once in awhile a superficially credible-looking poll that even gave Dems a lead!

The commenter above who noted this is bunk pre-redistricting is echoing Gonzalez.  And my first paragraph above also echoes Gonzalez.

I'll be excited if-and-when the worm really turns in our favor.  But GQR's spin and the swallowing of it here is so much irrational exuberance.

I do think we have some genuinely good polling so far this year that can read as positive tea leaves for 2012 House races.  The big one is that my reading of the Congressional approval polling trend is that the new GOP House, after inching up in approval post-midterms to almost reach a break-even point in some polling, is tanking back to unpopular Dem 2009-10 levels.  So Boehner and his crew's honeymoon is already over.  Second, the state-level fights over labor rights is helping us and has potential to trickle up in voting behavior if this becomes a lasting influence for voters for this cycle, as I believe is likely (although not yet certain) to be the case.

So there are some real good signs for us there.

But they don't translate to a genuinely tightening generic House ballot.  There's not that much buyer's remorse yet, most voters are very much still giving Boehner et al. the benefit of doubt and a chance to debunk the voters' skepticism.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


46-44 in the generic ballot
The poll is of the 50 most competitive battleground Congressional districts which Republicans won by 14 points, not the whole Hose which was 7 points.

"This leads to a congressional race that is dead-even in the battleground.  After winning these seats by a collective 14 points in 2010, these Republicans now lead generic Democratic challengers by just 2 points, 44 to 46 percent, and stand well below the critical 50 percent mark.  The race is dead even in the top tier of the 25 most competitive seats-46 percent for the Democrats versus 45 percent for the Republicans.  In the next 25 seats, the Republicans have a slight 42 to 47 percent advantage."



[ Parent ]
Hose, House, doesn't matter, in this GOP Congress we're all hosed
Thanks for the reminder, but as I think about it, I can't figure out if that changes my analysis at all.

Wasn't Democracy Corps doing the same thing last year, just 50 battleground seats?  And their numbers were in the same ballpark in the fall when we were losing.

I suppose this is better because these 50 are all GOP-held, my skimming of the list reveals no Dems.

Still, I feel like there's less here than meets the eye.

PPP did have Dems leading the generic ballot which I also considered an outlier.

But then, hardly anyone is polling generic ballot now, so it's hard to say what's an outlier.  Fraudulent and useless Rasmussen is the only one doing it regularly at this stage.

I remain skeptical that buyer's remorse has set in to this level this quickly.  Not that it can't or won't eventually, but less than 3 months is a little soon.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
PPP has had Dems leading on the generic ballot
far more often than not this year. I take that as a hopeful sign.  

[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox