Dem Landslide: Lead By 12 In Gallup Generic Congressional Ballot

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:12:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The landslide tomorrow will be a DEMOCRATIC landslide, not a post partisan unity schtick landslide. Congressional Dems will win bigger than Obama. So says Gallup:

Gallup's final pre-election allocated estimate of the national 2008 vote for Congress -- from Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted Oct. 31-Nov. 2 -- gives the Democrats a 12 percentage-point lead over the Republicans among likely voters, 53% to 41%. . . . In 2006, Gallup found the Democrats with an 11-point lead among registered voters, and a 7-point lead among likely voters, right before the election. The Democrats won 54.1% of all votes cast nationally for Congress, and a 31-seat advantage. On that basis alone, their current 12-point generic ballot lead could result in a higher share of the two-party vote than they had in 2006.

This is what a fair, honest and reasonable observer would call a mandate for Democratic progressive change.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Qunnipiac: Obama Leads in Ohio, PA | Gitmo Detainee Convicted at Trial >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Dem Landslide: Lead By 12 In Gallup Generic Congressional Ballot | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Watch out (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by WS on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:21:14 PM EST

for center right talk. Its designed to handcuff the Dems to not move beyond "center right" policies or there will be trouble (from the defeated and rejected conservatives).

Landslide: more than 537 votes. (none / 0) (#1)
by ThatOneVoter on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:17:03 PM EST

Will President Obama and the (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:17:22 PM EST

Democrats in COngress heed that mandate?

I think it's interesting (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:24:37 PM EST

that this isn't that much better than Obama's predicted share of the vote, and yet we fine tune our House candidates to match their districts.

I think we could probably afford to be more ideological in our House picks.

Haven't you heard? (none / 0) (#5)
by Demi Moaned on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:26:42 PM EST

America wants change. The way to deliver that is through an orgy of bipartisanship to offset the extreme single-party domination of the last eight years.

In particular, we need

Fiscal prudence through offsetting increases in funding to the military and financial sector relief through cuts in 'entitlement' and infrastructure programs

President and Congress saying 'no' to the demands of their extremist base.

A Republican Secretary of Defense

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few points.

: Making the Bush tax cuts (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by WS on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:41:36 PM EST

permanent and Bob Kerrey's idea: scrapping a universal health care plan for a "bipartisan" health care plan
Bob Kerrey article
I'm glad Bob Kerrey didn't run for Nebraska Senate.

If by "Democratic progressive change" (none / 0) (#6)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM EST

you mean responsibly ending the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan and turning around the economy for the long term, I agree.

One and the same (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:44:49 PM EST

None of that is part of a Republican mandate.


: So we are in agreement. (none / 0) (#10)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:54:16 PM EST

Any " Dem mandate" is about the Wars and the Economy.
I've long held the opinion that BO is going win handily and that many congress seats will go Dem as well.
At this point I think further analysis and/or wringing one's hands over something we have no control over, ie., tomorrow's voting, is useless.
It's time to accept what is and what will be.
It is my sincere hope that he/they end the Wars responsibly and turn around the Economy for the long term.

'Progressive change"... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:44:59 PM EST

seems to mean many things to many brands of lefty...I'm not holding out much hope for meaningful change on the issues of criminal justice so near and dear to our collective heart here at Talkleft. I've been most disappointed that the drug war and prison population issues have hardly been adressed at all in this never ending campaign. I mean it has been a 2 year campaign...throw us a freakin' bone:)

Judging by the rhetoric, the "progressive change" we can expect is a tax increase on those making over 250k and rebate checks for the rest of us. But beyond that? I see no firm commitment to end to the foreign occupations, no firm commitment to get our national books in order, no firm commitment on a health care solution that will improve availability and affordability. All I've heard is taxes, taxes, taxes...and preachers and spending sprees and shady friends and general gotcha! bullsh&t.

I'm prepared to hear (none / 0) (#11)
by ChrisO on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 01:03:12 PM EST

from Obama supporters how every Democratic victory in the entire country is a result of Obama. People were talking about his "coattails" like they were an established fact back in the spring. I'm all for the Dems winning as many seats as possible, but I hope Obama's supporters will at least acknowledge that the economic downturn completely altered this election. I think Obama would have won anyway, but the polls took off in his favor when the economic crisis hit.

I say this not just to badmouth Obama, but because I'm hoping Dems will realize that the map hasn't been permanently redrawn, and all of those red state voters going for Obama haven't suddenly turned into Democrats, any more than Reagan Democrats became lifelong Republicans. I fear this is going to embolden the Brazile's of the world to think they can write off the white working class vote.