Polls Show Democratic Gain in House
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:56:38 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Polls Show Democratic Gain in House
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Polls Show Democratic Gain in House  (Read 2041 times)
Adlai Stevenson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,403
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 29, 2007, 08:04:58 AM »

"Private House Democratic polls of the 50 most competitive congressional districts project a gain of 9 to 11 seats in the 2008 elections," reports Robert Novak.

"All previous major surges of House seats have been followed by losses in the next election. The 54-seat Republican gain in 1994 that produced GOP House control was followed by an eight-seat loss in 1996."

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/04/polls_show_democratic_gain_in.html
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,403
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2007, 08:36:26 AM »

We're in April 2007, the election is in November 2008... Things change.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2007, 08:41:39 AM »

We're in April 2007, the election is in November 2008... Things change.
Aaaaaaaalllllllllllooooooooooottttttttttt of things. Even so,it does show that we still have the advantage overall with the people of competitive areas.
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,403
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2007, 08:53:32 AM »

A poll on Angus-reid showed Dems at 45%, Reps at 35%, and the rest is undecided etc. But that poll was messed up, third parties at around 10% or something.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2007, 12:15:34 PM »

A poll on Angus-reid showed Dems at 45%, Reps at 35%, and the rest is undecided etc. But that poll was messed up, third parties at around 10% or something.

This poll was not messed up, its by Rasmussen and it shows 45% Dems, 35% Rep, 6% 3rd Party and 15% Undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Issues/April%202007/CongressionalBallot.htm

If there´s a Dem. 5-10 seat gain in the House next year and a 3-6 seat gain in the Senate, it will be about 240-195 (or 55%) and between 50 and 55 seats in the Senate, exactly what that poll shows us.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2007, 02:09:24 PM »

It's early so the numbers don't mean much, but it's always better to be ahead than behind.

As things stand right now, I think this would be accurate. The Republicans would be in for further losses unless things change (which of course could well happen).
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,532
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2007, 02:36:55 PM »

I'm not expecting a large net change in the House.  I think that Republicans are going to reclaim some of the 2006 corruption/scandal districts while Democrats take out some Republicans in Kerry seats.  Overall I expect the net change in seats to be 5 or less.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,544


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2007, 02:55:48 PM »

This could very well happen.  The good thing for Democrats is that most of the seats that they picked up are ones that they should be able to hold onto in a neutral environment with the exception of maybe Nick Lampson and Chris Carney. 
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2007, 04:03:50 PM »

This could very well happen.  The good thing for Democrats is that most of the seats that they picked up are ones that they should be able to hold onto in a neutral environment with the exception of maybe Nick Lampson and Chris Carney. 

Only maybe Nick Lampson?
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,544


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2007, 05:00:23 PM »

This could very well happen.  The good thing for Democrats is that most of the seats that they picked up are ones that they should be able to hold onto in a neutral environment with the exception of maybe Nick Lampson and Chris Carney. 

Only maybe Nick Lampson?

And Chris Carney.  Everybody else is in swing districts that they should be able to hold absent a huge swing against the Democrats.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,544


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2007, 05:17:46 PM »

This could very well happen.  The good thing for Democrats is that most of the seats that they picked up are ones that they should be able to hold onto in a neutral environment with the exception of maybe Nick Lampson and Chris Carney. 

Only maybe Nick Lampson?

And Chris Carney.  Everybody else is in swing or Dem leaning districts that they should be able to hold absent a huge swing against the Democrats.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,532
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2007, 01:07:09 AM »

What about Tim Mahoney in FL-16?
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,544


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2007, 01:47:21 AM »


Mahoney is definately vulnerable, but that district is not the "heavily Republican" district that everyone says it is.  Bush only got 53% there in 2004 and only 50% in 2004.  It is pretty much a swing district and would have probably been very close even if there was no Foley scandal.
Logged
Galactic Overlord
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 364


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2007, 10:39:43 PM »

We're in April 2007, the election is in November 2008... Things change.

Very true.

I don't blame the Dems for being optimistic, though. But generally, big swings like we had in 2006 cool off somewhat in the next cycle. Of course, the Democrats actually added one seat in 1976 on top of their monstrous gains in 1974, so who knows.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2007, 10:48:42 PM »

Didn't they lose a lot in 1978 though?  That year is known as the "Minnesota Massacre" because Democrats lost almost every statewide election.
Logged
Galactic Overlord
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 364


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 01, 2007, 10:50:03 PM »

Didn't they lose a lot in 1978 though?  That year is known as the "Minnesota Massacre" because Democrats lost almost every statewide election.

I forget how many, but they did lose seats in 1978 and in 1980, by then I think their Watergate margin was erased.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2007, 09:21:52 AM »

Am I the only one thinking that "private Democratic House polls" are worth, like, nothing?
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,544


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2007, 10:52:57 AM »

We're in April 2007, the election is in November 2008... Things change.

Very true.

I don't blame the Dems for being optimistic, though. But generally, big swings like we had in 2006 cool off somewhat in the next cycle. Of course, the Democrats actually added one seat in 1976 on top of their monstrous gains in 1974, so who knows.

31 seats was really not that big of a swing.  The big swings happened in 1994(54 seats), 1974(47 seats), 1966(47 seats), 1958(49 seats).  However, we rarely see swings any higher than 10 seats these days due to incumbency advantages.
Logged
Galactic Overlord
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 364


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2007, 10:02:55 PM »

We're in April 2007, the election is in November 2008... Things change.

Very true.

I don't blame the Dems for being optimistic, though. But generally, big swings like we had in 2006 cool off somewhat in the next cycle. Of course, the Democrats actually added one seat in 1976 on top of their monstrous gains in 1974, so who knows.

31 seats was really not that big of a swing.  The big swings happened in 1994(54 seats), 1974(47 seats), 1966(47 seats), 1958(49 seats).  However, we rarely see swings any higher than 10 seats these days due to incumbency advantages.

Yeah, I sort of considered it a big swing because incumbency advantages have become so strong, so 31 does seem like a lot after a while.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 11 queries.