Rasmussen: Congressional Democrats regain their double-digit lead

[Tender Branson]

Sunday, June 24, 2007

If the Congressional Election were held today, 46% of American voters say they would currently vote for the Democrat in their district while 34% would pull the voting lever for a Republican. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found 6% favoring a third-party option while 14% are not sure.

A month ago, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point advantage, 45% to 38%. Two months ago, it was the Democrats by eleven.

Support for the Democrats has remained very steady, ranging from 45% to 47% in each of the past four months. Over the same four months, support for Republicans has ranged from 34% to 38%. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Democrats are currently favored 41% to 18%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/congressional_ballot

[Adlai Stevenson]

These figures will fluctuate over time obviously.  But in the end I expect 2008 to resemble 2006. 

[Tender Branson]

These figures will fluctuate over time obviously.  But in the end I expect 2008 to resemble 2006. 

A President Clinton/Obama/Edwards equipped with a 250 seat majority in the House and a 55 seat majority in the Senate would indeed look fine ...

[Kevin]

These figures will fluctuate over time obviously.  But in the end I expect 2008 to resemble 2006. 

It's not going to resemble 2006, The Democrats are going to get a large majority in the Senate and they will lose a couple in the House but still hold it.

[Mr.Phips]

These figures will fluctuate over time obviously.  But in the end I expect 2008 to resemble 2006. 

It's not going to resemble 2006, The Democrats are going to get a large majority in the Senate and they will lose a couple in the House but still held it.

If they win the Presidential, they are likely to gain in the House.

[Verily]

These figures will fluctuate over time obviously.  But in the end I expect 2008 to resemble 2006. 

It's not going to resemble 2006, The Democrats are going to get a large majority in the Senate and they will lose a couple in the House but still held it.

If they win the Presidential, they are likely to gain in the House.

They could gain or lose, but it won't be a change of more than 5 seats either way in the House. Gains are probably more likely right now; maybe 5 gains and 3 losses to make 2 net gains. The Democrats will gain between 1 and 3 Senate seats; the best the Republicans can probably hope for is to lose CO and NH (assuming Shaheen is indeed running) while gaining LA.

[Adlai Stevenson]

The way things are going for the Republicans now, and the NRSC's stagnancy, they will be lucky to pickup Louisiana.  Alright, the state will probably be more Republican at the Presidential level and Landrieu has always won close elections; but seriously, do the Republicans even have one candidate yet?  They can't seem to attract any serious, high-profile contenders unless Governor Bobby Jindal runs just after he's been elected - and I can't see that going down well.
     The Democrats' 2006 luck seems to continue in terms of Senate seats.  I think they can count on winning Colorado, New Hampshire and Minnesota.  As 2008 shapes, I also expect the Democrats to have decent shots in Maine and Oregon.  The unknown quantities are North Carolina, Nebraska, Kentucky and possibly even Texas and Oklahoma - but the outlook is quite rosy. 

In the House, the Democrats can probably expect to lose two or three incumbents, most likely Lampson in Texas and Marshall in Georgia.  But they will probably also gain a few leftovers from 2008, possibly knocking off Hayes in North Carolina, Reichert in Washington and Stender in New Jersey. 

[Kevin]

The way things are going for the Republicans now, and the NRSC's stagnancy, they will be lucky to pickup Louisiana.  Alright, the state will probably be more Republican at the Presidential level and Landrieu has always won close elections; but seriously, do the Republicans even have one candidate yet?  They can't seem to attract any serious, high-profile contenders unless Governor Bobby Jindal runs just after he's been elected - and I can't see that going down well.
     The Democrats' 2006 luck seems to continue in terms of Senate seats.  I think they can count on winning Colorado, New Hampshire and Minnesota.  As 2008 shapes, I also expect the Democrats to have decent shots in Maine and Oregon.  The unknown quantities are North Carolina, Nebraska, Kentucky and possibly even Texas and Oklahoma - but the outlook is quite rosy. 

In the House, the Democrats can probably expect to lose two or three incumbents, most likely Lampson in Texas and Marshall in Georgia.  But they will probably also gain a few leftovers from 2008, possibly knocking off Hayes in North Carolina, Reichert in Washington and Stender in New Jersey. 

With Landrieu in Louisiana you have to keep in mind she lost New Orleans with Hurricane Katrinia and even though people are coming back in may not be enough Democratic votes to pull her through, Also in Louisiana I expect the Democrats to take a beating there this November.

[Conan]

These figures will fluctuate over time obviously.  But in the end I expect 2008 to resemble 2006. 

It's not going to resemble 2006, The Democrats are going to get a large majority in the Senate and they will lose a couple in the House but still hold it.

Democrats will see at least a net gain of 2-3 seats in the house. NY and NJ and PA and OH all look good for gains. Are gains in Kerry districts will put off any losses of areas like TX-22. I will list some seats I think we will pick up in a bit.

[Mr.Phips]

The way things are going for the Republicans now, and the NRSC's stagnancy, they will be lucky to pickup Louisiana.  Alright, the state will probably be more Republican at the Presidential level and Landrieu has always won close elections; but seriously, do the Republicans even have one candidate yet?  They can't seem to attract any serious, high-profile contenders unless Governor Bobby Jindal runs just after he's been elected - and I can't see that going down well.
     The Democrats' 2006 luck seems to continue in terms of Senate seats.  I think they can count on winning Colorado, New Hampshire and Minnesota.  As 2008 shapes, I also expect the Democrats to have decent shots in Maine and Oregon.  The unknown quantities are North Carolina, Nebraska, Kentucky and possibly even Texas and Oklahoma - but the outlook is quite rosy. 

In the House, the Democrats can probably expect to lose two or three incumbents, most likely Lampson in Texas and Marshall in Georgia.  But they will probably also gain a few leftovers from 2008, possibly knocking off Hayes in North Carolina, Reichert in Washington and Stender in New Jersey. 

With Landrieu in Louisiana you have to keep in mind she lost New Orlens with Hurricane Katrinia and even though people are coming back in may not be enough Democratic votes to pull her through, Also in Louisiana I expect the Democrats to take a beating there this November.

Well, I think we all know that Jindal is going to win big there.

[Kevin]

These figures will fluctuate over time obviously.  But in the end I expect 2008 to resemble 2006. 

It's not going to resemble 2006, The Democrats are going to get a large majority in the Senate and they will lose a couple in the House but still hold it.

Democrats will see at least a net gain of 2-3 seats in the house. NY and NJ and PA and OH all look good for gains. Are gains in Kerry districts will put off any losses of areas like TX-22. I will list some seats I think we will pick up in a bit.

The Democrats will win some and lose some in the House, However their primary gains in 2008 will be in the Senate.

[TheresNoMoney]

It's not going to resemble 2006, The Democrats are going to get a large majority in the Senate and they will lose a couple in the House but still hold it.

Unless the political atmosphere changes significantly between now and the elections, the Democrats will make gains in both houses of Congress.

[Smash255]

The way things are going for the Republicans now, and the NRSC's stagnancy, they will be lucky to pickup Louisiana.  Alright, the state will probably be more Republican at the Presidential level and Landrieu has always won close elections; but seriously, do the Republicans even have one candidate yet?  They can't seem to attract any serious, high-profile contenders unless Governor Bobby Jindal runs just after he's been elected - and I can't see that going down well.
     The Democrats' 2006 luck seems to continue in terms of Senate seats.  I think they can count on winning Colorado, New Hampshire and Minnesota.  As 2008 shapes, I also expect the Democrats to have decent shots in Maine and Oregon.  The unknown quantities are North Carolina, Nebraska, Kentucky and possibly even Texas and Oklahoma - but the outlook is quite rosy. 

In the House, the Democrats can probably expect to lose two or three incumbents, most likely Lampson in Texas and Marshall in Georgia.  But they will probably also gain a few leftovers from 2008, possibly knocking off Hayes in North Carolina, Reichert in Washington and Stender in New Jersey. 

With Landrieu in Louisiana you have to keep in mind she lost New Orlens with Hurricane Katrinia and even though people are coming back in may not be enough Democratic votes to pull her through, Also in Louisiana I expect the Democrats to take a beating there this November.

The GOP doesn't really have anyone who can beat her though.  They only have two, one is in the Senate and the other will be occupying the Governor's mansion.  Also keep in mind that yes the Dems are obviously hurt by the loss of New Orleans, but the New Orleans suburbs haven't exactly regained their population either so this diminishes the overall impact of New Orleans.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A few things people often don't take into account re: New Orleans:

1-Not everyone fled Louisiana altogether. The city that got the largest number of refugees is Baton Rouge, which more than doubled in population initially and is now the largest city in Louisiana.
2-The type of people who fled and can't return aren't likely to vote. See turnout in very poor ghetto areas. Look at Indian Reservations for the perfect example of this.
3-And often, they probably COULDN'T even vote. Even in Minnesota, which has some of the most liberal voter registration laws in the country, you need some sort of proof of address to register such as your driver's license or a utility bill. That's got to be pretty tough for homeless people. Some states allow homeless to count homeless shelters as their legal address for voter registration, but I'm not sure if Louisiana is one of them.

[Democratic Hawk]

Sunday, June 24, 2007

If the Congressional Election were held today, 46% of American voters say they would currently vote for the Democrat in their district while 34% would pull the voting lever for a Republican. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found 6% favoring a third-party option while 14% are not sure.

A month ago, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point advantage, 45% to 38%. Two months ago, it was the Democrats by eleven.

Support for the Democrats has remained very steady, ranging from 45% to 47% in each of the past four months. Over the same four months, support for Republicans has ranged from 34% to 38%.

Good

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Democrats must never lose sight of that because it is their support that is vital if Democrats are to enjoy sustainable electoral success

Dave