PPP: Republicans in trouble in 12 re-drawn districts

[Tender Branson]

On Thursday, the House Majority PAC released 12 polls in 12 targeted Republican House districts in the states of Arkansas, California, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Each of the House districts polled has completed the redistricting process. The polls were conducted between October 19-23rd by Public Policy Polling (PPP).

These post-redistricting polls demonstrate that Democrats will have a slew of opportunities as we seek to pick up 25 seats and win back the House including against Republicans who previously had safe districts.

“These polls illustrate that Republican incumbents running in swing districts across the country are in serious trouble and Republican control of the House is in serious jeopardy,ouHouse” said Alixandria Lapp, Executive Director of the House Majority PAC.  “Come next November, voters will hold House Republicans accountable for failing to fight for middle class families.”

From: Tom Jensen, Director of Public Policy Polling

To: Interested Parties

Subject: District Level Polling Shows Democrats Can Take House in 2012

Date: 10-27-2011

Over the last few weeks national polling has increasingly showed House Democrats recovering from their defeat in 2010 and taking the lead back on the generic House ballot. An October 10th Reuters survey showed Democrats ahead 48-40 and an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll the same day found Democrats with a 45-41 advantage.

The national numbers point to the possibility for Democrats to reclaim a majority in the House next year, and a series of polls conducted by PPP in 12 individual Congressional districts last week backs up what the national numbers are showing.

The 12 districts we polled are all in states where redistricting has already occurred- Arkansas, California, Illinois, and Wisconsin. And in all 12 we found the same thing- voters would like to replace the Republican incumbent with someone else, and for the most part the new GOP House majority is proving to be extremely unpopular.

Here’s the rundown:

-In Arkansas’ 1st Congressional District, only 43% of voters would like to reelect Rick Crawford, while 48% would prefer someone else. Just 38% have a favorable opinion of the Republicans in Congress, with 49% holding a negative one.

-In Arkansas’ 2nd Congressional District, only 44% of voters would like to reelect Tim Griffin, while 49% would prefer someone else. Just 36% have a favorable opinion of the Republicans in Congress, with 53% holding a negative one.

-In California’s 7th Congressional District, only 43% of voters would like to reelect Dan Lungren, while 54% would prefer someone else. Just 36% have a favorable opinion of the Republicans in Congress, with 53% holding a negative one.

-In California’s 10th Congressional District, only 38% of voters would like to reelect Jeff Denham, while 49% would prefer someone else. This is the only district polled where House Republicans weren’t under water, with 43% of voters seeing them favorably and 41% negatively.

-In California’s 26th Congressional District, only 42% of voters would like to reelect Elton Gallegly, while 48% would prefer someone else. Just 40% have a favorable opinion of the Republicans in Congress, with 47% holding a negative one.

-In California’s 36th Congressional District, only 43% of voters would like to reelect Mary Bono Mack, while 55% would prefer someone else. Just 34% have a favorable opinion of the Republicans in Congress, with 54% holding a negative one.

-In California’s 52nd Congressional District, only 42% of voters would like to reelect Brian Bilbray, while 51% would prefer someone else. Just 39% have a favorable opinion of the Republicans in Congress, with 53% holding a negative one.

-In Illinois’ 10th Congressional District, only 42% of voters would like to reelect Bob Dold, while 50% would prefer someone else. Just 35% have a favorable opinion of the Republicans in Congress, with 54% holding a negative one.

-In Illinois’ 11th Congressional District, only 41% of voters would like to reelect Judy Biggert, while 52% would prefer someone else. Just 44% have a favorable opinion of the Republicans in Congress, with 50% holding a negative one.

-In Illinois’ 13th Congressional District, only 33% of voters would like to reelect Tim Johnson, while 53% would prefer someone else. Just 30% have a favorable opinion of the Republicans in Congress, with 53% holding a negative one.

-In Illinois’ 17th Congressional District, only 39% of voters would like to reelect Bobby Schilling, while 49% would prefer someone else. Just 32% have a favorable opinion of the Republicans in Congress, with 54% holding a negative one.

-In Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District, only 43% of voters would like to reelect Sean Duffy, while 51% would prefer someone else. Just 39% have a favorable opinion of the Republicans in Congress, with 52% holding a negative one.

Taken as a whole these numbers show a wide playing field of opportunities for House Democrats in the post-redistricting landscape.  Congressional Republicans have become very unpopular, very fast, across a very wide variety of districts and that’s going to make dozens of incumbent GOP members vulnerable for reelection next year. The reality at the district level matches the reality at the national level: Americans think John Boehner and the new majority have gone too far, and they’re looking for new candidates to support in 2012.

http://www.thehousemajoritypac.com/press/2011/10/27/house-majority-pac-releases-polls-in-12-redrawn-gop-districts-all-12-in-deep-trouble-back-home/

[You kip if you want to...]

"Someone else". Joke polls.

[DrScholl]

Most of the Illinois districts and CA-7 are already highly ranked as competitive, with the Illinois ones been the most likely to go Democratic. These aren't surprising results.

[Talleyrand]

I think Tim Griffin and Rick Crawford are safe with Obama leading the ballot, but the others here are all vulnerable in varying degrees.

[Landslide Lyndon]

He seems like a more obnoxious version of CoburnIn2012, if that was ever possible.
Has anyone checked his ip?

[Holmes]

Hopefully we can rid ourselves of Bono Mack for good.

[pbrower2a]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1222.pdf

Q5 If there was an election for Congress today,
would you vote Democratic or Republican?
Democratic...................................................... 46%
Republican...................................................... 44%
Not sure .......................................................... 10%

I don't see where the troll can expect the Republicans to find adequate compensation for losses anywhere.

The Democrats are ahead on the general ballot in four of the five states for which I have recently seen generic ballots for the House. They are likely to lose the at-large seat in Montana --- but roughly flip the current GOP House delegations for Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  Does anyone have any idea of what a 2% edge in the generic ballot means nationwide?

Heck, I could probably do a better job representing my district as a Congressional Representative than does 'my' Representative. I just don't have the funds  or a career as a politician. I'd keep lobbyists at arms' length and keep my mouth shut if I ever got any information best left secret.


The Republicans will need to do some incredible gerrymandering to prevent a calamity

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From my experience, the generic congressional ballot polls are often worthless. 2010 was the first time since possibly 1994 with the exception of maybe 2002 that the GOP had a lead in that polling. In several of those intervening elections, the GOP held the House (1996, 1998, 2000, 2004). Only 2006, in which the Dems had a wider lead, did control change.

State by state generic congressional ballot has a limited track record. I don't even recall that being measured before.

-2% nationwide is not enough to flip the house. Frankly, it's not even enough to prevent a small net gain of 2 or 3 seats with the improbable scenario of everything else falling completely in line (candidates, fundraising, issues, scandals).

You seem to underestimate just how stacked the deck is naturally (this is the result of demographics and the current set number of seats), how stacked it is from 1991, 2001 and from 2011 redistricting cycles, and the impact of the local campaigns in each district.

[pbrower2a]

From my experience, the generic congressional ballot polls are often worthless. 2010 was the first time since possibly 1994 with the exception of maybe 2002 that the GOP had a lead in that polling. In several of those intervening elections, the GOP held the House (1996, 1998, 2000, 2004). Only 2006, in which the Dems had a wider lead, did control change.

State by state generic congressional ballot has a limited track record. I don't even recall that being measured before.

-2% nationwide is not enough to flip the house. Frankly, it's not even enough to prevent a small net gain of 2 or 3 seats with the improbable scenario of everything else falling completely in line (candidates, fundraising, issues, scandals).

You seem to underestimate just how stacked the deck is naturally (this is the result of demographics and the current set number of seats), how stacked it is from 1991, 2001 and from 2011 redistricting cycles, and the impact of the local campaigns in each district.

It is huge. If a slight advantage in the generic ballot was enough for a huge Republican gain in the House  in 2010, then that has been reversed. To be sure, it is always possible that a district can have a PVI  of R+5 and have a Democratic Representative  (Minnesota 7) and that a district can have a PVI of D+3 and elect a Republican.  Nobody questions that an unusually adept politician can survive a political tide.

Tide elections sweep out weak incumbents and fill open seats. Reverse-tides also happen. Some of the Republican gains of 2010 have resulted in the election of new Representatives with promising careers. Some will not be so distinguished. In wave years, some unusually-strong incumbents get defeated and come back strong the next time.  Some may seem very decisive and well-connected to excellent fund-raising machines except that they badly match the political norms of their districts.

No incumbent can escape his voting record. It is clear that someone running in an ultra-safe Democratic district (NY-15 or NY-16, both of which are D+41) faces vastly-different expectations of a Representative than a Representative from a district best described as R+29 (AL-06 or TX-13).   That's not to say that an out-and-out Marxist can consistently win a district best described as D+40 or that an out-and-out fascist can consistently win a district best described as R+25. That said, districts best described as R+3 and D+3 are likely closer to each other in their world-views as they are, respectively, to districts better described as R+25 or D+25.  A Representative best described as fitting a D+25 or R+25 district has to be unusually effective to win re-elected in a district best described as  near-even.

Americans elected a bunch of Republican Representatives, most of whom would better fit a district like AL-06 or TX-13 than something close to even either way, in 2010. That was enough to shift the House like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_PVI

We know how the new Republican Representatives have voted so far, and it is very far to the Right. Can someone far to the Right convince moderate voters that the Hard Right which offers economic ideology more characteristic of the Gilded Age than of the 1990s?

Recent polls suggest how  out-of-touch Congress is. An approval rating near 10% itself suggests failure on the whole... but ordinarily Congressional Representatives are capable of fitting the cultural and ideological norms of their districts enough to have personal approval ratings around 50%, which is normally good enough for re-election almost every time. I'm going to suspect that approval ratings for those who represent "safe" districts -- districts consisting largely of anti-Establishment minorities or those whose economic interests are largely ranching and oil extraction -- are still very high. 

When the approval rating at large for "Your Representative" is 41%, then the average Representative is extremely vulnerable to defeat in the next election. Incumbency is an advantage, but not enough to save a misfit in his district. I have tried to adapt an old study of Nate Silver (incumbent Governors and Senators with approval ratings around 44% at the start of the campaign season win about 50% of the time and that the drop-off is steep below 43% and that those with approval ratings around even 47% win almost 100% of the time)  applies to both the Presidency... and probably also to Congress.

Incumbents can hold lots of town meetings and make plenty of appearances in county fairs... but not enough to hide an extreme voting record by local standards. What fits an area whose economic activity is largely ranching and oil extraction is very different from an area whose economic activity is largely dairy production and Rust Belt manufacturing. Incumbents can choose to run on their records and win -- or run from them and lose.

2010 really was a freak. It was a one-time reversal of trends almost certain to resume in 2012. If anything hold of the Democrats on the Senate is far shakier than normal only because the Democrats won about every Senate seat up for grabs in 2006 and have more  opportunities for losses than gains... but every House seat will be up for re-election.

Who is most likely to lose a bid for re-election?

1. Someone involved in a well-publicized scandal. Representative William "Cold Cash" Jefferson was the only Democratic member of the House to be defeated in the 2008 Democratic wave. Mercifully such pols are rare. Corruption takes time to develop, so I expect few of the new Reps of the 112th Congress to fit this pattern.

2. Representatives simply not up to the job. These can be the ones who badly under-perform as freshmen or the ones who fade due to senility or crippling ill health. Democrats were obviously more vulnerable to that in 2010. Now it is the turn for Republicans.

3. Representatives who misuse the perquisites of office. Watch the Congressional junkets. If your district is a Rust Belt district in which unemployment is high and times are hard and your Congressional communications include photos of your Representative and spouse is of fine times on the Champs-Élysées, then expect that to be your last term in office.

4. Extremists, meaning those out of touch with the sensibilities of their voters.  100% voting which shows neither conscience, flexibility, nor independence, with one Party might not be good for someone in a district split roughly 50-50 D-R.

America is not on a rightward trend except as shown in the 2010 election. "Occupy Wall Street" shows that Corporate America is not winning the hearts and minds of America by treating people badly and insisting that the rest of humanity exists only to enrich and pamper elites. The Tea Party is now past-peak. Some high-profile elected Republicans are making fools of themselves. The Religious Right, which consists of people largely in  middle age, is not winning over youth. America is becoming less white and Anglo, and Republicans are doing badly even among successful members of minority groups. The only discernible group clearly trending Republican over the long term is under-educated, impoverished white people in Appalachia and the Deep South, probably corresponding to the Religious Right. (Advice to liberals: spare the "trailer-trash" and "redneck" references in discourse in politically-charged websites. Such people as the under-educated, impoverished white people especially in the Appalachians, Ozarks, and Deep South are getting hurt as badly as anybody else by economic policies that exist largely to enrich the well-connected).       



     

[memphis]

The Dems need a larger lead in the generic ballot because their voters are so packed into super Dem districts.  There are 8 R+>25 districts. There are 32 D+>25 districts. There are 0 R+>30 districts. There are 24 D+>30 districts. There are 8 D+>35 districts. There are 2 D+>40 districts.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The Dems need a larger lead in the generic ballot because their voters are so packed into super Dem districts.  There are 8 R+>25 districts. There are 32 D+>25 districts. There are 0 R+>30 districts. There are 24 D+>30 districts. There are 8 D+>35 districts. There are 2 D+>40 districts.

Democracy!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From my experience, the generic congressional ballot polls are often worthless. 2010 was the first time since possibly 1994 with the exception of maybe 2002 that the GOP had a lead in that polling. In several of those intervening elections, the GOP held the House (1996, 1998, 2000, 2004). Only 2006, in which the Dems had a wider lead, did control change.

State by state generic congressional ballot has a limited track record. I don't even recall that being measured before.

-2% nationwide is not enough to flip the house. Frankly, it's not even enough to prevent a small net gain of 2 or 3 seats with the improbable scenario of everything else falling completely in line (candidates, fundraising, issues, scandals).

You seem to underestimate just how stacked the deck is naturally (this is the result of demographics and the current set number of seats), how stacked it is from 1991, 2001 and from 2011 redistricting cycles, and the impact of the local campaigns in each district.

It is huge. If a slight advantage in the generic ballot was enough for a huge Republican gain in the House  in 2010, then that has been reversed. To be sure, it is always possible that a district can have a PVI  of R+5 and have a Democratic Representative  (Minnesota 7) and that a district can have a PVI of D+3 and elect a Republican.  Nobody questions that an unusually adept politician can survive a political tide.

Tide elections sweep out weak incumbents and fill open seats. Reverse-tides also happen. Some of the Republican gains of 2010 have resulted in the election of new Representatives with promising careers. Some will not be so distinguished. In wave years, some unusually-strong incumbents get defeated and come back strong the next time.  Some may seem very decisive and well-connected to excellent fund-raising machines except that they badly match the political norms of their districts.

No incumbent can escape his voting record. It is clear that someone running in an ultra-safe Democratic district (NY-15 or NY-16, both of which are D+41) faces vastly-different expectations of a Representative than a Representative from a district best described as R+29 (AL-06 or TX-13).   That's not to say that an out-and-out Marxist can consistently win a district best described as D+40 or that an out-and-out fascist can consistently win a district best described as R+25. That said, districts best described as R+3 and D+3 are likely closer to each other in their world-views as they are, respectively, to districts better described as R+25 or D+25.  A Representative best described as fitting a D+25 or R+25 district has to be unusually effective to win re-elected in a district best described as  near-even.

Americans elected a bunch of Republican Representatives, most of whom would better fit a district like AL-06 or TX-13 than something close to even either way, in 2010. That was enough to shift the House like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_PVI

We know how the new Republican Representatives have voted so far, and it is very far to the Right. Can someone far to the Right convince moderate voters that the Hard Right which offers economic ideology more characteristic of the Gilded Age than of the 1990s?

Recent polls suggest how  out-of-touch Congress is. An approval rating near 10% itself suggests failure on the whole... but ordinarily Congressional Representatives are capable of fitting the cultural and ideological norms of their districts enough to have personal approval ratings around 50%, which is normally good enough for re-election almost every time. I'm going to suspect that approval ratings for those who represent "safe" districts -- districts consisting largely of anti-Establishment minorities or those whose economic interests are largely ranching and oil extraction -- are still very high. 

When the approval rating at large for "Your Representative" is 41%, then the average Representative is extremely vulnerable to defeat in the next election. Incumbency is an advantage, but not enough to save a misfit in his district. I have tried to adapt an old study of Nate Silver (incumbent Governors and Senators with approval ratings around 44% at the start of the campaign season win about 50% of the time and that the drop-off is steep below 43% and that those with approval ratings around even 47% win almost 100% of the time)  applies to both the Presidency... and probably also to Congress.

Incumbents can hold lots of town meetings and make plenty of appearances in county fairs... but not enough to hide an extreme voting record by local standards. What fits an area whose economic activity is largely ranching and oil extraction is very different from an area whose economic activity is largely dairy production and Rust Belt manufacturing. Incumbents can choose to run on their records and win -- or run from them and lose.

2010 really was a freak. It was a one-time reversal of trends almost certain to resume in 2012. If anything hold of the Democrats on the Senate is far shakier than normal only because the Democrats won about every Senate seat up for grabs in 2006 and have more  opportunities for losses than gains... but every House seat will be up for re-election.

Who is most likely to lose a bid for re-election?

1. Someone involved in a well-publicized scandal. Representative William "Cold Cash" Jefferson was the only Democratic member of the House to be defeated in the 2008 Democratic wave. Mercifully such pols are rare. Corruption takes time to develop, so I expect few of the new Reps of the 112th Congress to fit this pattern.

2. Representatives simply not up to the job. These can be the ones who badly under-perform as freshmen or the ones who fade due to senility or crippling ill health. Democrats were obviously more vulnerable to that in 2010. Now it is the turn for Republicans.

3. Representatives who misuse the perquisites of office. Watch the Congressional junkets. If your district is a Rust Belt district in which unemployment is high and times are hard and your Congressional communications include photos of your Representative and spouse is of fine times on the Champs-Élysées, then expect that to be your last term in office.

4. Extremists, meaning those out of touch with the sensibilities of their voters.  100% voting which shows neither conscience, flexibility, nor independence, with one Party might not be good for someone in a district split roughly 50-50 D-R.

America is not on a rightward trend except as shown in the 2010 election. "Occupy Wall Street" shows that Corporate America is not winning the hearts and minds of America by treating people badly and insisting that the rest of humanity exists only to enrich and pamper elites. The Tea Party is now past-peak. Some high-profile elected Republicans are making fools of themselves. The Religious Right, which consists of people largely in  middle age, is not winning over youth. America is becoming less white and Anglo, and Republicans are doing badly even among successful members of minority groups. The only discernible group clearly trending Republican over the long term is under-educated, impoverished white people in Appalachia and the Deep South, probably corresponding to the Religious Right. (Advice to liberals: spare the "trailer-trash" and "redneck" references in discourse in politically-charged websites. Such people as the under-educated, impoverished white people especially in the Appalachians, Ozarks, and Deep South are getting hurt as badly as anybody else by economic policies that exist largely to enrich the well-connected).     
     

You waste far too much of your time stating information, some of it is such common knowledge as to insult my intelligence by insinuating I don't know it, like posting a link to the wiki page for the Cook PVI. The rest of it is analysis conducted with a slant. The people aren't just pissed at the Republicans, they are pissed at both parties. Both of them have some pretty nasty favorable numbers in that poll. Another thing is that people aren't ready to put all the blame for congresses problems on the GOP alone just yet and that is why the congressional ballot is basically tied. The hatred for both gets deeper and deeper but their is no outlet to express that anger because they don't like how either party has operated in congress and they can't seem to find either more worthy of blame. Marokai and some others complained over the summer that this was the media's fault for giving far too much courtesy to the GOP's arguements and claims. 

Here in NC, PPP says that the GOP in the legislature is far more hated then the Democrats, yet the generical legislative ballot is also tied. If people hate the GOP so damn much and they clearly do, why don't the Democrats have commanding 10 and 12 point leads on these generic ballots? Then you can talk of the coming doomsday for the House GOP.


You need a 3% to 5% lead on the generic ballot for the Democrats, just to make gains. You need 6% or more before control comes into question. That has been the historical situation prior to 2010. The GOP usually outperformed the generic ballot polling and they always have a 2% or 3% comfort zone in the actuall popular vote result, from three cycles of favorable gerrymanders.

[memphis]

The Dems need a larger lead in the generic ballot because their voters are so packed into super Dem districts.  There are 8 R+>25 districts. There are 32 D+>25 districts. There are 0 R+>30 districts. There are 24 D+>30 districts. There are 8 D+>35 districts. There are 2 D+>40 districts.

Democracy!

It's the requirement for minority majority districts. They need to go. Of those 32 districts, all but 2 districts in Seattle and New York City are majority minority.