Democracy Corps/GQR: Clinton +11

[HillOfANight]

http://www.democracycorps.com/National-Surveys/

Clinton 48
Trump 37
Johnson 8

This poll also shows Democrats making gains down-ballot. In a named congressional ballot, Democratic congressional candidates have opened an 8-point lead over Republican congressional candidates (49 to 41 percent). This is up from a 6-point advantage over the Republican candidates in March polling, and the greatest margin for congressional Democrats that we have measured since June 2009 in our polling. This is also the same margin achieved during the wave elections of 2006 and 2008.

[Seriously?]

http://www.democracycorps.com/National-Surveys/

Clinton 48
Trump 37
Johnson 8

This poll also shows Democrats making gains down-ballot. In a named congressional ballot, Democratic congressional candidates have opened an 8-point lead over Republican congressional candidates (49 to 41 percent). This is up from a 6-point advantage over the Republican candidates in March polling, and the greatest margin for congressional Democrats that we have measured since June 2009 in our polling. This is also the same margin achieved during the wave elections of 2006 and 2008.

More garbage from the husband of a Democrat Congresswoman and James Carville. Clintonista junk. Throw it in the trash.

[Doimper]

http://www.democracycorps.com/National-Surveys/

Clinton 48
Trump 37
Johnson 8

This poll also shows Democrats making gains down-ballot. In a named congressional ballot, Democratic congressional candidates have opened an 8-point lead over Republican congressional candidates (49 to 41 percent). This is up from a 6-point advantage over the Republican candidates in March polling, and the greatest margin for congressional Democrats that we have measured since June 2009 in our polling. This is also the same margin achieved during the wave elections of 2006 and 2008.

More garbage from the husband of a Democrat Congresswoman and James Carville. Clintonista junk. Throw it in the trash.

538 has them at a 2.4% Dem lean with a B- rating. So if you want to unskew this poll, Clinton's still leading by 9 - not too shabby.

[Lief 🗽]

BEAUTIFUL!! Thank you!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Throw it in the trash.

Along with your posting history.

[Seriously?]

Throw it in the trash.

Along with your posting history.

I don't apologize for being one of the few non-red or faux-blue or "independent" avatars on this forum. I am going to call out a partisan BS poll as just that. I'd even do it on the Republican side with "pollsters" like Clout.

[President Johnson]

The implication that Big Don will be under 40 is just nonsense. Junk!

[DrScholl]

Some people learned nothing from Dean Chambers.

[Seriously?]

Some people learned nothing from Dean Chambers.

No one is unskewing a damn thing here. The pollster is not reputable. It's the equivalent of the Clout fools shrilling for the Republican side. Three Clintonista Democrat operatives "polling." It should be treated as the equivalent to an internal.

[DrScholl]

Some people learned nothing from Dean Chambers.

No one is unskewing a damn thing here. The pollster is not reputable. It's the equivalent of the Clout fools shrilling for the Republican side. Three Clintonista Democrat operatives "polling." It should be treated as the equivalent to an internal.

Reality has a known liberal bias.

[Devout Centrist]

Generic congressional ballots are useless junk.

They're very useful in aggregate. Just look at 2010.

[Devout Centrist]

Some people learned nothing from Dean Chambers.

No one is unskewing a damn thing here. The pollster is not reputable. It's the equivalent of the Clout fools shrilling for the Republican side. Three Clintonista Democrat operatives "polling." It should be treated as the equivalent to an internal.

This is in line with recent Reuters polling and a recent Pew poll.

Nothing out of the ordinary. A bit high and probably biased, but not junk.

And their July 2012 survey also nailed the results: http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/900/July_Dcorps_political_%20FQ.pdf

[Xing]

It seems it's the "in" thing for both Clinton and Trump supporters to call polls with results which they don't like "junk" and buy into polls which they do like. Anyway, this poll does seem a little fishy.

[Gass3268]

The implication that Big Don will be under 40 is just nonsense. Junk!

This is not uncommon occurrence. He seems to be in the low 40's/high 30's, so this wouldn't be out of place.

[HillOfANight]

Some people learned nothing from Dean Chambers.

No one is unskewing a damn thing here. The pollster is not reputable. It's the equivalent of the Clout fools shrilling for the Republican side. Three Clintonista Democrat operatives "polling." It should be treated as the equivalent to an internal.

This is in line with recent Reuters polling and a recent Pew poll.

Nothing out of the ordinary. A bit high and probably biased, but not junk.

And their July 2012 survey also nailed the results: http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/900/July_Dcorps_political_%20FQ.pdf

Oh wow, similar to Pew. Hillslide here we come

[cinyc]

Some people learned nothing from Dean Chambers.

No one is unskewing a damn thing here. The pollster is not reputable. It's the equivalent of the Clout fools shrilling for the Republican side. Three Clintonista Democrat operatives "polling." It should be treated as the equivalent to an internal.

This is in line with recent Reuters polling and a recent Pew poll.

Nothing out of the ordinary. A bit high and probably biased, but not junk.

And their July 2012 survey also nailed the results: http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/900/July_Dcorps_political_%20FQ.pdf

I'm not dimissing this poll or any poll, but this poll was taken in June, and actually represents a two-point net improvement for Trump over Democracy Corps' last poll, which was in April.

Unlike 538, I personally don't give much creedance to past performance.   Being right one cycle doesn't mean that a pollster will be right this cycle.  It's a whole new ballgame.  A poll model that worked in 2012 or 2014 isn't necessarily going to work today.

[Seriously?]

It seems it's the "in" thing for both Clinton and Trump supporters to call polls with results which they don't like "junk" and buy into polls which they do like. Anyway, this poll does seem a little fishy.

Please. It's not the result, it's the pollsters. This is not a non-partisan poll conducted by a non-partisan organization.

The pollsters are partisan Democrats, just like the Wentzels from "Clout" are partisan Republicans. It shouldn't be treated like a non-partisan poll. You are smart enough to know the difference if you have at least some modicum of intellectual honesty.

I similarly have dismissed the Clout fools are nothing other than Republicans and look at Rasmussen with skepticism. So save me this "Cinton/Trump supporter" diatribe.

[Fusionmunster]

It seems it's the "in" thing for both Clinton and Trump supporters to call polls with results which they don't like "junk" and buy into polls which they do like. Anyway, this poll does seem a little fishy.

Please. It's not the result, it's the pollsters. This is not a non-partisan poll conducted by a non-partisan organization.

The pollsters are partisan Democrats, just like the Wentzels from "Clout" are partisan Republicans. It shouldn't be treated like a non-partisan poll. You are smart enough to know the difference if you have at least some modicum of intellectual honesty.

I similarly have dismissed the Clout fools are nothing other than Republicans and look at Rasmussen with skepticism. So save me this "Cinton/Trump supporter" diatribe.

While both are partisan firms, Democracy Corps should not be considered junk. They're numbers are generally pretty on the mark. They were correct in 2012, not so much in 2014 with their senate call if I remember right but most pollsters were off that year.

[Seriously?]

It seems it's the "in" thing for both Clinton and Trump supporters to call polls with results which they don't like "junk" and buy into polls which they do like. Anyway, this poll does seem a little fishy.

Please. It's not the result, it's the pollsters. This is not a non-partisan poll conducted by a non-partisan organization.

The pollsters are partisan Democrats, just like the Wentzels from "Clout" are partisan Republicans. It shouldn't be treated like a non-partisan poll. You are smart enough to know the difference if you have at least some modicum of intellectual honesty.

I similarly have dismissed the Clout fools are nothing other than Republicans and look at Rasmussen with skepticism. So save me this "Cinton/Trump supporter" diatribe.

While both are partisan firms, Democracy Corps should not be considered junk. They're numbers are generally pretty on the mark. They were correct in 2012, not so much in 2014 with their senate call if I remember right but most pollsters were off that year.

Most pollsters that modeled off of the D+5 advantage from 2012 in 2014 were absolutely, positively off the mark in 2014. Most reputable pollsters got most of the races right. Otherwise, 538 would have been wildly off in the cycle. They were off by just a few seats, IIRC.

At the end of the day, you have to take pollsters with a partisan tilt with a grain of salt.

[Virginiá]

Generic congressional ballots are useless junk.

No, they aren't. They may not always be the most accurate, but they give us a rough idea of what the House PV will be.

[pbrower2a]

Generic congressional ballots are useless junk.

No, they aren't. They may not always be the most accurate, but they have given us a good idea of what the House PV would be.

In a D+4 election, the Democrats win the House. In 2010 the Republicans established many districts with R+2, R+3, and R+4 advantages and very few with D+1 top D+5 advantages.  Democrats got very sure seats. The slightly-R seats would have been tailor-made for moderate Republicans, but the Republicans elected pols better suited for R+30 districts.

Gerrymandering obviously can't help Republicans in the Senate.

[Virginiá]

In a D+4 election, the Democrats win the House. In 2010 the Republicans established many districts with R+2, R+3, and R+4 advantages and very few with D+1 top D+5 advantages.  Democrats got very sure seats. The slightly-R seats would have been tailor-made for moderate Republicans, but the Republicans elected pols better suited for R+30 districts.

Gerrymandering obviously can't help Republicans in the Senate.

Cook and various other analysts have suggested it's basically going to take D+7 or D+8 to take back the House, due to the large majority and rigged districts. Of course, seeing as it is by district, it could require less depending on how all 435 races play out, but meh. How were you going by D+4? Just curious.

On that note, the generic congressional poll has been favorable to Democrats for the past 12 months now. We could actually have a good shot at a D+4 House PV this year, if not higher, depending on what polls you trust. That doesn't even really fully account for the effects of straight ticket voting, either.

[Seriously?]

In a D+4 election, the Democrats win the House. In 2010 the Republicans established many districts with R+2, R+3, and R+4 advantages and very few with D+1 top D+5 advantages.  Democrats got very sure seats. The slightly-R seats would have been tailor-made for moderate Republicans, but the Republicans elected pols better suited for R+30 districts.

Gerrymandering obviously can't help Republicans in the Senate.

Cook and various other analysts have suggested it's basically going to take D+7 or D+8 to take back the House, due to the large majority and rigged districts. Of course, seeing as it is by district, it could require less depending on how all 435 races play out, but meh. How were you going by D+4? Just curious.

On that note, the generic congressional poll has been favorable to Democrats for the past 12 months now. We could actually have a good shot at a D+4 House PV this year, if not higher, depending on what polls you trust. That doesn't even really fully account for the effects of straight ticket voting, either.

It's not just gerrymandering, it's the power of incumbency as well. The House just doesn't turn over very easily. Retention rates are generally in the 90s. While people hate Congress, they don't necessarily hate their representative.

Your analysis seems about right at D+7 or D+8. I don't think D +4 or D +5 cuts it. If that were the case, the House would have been lost in 2012. It wasn't.

[pbrower2a]

Retention rates are high when politicians fit their districts well.  But let the district change, and a venerable Congressional Representative becomes vulnerable.  Let a district go from majority-Anglo to majority Hispanic, as happened to Bob Dornan, and the right-wing Republican gets replaced by Loretta Sanchez, a liberal. The electoral results for his district slowly deteriorated for him.

Elected incumbents can lose. Some causes include

1. being in the job only for oneself.
2. misuse of the perquisites of office (like hiring lots of family members as staff)
3. scandals (mercifully rare)
4. not being up to the job (which may include deterioration of performance)
5. poor constituent service, like being unresponsive to them
6. being out of touch with the interests of constituents

Most Congressional representatives do nothing to get ousted. But the political environment can change.