- Support NDN
2 New Polls Show Significant 7 Point Gains for the Democrats
More evidence this morning confirming the argument we've been making for the past few weeks - the Republican wave has crested, and a new dynamic in election 2010 has taken hold. New Rasmussen and Washington Post polls each show a 7 point swing towards the Democrats in the national Congressional Generic in the past few weeks. As we wrote yesterday this movement tracks similar movement seen in other polls released over the past few days, indicating that the Democrats have made substantial improvement in their position over the past month.
The national media had been a little slow to acknowledge the significance of the dramatic change in the election but has clearly come around. Look for new analyses in the Politico, Reuters, Slate and this video "Fast Fix" piece from Chris Cillizza. John Dickerson's piece in Slate is particularly thoughtful, and it has this passage:
When voters were asked whether they would vote for a Democrat or a Republican, the GOP had a steady lead over the last two months in an average of the polls. Now the two parties are almost tied. The Gallup poll shows the same narrowing, as does the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. Democrats usually discount Rasmussen polls as biased for the GOP, but even Rasmussen shows a nine-point Democratic surge. "There is life left in this baby," says Simon Rosenberg of the New Democratic Network, who has been arguing the case for a reappraisal of the election for weeks.
There is a clear understanding now in the political class that things have changed, but the big hedge is still on. In the lead Washington Post story on their new poll, the 7 point Democratic gain was "modest," and the 6 point Republican lead "significant." Not sure how that got by their editor this morning but shows how fundamentally invested much of DC's political class is in the September version of this story which had Democrats losing the House, a wave election and big Republican gains were already "baked in the cake." I am not sure where we will be in November but it is clear now that the election is going through a fundamental late shift, and this new dynamic has become, appropriately, a major topic for discussion now in the national media. I just think most commentators are understating the significance of what is going on.
Two more observations this morning:
- When a new clear dynamic emerges in any election this late in the cycle, it is very hard for that dynamic to be altered or dissipate. In the case of 2010, I think this will prove particularly true. The Democrats have more tools to effect the national environment in the final month. They have a much more powerful closing argument. They have the bully pulpit of the White House, and a charasmatic President who has found his voice in recent weeks on the number one issue for all voters - the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, have tired and unappealing leaders, have failed to present a compelling election agenda, have fielded far too many fringe candidates, and the country still holds them - accurately - accountable for the mess we are in today. The inherent weakness of the GOP's offering failed to close the deal with the public, and has left the door open for the apparent Democrat revival we are seeing now. Given current trends it is reasonable to conclude that the Democrats could pick up another 3-6 points in the national polls before election day, which would have a significant impact of course on the many close races across the country. One of the shortcomings of many of the current political analyses of this endgame electoral dynamic is the reluctance of the authors to acknowledge that the current trend lines are likely to continue to through election day, and if they do this really is a whole new ball game. No candidate or political party wants to be losing ground - particularly 6 or 7 points - as they head in the final month.
- The current American electorate is unlike any electorate most political observers have ever seen. Democrats went in to the 2010 cycle having completed their strongest electoral performances in over 40 and perhaps even 70 years. Democrats won 52% and 53% of the vote in 2006 and 2008, with 2008 being the best Presidential performance since 1964 and only the 2nd time since 1944 Democrats won more than 50.1% of the national vote in a Presidential election. Simply put more people voted for a Democrat in 2008 than in 44 years. In contrast, the Democrats went into 1994 having only won 43% of the vote in 1992, giving them a very different relationship to the electorate than the current Democrats. In essence the ceiling for Democrats is higher in this midterm than it has been in a very long time, which may help explain why the Democrats are defying conventional wisdom and gaining ground in the end game of 2010.
I am struck that in most national polls the Republican number is that very same 46% they got in 2006 and 2008. Meaning that despite all that has gone on the Republicans have not improved their standing with the American public at all since their wipeout elections in 2006 and 2008. For the Democrats, starting again back at 53%, the question in this end game of 2010 was could they got those who had wandered from them but not yet gone to the GOP to return. And what seems to be happening now is that the Democrats are reclaiming some of that majority vote they received in the last two elections.
So lets do some math here. If the Republicans have peaked at 46%, and the Democrats are somewhere between 43% and 46% and gaining, what do we believe is the most likely outcome in this final month? Can Democrats regain half of their lost 2008/2006 vote, and get their national number up to 48/49% given the Republicans have shown no capacity to grow? Somehow I think this feels like the likely outcome in 2010. We end up with the Democrats even or ahead few points in the Congressional Generic, ahead or even in all regions of the country outside the South, and with a result that will be disapointing to the Republicans who started their victory laps just a little bit too early.
Morning Update - The always sharp John Heilemann cites our analysis in his weekly New York Magazine column, and the equally savvy Mike Tomasky has an interesting riff on all this in The Guardian today.