Princeton Election Consortium: Republicans at risk of losing the House

[muriel_volestrangler]

Conditions through August showed a 2% lead on the generic Congressional ballot for Democrats. As of September 20th, in the wake of the Democratic convention, the lead has widened to 4.0 +/- 2.0%. Although it has yet to be appreciated by pundits, this could well translate to a November loss of the House of Representatives by Republicans. Based on the generic Congressional ballot, the probability of a Democratic takeover is 74% with a median 16-seat majority. Whichever party is in control, the seat margin is headed for being narrower than the current Congress. Like any probability in the 20-80% range, this is a knife-edge situation. This picture may change over the coming six weeks as more information, especially district-level polls, becomes available.

As seen in recent articles in Politico and U.S. News, few pundits think the Democrats will re-take the House. However, analysis of a leading indicator suggests to me that transfer of control is a distinct possibility.

Predicting the House outcome is challenging. First, there is the basic problem that we have to estimate how far opinion will move between now and November. On top of that, there is uncertainty in knowing how the polling measurement – generic Congressional ballot preference – translates to a seat outcome.

Another approach would be to use district-by-district polls and ratings. An estimate like that can be seen from our data partner, Pollster.com. Their House outlook shows retained GOP control, and RealClearPolitics implies the same. However, many of those polls are weeks or months old. My estimate today suggests that in the coming weeks, we might look for district polls to move in the Democrats’ direction. This is also an opportunity for a detailed analytical approach, as taken elsewhere, to shine.

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/09/20/house-outlook-for-2013-take-2/

[M_M]

1. Republicans are in danger of

being the 21st-century Whigs.

[elleng]

2. Repeating: Let's give PrezO a Congress he can work with!

CONTRIBUTE:

http://www.powellforva.com/contribute
http://www.robzerban.com/
http://congressmanwithguts.com/
http://www.tammyduckworth.com/
http://www.delaney2012.com/
http://www.gillanforcongress.com/
http://jimgraves.com/

http://elizabethwarren.com/splash-pages/learnmoretoday?utm_expid=49474463-0

[FrenchieCat]

3. I like this possibility......

Let's get her done!

[Drunken Irishman]

4. If we win the House, keep the Senate and Obama wins (as I think he will)...

Write the obituary of the Republican Party. Yeah, I'm saying it. No party has lost that much ground after taking back half the Congress two years prior. It would be a disaster of epic proportions.

Remember, in 1996, while Clinton won handily, Democrats only gained 2 seats in the House and saw a net loss of two in the Senate.

This would be historic if the Republicans lost the House. It would really kill off the modern Republican Party. I don't think it'd go fully, but it would have to change dramatically to have a chance at regaining control in Washington. That means they'd have to purge out all the right-wingers, lurch toward the middle and become a far more moderate party.

Don't be surprised, if in this scenario, a guy like Jeb Bush evolves on important issues like gay marriage, taxes, social security, medicare and abortion.

We gotta do this. We gotta kill the current Republican Party.

[davidpdx]

5. I think if we do retake the US House it will be damn close

Maybe 220-215 and the Senate will be close as well 51-49 or 52-48 (including King).

[Cosmocat]

6. Just a real clusterscrew

The Rs will be even worse than they have been the last two years.

while it would allow the advance of actually doing congressional business and keep the idiots from spending two years trying to bring up articles of impeachment on the President, you have to keep in mind that what "middle" there is in washington dc is in the democratic caucuses. The House would not be able to get any signficant work done because there would be more than enough "blue dogs" that would be more concerned about their jobs and not risk voting on anything the Rs would bash them over the had with in two years.

[davidpdx]

7. True, if you made an assumption of 5% of the US House are bluedog d's

then yes, that would screw things up (I think clusterfuck is the word you were looking for). I'm not saying that's how many there will be, but using it as an example. In that case we'd probably need over 230, which mean we'd have to pickup of 40 seats

[Cosmocat]

9. At least

The 2008-2010 congress had 257 dems and 178 reps and they barely had the margins to get things done.

I think you probably have at least 20% of democrats as "Blue Dogs" at any given time. These are seats that are probably very close, within 5% either way of Ds vs Rs in the district, or even districts that are majority Rs.

Heath Shuler gave up his seat, but he was as Blue Dog at they get, and he was in a majority R district.

In order to have control of the House, and to get some things passed, better to have them than not. Because you are are not going to get 220 Dennis Kucinich liberals in the House. Just not going to happen.

One of the things that the "liberal press" and all this "pundits" have absolutely refused to talk about is how the Rs are one, totally whipped, voting block, while the Ds are the left and the middle at this point. The Rs have purged themselves of anyone who had the temperament or courage to vote outside of what the far right dictates at this point.

It is very out of the norm historically, and really is not functional government.

If the Ds voted as one block like this, the frame would be that they are cowards and afraid of their leadership and extreme elements of the party. They would be eviscerated for it. Rs, crickets chirping.

[tarheelsunc]

8. I don't buy it

It sounds good, but it's not realistic. Too many Republican seats are safe (probably due to pork-barrel spending, which both parties are guilty of at times of course). You have a ton of the entrenched guys like John Boehner who don't even face opposition on the right. The problem with a poll like that is that there are too many districts and it doesn't look at them individually. There may very well be an advantage of 4% as far as people who want a Democratic congress, but their district individually may not have a viable candidate. I know RCP is a right-wing site but according to their house map, there are not even enough toss-ups for the Democrats to have a possibility of getting a majority.

[smorkingapple]

10. Gerrymandering folks...

This is why we probably don't take the house back this year. It's not needed anyway, when Obama wins with 330 EV's in a clear landslide win, his first speech and every surrogate appearance must chant MANDATE till the cows come home. Then when they don't comply, we destroy them in 2014 and 2016.

Long game folks, chess not checkers. This is what led to Dean's 50 state strategy and Obama being President.