New Generic Ballot Surveys Don’t Show Signs of Republican Wave

[n2doc]

One of the big questions of this election cycle is whether it will turn out to be a “wave” election, like the one in 2010, when an upswell of anti-Democratic sentiment carried Democrats out of the House. One of the best measures of whether there’s a wave is the “generic ballot” question. Pollsters ask: Do you want Democrats or Republicans to control Congress?

Unfortunately, generic ballot polling has been sparse so far this cycle. Last week, however, there were three national polls, by Fox News, CNN and Pew Research, asking the generic ballot question. None showed an anti-Democrat wave, like the one that brought Republicans back to power in 2010. In fact, none of the three polls showed Republicans with a lead among registered voters at all.

The surveys are highly consistent with other surveys conducted over the last two months, which show Democrats ahead by an average of 1.9 points among registered voters. The Republicans have not led in a generic ballot poll since early June, when Fox News showed Republicans ahead by four points.

The current slight Democratic edge is fairly similar to what generic ballot surveys showed in the days ahead of the 2012 presidential election.

more

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/upshot/new-generic-ballot-surveys-dont-show-signs-of-republican-wave.html?src=twr&smid=tw-upshotnyt&_r=1

[winter is coming]

1. Contradictory poll will be rushed out within 48 hours... n/t

[Wounded Bear]

2. I can't shake the feeling that this will be 2012 redux...

where everybody seems to be pimping the Repubs, but finally ending up disappointed. Maybe it's wishful thinking, and I'm very much in GOTV support mode, but I don't think this is going to be a debacle for Dems.

As usual, Dems win on policy and issues. Repubs have run out of personalities that attract national attention.

[Cosmocat]

10. To an extent

As usual, yeah, everyone wanted to gin up a republican "wave."

I think the best case here, though is status quo unfortunately.

Dems aren't winning the house given gerrymandering.

Holding the senate is a "win" this go around.

[TlalocW]

3. Let's hope

That the reason there haven't been a lot of these polls done is because the press knows there isn't an anti-democrat wave coming but doesn't want to report anything that conflicts with their storyline that republicans are going to take over.

TlalocW

[yeoman6987]

4. I think it will end up 52-48 Democratic Senate

Republicans will gain 3 seats max.

[world wide wally]

5. Make sure you're telling young people how important their votes are!

Their heads are in the right place, but they still have a lot to learn about how politics do matter.
Just look at the Supreme Court for starters.

[n2doc]

6. Every vote counts

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. Why did they lead off the second paragraph with "unfortunately"? Sounds like they

were expected news favorable to Republicans...

Unfortunately, generic ballot polling has been sparse so far this cycle.

[former9thward]

9. They meant there is little information to draw conclusions from.

Context matters.

[Cosmocat]

11. Bah

liberal stalwart was right ... They are oblivious to it, but their bias leaks out like that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. Exactly. Glad you understood and caught that, too. I thought DUers were smart?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. I understand that. I'm not an idiot. The tone comes off as biased. That was the point.

[former9thward]

15. Everything comes off as biased when you are looking to be outraged.

The New York Times, of all papers, is not biased towards Republicans. I thought DUers were smarter than that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. Apparently not much at all, my friend. The NYTimes was one of the papers of record who pushed for

the invasion of Iraq. (Can't believe you don't know this!) It is not that friendly to liberals or Democrats. Conservatives/Republicans only say it is because of its association with New York and the editorial pages. The editorial pages may be; in other words, undoubtedly there are liberal commentators on those pages. And those pages also feature conservative rebuttal (the former Judith Miller, for instance). However, NYTimes, by and large, is a paper of record that is often slimed for being biased against Republicans and conservatives in favor of liberals/Democrats. It's really not.

I take it back: DUers are not as smart as I had assumed.

[former9thward]

17. I also take it back: DUers are not as smart as I had assumed.

BTW: Everyone (among the powers that be) was pushing for the invasion of Iraq back then. Regime change in Iraq was made official U.S. policy in the Clinton administration. And we all know the votes on the Iraq War resolution. It was not a Republican/Democratic issue.

[Hortensis]

18. Agree. Regrettably few of us opposed invasion.

And "unfortunately" simply referred to limited data.

[Robbins]

8. My feeling

Is MSM will be surprised.

House-It will stay with republican control thanks to gerrymandering but Democrats could actully pick up a couple of seats.Think 1998 or 2012

Senate-Democrats may actully keep the senate.We are losing WV,SD,and MT but I think Democrats will hold on In Alaska,Ark,Louisania,Colorado,NC,and ARK.Democrats could actully knock off a republican In KT or Georgia

Governors-This Is big story.While Republicans could win In Illinois or CT Democrats have chance at ousting republican governors In
Kansas,Wisconsin,Michigan,Ohio,Maine,Georgia,and Florida.

[Cosmocat]

12. Pa

it is a fate compli Corbett is toast ...

Yeah, of course they WANT the republican's to "win" and will kind of clock it if it does not work out that.

But, there is no energy to this one at all at this point, and that tends to favor republicans.

A win for the country here is simply the Dems managing to hold fort in the senate.