Generic Trouble

We keep saying the Democrats are in trouble. Duh, right? Well, it could be much worse than anyone has thought. Indeed, there was an interesting article the other day at RealClearPolitics, along with some other recent poll results, which suggest huge losses for the Democrats in November. . . much bigger than previously expected. Let’s consider the evidence.

1. The Generic Ballot.

The generic ballot is a highly unreliable way to determine how the parties will fare come election time because it measures the national mood, rather than the mood locally in each district. But it can be very telling, especially when combined with other evidence. Consider this.

For starters, we need to realize that the generic ballot is biased toward the Democrats. By “biased” I mean that it overstates the Democrats’ electoral chances. The reason is that Democrats are concentrated in relatively few districts. Indeed, the median Congressional district is slightly pro-Republican -- meaning the districts are not evenly balanced and the Democrats tend to be grouped into fewer districts. Consequently, the generic ballot over-sells the Democrats’ chances because much of their support is wasted in these concentrated districts.

Thus, any lead by the Republicans in the generic ballot must be considered significant. And this year, the Republicans are leading the generic ballot. Gallup gives them a 4% lead -- only the third time they’ve ever led the generic ballot according to Gallup (1994 and 2002). Rasmussen, who polls likely voters, gives the Republicans a 9% lead. An NBC/WSJ poll found that Republicans lead by 13% among “energized” voters.

What does this translate into? The RCP average of polls gives the Republicans a 2.8% lead. This translates into a roughly a 225 seat majority for the Republicans, i.e. a 50 seat pick up. The Rasmussen numbers would translate into a 70 seat pick up! A 13% difference would be unprecedented and could exceed 100 seats.

Historically, such swings are not uncommon. Since 1874, there have been 34 mid-term elections. Thirteen of those involved losses of 44 seats or more. Five were above 70 seats, and the high was 129 seats. Moreover, these larger swings happened when there was a convergence of factors similar to today -- bad economic conditions, controversial President, and prior elections leading to large majority for the President's party.

The Democrats counter that there hasn’t been a 60 seat swing in 60 years. But these three factors haven't converged in 60 years either. And more importantly, there is one more huge fact that needs to be considered: the Republicans can pick up 70 seats without winning a single Democratic-leaning district.

What this tells me is that you should look for Republican gains in the 70 seat range.

2. Additional Evidence.

If we only had the generic ballot to work with, I would be much more cautious about suggesting a 70 seat gain. But that’s not the only evidence.

• The Democrats are in trouble like never before. Almost every Democrat except those in the deepest blue areas has been polling below 50% in the polls. That is extremely significant. Incumbents who poll below 50% are very likely to lose. Add in that 70 of those Democrats are sitting in red districts, and that spells serious trouble for the Democrats.

• Moreover, for their chances to improve, Obama’s poll numbers need to rise. But he’s only getting worse. Each of the major polling organizations is reporting Obama at record lows, and week after week he seems to keep on sinking. Even groups like the AP and Gallup, both of which are heavily weighted to favor Democrats, show Obama below 50% support now. In fact, it’s gotten so bad that Obama only beats Ron Paul by 1% (42% to 41%) in a national match up. . . Ron Paul. Good grief!

• And, as predicted, ObamaCare is becoming a lead albatross. Polls show that the public is getting more and more angry about it now that it’s passed. Even the Associated Press now admits that its own polls show 50% of the public opposes it. More reliable polls show much higher opposition numbers (Rasmussen has it at 58%). And try as they might to sell this thing, between now and November is too short of a time to change minds.

• They are losing (or have lost) everyone they’ve gained in recent elections. They poll worse with whites and males than at any time ever. They have lost suburbanites and what used to be called Reagan Democrats. Indeed, there’s little left in their support except blacks, young single women, and socialists.

• The Democrats are relying on an “excite the base” strategy. But they keep selling their base out -- look for the next sell out to come with the Supreme Court nominee. And even if they could excite their base, their base already supports them at the 95% level, i.e. there is no more base to excite, and still it's not enough to avoid a crushing defeat.

• Finally, Democrats are praying for an improved economy. But the people aren’t responding to improved consumer and producer numbers because of unemployment and fears about policy. Indeed 76% rate the economy as “poor”. Moreover, if you want a real indication of how people are feeling, watch where they put their money. “Retail investors” -- that’s fancy speak for “average people” -- are withdrawing money from the market, not adding. That’s a true vote of no confidence.

So putting all of this together, I am starting to suspect a 70+ seat swing in the House is likely, with a possibly much higher swing possible if the Democrats don’t start learning some lessons very quickly. But based on the course they are charting, it's rather obvious they’ve learned nothing. And that’s going to make November very, very interesting.

Indeed, it looks like Obama and Pelosi finally really might make history.