NPR Poll Shows Tough Road Ahead For Democrats

Source: National Public Radio

Democrat Stan Greenberg and Republican Glen Bolger conducted the first public battleground poll of this election cycle. They chose the 70 House districts experts regard as most likely to oust incumbents this fall. What they found was grim news for Democrats.

For this poll, Bolger and Greenberg chose the districts where incumbents are considered the most vulnerable, and in the case of open seats the ones most likely to switch party control in November. Sixty are currently held by Democrats -– many of whom won these seats even when voters in the same district preferred Republican John McCain for president in 2008. The other 10 districts are the flipside —held by Republicans in the House -– even though their voters went for Barack Obama in 2008.

These are this year's swing seats — the political terrain where the battle for control of the House of Representatives will be won or lost. In this battleground, voters are choosing Republicans over Democrats 49 percent to 41 percent.
"Democrats will have some good plays by individual campaigns, but it's getting close ... the concrete is drying, it's not yet solidly locked in, but it's getting very difficult for this to change where there's a picture of Republicans picking up at least 30 seats," he said. And as Greenberg knows all too well, the Republicans only need 40 pickups to take control of the House.


Read more: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127845693

---

Three thoughts:

First - The margin of error on theis poll is over 5%, which indicates they had a very small pool of responses. If you're conducting a "Favorite TV Show" poll, -5+ points may be fine. If you're calculating election outcomes, perhaps not.

Second - The pollsters make the "shocking" announcememt that Obama has a lower approval rating in areas that voted for McCain. DUH. These people VOTED FOR MCCAIN. They NEVER approved of Obama. Despite that, in the 2008 election, many still voted for Dems in the House. These are not coattail seats, period. These were rejections of Republicanism.

Finally - The above being said, I'm not one to wear the Rose Colored Glasses. We could lose the House. American's have a short attention span, and often vote against their own best interest. The thing is, Dems have not done a proper job of convincing America that voting out the Republicans is IN their best interests. How can we, when our President is so damn insistent on bipartisanship?

"Yes America, Republicans are bad for the country, nonetheless, we must get their input, support, and cooperation on every bill we pass!"

Is that a clear message? Is it a winning message? If we lose seats in Congress, will we continue to make excuses, blame voter apathy, blame the press, and sneer at Republicans, or will we put our boot down and demand our elected representatives at ALL levels of government start behaving like there still is such a thing as a Progressive Democratic Party?

The reality is that a loss of seats was probably inevitable. So it becomes an issue of "how many". 40 would seem like alot, especially with the GOP self destructing left and right. But between jobs, oil, and the economy in general, there's gonna be some backlash agaisnt Washington, and since Democrats already hold a large majority of the seats, they'll take the worse hit. But barring a turn of the economy, or some other incident, 30 would seem a "worse case scenario". And the democratic party has been aware of their challenge for the better part of a year and has been actively working the issue.

I'm curious - what do you base this on?

They've been working the fundraising. They've identified the critical districts. They've been in contact with the candidates offering organizational assistance. They have plans for campaign assistance including money. Basically leveraging some of the "50 state strategy" assets. Whether they are doing well....... I guess we'll see.

who is a Rep here in CT. And she is a pretty good rep. But..."Greenberg's current and former corporate clients include British Petroleum, British Airways, Monsanto Company and General Motors." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Greenberg

He helped rebrand BP. DLC yuckiness.

However - I think it would be in our own best interests to NOT question the results, to NOT assume that a certain amount of loss is expected, to NOT fight as if a third of the battle were already lost.

Where do we end up when we cede a level of defeat before the first votes are cast?

We all know that.

I take this as just more of the republipropaganda pimpery that is setting the stage for more republicon homelander election malfeasance against America.

but I do question the logic of dismissing the truth behind the title of the article

...report on the "Bush Charm Offensive."

As I recall, she said if elected he would go to DC and get things done because he was "charming...oh, so charming." And he liked to give out nicknames, too.

:eyes:

because it's one thing to just not like the results, or the pollsters, or the reporters. It's another to point our real flaws in the methodology.

Think of how many people 5% represents in a presidential election and you'll get an idea of how far off the poll is.

I read your post that you were calling Bullshit on me. Sorry.

I guess you don't want o explain why you believe that. I think you're wrong - I thing the article exagerates a bit, and make assumptions, but I also believe there is some truth there. We are not facing a cakewalk in November - I'll bet you a nickel. The house is at risk.

Ifr I'm wrong, so what. Not the first time.

If I'm right? Say hello to Speaker Boehner.

but my problem with these articles is they are actively TRYING TO CONVINCE people of what are only their assumptions, as being facts. Nobody knows this far out what will happen. So I just discount it.

What would be theLet's say they are trying to convince us we have an uphill battle.

What's the motivation for doing so? Depress turnout? Nah, to depress turnout you lull people into a false sense of power.

All this poll does is fire me up for a fight.

Why would you ignore that?

because of all this propaganda. Some people just want to vote for the winner.

I wouldn't give this any more veracity than a Rasmusson poll. NPR long ago jumped that shark, ever since Bush appointed a right-wing head of the whole public broadcasting system. Now I hear mostly centrist to wingnut programming and guests on NPR.

The right-wing shift of NPR has corresponded to my down-ward shift in giving to them. The day that total blithering talentless idiot Jonah "My Mommy Gave LBJ A BJ" Goldberg was on NPR was my wake up call on that.

I don't know what's safe and what isn't - I'm not a polling firm.

My point was that polls are easily skewed just by rephrasing the questions, and that NPR polls aren't to be trusted any more than any other MSM, i.e corporate-controlled, ones are.

The biggest help will be improvement in the unemployment rate-- that will make the biggest difference. Can't be spun.

think democrats are too progressive.

Even the idea behind the question "too progressive?" or "too conservative?" is Republican, versus ideological and helpful.

I remember the old NPR and it was great. I loathe the new NPR and their loquatious jabs at all things liberal. I don't mind having a variety of views and I love having educated discourse, but I despise hidden agendas and pernicious propaganda being oh so delicately injected into the conversation with just a touch of bravado and an air of concern, all of which says little more than be sure and donate to us the next time we ask for your money because don't you love the way we can spin a yarn.

You can have your Nice Polite Republicans and their pretty little tales. I know there are the caring liberals among the lions who feed at the trough, just as there are log cabin Republicans who think there's no other way to survive in their red-state communities, but they too are sirens that simply lead you to the other side.

No, it's best to keep your mind clear and your task simple. Heed not the ramblings of these Nice Polite Republicans, despite their spectacular vernacular. Focus on the prize while time is still aplenty.