GOP Leads by 18 Points in New Gallup Poll

As yours truly suggested last week, Sean Trende was indeed "pre-announcing" Gallup's first likely voter poll of the election. It is a doozy.

I don't recall seeing distinct higher/lower turnout versions of poll results. The result may be to cushion the blow a bit. If you take the higher turnout model, Republicans are ahead among likely voters by 13%. If you take the lower turnout model, Republicans are ahead by 18%.

Consider again Trende's "translation" of national vote totals into seats picked up.

In 2008, the Democrats won the national vote by 10.5 points, and finished with 257 seats. 257 Republican seats would translate to a 78-seat pickup.

I don't think we can realistically project. Nothing in recent memory approaches an 18 point advantage in an off year election, at least for Republicans. I expect Jay Cost will be talking about this tomorrow.

An obvious caveat is that the Gallup poll has bounced around all year, and that Rasmussen is showing a tighter race, with Republicans only three points ahead.

One thing that makes the Gallup poll look more interesting is the simultaneously very poor tracking for the President's job approval rating. He has been below 50% since mid-May, and is at 45% now. That usually correlates with a large loss of seats for the President's party in a midterm.

However, the President's numbers are worse than they appear. His approval rating among African Americans is still extraordinarily high (91%). His approval rating among White voters is at 36%. Among senior citizens, it is at 38%. Among independent voters, 40%. Those are shockingly low, end game George W. Bush numbers, and they are localized among key voting blocks. Wow.

Comments

[William]

If Obama loses support among blacks, he may end up being impeached before the end of his term, let alone run for re-election. I doubt this will happen but it's difficult to see him mounting a successful campaign for re-election if he cannot regain the support of moderates and independents.

He'll actually be fortunate if the GOP does have a "wave election" that returns control of both the House and the Senate to the GOP, as he'll be able to either reposition himself more to the center and/or have a foil to play off during the next 2 years.

[Bill Fleming]

I think those demographics are a little confusing KB. Are we talking about the "white" voters who are
not 18-29 (57% pro Obama), Moderate (54% Obama), Post Graduate (53% Obama), Single (53 Obama),
from the East (51 Obama), who are not Democrats (79 Obama) or Liberal (75 Obama)?

Or just regular, old, rich, white folks? ;^)

And how about this paragraph to balance your "shockingly low" assertion:

"Presidents' approval ratings at the beginning of October in their first midterm election year are generally similar to what they will be at the time of the election. Richard Nixon is the only president whose rating improved significantly (from 51% to 58%) in the final weeks leading up to his first midterm election. If Obama's approval rating does not improve in the coming weeks, his support will be similar to that of Ronald Reagan (42% in 1982) and Bill Clinton (45% in 1994), both of whose parties suffered substantial congressional losses in the midterm election."

Sounds to me liket the only thing that would be "shocking" here is if Obama's numbers looked more like Nixon's at this time in the middle of his first term.

[duggersd]

I think they will look more like Nixon's at the end of his presidency. William, I really miss your point of impeachment. That is reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors. I have not seen anything that looks like impeachment material. They do not impeach for incompetence. That is up to an election. This election is primarily to block any further attempts by the Obama administration and the liberals in Congress from further bankrupting our country.

[William]

duggersd,

My point about impeachment may not be the most appropriate, as you're correct he's really not committed any particular act that should be considered high crimes and misdemeanors. That said, once a President loses enough support or has hostile enough opposition to his Presidency, the politics of what actually constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is rather vague and flexible. FWIW, Bill Clinton's actions in office didn't really rise to what I would consider impeachable either, but the politics at the time didn't agree with me.

Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one.

[duggersd]

William:
Obstruction of justice is not a high crime or misdemeanor? I think when you look at what was kicking Nixon out of office, he was forced into resigning for much less. I just hate to see the use of impeachment for things other than that for which it was intended. Nixon was justifiably forced out. Bill Clinton, well maybe.

[William]

duggersd,

Since we have such little precedent for impeachment, it really does appear to me to be more open to a political interpretation than it should be. That's not to say, I think we need to start impeaching everyone just to establish more precedents! - lol

I agree, Obama needs to exit office through the ballot box and, for now, I suspect he will in January 2013.

[KB]

Bill: The President's 45% approval rating is not unusual for this point, as you point out. However, the 91% approval among African-Americans is something that no previous President has enjoyed among any substantial demographic subgroup. The 36% approval among "non-Hispanic Whites" is all non-Hispanic Whites, not just "the rich ones." That looks to me to be unprecedentedly low.

Also the numbers for very important subgroups like senior citizens are very low, and that was what I was talking about. Among seniors he gets 38%. Among independents, 40%. That stat for seniors is a lot more important than the 57% among 18-29. Guess who votes?

I would also point out that Republicans suffered grievously when Reagan was in the forties, and when Clinton was there, well, that was 1994. Newt Gingrich got to ride a horse in a circle, fire a rifle in the air, and yell out "God is great!"

There is a reason that so many Democrats are running this year as if they weren't Democrats. Obama is an albatross around their necks.

[Bill Fleming]

It would be interesting to compare these numbers to the election
results of 2008, to see demographically where the erosion in Obama's
support has been. If I recall, he did lose in both Democratic and Republican,
blue collar, white (non-hispanic) male voter segments. So I'm not as
"shocked" as you are, I guess, KB.

I think both Obama and Pelozi are smart enough to know that if
a Dem candidate has to throw either or both of them under the bus
in order to prevail in their upcoming local elections, they should,
by all means, do so.

Because, after all, the purpose of a political party is to win elections.

Right?

[KB]

bill: The Democrats out-polled the Republicans by 8% or more nationally in 2008. This year more Republicans participated in primaries than Democrats, something that has not happened since the 1930's. If the poll averages are right, Republicans will win this election nationally by 5% or more. If Gallup is right, by much more. Something has shifted in a big way, hasn't it?

There is certainly nothing wrong with the Democrats running away from the President and their party and even pretending to not really be Democrats, unless you count the mild deception involved. My point was simply that this time around they have to.

[Bill Fleming]

"That stat for seniors is a lot more important than the 57% among 18-29. Guess who votes?"

Point taken, but only in a relative sense. There are twice as many of the latter than
the former, so they can vote 50% less often and still cancel the older vote out,
(assuming the tow demos are diametrically opposed, which in this case, they're not.)

In rough numbers there are about 12% (65+) seniors and 24% youth in the US population.
http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html

[Bill Fleming]

KB: "My point was simply that this time around they have to."

Minor tweak. Yes, SOME of them have to. SOME of them were
never really "Democrats" in the first place, ideologically speaking.