Luck of Enthusiasm

More unfortunate news for the Democrats. From Gallup:

Since the vast majority of voters majority of voters always vote the same way, what frequently determines elections is not how people vote but which people vote. Note that in 2004 the Democrats enjoyed a 17 point advantage in enthusiasm. Dubya still won. The gap was much greater in 2008. Obama wins.

So what do the Gallup numbers mean right now? I can't tell because I can't know whether the numbers are accurate. Too many things changed over the last eight years and pollsters can control only for some of them.

What we can say is that if these numbers are correct, written in them is doom for Obama and for a lot of Congressional Democrats.

Ps. Wisconsin Democrats just lost their Senate majority, again.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

The Clinton team is busy putting out fires elsewhere, Kenny: they'll be kickin' earth hater assets soon enough. See NorthWestern Energy is a defendant in a suit against a dirty Montana power plant?

http://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/environmental-groups-sue-colstrip-operators/article_c3137d2e-d6a5-11e1-80d2-001a4bcf887a.html

[Donald Pay]

No, even if Cullen remains an independent, WisDems still have the majority, because a Republican Senator resigned to take a state job.

Again, these national polls don't mean squat. Obama's ads and ground game in swing states is very good, and enthusiasm there is high.

[duggersd]

I read a column that said WI will actually have an election to replace the Republican who resigned, considering there is an election in a few months and the majority does not mean squat until after the first of the year.
I am not convinced Obama's ground game is all that good. It might look good now, but Obama is spending a lot of money right now compared with what he is bringing in. He has a lot of overhead and that will translate to less money for GOTV. Polls are tightening in the swing states in which Obama has/had a substantial lead. VA comes to mind. And Romney has not even started spending in earnest yet.

[Dave]

Perhaps Ken can write a piece about how the Presidents lack of understanding of "our Anglo-Saxon heritage" and Romney's superior understand of "our Anglo-Saxon heritage" will effect our nations future...

[duggersd]

Dave, perhaps you have not heard, the Romney camp denies that quote and nobody seems to know who to attribute it to. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/25/media-begin-new-coordinated-attack-romney-unsourced-anglo-saxon-herit But, I am sure that does not interest you. But since you bring it up, a President who gives back a bust of Churchill, gives DVD's of himself, and who can forget what he did to the queen? http://www.mediaite.com/online/selective-outrage-how-the-u-k-press-reacted-to-obamas-numerous-anti-british-gaffes/ So perhaps there is something to understanding the anglo-saxon thing.

[Dave]

What? No Story from Drudge or the Breitbart clan?