Gallup - Democrats set for historic beatdown in November 2010 Midterms.

[Dos Equis]

Dems get more bad news in Gallup poll
Posted: September 1st, 2010

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

Nancy Pelosi and House Dems get low marks on several issues.

(CNN) - It's the latest sign congressional Democrats could be in for a rough round of midterms.

A new Gallup/USA Today survey out Wednesday finds Americans think Republicans in Congress will do a better job than Democrats in handling seven out of nine key issues.

The biggest divide is on the issue of terrorism, where Republicans get the edge by a wide 55-31 percent margin. Republicans also win big on immigration (50-35 percent), federal spending (50-35 percent), and even the economy (49-38 percent) - despite Democratic efforts to paint the recession's onset as the fault of congressional Republicans and former President George W. Bush.


Republicans also win on the issue of Afghanistan (45-38 percent), jobs (46-41 percent), and even corruption in government (38-35 percent) - a problem that has plagued both parties over the past two years.

Democrats may find a small glimmer of hope in health care where Americans are essentially split on which party is best equipped to tackle that issue. But health care has historically been a Democratic strong point (a year ago the party enjoyed an 11-point advantage on the issue) and the fact that neither party can now claim a clear stake on the subject may actually prove to be more good news for the GOP.

The only issue Democrats still reign supreme is on that the environment, where the party holds a clear 54-31 percent advantage. Though this may prove to have little resonance at the polls, considering a recent CNN survey showed only 1 in 4 voters mark the environment as the most important issue to their vote.

The latest Gallup survey comes two days after the organization's daily tracking survey showed Republicans 10 points ahead of Democrats in a generic matchup – numbers that marked the fifth straight week the Republicans have held an advantage on the question. The 10-point margin is also the party's largest lead ever in midterm contests in Gallup's polling history.

In average of several recent generic matchup polls shows the GOP with a single digit lead, but still virtually in the same position it was at the same time in 1994 – the year the party grabbed 54 House seats back from the Democrats, enough to win control of the chamber.

Gallup surveyed 1,021 adults by telephone from August 27-30. The sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/01/trending-dems-get-more-bad-news-in-gallup-poll/

[Agnostic007]

52 consecutive months of job growth under Bush and republicans,killed the day Pelosi took over the congress.

Soooo, all America needs to fix everything is to have a Republican President and Majority Republican congress in your opinions?

[Soul Crusher]

Soooo, all America needs to fix everything is to have a Republican President and Majority Republican congress in your opinions?

No - we need to kneecap both parties so they can't do squat. 

[Soul Crusher]

Charlie Cook: Repubs will take House and maybe Senate as well
Fox News Channel | 9/1/10

Charlie Cook on Fox:

Republicans will win 50-60 new seats and take control of House; Repubs are in reach of 50-51 seats in Senate

[MM2K]

Even the Democrats are proclaiming the House to already be lost. And I think it is safe to say that the Republians have a better chance of taking the Senate than they could have ever hoped they would have had.

[Soul Crusher]

Even the Democrats are proclaiming the House to already be lost. And I think it is safe to say that the Republians have a better chance of taking the Senate than they could have ever hoped they would have had.

The GOP taking the Senate would be beyond delightful, if for no other reason than to see the complete meltdown of the far left. 

[Agnostic007]

I hope they get it too... then.... when they fail to do what they say... we can vote in the democrats and start this thread all over again...rinse and repeat

[Dos Equis]

I'd like to see Democrats keep the House and Republicans take the Senate.  Would slow down the spending train and help keep people like Kagan off the Supreme Court.

[Soul Crusher]

I'd like to see Democrats keep the House and Republicans take the Senate.  Would slow down the spending train and help keep people like Kagan off the Supreme Court.

Hell no!  I want Pelosi gone now.  That disgusting wench needs to go.   

[Dos Equis]

Hell no!  I want Pelosi gone now.  That disgusting wench needs to go.   

Not a Pelosi fan, but I think the Senate can do more damage than the House. 

[James]

[Soul Crusher]

August 31, 2010, 5:20 pm How Did Democrats Get Here?
By NATE SILVER
www.nyt.com
________________________ ______



We talked this morning about the Democrats’ poor electoral position — already shaky, it is probably now deteriorating further — but we haven’t talked as much about why they are in this predicament. This is for a good reason: once you get past the premise that the state of the economy plays a large role (something that pretty much everyone would agree with), this is a difficult question to answer.

The reasons for the Democrats’ decline are, as we say in the business, overdetermined. That is, there are no lack of hypotheses to explain it: lots of causes for this one effect. The economy? Sure. Unpopular legislation like health care? Yep. Some “bad luck” events like the Gulf Oil spill? Mmm-hmm. The new energy breathed into conservatives by the Tea Party movement? Uh-huh.

And this hardly exhausts the theories. An inexperienced White House that has sometimes been surprisingly inept at coping with the 24/7 news media cycle? The poor optics associated with Democrats having had a filibuster-proof majority in theory, but not always in practice? All of the above.

These causes can’t be so easily untangled on the basis of polling evidence; there’s really no basis on which to evaluate the competing hypotheses. This is particularly so given that different types of political events aren’t isolated from one another — health care reform might have been unpopular, for instance, but the reason for its unpopularity may ultimately have been the economy.

For this reason, we can be skeptical of two types of analysis: claiming that Factor X definitely isn’t contributing to the Democrats’ troubles, and asserting that it definitely is. For instance, I’d urge some caution in reading this article at Real Clear Politics by Jay Cost — which rightly critiques those who have entirely dismissed the role that health care played in the Democrats’ decline, but probably goes too far in arguing the contrary. Mr. Cost is right, for instance, that the Democrats’ decline in the polls was steepest last summer, when the health care debate began — but when one delves in a little deeper, the timing of the sharpest periods of decline do not line up well with specific events in the health care debate.

Does that mean Mr. Cost is wrong? Not at all. Health care dominated the political discourse for about nine months; it seems implausible that it hasn’t played some role. But he hasn’t offered much in the way of proof — nor is there much of it to be had: overdetermined phenomena usually beget underdetermined attempts to explain them.

[Soul Crusher]

Bigger Than 1994
By Sean Trende - September 2, 2010
www.realclearpolitics.co m
________________________ __________


There has been a flurry of political stories in recent weeks about the electoral difficulties Democrats face this fall. It seems Washington is finally catching on to the fact that the Democrats' hold on the House is in dire jeopardy, and that a 1994-style, 52-seat pickup is a real possibility.

But this should not come as a surprise, as the data have been pointing to Democratic losses in the 50-seat range in the House for some time now. Washington continues to be disconnected from the political reality that the polls and the electorate have been sending consistently over the past year. After all, the deterioration in Democratic fortunes has not just recently put the House in play. In a piece written in April, I explored how bad things could get for Democrats:

So how bad could 2010 get for the Democrats? Let me say upfront that I tend to agree with analysts who argue that if we move into a "V"-shaped recovery and President Obama's job approval improves, Democratic losses could be limited to twenty or twenty-five seats.

That said, I think those who suggest that the House is barely in play, or that we are a long way from a 1994-style scenario are missing the mark. A 1994-style scenario is probably the most likely outcome at this point. Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility - not merely a far-fetched scenario - that Democratic losses could climb into the 80 or 90-seat range.

The country has not enjoyed a "V"-shaped recovery; rather, economic analysts are now seriously debating whether a double-dip recession is coming. President Obama's job approval ratings have declined, rather than improved. The Democratic party's standing in the generic ballot has declined as well.

From that same piece in April:

The RCP Average has Republicans leading Democrats by 2.8 points on the generic ballot test. That should equate roughly to a 225-seat Republican majority (Republicans won the national vote by 5 points in 1994), which would almost represent a 50-seat pickup.

But many of these polls survey registered voters. Polling among likely voters, such as Rasmussen Reports, shows Republicans up by about 8-10 points, which would probably represent a seventy-seat pickup.

And the polls of the most highly energized voters are even worse for Democrats. Recent NBC/WSJ polling found that Democrats led by three points among registered voters. But among those most interested in the November elections, Republicans led by 13 points.

This reminds me of the polling that showed Martha Coakley up 15 points in early January, but which also showed her and Scott Brown tied among those most interested in the race.

In reality, barring some major and dramatic turnaround in the political landscape, the 50 seat GOP wave has now in many ways moved closer to the floor for Democratic losses. With the economy continuing to flounder and with fewer than 60 days until Election Day, the potential for a once-in-a-century type of wave that would lead to GOP gains in the 60-90 seat range is increasing.

The latest Gallup generic ballot tracking finds that, among registered voters, Republicans are leading by ten points, 51 percent to 41 percent. Three of the four highest leads for the GOP since Gallup began tracking the generic ballot in 1942 have been measured in the past month alone (and Republicans won the House seven times during those intervening years, with as many as 246 seats which would be a 68 seat pickup today).

Moreover, this is a poll of registered voters. This poll only partially accounts for a massive 25-point "enthusiasm gap" between the parties (highly enthusiastic partisans are more likely to answer a phone and sit through a survey). If Gallup had been using a likely voter screen, it would likely have shown upwards of a 14 point lead for the GOP. The last time a party won the national vote by fourteen points was in 1964, when the Democrats won 295 seats in Congress (in 1974 they won the national vote by 17 points and won 291 seats).

Nor is this cherry-picking the data. The RCP Generic Ballot Average, which is predominately comprised of registered voter polls, for the Democrats currently stands at a +4.8 percent edge for the Republicans. That probably translates to a 8 to 10 point edge for Republicans among the actual electorate.

What makes this election cycle so devastating for the Democrats is that the Republicans have had their numbers reduced so severely in the past two cycles. Republicans were reduced to 42.5 percent of the popular vote in 2008 - their lowest total since 1974. Their share of the two party vote (i.e. just Republicans and Democrats) was 44.5 percent. Even a dead-cat bounce in a neutral environment would have netted the Republicans twenty seats after plumbing those depths.

As a result, if the GOP were to win the national vote by ten points this year - again, roughly what the RCP Average suggests when transformed into a likely voter model - that would represent over a ten point gain for the GOP over the course of a single election. A gain in the popular vote of that magnitude in a single cycle hasn't occurred since 1932, when Democrats jumped from 45.9 percent of the popular vote to 56.2 percent of the popular vote, netting 97 seats in the process.

There is one danger for Republicans here. The high enthusiasm gap means that their base voters are extremely likely to vote. But turning out new voters in places like the Birmingham suburbs (R+29) or Midland/Odessa (R+28) does the GOP no good in House races, although in certain states it could have a significant effect on Senate and Governor races.

In other words, Republicans might have a very inefficient vote distribution. This problem continually afflicted the GOP in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Republicans came very close to winning the national popular vote in 1966 (1 point), 1968 (2 points), 1972 (4 points), 1980 (3 points), and 1986 (3 points). Yet they never won more than 44% of the seats in Congress, because their vote was concentrated in a few districts. A similar effect could potentially deny the GOP the truly massive gains that a double-digit national vote victory would suggest.

Right now, the idea of gains in excess of 60 seats for the GOP is unthinkable to many. Gains of that magnitude haven't happened in over 80 years. But unthinkability is not evidence. What actual evidence we have reminds us that no political party has hit the trifecta of a lousy economy, an opposition at its nadir (in terms of seat loss), and an overly ambitious Presidential agenda in over 80 years. All these macro factors are pointing to a massive GOP blowout, and they will not be changing between now and November. The Democrats need to hope that the micro factors save them from a once-in-a-century storm.

Sean Trende is Senior Elections Analyst for RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at strende@realclearpolitics.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/02/bigger_than_1994_106985.html at September 02, 2010 - 08:30:15 AM CDT

[Soul Crusher]

Caddell on the Midterm Elections
NRO ^ | September 2, 2010 | Robert Costa

________________________ ________________________ ______



The polling figures paint an astounding picture -- and not just for Democrats, but for the political class as a whole.

In Jimmy Carter’s White House, Patrick Caddell was, in the words of Teddy White, the “house Cassandra” — an all-too-candid pollster whose prophecies spooked the president’s other advisors. Three decades later, Caddell again is warning his fellow Democrats about electoral doom. As he sips an iced tea over lunch in midtown Manhattan, Caddell sighs and tells me that the lessons of the Carter years appear to be all but forgotten by the current crop of Democrats in Washington.

“President Obama’s undoing may be his disingenuousness,” Caddell says. After campaigning for post-partisanship, Obama, he observes, has lurched without pause to the left. “You can’t get this far from what you promised,” Caddell says, “especially when people invest in hope — you must understand that obligation. The killer in American politics is disappointment. When you are elected on expectations, and you fail to meet them, your decline steepens.”

In 1979, as Carter’s poll numbers slid south amidst a sagging economy, Caddell drafted a memo to the president urging him to recognize that the nation was “deep in crisis.” Gazing upon today’s electoral landscape, Caddell paints an even bleaker picture. “We may be at a pre-revolutionary moment,” he says, unsmiling. “Everything is in motion.” This November, he predicts, “will be more of a national referendum than any [midterm election] since Watergate.”

The polling data show how restless the country is. “A Rasmussen poll from earlier this year showed just 21 percent of voters believing that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed — an astounding figure,” Caddell says. “Then a CNN poll showed that 56 percent of Americans worried that the federal government poses a direct threat to their freedom.”

“Democrats are aware of this,” Caddell continues. “They know that the general outcome is baked.” As the fall campaign kicks into gear, “the question now becomes whether Obama can mitigate their losses. You see them trying to localize their campaigns and pretending that they don’t know Nancy Pelosi. It’s all rather amusing.”

Unlike President Reagan at his first-term midpoint, in 1982, “Obama is not able to go out there and say, ‘Stay the course.’ That’s just not possible. The Democrats’ hope with health care was that ‘people will like it after we pass it.’ Well, they hate it, and you don’t see any effort to promote it. The Democrats had a chance to do this right — most people supported aspects of reform — but because of the way it was passed, as a crime against democracy, the country has simply not accepted it. The lies, the browbeating, the ‘deem and pass’ — all of it was a suicide mission.”

On Monday, Gallup released a new weekly poll showing Republicans leading Democrats by an unprecedented ten-point margin, 51 to 41 percent, in congressional voting preferences — the largest gap in Gallup’s history of tracking the midterm generic ballot. “I have never seen numbers like this,” Caddell says, shaking his head. “Unless Republicans can find some way to screw it up, they will win big, even though nobody really likes them, either.”

Indeed, rather than a ringing endorsement of either major party, Caddell sees November as a broader referendum on the political class — the class, he says, to which Obama, and his political fate, are irrevocably tied.

“Democrats used to be the voice of the common man in America, not his dictator,” Caddell laments. “Now, with Wall Street, their mantra is, ‘We’ll take your money, but we won’t kiss.’ The people who own the party — George Soros, the Center for American Progress, the public-employee union bosses, rich folks flying private jets to ‘ideas festivals’ in Aspen — they’re Obama’s base.”

Though Obama is bruised, Caddell is quick to note that he is far from finished — a point, he says, that Republicans prefer to whisper in the backroom. He points to Obama’s summer strategy — a serious-minded speech on Iraq, a trip to New Orleans to address the rebuilding efforts — as evidence that the president is “attempting to be presidential, which is the best thing he can do politically.” Carter, he observes, took a similar approach in 1978 — focusing on the Camp David Accords and beefing up his foreign-policy portfolio. As Caddell recalls, he advised the president that it was important not simply to govern, but to lead. By October 1978, the Georgian’s approval numbers had begun to tick up, and the Democrats lost only a handful of seats in the House and Senate.

“With Carter, I would argue that his failures were not of the heart or of intent, but, perhaps, of execution,” Caddell says. “He was never inconsistent with what he originally envisioned. I can’t say the same for Obama.” Successful presidents, Caddell argues, “realize that it is not about them — that the country is bigger than their presidency. With Obama, it is always about him. It’s a terrible thing to have to say, but I think that it has become obvious.”

Can Obama soften the blow at the eleventh hour? Caddell says it will be tough. Any efforts by Obama to right his ship, he says, will still face an electorate largely uninterested in new West Wing talking points or presidential maneuvers. Caddell believes that 2010 will be a louder, more raucous moment than 1978 in American politics. “The discontent is much larger than the turnout at Glenn Beck rallies,” he says. “A sea of anger is churning — the tea parties are but the tip of the iceberg. People say they want to take their country back, and, to the Democrats’ chagrin, they’re very serious about it.”

As we part, Caddell, once the dashing young star of Democratic presidential politics as an advisor to George McGovern, Carter, and Gary Hart, acknowledges that his criticisms may ruffle some feathers or simply be shrugged off by Democratic leaders. Still, he says, it is important to sound the alarm.

After all these years, Caddell laughs, “I know my role. I’m like Toto in the Wizard of Oz. My job is to pull back the curtain to reveal the little man with the microphone.”

________________________ ________________________ ______________

The Democrats’ hope with health care was that ‘people will like it after we pass it.’ Well, they hate it, and you don’t see any effort to promote it. The Democrats had a chance to do this right — most people supported aspects of reform — but because of the way it was passed, as a crime against democracy, the country has simply not accepted it. The lies, the browbeating, the ‘deem and pass’ — all of it was a suicide mission.”


240 - disagrees. 

[240 is Back]

GOP just has to find a way to keep this momentum.  Wasn't gore down by 15 or 20 points in summer 2000, then lost in a nailbiter?  Didn't mcain lead at this exact point in 2008 - then lost by a shitload?

Repubs can't get complacent "we're gonna win 70 seats!" then stay home.

[Soul Crusher]

GOP just has to find a way to keep this momentum.  Wasn't gore down by 15 or 20 points in summer 2000, then lost in a nailbiter?  Didn't mcain lead at this exact point in 2008 - then lost by a shitload?

Repubs can't get complacent "we're gonna win 70 seats!" then stay home.

mid Terms are different since only the die-hards come out. 

[Soul Crusher]

Republicans Hold Wide Lead in Key Voter Turnout MeasureRepublican advantage in "thought given to election" greatly exceeds that for past midterms
by Lydia Saad
www.gallup.com
________________________ ________________________ ______

PRINCETON, NJ -- Two months before this year's midterm congressional elections, Gallup finds 54% of Republicans, compared with 30% of Democrats, already saying they have given "quite a lot of" or "some" thought to the contests.

This "thought" measure is an important variable in Gallup's well-established classification of "likely voters," which is put into use closer to Election Day. The current gulf in thought between the parties mirrors the partisan gap in Gallup's voter enthusiasm measure that is tracked weekly.

Republicans' current level of thought about the elections, from Gallup Daily tracking conducted Aug. 23-29, matches or exceeds that found in October/November of the last three midterm years. By contrast, Democrats are giving far less thought to the elections today than they did in the final weeks before the prior four midterms. As a result, Democrats are on par with independents in current attention levels -- a sharp departure from recent years, when the Democrats exceeded independents on this measure.

The large party gap in "thought" suggests the typical Republican turnout advantage could be larger than usual this year if that gap persists until Election Day. Attention normally spikes as elections approach, and this is likely to occur among Democrats. However, it is unclear whether the Republicans have reached the limit for how much attention they will pay to a midterm election, or whether their attention will rise to perhaps a historic level by November. How this plays out will determine Democrats' ability to catch up to Republicans on this measure before Election Day, and will in turn determine the size of the Republican turnout advantage.

Conservative Republicans on High Alert

The extraordinary level of attention conservative Republicans (including Republican-leaning independents) are paying to the election is much of the reason Republicans' current attention dwarfs Democrats'. Sixty-three percent of conservative Republicans say they have given quite a lot of or some thought to the upcoming elections, roughly twice the proportion of moderate and liberal Republicans (34%), and liberal Democrats (32%).

Conservative Republicans were much closer to moderates and liberals of both parties on this measure in October/November of prior midterms. Also, only in 1994 did Gallup find a higher percentage of conservative Republicans paying quite a lot of or some attention to the elections than are doing so today. But with two months to go before the 2010 midterms, conservatives will likely match or exceed that record by Election Day.

Bottom Line

Gallup's "thought given to the elections" indicator of voter turnout suggests that, if the midterm elections were held today, the Republicans would have a substantial advantage over the Democrats in turnout -- largely because of the attentiveness of conservative Republicans. This would well exceed the typical turnout advantage Republicans enjoy in midterm elections, including 1994, when the GOP gained a historically large number of House seats.

It's a virtual certainty that voters' attention to the election will increase in the coming months. If this increase is proportionate between Republicans and Democrats, then the Republicans will likely maintain a formidable turnout advantage. However, it's also possible that Republicans have merely tuned in early to the elections, leaving less room for their attention to expand -- and thus giving the Democrats an opportunity to narrow the gap by November.

Explore more Gallup data relating to the upcoming congressional midterm elections, including Gallup's complete generic ballot trend since 1950, in our Election 2010 key indicators interactive.

[Soul Crusher]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Wisconsin and west VA now in play. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/wi/wisconsin_senate_feingold_vs_johnson-1577.html

[MCWAY]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Wisconsin and west VA now in play. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/wi/wisconsin_senate_feingold_vs_johnson-1577.html

When you were a kid, did you ever get that feeling after doing something wrong, that you just KNEW your mother was going to get medieval on your behind?

The liberals can just feel their backsides clinching now. They know it's coming, that "@$$-whippin' of biblical proportions" that Michael Moore mentioned.

[chadstallion]

only makes for better TV

[Soul Crusher]

Those polls at RCP are unreal.  The stupid outliers like Danny posted only register RV voters not likely voters. 

[Soul Crusher]

only makes for better TV

RCP is the best site bar none.  That is my Numero Uno go to site on politics. 

[Soul Crusher]

WOW!

If this holds true - this will be historic. 

________________________ ________________________

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html

Generic Congressional Vote
Polling Data

Poll Date Sample Republicans  Democrats  Spread

RCP Average 9/19 - 10/3 -- 47.8 42.2 Republicans +5.6

Rasmussen Reports 9/27 - 10/3 3500 LV 45 42 Republicans +3

Gallup (LV Higher Turnout)* 9/23 - 10/3 1882 LV 53 40 Republicans +13

Gallup (LV Lower Turnout)* 9/23 - 10/3 1882 LV 56 38 Republicans +18

Newsweek 9/29 - 9/30 902 RV 43 48 Democrats +5

FOX News 9/28 - 9/29 900 RV 44 38 Republicans +6

CNN/Opinion Research 9/21 - 9/23 506 LV 53 44 Republicans +9

Politico/GWU/Battleground 9/19 - 9/22 1000 LV 47 42 Republicans +5


See All Generic Congressional Vote Polling Data

*Gallup's "Lower Turnout" and "Higher Turnout" Likely Voter models are weighted at 50%, so that the survey only counts once in the RCP Generic Average.

[Soul Crusher]

Gallup’s astonishing numbers and the Lake Superior congressional districts
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
10/04/10 11:55 PM EDT

________________________ ________________________ _________________


Late yesterday, Gallup came out with new numbers on the generic ballot question—which party’s candidates would you vote for in the election for House of Representatives? Among registered voters Gallup shows Republicans ahead by 46%-42%, about as good a score as Republicans have ever had (and about as bad a score as Democrats have ever had) since Gallup started asking the question in 1942.

However, Gallup also shows the results for two different turnout models. Under its “high turnout model” Republicans lead 53%-40%. Under its “low turnout model” Republicans lead 56%-38%.

These two numbers, if translated into popular votes in the 435 congressional districts, suggest huge gains for Republicans and a Republican House majority the likes of which we have not seen since the election cycles of 1946 or even 1928. For months, people have been asking me if this year looks like ’94. My response is that the poll numbers suggest it looks like 1994, when Republicans gained 52 seats in a House of 435 seats. Or perhaps somewhat better for Republicans and worse for Democrats. The Gallup high turnout and low turnout numbers suggest it looks like 1894, when Republicans gained more than 100 seats in a House of approximately 350 seats.

Having said that, caution is in order. Gallup’s numbers tend to be volatile. Its procedures for projecting likely turnout are very sensitive to transitory responses. They’re useful in identifying shifts in the balance of enthusiasm. But they can overstate the swings to one party or the other.  Scott Rasmussen’s latest generic ballot numbers among likely voters show Republicans with only a 45%-42% lead, much less than the 48%-38% lead he reported two days ago. That’s based on a three-day average, indicating Democrats fared relatively well on the most recent night of interviewing. Perhaps Barack Obama’s attempts to gin up enthusiasm among Democratic voters are bearing fruit. Or perhaps one night’s results were an anomaly. Polling theory tells us that at least one out of 20 polls is simply wrong, that is, the results differ from what you would get from interviewing the entire population by more than the margin of error.

The realclearpolitics.com average of recent generic ballot polls, with the Gallup likely voter results factored in, shows Republicans ahead by 48%-42%, which is similar to what we’ve seen for the past week or two.

But we do keep seeing poll results from surprising districts that tend to support the Gallup results. Last week I pointed to a poll (from a pollster I don’t know) showing an even race in North Carolina 7 between Republican Ilario Pantano and 14-year Democratic incumbent Mike McIntyre, who won his 2008 race, in which he had an active Republican opponent, with 69% of the vote. Now Ed Morrissey directs our attention to a poll by Public Opinion Strategies, a highly respected Republican firm, in Minnesota 8 showing 36-year incumbent James Oberstar leading Republican challenger Chip Cravaacke by only 45%-42%, within the margin of error.

John McCormack has a good post in the Weekly Standard’s blog on this. Oberstar was first elected in 1974, he is Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and has brought public dollars to an economically chronically ailing district. He was reelected in 2008 with 68% of the vote. But this is also a district that, despite containing the Democratic strongholds of Duluth and much of the Iron Range (both in St. Louis County) that voted only 53% for John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008. However, at its southern end it includes Isanti and Chisago Counties, exurban counties in the Twin Cities metro area, which despite a Democratic heritage have trended away from Democrats in recent elections—toward Jesse Ventura in 1998 and toward Republicans between 2000 and 2008, when they both voted for John McCain.

Minnesota 8 has a certain historic resonance for Democrats. It was one of only two or three districts (I am away from my desk where I have my papers and sources on this) which in the Republican landslide year of 1946 switched from a Republican to a Democratic congressman. This was a move away from progressive and isolationist Republicans (like Alvin O’Konski in the adjoining then-10th District of Wisconsin) toward labor-backed Democrats (completed in the Wisconsin case by the victory of young Democrat David Obey over O’Konski when they were redistricted together in 1972). Only two Democrats have represented Minnesota 8 ever since, John Blatnik, first elected in 1946 and for whom Oberstar worked as a staffer, and since 1974 Oberstar; only one Democrat, David Obey, has represented what is now Wisconsin 7 since 1969. For Oberstar to have a serious challenge, much less to be in danger of defeat, is quite astonishing. If these numbers are right—and like all poll numbers they are subject to some degree of doubt—they tend to confirm the Gallup likely voter numbers.

As for Obey, he has chosen to retire this year at age 72, and Republican Sean Duffy is waging a serious campaign for the district. These are two American congressional districts that touch on Lake Superior, that huge and cold forboding body of water over which the great freighters filled with iron ore have sailed in the ice-free months, from Duluth to the steel factories in Gary, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo. In the third of these districts, Michigan 1, Republican Dan Benishek looks like the favorite to take the district being vacated by Democrat Bart Stupak.