[BlackBird]

Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142892/Pa...ic-Ballot.aspx

Republicans and Democrats are tied at 46% among registered voters in Gallup's weekly tracking of congressional voting preferences, marking a shift after five consecutive weeks in which the Republicans held the advantage.

These results are based on aggregated data from more than 1,650 registered voters surveyed Aug. 30-Sept. 5 as part of Gallup Daily tracking. The results reflect more competitive voting intentions than has been the case recently. Republicans' leads over Democrats among registered voters in three of the previous four weeks were the highest Gallup has measured for this midterm election campaign, and higher than any GOP advantage Gallup has measured in a midterm election year since 1942.

Last week marked the return of President Barack Obama from his 10-day vacation, and included his national address to announce the official end of combat operations in Iraq. The president's three-day job approval rating rose to 47% for Aug. 29-31 -- a level it had reached only once since mid-July. Last week also brought media commentary in the aftermath of conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck's massive rally in Washington, D.C. It is not clear if these or other factors affected Americans' voting preferences as measured by the generic ballot.

There has been no change in the advantage Republicans hold over Democrats on motivation to vote in the fall elections. Republicans remain twice as likely as Democrats to be "very enthusiastic" about voting, tied with the previous week's measure as the largest such advantage of the year.

[Rtebydou]

Of course, this by no means indicates that Democrats won't face a lot of challenges in November. What it and other polls seem to be validating is that nobody can take anything for granted at this point. The choppiness in the water will likely only increase as weeks go on.

And unfortunately for the portion of the electorate that leans more toward facts than slogans in choosing their elected representatives, this cycle will likely be about who's got the nastiest and most deceptive negative ads.

[denwerdinoss]

Uh-ohhhhhhh...

56 Days to Decide: Voters Sour Toward Dems, Odds Improve for GOP House Takeover

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ouse-takeover/

[clorkergo]

I think the conventional wisdom is that voters just want to shake up the bucket and see what happens, without much regard for party or policy. It's sort of a given that in a bad economy, the party in power (Democrats this time around) takes the brunt of voter anger at the next election.

It'll be interesting to see how that translates into voter turnout. We seem to be at a place in voter sentiment where anyone that steps up to the mic with what sounds like something different than we're doing today will get plenty of nods of approval.

[chuecafresss]

The problem with these polls is that, while just about everyone complains about Congress, most will continue to vote for their own representatives in the House. The Senate is another story, but the makeup of the House usually doesn't change that much, regardless of the general sentiment toward Congress.

[KuevDulin]

Better to vote for the devil you know than the devil you don't?

[Lapsiks]

I think it's more a matter of who's got the most money, and that's almost always the incumbent. Money buys a lot of name recognition.

[ClorrerVeks]

I don't know, pinky. Look at Nevada. Harry Reid has the name and the money. Angle is an idiot, but she isn't Reid. It's a toss-up there. It's really going to come down to the wire and, I think it's going to come down to the devil they know vs. the devil they don't know.

[IssuessBratte]

As I said in my earlier post, the Senate is another story. The elections are state-wide, and get significant media time, rather than being limited to a single district that doesn't ordinarily get tv coverage. The voters are less informed (excluding those who are activists and anyone who needed some services from their representative), and therefore more likely to go on name recognition alone.

As an example, my Congressman, Rob Andrews, is decidedly liberal, actually was one of the sponsors of the Health Care bill, and votes on the liberal side of EVERY issue. In 2008, he swore he wasn't going to run for Congress again and made a run for the Senate seat in the primary, losing to a candidate from North Jersey who was funded by the party; his wife ran in the Congressional primary, and everyone knew she was merely a placeholder. Come general election time, his wife dropped out, and Andrews was (shockingly!) picked to run, a move that should have angered everyone in the district (as it did me). Naturally, he won in a landslide.

The district is mixed politically, with both urban and suburban areas (and a few farms sprinkled in), but he will win again this year, despite being a lightning rod on some key issues, because no one from the GOP side can gain any traction against him.

[Scukonahuy]

Sorry, I missed the reference to the House races, pinky. All the same, name recognition and the devil you know might be the same thing. We have a very unpopular sheriff down here who is running for the district seat, replacing the retiring incumbent. He'll win. I think he leads by a good 10-12 points. I'm not sure if folks just want him out of the sheriff's office or don't know his opponent, but the sheriff hasn't raised all that much money, and he's spent even less.