Live Q&As

The generic ballot has proven to be a fairly accurate predictor of the national outcome of the House elections.  Less so for Senate elections of course.  The recent results have ranged from a small Democratic lead to a small Republican lead, averaging close to a tie.  That would predict significant GOP gains in November.  But a better prediction is possible by using other factors along with the generic ballot such as seats held going into the election, presidential approval, and just the fact that it's a Democratic midterm.  In general, all of these point to large Republican gains--possibly large enough to regain control of the House, although probably not the Senate where 10 seats is a big hill to climb.

Some of both.  Turnout is important and Republicans are typically more reliable voters.  Democrats need to get more of their base out to hold down their losses. 

There are a lot of safe House districts but that's mostly due to political geography not gerrymandering.  Most large urban areas are heavily Democratic.  Many parts of the South and Mountain West are heavily Republican.  Even states have become less competitive overall.

Over the past four weeks they have ranged from a 5 point Democratic lead to a 6 point Republican lead.  Longer term, the average has been close to a tie.  That's good news for Republicans though because their supporters are more likely vote. 

The economy is going to be the big issue this year and Democrats, as the party in power, are going to be hurt by voter discontent with economic conditions.  It may not be fair, but that's the way it works.  The incumbents who lose in November will be almost exclusively Democrats--just as the ones who lost in 2006 were exclusively Republicans.

I think it both helps and hurts the Republican Party.  Clearly having a fired-up base is beneficial.  But some of the Tea Party candidates nominated in Republican primaries could cost the GOP winnable seats.  The Nevada Senate seat is a prime example of that.  There are several others as well in the Senate and House.  As for 2012, certainly we can expect to see the Republicans nominate a strongly conservative candidate--what I like to call the "anti-Obama."  The outcome will depend of course on the condition of the economy and President Obama's standing with the electorate two years from now--which can't be predicted at this time.  But if the GOP nominee is perceived as too far to the right that could certainly hurt the Party's chances of retaking the White House. 

You are correct.  There is consensus about polarization among elites.  The controversy involves the degree of polarization among the electorate.  My own research indicates that polarization has increased considerably over the past few decades among the public as well as among elites--and these two trends are related of course.  Moreover, among the public the most politically engaged (intersted, informed, and active) citizens are the most polarized and their opinions are weighed most heavily by candidates and elected officials. 

I've known Norm for a long time and since he's a Congress specialist and I'm an elections specialist it was a natural collaboration.  We just went back and forth several times over the course of about a week before we got to the final version.  It was a pleasure working with Norm.

We have seen an amazing proliferation of pubic polls over the past few election cycles.  Some of this is a result of the use of new technology, especially the use of robo-dialed telephone polls by organizations like Rasmussen and Survey USA.  These polls are relatively cheap but they do cut a lot of corners.  Rasmussen in particular does his polls in one night with no callbacks and no calls to cell phones even though cell phone only households  now account for a large proportion of the electorate, especially among younger voters and minorities.  So there is really no way to calculate a margin of error for these polls.  But that doesn't reduce the level of curiosity about their results.  As long as media outlets think their viewers and readers want to know about the horse race, we're going to see more and more dubious polls.

Yes, there has been less attention to the governors races but there are 37 seats up this year.  I expect to see significant GOP gains there as well, probably in the neighborhood of 5-7 seats which would give them 28 or 29 of the 50 states--although Democrats might still control most of the big states.  Right now I'd say GOP gains likely to be in the 35-45 seat range in the House, 6-8 in the Senate.  That could change in the next few weeks although I don't expect to see any big changes.

Great questions.  I think the voters are generally in a sour mood because of the condition of the economy.  It's difficult for Dem0ocrats to get credit for their legislative accomplishments, which have been considerable, when people are hurting due to high unemployment and falling incomes.  Voting Republican is mainly a way of expressing that general feeling of discontent rather than an endorsement of specific GOP policies.  Most voters would probably want to see Republicans work cooperatively with the White House after the election if they get control of one or both chambers, but that's not likely to happen--the ideological divide between the parties is just too wide.

You are correct.  Most independents are really "closet partisans" according to the survey data.  In 2008, for example, about 40% of eligible voters called themselves independents, but a lot of them didnt' vote and among those who did only 7% were true independents with no party preference.  Most independents are leaners--they usually favor one party and their beliefs and behavior are almost indistinguishable from those of other partisans.

Actually polarization could increase accountability--voters know what the parties stand for now.  The problem is that our institutions don't match up with our polarized parties--especially the Senate. 

Despite their flaws, the polls are generally pretty accurate.  Especially the ones done near the end of the campaign.  In 2006 and 2008, the polls got almost every state race right, both for president and for senate seats.  So while I wouldn't pay too much attention to early polls, when we get to October I'd say the results will be a pretty good indication of how these races are going.  But I don't place too much weight on any one poll.  I look at the average of all of the reputable polls--excluding blatatly partisan ones.

No and no.

That's a great question but we won't really know how that ruling will play out in campaigns for a while, maybe not for another election cycle.  The conventional wisdom is that this should help Republicans by allowing more corporate money into elections but it remains to be seen how much money corporations are willing to spend in support of political candidates.  My guess is that a lot of them won't want to be seen as taking sides so overtly--it could alienate customers as well as leaders of the other party. 

Right now I don't see Marshall or Bishop, or John Barrow, as vulnerable.  And those are the only potentially competitive districts in Georgia.  Marshall and Barrow have had close calls recently but their challengers this year don't look too threatening.  None of the Dem challengers have a chance. 

That is exactly right.  We're seeing a very high level of partisan voting in all types of elections from the presidency on down because the differences betweent he parties are so large.  That's why most House districts and many states are really safe for one party or the other.  Only a minority have a close enough partisan balance that they could switch sides from one election to the next.  But there are more than enough to switch control of the House or Senate. 

The ones from safe districts or states tend to vote along party lines very consistently.  Most of the defections come from the minority who represent districts or states that are evenly divided or lean towards the opposing party.  They're the ones who are vulnerable in a tough year.

Good to hear from you.  1976 was my first year out of grad school and my first year teaching.  I don't think the lack of an agenda is going to hurt the GOP very much.  A midterm election is mainly a referendum on the president's party--voters are expressing their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their performance, not necessarily endorsing the opposing party's agenda.  In fact it's almost always a mistake for the opposition party to interpret the results as a mandate for their agenda--as we discuss in Myth #5. 

Thanks!  No, but I contribute to Sabato's Crystal Ball on a regular basis.  It allows me to play at being a pundit as well as an academic without the effort of publishing my own blog.  And it's a great source of political intelligence.

Ones that are sponsored by a candidate should be taken with a large grain of salt.  Some polls sponsored by parties or partisan organizations, like Democracy Corps, have solid reputations.  Right now I'm a little skeptical about some of the robo-dialed polls that are not including cell phones in their sampling frames.  Also, if they don't reveal how they screen for likely voters, I'd be suspicious.  The LV screen is really crucial in a midterm election.

I don't think term limits are the answer.  The experience with them in the states has not been very good.  If voters want to kick out an incumbent, there's nothing to stop them from doing so either in a primary or a general election. 

Yes, there is a generational divide on these sorts of questions as well as on some social issues like gay marriage.  Part of the generational divide is due to the shifting racial composition of the electorate.  Younger voters include a much higher proportion of nonwhites.  In a midterm election, though, younger voters don't turn out as much as older voters--their share of the electorate will be down from 2008 and that's going to hurt Democrats.

I think there is something of a divide within the GOP between traditional economic conservatives and social conservatives, but the party overall is pretty unified this year.  They can agree that they don't like what Obama and the Democratic Congress are doing.  We may see internal GOP divisions open up more in 2012.

Well I'm partial to Sabato--I think he has the best track record in recent elections.  But they're all pretty good and they're all pretty much in agreement right now about 2010.