[MissesBush]

So much for the Dems and their claim to be "closing the gap." And Rasmussen's generic ballot result the other day showing only a 3 point gap I think was an outlyer. I think they got to many Democrats as shown by Obama's 48% approval and only -13 intensity gap, as well as only 50% saying they want to repeal Obamacare. All are better results for the Dems than had been seen previously. I think Rasmussen reached too many Dems. Sunday night and his gap on the generic ballot will re-open on subsequent polls. Just my opinion.

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

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.

---

Told ya

Been tellin ya

For months

120+

[Maelstorm]

I’ve never thought this year was like 1994. In 1994 we had no idea that what happened was coming. We also didn’t have such an arrogant absolutely detached President and Congress willing to disregard the will of the people with such flair. Passing health care politically traumatized America it is not something that can be forgiven. The rise of Tea Party has been the best thing to happen for conservatives and has been the glue allowing independents to gravitate to an even more conservative cause and align with Republicans without being a Republican.

This is a major realignment. People thought Obama was a realignment but he ran on tax cuts and claimed to be a centrist. It wasn’t a realignment but a wholesale deception of America. Tea Party politics is non Machiavellian politics. It is the proud full spectrum conservatism of Reagan and it is beautiful.

[Lazlo in PA]

This closing the gap canard is blown when you look at the number of unwinable R seats are coming into striking distance and the solid numbers other have had with a lead.

The same can be said with the media spin that the D’s are out raising the R’s thanks to Obummer. The numbers are not panning out on that either.

[BigEdLB]

That polling result of 56-38 R for a low turnout would yields a crazy result putting it into an algorithm... R 336 - D 99 in the house. That is just too odd... The 53-40 result would make the parties R 308 - D 127. We have seen 10s, but not 13s or 18s before in terms of margin... But when Newt said 150 seats could be in play last Spring, I think we all thought his analysis a bit off...

[Red Badger]

Dems ARE “closing the gap.”.............between them and the door...............

[Colonel_Flagg]

Chip Craavack is the real deal. He finally got Big Papa Pork to agree to a public debate and since Oberstar is incapable of expressing short, coherent thoughts I expect he will do very, very well. If this poll is accurate Oberstar is in big trouble — at last.

[Reo]

Repeating my post of 5 days ago: "I live in MN 8, and find it hard to believe that the sanctimonious Oberstar could ever be in trouble here in a district that includes "da Range" & "Da-lute". If it's even close in MN 8, it's a 100+ shellacing for the Dims nationwide."

[Homer_J_Simpson]

This is the second thread for this article and I haven't seen anyone ask the obvious question.

High turnout - R +13
Low turnout - R +18
Normal turnout - R +4

Isn't that peculiar. I would expect a more linear change along the turnout continuum.

[rhema]

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.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks MissesBush.

Under its "high turnout model" Republicans lead 53%-40%. Under its "low turnout model" Republicans lead 56%-38%.