It is still highly unlikely that Barack Obama just absolutely obliterates history and turns out a 150% better party ID turnout gap than has ever happened before in one election. Six percent is too high.
You might - might - be able to sell me on 2.5% to 3.5%. Maybe, but I'd even doubt that. The simple truth is: If six percent is accurate, we should be saving our money and efforts for more constructive things, because this race absolutely CANNOT be won.
If Barack Obama has succeeded in staggering the National curve 6% in one election, then we really never had any chance of either winning the White House or stemming near-Supermajorities for the Democrats. It was never possible for even one second.
Six percent is too high. The base is too motivated now.
The Oct surprise Mark Foley scandal and Denny Hastert rescue of Rep Jefferson ticked off alot of Rep and they stayed home .
The 2006 mid term is poor basis for any tracking poll .
Mid term in general are meanngless.
Hence the Ras and Gallup formulas with 6 pt advantage brings uo the question. WHY ????
The final result in 2006(Watergate 2) was +3 Dem, and that was a non Prez election.
“The 2006 numbers were inflated because of GOP defections...”
You hope. Polling, wise, it is always best to use the most recent turnout numbers. And there was more than Foley at work in 2006, much more.
The Pubbie base may be energized, although I would guess a bit deflated after the events of the past week, but after 8 years of their arch nemesis in the White House, so is the Dem base, something Freepers completely ignore.