The Democratic Wave Since 2004--Rasmussen Tracking

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun May 11, 2008 at 15:46


First the Republicans began losing voters, then, only quite recently the Democrats began gaining them.  Although the magnitude is less than that shown in a recent Pew Poll, the broad storyline is the same.  Indeed, within the last month, the Rasmussen figures have suddenly jumped into the same range that Pew gave:

Table on the flip.
Paul Rosenberg :: The Democratic Wave Since 2004--Rasmussen Tracking
The movement since the primaries started is particularly striking--though the potential for it has been building for some time:

Partisan ID Tracking, 2004-Date: Rasmussen
 Republican Democrat Other R - D Quarterly Dem/Rep
2004      
January34.60%36.90%28.50%-2.30% 1.07
February34.50%38.40%27.10%-3.90% 1.11
March34.30%38.30%27.40%-4.00%-3.40%1.12
April34.20%37.00%28.80%-2.80% 1.08
May34.70%37.40%27.90%-2.60% 1.08
June35.30%37.30%27.50%-2.00%-2.50%1.06
July35.50%38.40%26.10%-3.00% 1.08
August35.10%37.70%27.30%-2.60% 1.07
September37.30%37.90%24.80%-0.60%-2.10%1.02
October37.20%38.70%24.10%-1.50% 1.04
November37.10%38.60%24.30%-1.60% 1.04
December37.10%38.80%24.10%-1.70%-1.60%1.05
       
2005      
January36.00%37.00%27.00%-1.10% 1.03
February36.20%36.90%26.80%-0.70% 1.02
March35.30%38.10%26.60%-2.80%-1.50%1.08
April34.40%38.10%27.50%-3.70% 1.11
May35.10%37.00%27.90%-2.00% 1.05
June35.60%36.40%27.90%-0.80%-2.20%1.02
July35.30%35.90%28.80%-0.70% 1.02
August34.90%36.30%28.70%-1.40% 1.04
September34.80%36.80%28.40%-1.90%-1.30%1.06
October34.10%36.20%29.60%-2.10% 1.06
November34.10%37.90%28.00%-3.90% 1.11
December33.90%35.90%30.20%-1.90%-2.60%1.06
       
2006      
January34.50%36.10%29.50%-1.60% 1.05
February33.80%36.50%29.60%-2.70% 1.08
March34.00%36.70%29.30%-2.70%-2.40%1.08
April32.70%36.40%30.90%-3.70% 1.11
May33.60%36.40%30.00%-2.80% 1.08
June33.50%37.00%29.50%-3.40%-3.30%1.1
July32.80%36.80%30.40%-3.90% 1.12
August31.90%37.30%30.80%-5.30% 1.17
September32.30%37.00%30.70%-4.80%-4.70%1.15
October31.50%37.70%30.70%-6.20% 1.2
November31.40%37.50%31.20%-6.10% 1.19
December31.10%38.00%30.80%-6.90%-6.40%1.22
       
2007      
January32.10%37.50%30.30%-5.40% 1.17
February31.70%37.80%30.50%-6.10% 1.19
March31.50%37.20%31.30%-5.70%-5.70%1.18
April31.00%36.50%32.40%-5.50% 1.18
May30.80%36.30%32.90%-5.50% 1.18
June32.00%36.10%31.90%-4.10%-5.00%1.13
July31.30%35.90%32.90%-4.60% 1.15
August32.50%37.40%30.10%-4.90% 1.15
September32.60%37.20%30.20%-4.50%-4.70%1.14
October32.70%37.30%30.00%-4.50% 1.14
November32.50%37.40%30.20%-4.90% 1.15
December34.20%36.30%29.50%-2.10%-3.80%1.06
       
2008      
January33.10%38.70%28.20%-5.60% 1.17
February31.80%41.50%26.70%-9.70% 1.31
March32.10%41.10%26.80%-9.10%-8.10%1.28
April31.40%41.40%27.20%-10.00% 1.32

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Democratic Wave Since 2004--Rasmussen Tracking | 15 comments
Independent to Democrat (4.00 / 3)
As a person who switched my identification from "independent" to "Democrat" this year, I'm not surprised to see these trend lines.  In my case, Obama was the reason.  I wanted to support him in the caucus, and the only way to do that was to register as a Democrat.  I would have (reluctantly) voted for Clinton if she were the nominee, but Obama is the one I want.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were quite a few other independents out there like me.
That's a pretty good point (0.00 / 0)
On the other hand, this is polling self identification, not registration, I believe. Which means jumps in Democratic registration in states that had closed primaries wouldn't necessarily show up on this, unless people who changed their registration have also begun to identify as Democrats.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
I wish I knew more (0.00 / 0)
About the weighting the pollsters do and how it is incorporates these dramatic changes.  Paul promoted my diary some time ago speculating about it in the context of NJ.

Look, for example, at the latest Rasmussen poll on Michigan... it's got both Clinton and Obama tied with McCain.  [Now, maybe this is just because they Dems get less of their own party's vote -- I hope this fades with time.]  The other questions show an electorate that is against taxes, supports Bush more than the national average, etc.  The Methodology does say that the results are weighted to reflect party affiliation.  So is the situation really that bad, or is it possible that the Republicans are over-represented?  I wish I knew what the raw numbers were.  Maybe it's available to subscribers, I don't know.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Probably available for pay (0.00 / 0)
It would be really interesting to see what type of models they  use to get their numbers. I can think of a whole bunch of ways to do it, and they all seem rather flawed.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
maybe not (0.00 / 0)
This Rasmussen article does give the target weighting [for national polls], which they update each month.  Also, it turns out Rasmussen's national number for Bush is the same as the MI number, so I was off base there.

Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. Our targets are established based upon survey interviews completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews). For the month of May, the targets are 41.3% Democrat, 31.8% Republican, and 26.9% unaffiliated. In April, the targets were 40.5% Democrat, 32.3% Republican, and 27.2% unaffiliated. For March, the targets were 38.8% Democrat, 33.0% Republican, and 28.1% unaffiliated

Plainly Obama [or Clinton] has work to do in Michigan.

 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Well that seems like a sensible way to do it. (0.00 / 0)
Though I guess it would fail to pick up a rapid shift that happened in a few weeks, instead of over several months.

Those aren't good numbers in Michigan.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
I Think You're Right To Be Skeptical (0.00 / 0)
The electorate is in a major state of flux, and most pollsters will be using weighting models that simply can't keep up with it.  Rasmussen may be the exception here, but I think that house effects--which Charles Franklin has examined carefully in the past--may become increasingly erratic and hard to correct for as this cycle goes on.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Getting Warmer (0.00 / 0)
While I won't be in your "realignment" camp unless I see signs this fall that at least 75 seats are going to switch, I am certainly getting more optimistic about what's coming.
At least 75 seats? (4.00 / 1)
That would make the House 310-125. That isn't a realignment. That isn't even really a two-party system anymore. That's a pretty high bar.  
[ Parent ]
Yes, It Is A High Bar (0.00 / 0)
We've only had a few realignments in American history. The most pristine example was the one that started in 1932, when the Democrats picked up 97 seats. In 1934, the Democrats picked up another 9 seats, and in 1936, another 11 seats.

After the '36 election, the Democrats had 333 seats to the Republicans' 89 seats. In the Senate, it was 75 to 17, with 4 independent/other, which I suspect (but do not know for sure) were Socialists or Progressives.

Even then, it wasn't a realignment. It was only a realignment when the Democrats enacted the New Deal, which survived the loss of 80 seats in 1938 and subsequent Republican control in the early 1950s.

I view the word "realignment" to be similar to the word "hero." It is used too often. There are realignments and there are heroes, but they are rarities. I'm expecting 2008 to be a really good year for the Democratic Party, but "realignment" won't be a word I'll be using except as a goal statement. And even then, only if we pick up 75 seats and Obama sweeps 40 states with, say, 56% of the vote.

I hate being disappointed. The Democratic Party has been disappointing me for so long that the most I can be is cautiously enthusiastic.

[ Parent ]
You're Free To Follow The Humpty-Dumpty Theory Of Language (0.00 / 0)
and define "realignment" to mean anything you wish...

Alice couldn't help smiling as she took out her memorandum book, and worked the sum for him:

365
   1
----
364
----

Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. `That seems to be done right --' he began.

`You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.

`To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. `I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents --'

`Certainly,' said Alice.

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Just don't expect to win too many arguments that way.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
There You Go Again (4.00 / 1)
(sigh)
[ Parent ]
The senate (0.00 / 0)
Let's assume that the Dems expand their margin in the house and take the presidency (this seems reasonable). Then the only story worth following concerns the senate.

It seems unlikely that the Dems will gain a filibuster-proof majority, but let's assume this as well. Will this make a "difference"?

I claim not as much as many people think. The reason is that the senate is split on the basis of a rural vs urban alignment which is a result of the way it was created in the first place. As currently constituted about 16% of the population controls 50% of the seats. With the possible exceptions of Delaware and Rhode Island these are all sparsely populated rural states. Their interests are out of step with the bulk of the population. The results is that issues about agriculture and conservative "values" get undue attention and that Dem senators from these states tend to vote more conservatively than do the ones from more populace states.

All of which is to say that expectations for a "progressive" agenda under Obama may not be met, at least as concerns domestic policy. It's hard to say what will happen with foreign policy since he really hasn't had to demonstrate his thinking in this area yet.

Policies not Politics

Not That Simple (4.00 / 1)
The most rural state in America is Vermont, and look at who their senators are. There have been some famously liberal senators from rural backwaters. Then look at some of the wingnuts from highly urban states, like Texas.

I think a better way to look at it is that senators, by virtue of being elected statewide, are more likely (but certainly not guaranteed, by any stretch) to be more toward the center. No question that small states are overrepresented (including highly urban Rhode Island), but I'm not sure that it's a matter of these small states necessarily being more conservative.

[ Parent ]
This Is PRECISELY Why I Say The Culture War Matters (0.00 / 0)
The Gramscian culture war, that is.  This makeup of the Senate is part of the institutional structure of our society, and the Gramscian culture war is all about controlling the defining cultural institutions. While the natural tendency of the Senate is exactly as you have stated, it can be countered by a combination of astute counter-measures, but these almost necessarily have to be executed at the level of defining institutions.

Articulating a dignitarian framework, for example, is a way of starting from a values perspective that is not necessarily rural, urban, suburban or exurban.  Hence, it can easily be expressed in terms of rural motifs and cultural references without doing any damage at all to it's overarching purpose and significance.  But to do that successfully, it's not enough to have the President talking about things that way.  The Bush Administration showed this very clearly with the vast array of different strategems employed to get different institutions playing along.

Now, I'm not saying we should illegally employ Pentagon brass to sell Obama's policies.  But I am saying that the underlying rationale is really a no-brainer: the more of common theme one can elicit, the more political power one can bring to bear, and thus is makes sense to put time and energy into influencing, if not controlling as many cultural institutions as possible.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
The Democratic Wave Since 2004--Rasmussen Tracking | 15 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox