I’ve ranted in the past about the accuracy of most polls touted by the media. The media never spends the money necessary to obtain the more accurate polls of “likely voters”, they always settle for the less accurate polls of “adults” or “registered voters”. Historically Democrats fare better in generic polls rather than ones limited to likely voters because voters registered as Republicans are more likely to vote on Election day than their Democratic counterparts.

Well now Gallup has analyzed past polling data and come to the same conclusion.

“A review of historical generic ballot data shows that Democrats almost always lead on the generic ballot among registered voters, even in elections in which Republicans eventually win a majority of the overall vote for the House of Representatives,” Mr. Jones wrote.

The reason has to do with a different turnout for various groups of voters: registered voters, regular voters and, the most accurate of all, “likely voters.” Notably, “In midterm elections, fewer than half of eligible voters usually turn out to vote and Republicans are more likely to turn out than Democrats,” Mr. Jones said.

Such generic polling results, which are given broad distribution in newspapers throughout the country, have fed a growing public perception that Democrats are poised to make major gains in the House races this fall and could possibly win control of the House.

But election watchers who monitor the relatively small number of competitive House races that are up for grabs say that major gains will be an uphill climb for Democrats and a takeover is very unlikely.

“In the House, where Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats, only about three dozen are truly in play today. So far, 17 Republicans and 10 Democrats have announced their retirements. Ten of those Republicans serve in safe GOP districts, where Democrats stand little chance of winning,” writes veteran elections analyst Charlie Cook in the National Journal.

While I’ll admit that Republicans aren’t in great shape right now, I think we need to keep the accuracy of these generic polls in mind. The good news is these polls tend to make Democrats over confident.

As Robert Novak points out, the Democrats have a much bigger hill to climb than the media lets on:

Despite continued bad news for Republicans in Congress on their failure to accomplish much in the first few months of the year, a series of electoral mishaps has dealt a serious blow to Democrats’ chances of regaining the majority. In fact, it has now become difficult to make the case that Democrats can pick up 15 seats in this election, let alone the net 15 seats they will need to claim a majority.

First, Democrats appear to be at the whim of fate with respect to the 6th District of Ohio, where their only serious candidate, by his own fault, failed to make the primary ballot. If Charlie Wilson (D) cannot, through write-ins, defeat two other unserious candidates (both of them on the ballot), then Republicans win this open seat easily. If Wilson wins but has to spend all of his money convincing voters to write in his name, Democrats may well lose the seat anyway.

In Texas, Democrats suffered a serious setback when Rep. Tom DeLay (R) dropped out. The Democratic strategy here was to turn the race into a referendum on DeLay. But with the former majority leader out of the race, the 22nd District’s inherently Republican leaning should ensure that any Republican not too close to DeLay will win.

In North Carolina, Democrats’ formidable-looking candidate Timothy Dunn suddenly dropped out of the race against Rep. Robin Hayes (R), whose swing 8th District is always a Democratic target. Hayes now likely gets a free pass.

In Pennsylvania’s 8th District, Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R) has raised enough money to run a respectable Senate campaign in many states, and he has a relatively moderate record to hide behind in what is a moderate suburban Republican district. His Democratic opponents, currently in a spirited primary, languish in the six-digit range behind his $1.3-million cash total.

To be sure, Democrats have several pickup opportunities this year. Among Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Kentucky, and Connecticut, they have a realistic shot at picking up nine or 10 seats. They have just a fair chance of picking up three more in Colorado, Florida and New Mexico. Even making room for a few unexpected upsets (assuming that all upsets consist of Democrats’ beating Republicans), Democrats appear to be out of range of the 19 pickups they will probably need to offset Republican pickups and end with a net gain of 15.

Of course, that does not mean that it is impossible, but it is hard to see how the political environment could get much better for Democrats than it already is. They certainly wish they could have the election next week, because they could be peaking early.

In the long run, I think enough Republicans will turn out to prevent Democrats from retaking the House. If they don’t, Human Events Online has a reminder of what the future would look like under a Democratic Congress.

If they succumb to the temptation to write off the Republican Congress, sitting on their hands this November, forsaking the opportunity to contribute to and work for Republican campaigns, or neglecting to go out and vote on election day, they could come out of their stupor next year to discover that Capitol Hill, without a Republican majority, has become a land of nightmares.

For starters, the wildly left-wing Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.) would replace the solidly conservative Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R.-Wis.) as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Sensenbrenner deserves credit for his diligent work to protect our homeland. Not only did he secure renewal of the Patriot Act over Democratic objections and a howling liberal press, but he also won passage of a tough border security and immigration enforcement bill that would crack down on scofflaw employers of illegal aliens while building 700 miles of wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

It is not Sensenbrenner’s fault, or the fault of House Republicans who rallied behind him, that President Bush and leading members of the Republican Senate—including presidential hopeful John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.)—won’t agree to the Republican House’s border-security measures unless they get an illegal-alien amnesty, too.

But if conservatives turn their back on the Republican Congress over immigration, the hottest debates next January won’t be over how to secure our border, they will be over how far Judiciary Chairman Conyers can get with his impeachment inquiry. Conyers has already introduced a resolution calling for such an inquiry and his staff has already published a bogus report about Bush’s “impeachable” offenses.

I don’t know about you, but the thought of a bogus impeachment spectacle while we are at war is all the motivation I need to show up on Election day.

Archived in: 2006 Election, Colorado, Congress, Connecticut, Conservatives, Democrats, Environmentalism, Immigration, Indiana, Iowa, John McCain, Mexico, Pennsylvania, Polls, Republicans