I was surprised when I read your post as I would usually hear about a bad Greenberg poll a day or two before it would be released publicly. (And if it were bad enough, quite frankly, it wouldn't be released.) This poll is five days old and you badly misrepresent it's import and it's findings.
I don't have time to summarize either all of the poll's findings or all of your misrepresentations. I would simply urge those who are interested to read the superficial executive summary (it's only 9 pages) of the poll for themselves:
http://www.greenbergresearch.com/art...groundMemo.pdf
But to hit the high spots, the districts polled were all Republican TeaNut held districts. And despite this fact, there are many encouraging signs in the polling on Congressional races that are read to be encouraging for potential Democratic challengers. Most encouraging is no the horse-race numbers, but the push questions. The messaging that would be used by a Democratic challenger was very sucessful in moving the horse-race/reelect numbers, which were already fairly low.
And Carville has no association with the Greenberg firm other than being a admirer and friend of Stan. Carville is a co-founder, along with Greenberg, of Democracy Corps, a Democratic non-profit, that uses Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for it's pollin. Democracy Corps apparently paid for this particular poll.
I would caution you that to really understand the findings of a poll, you've got to really digest the cross-tabs. I have downloaded these and will look at them over the next couple of days if I have time. But they are 406 pages worth of them and I have other things to do tonight. But even the top level product from the poll shows that you have made gross misrepresentations.