Recent Polls Outside The Historical Norm For Party ID.

The Corner (National Review?) ^ | 17 October 2006 | Rich Lowry (?)

[shrinkermd]

Recent Polls Outside The Historical Norm For Party ID. A spate of recent polls paints a very gloomy electoral outlook for GOP candidates in next month's elections. One reason for that, possibly, is a set of samples in recent polls that do not mirror the historical norm for party ID.

A memo circulating among Republicans on the Hill, authored by GOP pollster David Winston, takes a look at the historical spread between Democrats and Republicans in House elections and polling over the last 14 years. According to Winston's analysis, there is a material discrepancy between the party identification listed by people in exit polls (people who actually voted) between 1992 and 2004, and those used over the last few weeks.

In most of the years between 1992 and 2004, Democrats held a slight advantage in party ID. Winston based his data on VNS/Media exit surveys, and concluded in 1992, Democrats held a 3 point advantage; in 1996, they held a 4 point advantage; in 1998, a 1 point advantage; and in 2000, a 3 point advantage. In two election years, 1994 and 2004, the percentages of people identifying themselves as Republicans and Democrats were identical, i.e., no advantage to either party. 2002 was the only year in which Republicans held an advantage over Democrats, with 40% identifying themselves to exit pollsters as Republicans and 38% identifying themselves as Democrats.

In short, between 1992 and 2004, only once did one party enjoy an advantage as large as 4 points over the other in party ID. But in recent polling samples used by eight different polling organizations (USA Today/Gallup, CBS/NYTimes, ABC/Washington Post, CNN/Opinion Research, Newsweek, AP/Ipsos, Pew, and Time), the Democratic advantage in the sample surveyed was never less than 5 points.

All these organizations conducted surveys in early October. According to Winston, the Democrats held the following party ID advantages in these early-October surveys: * USAToday/Gallup: 9 points. * CBS/NYT: 5 points * ABC/WP: 8 points * CNN: did not provide sample party ID details. * Newsweek: 11 points. * AP/Ipsos: 8 points. * Pew: 7 points. * Time: 8 points.

Party registrations shift over time, and many political operatives believe the country starts to gravitate away from a party that has been in power over an extended period of time. Republicans have controlled the House since 1995. Winston acknowledges that possibility in his memo, writing, "It is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that this year's election could fall outside of historical results, but any survey that does should acknowledge that

[pabianice]

Well, well, well...

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Precisely. Garbage in...Garbage out....I spoke with party folks last night and they said not to believe the polls that have come out in the last few weeks. This simply confirms what I heard.

[AaronInCarolina]

Gee, I think someone named LS has been saying for months that the pollsters were oversampling Dems by 5% at least!

Yes. I remember your posts, and I always agreed with them. I too have been saying that the polling sampling makes no sense, particularly in light of the past few years. If you look at the most recent data that Winston cites, in 2002 Republicans held a 2 point advantage, and in 2004 they were tied. But a tie means a virtual republican advantage, particularly if you understand party identification in the south. Many southerners identify themselves as democrats, but are quite conservative and often vote republican. This is because party identification is so traditional, that folks will continue to call themselves democrats because they don't want to upset older family members. I have at least 2 friends who have told me they won't switch parties until their parents die because they don't want to upset the family. These aren't isolated cases. It is very common in the south.

The other issue is the amazing Get-Out-The-Vote machine that Karl Rove has created and you can bet it is well oiled for this election. In 2004, election turnout smashed all records, with 63 million voters voting for GWB for president. You can bet that the republicans have not been sitting back on their haunches since then doing nothing. I expect that republican turnout will shock the MSM and the pollsters.

For democrats to take either 1 or both of the houses, they will have to enjoy a significant advantage in voter turnout come election day. If turnout is about even, (which is almost a certainty) then they won't take either house back.

[My2Cents]

Cooked media polls. Of course, it has long been the intent of media polls to move public opinion, not to measure it. The only surprise here is that they are so blatant in their cheerleading for the Democrats.

[My2Cents]

LS, to be quite frank, since I started following your comments on FR during the '04 campaign, I've found you to be one of the most reliable and accurate posters here.

[LS]

It's kind of irrelevant WHAT "party affiliations" they use if they are simply making them up :)

[TheHound]

I don't know, this whole election year has me kind of spooked. Here we have "National Review" correlating exit poll data to survey data, reporting negatively for Republicans and then the FBI (Executive Branch) doing high profile raids against Weldon (a hero in my mind) 2.5 weeks before a tight election. I'll do all I can - Vote!

[italianquaker]

remember this when that long time troll start publishing his polls

[ReaganRevolution]

Rassmussen was on Hugh Hewitt's show today, and he seems to think that Democrats are outpacing Republicans. He is giving a 5 point swing to the Dems. I think he is wrong, so take his polls with a grain of salt as well.

[MNJohnnie]

I suspect like 1980 and 1996 there are going to be a lot of very red faced pollsters trying very hard to spin away why they started using this "floating party ID" methodology for this election

[MNJohnnie]

If you read Rass methodolgy they have taken to using a floating party id methodology. This is the new craze in Polling. It is suppose to show the "intensity" of the voters on each side. You can read about it at their website. It stupid methodology. There is no controlling for sample error.

[DaGman]

According to Freeper VeritatisSplendor in this post polls like SurveyUSA make the calls and people ID theirselves. They don't pre-weight the polls.

Apparently that's SOP for all polls. Note VeritatisSplendor is the H**IC at SurveyUSA. Maybe he'd give us a Polling 101 course so we can all understand the methodology a little better. I can handle bad polling numbers if I have confidence in them.

[Matchett-PI]

"Cooked media polls. Of course, it has long been the intent of media polls to move public opinion, not to measure it. .."

. Exactly. Do you remember which media mouthpiece bragged that it is able to deliver 15 points for the RATS?

[DaGman]

Ping!

We all know you've got your hands full right now, but if you would be so kind as to spare just a little time to do a little post on Polling 101 I think a lot of people would very much appreciate it, including me.

[MNJohnnie]

Party ID, like most self chossen ID changes very slowly if at all. This "more people are telling us they are Democrats" rationalization of the floating sample school merely means they called more Democrats in that sample. It garbage. I suspect this new methodology is going to be completely discredited by this years election results. It is a seriosly flawed methodology since it does not control at all for the pollster simply getting more Democrats to respond. They should be using the tried and trued method of basing their sample on turn out for the last 2 elections.

[MNJohnnie]

I love the way supposed Conservative confuse hyper negativity with being "wise". The article sites why the polling data is suspect. Yet your response is to dismiss the FACTS because they do not validate YOUR gut feelings. Could it be the fact that your feelings which are based on polls with an obvious statistical flaw in them are what is in error?

Elections are ALWAYS about turn out. It is who shows up.

[xeno]

Do you remember which media mouthpiece bragged that it is able to deliver 15 points for the RATS?

"The media, I think, want Kerry to win….That's going to be worth maybe 15 points." -- Evan Thomas, "Inside Politics," July 11, 2004

[ConservativeGreek]

what are you basing your theory on?

So many close races in RED States will eventually go Rep.

Strength of incumbency. Most republicans that are endangered are incumbents. They have more money and more recognition. Plenty of undecideds in most races.

Bush, Cheney and others will begin to campaign in earnest. It started today and will continue.

Dims and the MSM overplayed the Foley affair and have exhausted the public on the Republicans are bums topic.

Big ad buys running by the RNC and others.

Paid and unpaid folks heading out soon for on the ground combat.

Campaigns swing in both directions. The pendulum will swing back.

Folks like Santorum and DeWine are far more endangered than the others. Not counting on them prevailing.

[ReaganRevolution]

I think the pollsters are going to have to face facts and admit that calling people on the phone is not working any longer. With the number of people screening calls and using cell phones it's just not reliable.
Also, they seem to give no credit for turning out the vote. It's the 72 hours prior to the election that is key.

[TimPatriot]

For the democrats to take the house or senate, they will have to mount the most massive successful vote fraud campaign in history. I wouldn't put it past them.