Posted on 10/17/2006 4:21:54 PM PDT by 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
Thanks so much! I could not think of his name for the life of me. I'm gonna bookmark that this time! :)
Conservatives either got rid of their home phones in favor of cell phones or they use caller ID to not answer calls coming from pollsters since they HAVE A LIFE. This skews the polling results quite a bit. People with NOTHING to do are happy to talk to pollsters...or any stranger.
BTW, not just me or my husband, none of our GOP friends locally have ever been called, I've asked.
We were convinced during the past presidential election that the Republicans were doomed, because the talking heads told us to be. How did that turn out?
Yours is a common complaint, and one that discredits opinion polls in the minds of some people.
Of course, any one person's chances on being called in a national poll are just the same as any other person's. But not the same as all other persons' - who total only in the hundreds, even though thousands may be in the "pool" to be called. Many aren't home, don't answer or are in the middle of watching a movie or changing a diaper and can't take the time.
It's all in the sampling method, and the trade-off that has to be made between polling accuracy and the cost of interviewing 2x, 4x or 8x as many people to get more accurate results.
Take solace, if you can, from the remarks of Pauline Kael after Nixon won re-election in 1972: "I don't know a single person who voted for him."
Lucky for her, she was a movie reviewer and not a poll-taker.
And .. the poll recently which said that 53% were more likely to vote democrat - it was OVERWEIGHTED BY 16% dems.
This is why we cannot stay home and we MUST VOTE for every repub!! Hold your nose if you have to - but don't be ignorant of the continued PRESS BIAS - WHICH WE ALL KNOW EXISTS.
They want you and me to be so offended by Foley .. that we'll stay home - AND ALLOW THEM TO WIN!! Don't fall for it.
Good post. My first vote was for Nixon's second term. I've never missed an election since -- all elections.
"We were convinced during the past presidential election that the Republicans were doomed, because the talking heads told us to be. How did that turn out?"
Were we? Here is the data on likely voter polls. Bush was winning almost all of them.
http://pollingreport2.com/wh2004a.htm
Someone is wrong big time!"
Either a) the polls are lying or b) some number of people are giving up on calling themselves Republican.
We cannot discount the latter possibility.
So Ras, as in 2000, is delusional.
Well, thank you. On this one, I'm either going to be Elijah the Prophet, or the biggest flop since Air America.
He was saying that now more people are identifying themselves as democrat, over 5% more. He tried to say it was tied in VA, 39% dems and republican id. Hewitt said on it's face that is ridiculous. Rass thought that the only way DeWine can win Ohio is to go totally negative, that even if every republican who voted in 04, voted again he'd still lose. I'm not buying it.
I don't either. It doesn't matter how they explain it, if 5% more people "identify themselves" as Dems, yet the voter registration rolls don't change (still GOP advantage in OH), then "where's the beef?" It still comes down to an oversampling of Dems by 5%, i.e., a DeWine victory.
Yeah, it was that doofus from Newsweek. He later backtracked on his boast, one, because it realized how stupid it was to admit they were trying to manipulate the electorate, and two, because they couldn't deliver on the 15%. I do suspect, however, that had the MSM even been somewhat fair and balanced, Bush would have won by 5-10% two years ago.
thanks, bfl
Has this troubling information been troubling, or could it be media/Democrat hype to influence voters?
From past experience in 2002 and 2004, let alone before that, that is no question the media has polled left when voting results have gone right.
Rule of thumb is to add 5% points to the Republican in any poll and I predict you'll be closer than what is being touted by the press/media.
Aren't most polls taken via phone?
More and more people these days have caller ID. I don't know about the rest of you, but if we don't recognize the number calling us, we don't answer.
Common sense says busier people (i.e., people with more demanding jobs, kids to ferry around, whatever), would be less likely to take calls from people we don't know than others.
In that environment, would it really be strange to have polls keep getting things wrong? I can honestly say I don't personally know a single person who considered themselves a Republican 2 years ago that has since changed their mind. On the other hand, I know one of my brothers has become an adamant Republican in that same time period (previously categorized as a "communist" no less).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.