Posted on 10/27/2006 6:17:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In 2004, there was a lot of talk about whether pollsters were correct to use traditional "likely voter" screens in their samples or whether a less restrictive "registered voter" model would turn out to be more accurate given the massive increases in voter registrations we saw posted all over the country. There's not much discussion of the subject at all this cycle, perhaps due to the fact that it's a midterm and not a presidential year, but it comes to mind because of the conflicting signals in this election and trying to get at just who is going to vote Nov. 7.
In some ways there are two very different ways to look at what is going to happen on election day.
1) Republicans are in big trouble. The generic ballot shows a huge lead for Democrats (over 15%) with fewer than 10 days until the election. Republicans in contested races are either trailing or polling in the mid-40's, and given the national mood toward the GOP as seen in the generic ballot, it is reasonable to assume that these races will break for the Democrats. With the close races tipping the Democrats way they are poised for substantial pickups in the House of 25 seats or more and perhaps the six seats needed for a majority in the Senate. 2)The generic ballot is problematic and is over sampling Democrats, pushing the raw numbers higher for the Dems than they should be. Trying to use the generic ballot to predict who will then win x, y and z house races is a jump that can't be made soundly. In 2004 the voter turnout was 60% of eligible voters. In 2002 and 1998 in the two previous midterms it was 40%. What if a significant number of that 15%-20% who aren't going to show up at the polls this year come from soft voters in the middle? These are the exact group of voters that are helping drive the big polling numbers for Democrats. What if they don't show up in these contested races at the same proportion they are representing in many of these polls? Following this line of thinking, it is possible the bulk of the races that the polls now say are close will actually go to the GOP because the pollsters aren't sampling a representative field of who will actually vote in the contested races.
Simplifying things dramatically, the first view is essentially the one taken by Charlie Cook, and it's why he is out forecasting a 20-35 seat pickup for the Dems in the House and a very good shot for them to take the Senate. The second view is the one taken by Karl Rove, which is why he believes the GOP will hold both chambers, losing less than 15 seats in the House and 3-4 in the Senate.
Both of these scenarios are logical, possible, and have empirical data to support their positions. The harder question is determining which reasoning will prove to be more powerful. Right now, when we drill down and look at the individual races to see where each contest is heading the data, at least in the Senate, appears to be trending toward the Rove position. The question is: will this movement in the Senate toward the GOP hold and will the House turn the same way?
I'm not so sure, the RATs are getting good at stealing elections.
I'm not so sure, the RATs are getting good at stealing elections.
Garbage in, garbage out.
All the more reason to fight to WIN.
Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!
ROVE YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD!
Well, somebody had to post it.
Why, not a few weeks ago, they were ready to remake the world... and now, oh no! Oh my! O-O-O. Castle to the left, push the king to the corner... they can only win because the conservatives stay home. That's not a very convincing endorsement of their ideas.
they only way that is going to happen is if we all get everyone we know out to vote!
That is great I have to save that pic.
Rove's been right since 2000. I think he'll be right again.
We will most like keep both houses, but to lose 15 seats in the house and 3-4 seats in the Senate is NOT good news for us and I can't seem to get that through anybodies head on FREEPERS. I am so concerned with the Senate only having 52 seats. Does anyone realize how bad that is. Does anybody realize that we have RINOS big time. NJ is really going to vote with Republicans everytime? We could not get a lot of votes passed with 55 seats why does everyone seem to think that we will with 52? Sometimes I must be out of touch with FREEPERS only dealing with the election. I am on board with FREEPERS with everything else. lol. Oh and the House...15 seats will mean deadlock!!! No spin to that.
Yes, this is true. It will be even harder to get some legisislation passed, if any.
However, at least if we maintain control of both the House and Senate we will maintain control of the committees as well being able to control what actually comes to a vote.
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.