Posted on 11/03/2006 4:20:07 PM PST by LS
You have one more prediction coming out Monday night?
I'll be eager to see that.
The answer is : (b) groupthink...
Test marketing 1 precinct only (anywhere USA) and explaining to the participants that they are part of an historic new polling company.???? (Let's go)
Someone knows how to get accurate answers. I live near a company that does markey research. Before I can even qualify for a survey, I am asked a bunch of questions that detail my age, income group, prior purchases, etc. Then I am put on a call list for certain products.
I cannot imagine that the polliing companies are less savvy than the market researchers for breakfast cereal. I therefore have to assume that they aren't interested in providing an accurate picture, but rather are interested in providing a point of view.
Oh...and while I will take the time to answer surveys, my husband will NEVER do it.
I'll never forget '94 when all of the MSM were claiming the whole country was terrified of Gingrich's bomb throwers and they were going down to certain and humiliating defeat.
I especially remember Peter Jennings crowing triumphantly that these guys had to be wishing they'd never signed that contract or even seen it...
That was the first time I realized how deeply in the tank Jennings was and I had always watched him because the other two were worse.
IMO they absolutely believed what they were saying. They were too ecstatic and it looked like they were really feeling it, not just thinking it.
Then that stupid, untrustworthy electorate had a temper tantrum...
I worked for a survey place in high school (1986-90). I got hired right before they started asking everyone for ID to prove they were 16 and it was great job for a teenager. Paid $2 more than minimum wage and you never got burned by a fry-o-later.
What you say is true -- women tend to answer the phone. So the first day of a particular survey, we'd ask to speak to the "head of the household". Sometimes the woman would pass the phone to the man. Sometimes the woman would say she was the head of the household (because she was single or because she was ornery). And that was fine. But the second day, we'd have already reached our quota on women and were just asking the men.
No one was happy.
The OH-13 is completely off the radar screen, since people figure that if OH Republicans are trailing in GOP districts that a district that only gave Bush 44% won't be competitive. I have no idea whether Foltin can pull off the upset, but have a feeling that it will be closer than people assume. Foltin is our best possible candidate, while Sutton has some problems, including how she moved into the district to run.
I hope you're right about Clay Shaw. A couple of days ago a Palm Beach County GOP insider (the FL-22 takes in almost all of the Palm Beach County coast) told me he was worried about Shaw's seat. We need to have a big GOP turnout on Tuesday.
http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWFhNDhjOTNmYWNlMzcyOWVjNGY0OTI0NWExM2NlYmE=
A quick thought on Arizona 8th District and illegal immigration
11/03 01:43 PM
The Corner has a good collection of links to news stories covering the House race in the Arizona 8th District — Democrat Gabrielle Giffords vs. Republican Randy Graf. It's Kolbe's old seat, one of the races every observer is chalking up as an automatic Democratic pickup.
I've indicated that Republican Randy Graf is my Super Mega-Shocker Special What-The-Hell-Are-You-Smoking-Jim Upset Pick for 2006; I just figure the illegal immigration issue is huge, stirs passions, motivates voters, and that a lot of people may support a Minuteman, a hardline view, but don't want to tell it to a pollster or others for fear of being called racist, nativist, etc.
And as a candidate the state GOP wasn't eager to see to win the primary, Graf was seen as unelectable and expected to get blown out by 20-30 points. So the fact that he's not getting blown out, and is in fact down 12, 10, 8 suggested to me that maybe there's something going on out there.
On the other hand, if Graf does get blown out as expected, staunch opponents of illegal immigration are going to have a challenge persuading the GOP that their position is an electoral winner. It's easy to see the mentality taking root, "If opposing immigration couldn't help stave off a blowout in Tucson, Arizona, it's not going to help much anywhere else..."
People who are less technologically savvy tend to be older. For example, my older siblings are not nearly as technologically savvy as I am and I am not any were near as tech savvy as my nieces and nephews. So the people who are likely to still be answering their phone instead of using technology to screen out random callers will be rather towards the elderly end of the voter spectrum.
In additions, there is usually a cost in using technology to restrict access to your phone line. Therefore those on the poor end of the economic spectrum are less likely to be accessing technlogy due to the costs
So you are going to have a build in bias toward older poorer respondenets. Since the average Boomer tend to be towards the Left of the political specturm so they would tend to bais the polls to the Left.
Question is HOW much are they baising the polls? I guess we will find out on Tuesday.
Somewhere between "group think and scare psychology." I remember election night 2004 when the whole bunch except Fred Barnes I think, bought into the skewed exit polls showing a big win for the Rats.
"They wanted to speak to the male voter in the house because they already had more women than their quota."
FNC said earlier that across the country 33-38% were undecided and a larger % of them were women (obviously, some areas are much lower than that, they quoted one area as only 5%).
Mort said on Special Report last night that the Dims said that normally the undecideds break 2/1 for the incumbent, but it's more than that this year. I'm not buying this last one, I think it's more Dim spin. Also, IIRC there is a large percentage of undecideds that don't vote.
"If you could go back in history and conduct polls, I don't think you'd find any, and certainly not many, two-year periods when the balance in party identification shifted from even to having one party 12 percent ahead of the other."
your fingertips to God's ears
Obviously, pollsters only stay in business if they show a track record of accuracy. They are probably finding ways to compensate for technology issues you bring up and keeping them secret. Of course, there is a huge difference in professional polls for the campaigns and those designed to create news.
But is really all rests on the analysis that weights issues and factors to draw up the sample. That's why they credit Rove with finding the exurban vote in 04 and say the exit polls in 2000 in FL were wrong because of new movers they didn't characterize correctly. That could easily be a factor in OH were people have been leaving in drove. Who's left?
If I relied in polls and "so-called" pundits, we'd have President Kerry in the WH now!!! nuff said.
The Dems here in KS seem motivated....lots of signs and not very many for the GOP.
But, that always is the case, and they still lose.
And you don't have a clue what "sources" the people I know use. I suggest you stop making assumptions. Try presenting an argument with just a shred of real evidence that Graf is anywhere near 5%, and I'll be happy to trumpet it to the heavens.
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.