Bits and Pieces, Four Days Out

This is kind of a jumble---so many small pieces of information and/or thoughts, so let's get to it:

1. All the polls are off, part umpteen. Earlier this election season, I thought all the polls were off because they were oversampling Dems. Recently, I've been seeing some of the panic-meisters at NRO claim knowledge of GOP "nightlies" or "internals." I don't doubt they are getting information from somewhere, but I think one of two things is happening.

A. Their sources either aren't as good as they should be, or are RINOs deliberately feeding them crapola. Before you dismiss the latter, remember NRO bought into the "exit poll" hysteria in 2004, and I had to come on this board after doing ON THE GROUND POLL FLUSHING that showed Bush would win OH and calm some of you down. My point is, just because they have an "inside source" doesn't mean squat.

B. More likely, however, is a revision of my "polls are sucking" view. They are still tilted Dem, but the methodologies---even those being inadvertently accepted by the GOP pollsters at times--- are badly flawed, and still tilted Dem. Consider that when polling was first used extensively for elections, it was a face-to-face business with an 80% response rate. Telephone polling drove the response rate down further, and now, after bad experiences with pollsters in 2004, the response rate is under 20%. A decent sample size of 1,000 respondents then requires an unimaginable 5,000 nightly contacts!!! Folks, you know that ain't happenin'. Moreover, that still wouldn't do it, because you would need to get your "quotas" of Dems, Indies, and Republicans.

To conduct a poll that was anywhere near accurate, you would have to make upwards of 7,000 contacts!!!

And we still aren't even talking "likely" vs. "registered" voters. For each category you add, you have to geometrically increase your calls. One method pollsters use to "determine" whether you are a "likely" voter is to ask you and take your word for it. That's highly unreliable, because people like to be thought of as good citizens, so they either lie or have intentions to vote, but don't. A more reliable method involves asking if the person voted in 2004, then ask a bunch of unrelated questions, then say, "did you vote in 2002?" then ask more unrelated questions, then say, "did you vote in 2000?"

Now, when we canvass for Blackwell and do lit drops, we only drop at houses where the person has voted the last four elections. We know that from their record . . . not what they SAY!

So here is what I think has been happening: the pollsters are making a couple of thousand calls a night and taking people's word on their party affiliation and on them being a "likely" voter. You can chalk up 1-2% error right there, in the GOP's favor.

A second source of error, however, involves the technology. Somehow---and I haven't quite figured it all out yet---the cell phone and caller ID technology works against polling Republicans. Now, that's strange, given that Democrats (especially blacks) seem more wedded to their cell phones, but I'm convinced it's a factor. It's like obscenity: I can't quite define it, but I know it when I see it . . . again, and again, and again. But I digress.

I ran this theory by the head of the Warren Co. Blackwell effort, and he agreed 100%. This fellow is a Ph.D. in criminal justice/stats. Last week I ran it by a poly sci prof at Hillsdale who worked on many campaigns in MI, and he agreed as well. None of us can identify exactly how the methodological bias works, but its clear it exists.

2. Even if the polls weren't off, they simply don't begin to measure turnout. This kind of goes back to the "likely voter" issue, but we now have EVIDENCE from early voting and absentees that GOP voting is substantially higher than in 2002. Off year participation levels in OH for Republicans is (thanks to Common Tator) 58% of a presidential year. I'm betting in OH, for ex., we see something close to 60% or even a little more. More important still, I'm sensing from the ground here a massive apathy on the part of the Dems. Canvassing Dem areas, you never see bumperstickers, or yard signs; there have yet to be, anywhere, any DEM ground troops in the Dayton area!! My assessment? Whatever you ADD to the Republicans, you need to also subtract a point or two from the Dems' 2002 turnout levels. They won't get there this year.

In other words, whatever your polls say (unless in an overwhelmingly Dem state like NJ or RI), you can figure on 3% more GOP and 1-2% less Dems actually voting. (In a red, red state like Montana, I think you can increase the GOP %, in a blue state like PA, you have to temper it some.)

Now, what do we know for sure: In just Warren Co., my next door neighbor which is deep red, the Blackwell people have made 9,800 calls in ONE WEEK. My team in Dayton has by itself hit 2000 homes in three weeks. We all go out tomorrow again. Even the rural GOPers are getting drivers coming by and putting stuff in their doors.

I haven't seen any "internals," but one poll had DeWine down 8, one had him down 2. Split the difference and figure the polls have him down 5. That is VERY winnable in OH. That's right at "a turnout victory." Blackwell is apparently close to this same spot, except he's had some fantastic ads with Rudy Guliani. I can't imagine those great ads won't make a little difference.

Moving on to the House: we are starting to see polling (again, beware) showing two of the three IN seats coming home. Chacoba, once "dead," is within 3; Sodrel, always trailing, now leads. In NC, Taylor, again considered "a goner" according to NRO, is now tied. Negron is now figured to win the Foley seat; Sekula-Gibbs tied in a deeply red district, and will win that. Wilson now "safe."

There is concern over the CT seats, where right now only one of three GOPers leads, but again, this is "polling" and I think, even in CT, these are GOP wins. Drake in VA is now moving into safe territory. I never did think Steve Chabot was in trouble in OH, and I'm hearing that Pryce and Padgett are in good shape. Roskam now ahead of Duckworth in IL.

In AZ, it's simply bogus to suggest that J.D. Hayworth will lose. Randy Graf, however, can't break into single digits. The AZ papers say he simply is a one-note samba, and can't speak to health care or any issue but immigration. It's clear immigration is the #1 issue in a district like this, but it will not be the ONLY issue. He has about one day of recovery time. If he trails by double digits on Sunday, he's finished, even in red AZ. Most people now think the CA seats (Pombo, Doolittle) are safe. We still could lose one in IA, one in IN, Curt Weldon (PA), the open seat in NY, probably one of the three in CT, Graf, and O'Donnell (CO). There may be another two I'm missing. That's nine. I don't have a read on Gerlach.

But there are now four very vulnerable Dems: Barrow and Marshall (GA), Carson (IN), Bean (IL), plus an OR seat that is somewhat beatable.

In the Senate, I have Talent, Allen, Corker and Burns (yes, Burns) in the "safe" column; Steele "ahead and nearly safe," Kean "slightly ahead," DeWine, McGavick, and Bouchard "slightly behind," and Santorum and Chafee behind outside the "turnout margin." But finally Santorum has moved a little, and by tomorrow could be within the turnout margin. Chafee is in such a blue state, he is my most vulnerable candidate right now---I know that makes some of you very sad (sarcasm). In other words, I think we'll at least pick up one in the Senate; and if the close ones break for us, three. Chafee could even stage a comeback and the number would be four. That's right, four. Right now, my best guess is +1 in the Senate for the GOP.

In the house, I'm reluctantly abandoning my prediction of +1. All the IN and CT races would have to go to the Republicans, then we'd need a comeback in either CO or AZ. My guess, now, is that we lose fewer than five, picking up three of the four Dem seats.

But stay tuned. I'll know more after I walk tomorrow and talk to the on-the-ground peeps.

Sal, do you know what the polls were predicting for 1994? I know they ALL were badly off in 1996---even though they predicted Clinton's win, they were off from 5-8% in how much he would win by. But I haven't seen any of the 1994 polls reposted from the House races.

And I told you earlier that Geraghty at NRO picked Graf as his super-longshot. That's good . . . but not very reassuring if you're a Graf supporter. And 8 points is good, if it could be confirmed anywhere . . . but it's still a losing number. He has to be under 5 to have a chance in a "moderate" AZ district. That isn't Scottsdale.

You know, you may be on to something. What if the technology bias slanted the polls toward the older? Still, why should the older necessarily be more Dem? Moreover, they tend to turnout more than the younger.

Yes, a lot of people in my age group aren't motivated to vote. However, a lot of us work on campaigns, run for office, and vote - and have never been in the military.

To say that only military personnel under the age of 35 are the only ones who are motivated to vote is just cynical.

Most of the people who I've worked with this campaign cycle are under 30, including my husband-who is running for public office. We are motivated to work for change because our government is failing us at all levels, from the local level to the state to the feds.

My predictions (barring anything drastic):

AZ- Jon Kyl over Jim Pederson, 55% to 45%.

CT- Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, 52% to 44%.

MD- Michael Steele over Ben Cardin, 51% to 49%.

MI- Debbie Stabenow over Michael Bouchard, 54% to 46%.

MN- Amy Kobluchar over Mark Kennedy, 58% to 42%.

MO- Jim Talent over Claire McCaskill, 51% to 49%.

MT- Conrad Burns over Jon Tester, 51% to 49%.

NV- John Ensign over Jack Carter, 56% to 44%.

NJ- Thomas Kean over Bob Menendez, 51% to 49%.

OH- Sherrod Brown over Mike DeWine, 57% to 43%.

PA- Bob Casey over Rick Santorum, 55% to 45% (conservatives should wear black to mourn the nation's loss of an excellent, gutsy leader).

RI- Sheldon Whitehouse over Lincoln Chafee, 52% to 48%.

TN- Bob Corker over Harold Ford, 54% to 46%.

VA- George Allen over Jim Webb, 51% to 49%.

WA- Maria Cantwell over Mike McGavick, 56% to 44%.

To say that only military personnel under the age of 35 are the only ones who are motivated to vote is just cynical.

Maybe it depends on where you live. Here in good old crony Delaware, the over-35 who work on political campaigns outnumber the under-35 at least 4 to 1. I've volunteered my time on many campaigns and that's what I've eye-witnessed firsthand. Even they admit that they are in the minority, seeing all us grayhairs around them (wink). They are the hope of the future though. They grew up with liberalism all around them and they are disgusted.

One young campaign manager I've worked with even made the comment that galvinizing the younger voter base was a problem, most of them are either too busy with school or work or young children to involve themselves much in politics. The exception to that was the young family, church-going demographic.

I would be very surprised if Klein wins ... I am in liberal east Ft. Lauderdale, near Wilton Manors for God's sake, and the streets are covered with Shaw signs. They are everywhere.

BTW, Shaw's staff unsnarled my sister's financial aid while she was in college at UofM. She is beside herself knowing she has to vote against him in order to help the Dems take control of Congress. She still has not made up her mind.

Diana is very liberal but all politics is local.

SEVEN THOUSAND VOTES? How freakin big is the district? That's a lot of votes to make up...not sure how many people it contains - it runs north of Philly and contains several fair sized cities - Reading and Pottstown - the TV reporter implied that 7000 was a narrow victory for Gerlach last time, but then she would wouldn't she - I caught part of the debate between Gerlach and Murphy the other day and Gerlach comes off much the better informed and articulate, although this doesn't come through in their TV ads - I think it'll be very close either way......

But, that always is the case, and they still lose.

Not always. I've been stuck with Dennis Moore for 8 years now. Sebellius is cruising. And I'm beginning to wonder if Morrison isn't going to clean the floor with Phill Kline. I've talked to two very conservative friends who both voted early. One lives in Dodge City and one in Wichita. Bboth of them voted for Republicans in every office except Attorney General. I knew that Kline wasn't going to attract any support among Democrats or much support among independents. But I'm beginning to wonder if his support among Conservatives is going to be enough, or as strong as he thought.

"pollsters are going to have second thoughts about their methodology."

I honestly doubt it. They certainly haven't in the past. Polling companies are like weather men. They get a pass for screwing up because they are trying to predict the future. If they're wrong, they just shrug and come up with an endless list of "late breaking developments" that influenced the outcome. Polling is big business and the people writing the check are liberal MSM outlets. The polling companies know who keeps them fed.

Avgs Dem primary turnout was 15%, but that doesn't mean much. What was it in PA? That's the key.

Yeah, I know. I wanted to leave the PA turnout out of that post so someone would answer.

It figures it would be you.

I'm sorry, LS, but I don't remember the actual numbers from back then on the House races, just Jennings telling us that R House candidates were going to lose because the contract was scaring all us poor little voters according to polls.

I also remember coming to the conclusion that we could figure about 8% more for a presidential candidate than whatever pollsters were saying.

I also remember coming to the conclusion that we could figure about 8% more for a presidential candidate than whatever pollsters were saying.

I should have made it clear that I came to that conclusion in '96 not '94. Thank you for keeping us "up" by reinforcing with facts and great analysis what many of us already think about the phony baloney plastic banana good time rock n roll BS polls.

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.