Bits and Pieces, Four Days Out

self | 11/3/06 | LS

[LS]

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.

[saganite]

marked for post election rereading

[TheBigB]

Hoping and praying you're right, m'friend.

[Lando Lincoln]

Thanks LS.

[Petronski]

The Fox All-Stars crowd is exceedingly pessimistic.

Is that primarily (a) bad data, (b) groupthink, (c) scare psychology, or (d) something else?

[Molly Pitcher]

Thanks! Will you add more as the weekend winds up?

We're 25,000+ calls in my county as of late this afternoon.

I also heard more anecdotal stories today of the poor Dem GOTV effort. they may be also complacent, but we can't let up on our work thinking that may be the case.

Also, we're going, supposedly, to have some folks from the National office join us tomorrow.

[cardinal4]

I hope you are right. I was never really worried about the Senate, its Nancy Pelosi that I always worried about..

[LS]

A combo. They are all using, I think, bad data. No different than in 1994 when all the then "all stars" had the Dems winning big.

[LibLieSlayer]

When mort states that a dim strategist has seen the Republican Internal Polls and says dims have it in the bag, you know that it is ALL BOVINE POOP!

Rove ain't gonna let no slimy POS dim look at the family jewels!

LLS

[COBOL2Java]

I was never really worried about the Senate, its Nancy Pelosi that I always worried about..

Ditto that. I remember the Reagan administration, and how Speaker Tip O'Neill would annually declare Reagan's budget "Dead on Arrival". Even though Reagan had a Republican Senate for six years, it was the House that caused the most trouble.

[NaughtiusMaximus]

Thanks for posting this. It's sensible.

[WashingtonSource]

They were already discussing what the practical impact would be of a Democratic House and possible Democratic Senate. Fred Barnes had a few good tid bits to report on GOP gains from an inside source, but no specifics.

[LS]

That's for sure.

All: think back. In 2000, Rove said, despite SOME polls that had a Bush blowout, that it would be a "very close election," and it was. In 2004, Rove was more optimistic. He didn't guarantee victory, but pretty close. He indicated it wouldn't be as close as 2000.

This year he has pretty much guaranteed that the Dems won't win either house. I think that tells us a lot.

[cardinal4]

Nancy has made plain her disdain for guns, tax cuts, and Iraq funding. I disagree with her plans for the House..

[Petronski]

Not to be rude, but "primarily" bad data? Or do you think they're also doing their own scary GOTV effort with conservatives?

I guess what I'm asking is, is there method to their madness, or will they be genuinely surprised Tuesday night?

That's a nebulous question, I know. I'm just trying to get your feel for it.

[kcbc2001]

I think the technology factor is huge! That's one of the reasons why I believe that polls are only going to get even more inaccurate, the more people use cells as their primary phones. I'm under 35 and everyone I know has a cell phone and the majority (including myself) use it as their primary phone. Thus, they aren't getting called to participate in polls, regardless of political party.

They are really just getting a hold of people who have a landline and answer their questions-and they tend to be older voters. In the MI govs race, older voters tend to be for Granholm, but the under 35 group is majority DeVos. So, it will be interesting to see who actually comes out to vote and who ends up winning. This whole idea that the under 35 group is solid Dem is a MSM lie.

That's why I think there are going to be some surprises on Tuesday.

[edmond246]

I've looked and looked, but I live in the Ohio 13th district where Craig Foltin is running against an ultraliberal democrat, and I believe he has a chance to win and no one is talking about this. He has won with substainal margins in his town of Lorain where he is mayor, where EVERY other person in the gov't is a dem. He is the only repub, and it's the mayor.

Now if anyone can find any polls on this CD #13 (Foltin v. Sutton) that'd be greatly appreciated.

I've only seen two polls. One Survey USA poll from July that had him down 5-8 pts and one that the Dem's released that had Sutton up by 22. *yea...rite*

let me know. you guys are the best.

[axes_of_weezles]

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,


Nice to have a RNC supporter for Graf. If you know the ground truth and polling data -publish it. Not the crap that comes from the MSM. Zogby had Graf within 5 points and the NRCC pulled his funding for the second time. He is relying on locals and PAC's for support. But then you would rather have a RAT, than someone who has valid complaints about border security and will call the Bullsh*t flag. What will you do when he wins? Either way the Congresscritters will have to work with whatever is elected. I suppose you prefer a Gay friendly liberal, like Kolbe from southern Arizona.

[AZ GOPher]

Gosh, I love your optimism -- I really do. I'm a diehard GOP, as if my wife, and we both voted Kyl and Flake here in Chandler, AZ. I just can't bring myself to your views on the ultimate result, however. Here are my reasons for more worry than you depict:

1. Let's face it, the political environment is just TERRIBLE for Republicans this year. The MSM is running negative stories on the GOP by something like a 72% to 17% ratio. The difficulties in Iraq given them plenty of grist for their mill, too.

2. The closer we get to election day, the more predictive the Congressional generic ballot becomes. We're getting slaughtered on that front, by historical margins. Even if you make the "Democrats oversampled" argument and adjust 5-8% for it, we're still getting clobbered in relative historical terms.

3. This is the sixth-year election of an incumbent president, which is always tough even without the factors in #1 and 2 above. We would probably lose a few seats for that element alone.

I'm not trying to be a downer. I hope and pray for a very different result from the one I'm openly lamenting above. I just don't realistically see it, though. . .

[Petronski]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not really sold on the predictive value of generic party preference polls. The reason I say this, primarily, is the inherently local (and gerrymandered more than ever) nature of Congressional voting. I'm talking about the "my guy's good, the rest are all bastards" phenomenon.