This is turning into quite an extraordinary thread.
Posted on 11/03/2006 4:20:07 PM PST by 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.
I agree.
LLS
I have a theory for you about the polling. You believe there is a bias and that the bias might come from cell phone use.
Lets assume there is a strategy to controll the data by getting callers to change the data. The caller marks the call for the rat even though it is for the GOP. Such "ringers" placed in the various polling places could help skew the results a few points.
If this was happening, the larger the sample size, the less the effect would be.
I happened to look at the polls for CT candidate Simmons. These polls were done within days of each other and I noticed a pattern. The larger the sample size, the larger the swing to the GOP. Each increment in sample size reduced the rats lead until the largest sample size showing the GOP ahead.
I posted the polls on Simmons sorted by sample size to show the effect here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1729920/posts?page=29#29
Just some anecdotal evidence of rat apathy is this article I posted a while back:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1724327/posts
And this is in California, the belly of the beast, where the battle for a full scale commie takeover rages.
It seems like a lot of rats just want to stay home this year and change the bong water...
bump
Who watches the news? Political junkies like us and DU and Kos. All of us are already committed, so it doesn't matter what they say or report.
Who else watches news? Old folks, who are going to vote Rat anyway, out of habit.
What are all the other voters watching? Food Network, Seinfeld reruns, HGTV, ESPN, Speed Channel. How will those people decide on how to cast their votes? Mailers, peer pressure, how they have voted in the pat, endorsements, Catholic voter guides, Right to Life voter guides, NRA guides, etc.
I just don't think that the MSM can swing very many people.
LOL You go, Leo!
I do not trust the polls, and I hope my dishonesty (and others) bites the pollsters in the a$$ someday.
Na Zdrovya!
Obviously, pollsters underestimated the number number of Republican voters. So logically, one would assume they would adjust their methodology in future polls to reflect the stronger than expected Republican voting pool. Guess again. Rather than increase the Republican component of their polling demographic, pollsters this year have actually reduced it. Significantly. As you've repeatedly stated...something just isn't right with polling this year.
With regard to polls and pollsters, fool me once shame on me.....
Last night, my wife got a polling call. The first thing they asked "Is there a male that we can talk too?".
My wife asked me. I said no, I'm Freeping!
My father-in-law was watching some football and didn't want to be bothered so my wife spent the next 20 minutes answering dozens of questions.
I had asked my wife to find out the name of the polling company but she didn't find out but she did say it seemed to be a Demonrat type of poll.
My point is that another methodology issue is the lack of males willing to even answer the phone. Men are 60%+ Republican and women are 60%+ Demonrat.
My wife is Palovian when it comes to answering the landline. I use the answering machine to monitor who it is.
IOW, severe underrepresentation of males results in higher Demonrat sampling.
Well done LS! Very interesting article, hope your analysis is correct.
This is turning into quite an extraordinary thread.
I really think they will be surprised, too. Not Rove, but the NRO people and the Fox All Stars.
Too much beltway-cocktail-party time. Just like Laura Ingraham, it would seem.
I prefer Graf. I'm stating the obvious. Either he gets close, quick, or he's finished. And I don't think he's that close. Giffords is hammering him on medical insurance issues. This does play with a lot of the U.S., and apparently he has no answers.
But see, you're going back to polls for that "generic ballot." You're right on the drive by media, but that's irrelevant. They hammered Bush in 2004, they hammered Republicans in 2002. They aren't irrelevant, but the GOP base no longer pays any attention to them at all.
LOL.
Exactly right on sample size. That's why I said in the post that I think it's a great deal of LAZINESS. The fact is, NO COMPANY can make 5,000 calls a night. So they make 1,000, then throw Rs in with Ds or artificially "guess" where the Is will end up.
Something's wrong with the polls.
Maybe they aren't factoring in moon phases...
Here's a chart of moon phase and how the outparty does in House seats.
1992 waxing +9
1994 waxing +54
1996 waxing +8
1998 waxing +5
2000 waning +2
2002 waning -8
2004 waning -3
2006 waning
Source: WTF? Correlations Co. Inc.
:-)
However: it's an off-year election, meaning the GOTV is even more important (add another 2% to the GOP, perhaps 3% given the Dem depressed vote that I'm sensing). NOW where are the numbers? Virtually all of the close House races really aren't; all but Santorum and Chafaee are either well ahead or tied, including McGavick, Steele, and Kean. Bouchard is now close.
Indeed it does. I think the biggest disconnect is what the media is saying this year, and what is reality.
And that includes many in the media who are supposed to be on "our side". Fred Barnes, can you hear me?
May all of their reputations tank, with the results of this election.
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.