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.
LOL!!
I've stocked up on my tissues and comfort food for the misery that will overcome at his loss. I can only imagine the despondency Senator Dole will feel. ;-)
Senate gains are possible if everything breaks right. 53-54 a reasonable expectation. I just don't see 51 or less. I better agree on the House, as it matches near my prediction. I figure Republicans retain most seats except the very few vulnerable to real corruption (not MSM manufacured) or real scandel and unfortunately probably not Graf's after Kolbe & the RNC undercut him. If they could gain a couple Dem seats to compensate, though, they could break near even.
First, the Republicans are entrenched and incumbents are hard to unseat. All politics is local and all that. Second, in my own Congressional district (east Broward County, Florida), I know the Republican incumbent will keep his seat and yet lots of pundits say the Democrat will win.
Mother, a dyed-the-wool liberal, will vote for Republican E. Clay Shaw because he once got her a replacement Social Security card. She was having problems with the bureaucracy and Shaw's staff got it for her. Shaw's been in office 26 years and runs a Fed Govt. Problem Resolution operation out his local office. Lots of people got stuff unsnarled because of his staff ... along with a form letter signed by "Clay" making sure everything was okay.
Even my sister, who's so far to the left she once wanted to wear a T-shirt emblazoned "I had an abortion" can't bring herself to vote E. Clay Shaw out of office.
As Mother goes, so goes the nation.
Obi wan, his mentor, says this may well be a "late breaking election," as I hinted above. In that scenario, Senate numbers will lead the house, because the House districts are just too hard to poll. The movement in the Senate is very good. Daily Kos is WORRIED about Montana---they know it's a goner. They still think, he says, that PA, RI, and OH are in the bag. But that's the Dems' take. Anyway, back to Geraghty and Obi Wan/Geraghty:
"Senate races will lead the House races as indicators. And it's kind of hard to see the Republicans doing well in the Senate races and getting blown out in the House. Because I respectfully doubt this last-minute shift is based on personalities and not policies."
So, as I see this, the senate already began to shift with the Corker/Talent/Burns/Allen movements earlier this week. The house should follow, then, by Mon. we should see the 2nd tier senators moving into line. Will that be enough, far enough, for people like DeWine, Santorum, and Chafee? Dunno, but the fact is if these other indicators are correct, we will only lose one if all three drop---but still might see pickups in MI or WA.
Oh, and axes of weezles, Geraghty says Graf is his ultra-super longshot pick.
See the update, from Obi Wan, below your post.
LOL. I wish your mom would vote for Katherine Harris!
Thanks for this post.
I'm praying you're right.
Interesting. Thanks Larry. Thanks to all contributors to this thread.
Not a chance, straight Democratic ticket, with the exception of the beloved E. Clay Shaw.
Very good analysis and agree with you especially on Dayton. Grew up 25 miles north of Dayton in Miami County and no signs in Dayton spells apathy from the Dims!
By his analysis we will be a pretty good shape especially if we pick up Steele in MD which would be awesome!
Come Wednesday morning, a lot of the "all is lost" crowd should have some 'splainin to do, Lucy.
He has answers. Not answers you or the MSM like or would publish, since your mind is made up, anyway.
And it's not obvious. Your sources are from DC and the MSM.
Randy would have been an easy win with marginal support from DC, something to counter the local Rat media, which you cite as gospel.
Majority of his support has been local. He is accepting pac monies, I dont know if it's all local individual contributors, I would bet it's the bulk of locals. Giffords large contributors are not local and not from Arizona (Emily's List/Soros/Unions)
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=AZ08&Cycle=2006
In 2004 my prediction was that the Presidential race would be close right to the end, then at the end break decisively. It would not be a Reagan near sweep, nor would it be 2000. My gut feeling was that the victor of that late break would be G.W.B.
In this election Geraghty is essentially making the same prediction I did for the Presidential race, only toward Congressional candidates. And I buy that analysis. The GOP base was mostly still registered properly, on file from the 2004 race. We had the luxury to wait to make up our minds how we were going to deal with this Congress. The decision has been made and it won't please the Dems nor punditry.
As for Santorum I think his race is dependent on two factors. Overestimated Dem turnout, and GOP turnout. If the GOP base turns out at near '04 rates and the Dem base turns out at mid-term rate, he has a shot. I'm just not certain how motivated the Dem base in Penn is right now, and Kos isn't a good indicator of anyone other than the rabid left of the Dem party. As Lamont indicates.
If Giffords wins, we can only hope that she screws herself with a major scandal, or reveals her beholden incompetence for the voters to see. Otherwise she could be entrenched here for a long time. The Mediots will be slobbering at her feet.
Look at how hard the Dims are fighting for Pederson, even though he's way behind. Yeah, I know he's spending a lot of his own money, but I don't believe there's no paybacks for that.
I'm sure Janet will mentor her on how to make herself look good at others' expense. Janet, you see, is responsible for AZ's billion-dollar surplus, not the state legislature that blocked her spending policies.
Sickening.
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.