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.

One factor in polling that become more important as time goes on is the number of households that use only cell phones -- here in Las Vegas that number is quite large (maybe up to a third) and growing rapidly. Even older people are abandoning land lines because of the problems associated with them (telemarketers...which include pollers). As time goes on, you will get a stronger and stronger Democrat bias (and harder to get a good sample) from land lines as those heavily engaged in economic activity move to cell phones only.

Soros and the Unions and Rich in and out of state Rats are funding her expedition, as well as Tucson taxpeyars.
http://giffordssweetdeal.com/

Was just on a teleconference with Randy. He said his first run was 92% local donors in '04, and the bulk of his monies this campaign is local. He's spent less than half of what all his opposition has and is still in the running.

He supports MSA's for medical expenses. He said Arizona eats between 1 and 3 Billion every year in expenses for illegals. He does not oppose the mine in the Santa Ritas, that there are high environmental hurdles that have to be satisfied. His position on Iraq is to let those doing the fighting determine what their requirements are, and if more funding or support is asked for.

I get upset when folks not from Southern Arizona spout rhetoric like Fitzpatrick about Graf. The Red Star went openly for Giffords today and endorsed her, as if you could not tell for the last 4 months.

He still has a chance. The author of this spiel does not know what's happening in Southern Arizona, otherwise they would not slime Randy - for sure.

Steel appears to be tied in MD, Survey USA

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=15796

Friday, November 03rd, 2006
MD Senate race Tied Again

I am having very good feelings about the Maryland Senate Race. A new poll came out and we have been given some of the internal information:

In the race for Senate, the new survey shows Republican Michael Steele and Democrat Ben Cardin are tied with 47% of the vote. Unlike other pollsters, SurveyUSA has consistently showed the race tied. One explanation: SurveyUSA’s turnout model is 26% black. Of black likely voters, 33% vote for the Republican Steele, who is black. If less than one-third of blacks vote Republican, the Democrat Cardin wins. Other polling firms show both a lower black turnout and less support among blacks for Steele.

In light of the recent and important endorsements that Steele just received, I am wondering if he will just get 33% of the black vote? In the privacy of the voting booth, how many votes will the pasty looking Cardin actually get?

The Fox All-Stars crowd is exceedingly pessimistic.

Wasn't this the same crowd that bought into the exit polls in '04? I'll put my trust in Karl Rove, he knew the exit polls numbers were garbage in '04, and he knows what's going on this year. Also, Newt Gingerich was predicting a republican win in the house and senate, for whatever that is worth.

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.

Need an indicator? What was the Dem primary turnout this year?

I'll bet that's why they keep calling you back...

Good observation. Even in polling, the Dem leaning pollsters live up to the mantra "Vote early vote often!"

;-)

This is perfect to take to my Rep headquarters tomorrow so I can stop the "bleeding" chatter. I can't help but remember "same song 2nd" verse in every Bush tenure election cycle and voila...his traversing the country while D's are hiding helps the enthusiasm. In CA we're hoping Arnold can help the downticket as the D's are really silent. As in Ohio, I believe someone said, it's complacency here too...I hope. Prayers...get out and vote!

Great thread. Excellent analysis. I'm just marking it for future reference. No real comment to add other than to agree with the assessment that it's "technological bias" affecting the polls. Cell phone usage has been discussed, but it's also important to realize that as the years roll on, it's become more and more common practice to screen your land-line calls via the answering machine or caller ID box.

My thesis is that GOPers, being the savvy, humble folk we are, are much less likely to respond to a pollster than independents or democrats (sinch the polls are continually biased against us). The former will go through with it because they're inherently wishy-washy, the latter because they're obnoxiously egotistic and obviously being asked poll questions feeds into that mentality. It'd be interesting to conduct an informal poll here on FR to see what the telephone-answering-especially-relative-to-pollsters habits of contemporary GOPers are.

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

I think it's a combo of a and b. I discount c because they seem to really believe it, but all that tells me is that they have exceedingly short-term memories and are even more disconnected from the Outside-the-Beltway world than I thought.

In 2000, the pollsters said we would lose. We won.
In 2002, the pollsters said we would lose. We won.
In 2004, the pollsters said we would lose. We won.

The day after the 2004 elections, I meant to plow through the previous few weeks' worth of FR posts and collect all the polls and trends and "analyses" that had proven to be dead wrong, specifically so that I could pull it out around late October 2006 and remind everyone of how useless all the predictions turned out to be. For some reason, I never got around to it. I sure regret that now.

I think the Dems may end up complacent in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania exactly because of the polls that show them ahead. I mean, why does Casey even need a GOTV effort? All of his leads are outside the margin of error. Ditto Ted Strickland in Ohio. Democrats have been drinking in months of bad polling on Republicans, why do they feel they need to put in the effort? They're supposed to win anyway, supposedly. Which I think, could prove their undoing.

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

(b) and (d). The inside the Beltway types don't bother going outside of the Beltway and limit themselves to conventional "wisdom".

Around elections, I'm polled 2-5 times. I was polled thursday and most of the questions were loaded.

One that sticks out was, do you agree or disagree with the following statements;

The gov't should provide healthcare for everyone (emphatic no)
The gov't should provide healthcare for only low income households. (uh, repeat that please?)

So if I disagree with the second, I'm agreeing that the gov't should provide healthcare for everyone.

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.