Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bits and Pieces, Four Days Out
self | 11/3/06 | LS

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.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: aliens; arizona; cd8; democrats; election; giffords; graf; ls; republicans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141 next last
To: LS

ping for later reading


81 posted on 11/04/2006 5:42:08 AM PST by Deo et Patria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcbc2001
This whole idea that the under 35 group is solid Dem is a MSM lie.

That's why they always say "among likely voters." They know damn well this crowd probably aren't even registered to vote and are telling them what they want to hear (i.e. lie to them) just to get them off their backs. The MSM publishes the polls to demoralize everyone else. Remember Gore and Florida and the stunts they pulled there?

What matters is who is registered to vote and of those, who goes out and actually does it. Of the under 35 crowd, the only voters that are motivated enough to vote are in the military. The Dems are trying to suppress that little detail because by and large the military votes Republican. No wonder they try to disenfranchise the military vote every chance they get.

Now that Kerry has insulted them all, it remains to be seen what happens November 7th.

82 posted on 11/04/2006 5:42:13 AM PST by pray4liberty (School District horrors: http://totallyunjust.tripod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LS

Polling companies do not call cell phones -- only land lines.

The very rich (mostly Democrats) still have land lines, and can get contacted.

A sizable percentage of the working rich and middle class -- strong Republican -- has cell phones, and in a small, but significant percentage of cases (15-20%) only cell phones. That takes them off the radar.

The poor that vote (strong Democrat) have a land lines. Cell-phone only poor (teens and "street entrepaneurs") don't vote and don't matter.

Thus, cell phones skew polls Democrat -- possibly by double digits.


83 posted on 11/04/2006 5:44:58 AM PST by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Intolerant in NJ

SEVEN THOUSAND VOTES? How freakin big is the district? That's a lot of votes to make up.


84 posted on 11/04/2006 5:48:23 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: axes_of_weezles
There is support and there is fantasy.

I have, and do, support Tancredo, I pulled for the closed-borders guy vs. Cannon in Utah. But you need to get real. Show me SOME evidence, anywhere, that Graf is within single digits. And you are utterly clueless as to where my sources come from. I'm an Arizonian, and still have relatives and friends all over the state. And they ain't Dems, and they say your man is toast.

85 posted on 11/04/2006 5:50:45 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker

Geraghty was right on the money in 2004. His "Obe wan Kenobi" was brilliant in his analysis of the Bush race.


86 posted on 11/04/2006 5:52:05 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
My point on "internals" is, if it's from polling, they wouldn't know if they are "good" or "bad." The numbers are simply against them. Again, the math is astounding: for a decent sample, you need 7,000 calls minimum in ONE NIGHT. I seriously doubt ANY polling firm is doing that for most House districts.

BTW, jmaroneps37, who is in the business, said that their research on Rob Simmons in CT showed that the larger the sample, the better the R did consistently. Most of these House samples are 500 peeps.

87 posted on 11/04/2006 5:54:15 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: axes_of_weezles
Don't be a moron. No one is "sliming" Randy, and it's this kind of single-issue mentality that has killed strong pro-border people elsewhere. You are helping to destroy your own issue.

Stating the obvious, that Graf is way behind, is not "sliming" him, esp. when he has cut the lead in half. But if you want an honest and realistic assessment of which GOP seats are lost quickest, I suggest you begin with Graf and Weldon, and worry about the "whys" later.

88 posted on 11/04/2006 5:56:07 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: WoodstockCat

Which is precisely why Steele is likely substantially ahead now. They always underperform for the conservative.


89 posted on 11/04/2006 5:56:45 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

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


90 posted on 11/04/2006 5:57:30 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

I was polled this week , some little polling company which was obviously doing contract work for one of the biggies... I can tell you with absolute certainty that the poll questions were not designed to ilicit the truth and showed absolutely no understanding of the issues they were inquiring about... much like all the polls we've seen where the results are quoted as "99% of people disapprove Bush's methods in Iraq!" but don't differentiate between the dems who want to quit and the rest of us that are PO'd that we aren't putting enough bad guys in bodybags...

This is actually a business opportunity ,, if you run a polling company and simply word your questions correctly and don't skew the results you'll be considered a genius.


91 posted on 11/04/2006 6:21:19 AM PST by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Seeking the truth

Your #29. You are completely right. We got a call from a polling agency last week and I didn't recognize their name. They wanted to speak to the male voter in the house because they already had more women than their quota.


92 posted on 11/04/2006 6:23:50 AM PST by Sal (Once you know they sold USA out to Red China, what do you think they would NOT do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LS; uscabjd; Kahuna; GOPsterinMA; george76; Russ; Don'tMessWithTexas; UNGN; ClaireSolt; ...
I think that the Dems are going to be flattened by the Election Day results!

Senate 2006 Midterm ping.

If anyone wants on or off the Senate 2006 ping list, send me Freepmail.


93 posted on 11/04/2006 6:26:31 AM PST by RobFromGa (The GOP will retain the Senate and House in 2006- Let's Do Something With It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
If the DEMS take the House, Nancy is
NEXT after Cheney to be President.

Is there a more horrible outcome?

And Bush is going to Jakarta in a few weeks.
They really love him in Jakarta---/sarc

94 posted on 11/04/2006 6:30:03 AM PST by cliff630 (whwn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa

I think that the Dems are going to be flattened by the Election Day results!

More data on that thought?


95 posted on 11/04/2006 6:31:48 AM PST by ConservativeGreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa

..if this swings the way I think it's going to, polls as we know them may be history--they will go the way of Voter News Service...


96 posted on 11/04/2006 6:33:51 AM PST by WalterSkinner ( ..when there is any conflict between God and Caesar -- guess who loses?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeGreek
More data on that thought?

Just what I say in my Senate Prediction thread, which I think you have already seen:

SENATE 2006 PREDICTIONS- November 2006 Update

I also agree with Larry (LS), I see single digit House changes, I think a few more that Larry sees, maybe 7-10. We will take the two Dem seats in GA-- 08 and 12! The GOP will hold the House IMHO.

I'm also seeing a stronger chance for DeWine to hold on to his seat in the last three days.

The sweetest win would be Irey over Murtha. Followed by Santorum, and then Steele.

The sweetest loss would be no question-- Chafee.

97 posted on 11/04/2006 6:38:21 AM PST by RobFromGa (The GOP will retain the Senate and House in 2006- Let's Do Something With It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
This is actually a business opportunity ,, if you run a polling company and simply word your questions correctly and don't skew the results you'll be considered a genius.

Great idea. Imagine that...a company stating that they were interested in making accurate predictions, using proper sample sizes, without using biased or trick questions and reporting accurately their methodology. Let's start one Neidermeyer!

98 posted on 11/04/2006 6:39:41 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: LS

Your relatives are using the same sources the national media is: the Arizona Red Star; who openly called for Giffords support yesterday after stumping for her for 5 months. CD8 is not all Tucson.

Immigration is a big deal here. Randy does have other policies, but when pundits like you berate conservatives on a conservative site, it's really helpful.

The gist of your article is dont beleive the media, but beleive them in the case of CD8. Isnt that a tad hypocritical?

You dont want to give a forum for someone you dont have complete comfort with ideologically. Go ahead stump for Giffords, Peterson and the Rats. I do beleive you are wrong. If all voters beleived the media as you do for my district, why even vote?


99 posted on 11/04/2006 6:42:10 AM PST by axes_of_weezles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: LS

You are belittling his chances, that is sliming in my book.


100 posted on 11/04/2006 6:43:01 AM PST by axes_of_weezles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson