Posted on 11/11/2006 8:24:50 AM PST by NYC Republican
Take a look at Ras' homepage... Look at the closest races, or if you prefer, all of the races they polled. Pretty darned accurate. http://rasmussenreports.com/
Since we know pollsters 'tighten up' the polls right at the end, so they look accurate in analysis's like this one, I want a comparison from two weeks out.
The polls were mostly accurate in 2004. Bush beat Kerry 50.7% to 48.3%. The margin of victory was 2.4%. Most of the major liberal media polls, with the exception of Fox and CNN/Gallup, correctly predicted a Bush victory. Fox predicted a 48%-46% Kerry win, while Gallup projected a 49%-49% tie (their final poll actually showed a 49%-47% Bush lead, but they projected that the undecideds would break for Kerry). Gallup's polling was spot on; their prognositcation was off.
CBS/NYT final poll: Bush 49% Kerry 47%
NBC/WSJ final poll: Bush 48% Kerry 47%
ABC/Wash Post final poll: Bush 49% Kerry 48%
Newsweek final poll: Bush 50% Kerry 44%
LA Times final poll: Bush 49% Kerry 48%
Actual election results: Bush 50.4% Kerry 48.3%
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
all I'm saying is stop discounting all of the polls...
The other open question concerns the three months straight of BREAKING news stories whereby "experts" stated positively that the Republicans were demoralized and gonna lose big.
In other words, did those stories eventually CONVINCE Republicans to be demoralized, or were they demoralized in the first place.
I go back and forth.
After all, if something is repeated enough....
Even normally upbeat Republicans were admitting they were gonna lose three months ago.
Why is that important?
People gravitate to winners.
And people naturally run from losers.
For the 2006 elections, Mason Dixon is the best. Second Raz. Third Survey USA. These are the polling companies to watch.
I think FR has probably learned its lesson. I'd be willing to bet that we'll see a far more realistic approach to the polls around here in 2008. The 2002 and 2004 elections taught Freepers to be skeptics; now this election has taught us that automatic dismissive skepticism is for boneheads. The pendulum has found its center now, I hope.
Nancee
Whats troubling here is that the late minute undecideds swing to the RATS. The question is "Did our base fail to show up or did we bomb out with independents?"
You think we could have saved the Senate and 15 House seats if Rummy stepped down in October as Newt sugguested?
Getting rid of Rummy would have depressed the base even further and made independents look at that as political posturing. The terrorists would have continued their October killing spree with or without Rummy.
Here's Rasmussen's polls from 2-3 weeks before the election:
Montana 10/19: Tester 48% Burns 45%
Rhode Island 10/22: Whitehouse 52% Chafee 44%
Tennessee 10/23: Corker 47% Ford 46%
Virginia 10/24: Allen 50% Webb 48%
Missouri 10/25: Talent 50% McCaskill 48%
Maryland 10/26: Cardin 50% Steele 45%
Two weeks out Talent (R) had edged ahead of McCaskill (D); this later reversed in the final days.
Two weeks out Burns (R) began surging to a narrower loss.
Two weeks out Allen (R) was still clinging to a very slight lead (as the polls showed, he blew that with his idiotic attacks on Webb's books - as if the voters of Virginia are such illiterate dimwits that they don't understand the concepts of fiction and literary realism..)
Two weeks out Steele (R) began narrowing the margin a bit, but was still clearly trailing Cardin (D). Survey USA continued polling this race much closer than any other pollster, reinforcing the rule that one should go with the polling average and not just with the polling results that make you happiest....
Two weeks out the polls showed Chafee (R) well behind. His surge in the final days obviously fell short.
Two weeks out the polls showed a stead Menendez (D) lead that that narrowed when the NRSC began its final ad barrage but then widened in the final week.
The polls never wavered from a very solid and steady Kyl (R) lead.
About two weeks out Corker (R) began to surge immediately after the Playboy party bimbo ad aired.
Two weeks out DeWine (R) was way behind and there was but a slight tightening in the numbers thereafter.
About two weeks out Casey (D) bumped up to a somewhat higher lead than before, although in a bizarre turn much of FR continued to predict a Santorum win with even more intensity than before. Santorum's losing margin was actually considerably worse than the polls indicated.
Two weeks out the polls showed Bouchard (R) trailing rather hopelessly, though again much of FR continued to predict an out-of-the-blue double-digit Bouchard surge. That didn't happen. Instead, Bouchard's polling dropped in the final days, coincidentally right after the NRSC began airing ads that probably more closely tied Bouchard to the national GOP and George Bush in Michigan voter perceptions.
Two weeks out the polls showed Kennedy (R) headed for oblivion though not quite by such an ugly margin as it turned out. Kennedy dropped in the final days but still not as bad as the actual outcome.
Two weeks out the polls showed McGavick (R) well behind and in the final two weeks Cantwell's leading margin in the polls increased a bit more.
Two weeks out the polls showed the same 10 point Lieberman lead over Lamont that foolish people like me disregarded at their peril. ;^)
No, October was too late. It was clear that Rummy needed to go back in the winter and spring when his approval ratings hit 35%.
Opps! I obviously meant to ping you also to post #51.
Just blind luck. ;)
a little bit of both. Swing viters defintiely went Rat in swing districts, and thats where the Rats picked up seats. Additionally our GOTV effort was improved, but not everyone voted for the GOP. The GOP GOTV acually delivered extra votes to the rats
New York, I have made a copy of this and filed it under Important FR posts. I intend to hold you to your promise. Because I am sure that you will have infinitely more success than I did at rousing folks from a state of denial.
IMO we have another one on our hands. There is a widespread conviction here that McCain cannot win the primary. The polls tell us otherwise and ought to be taken seriously, not laughed off.
I think you're being overly optimistic. I've watched how many on this site went from criticizing CFR, Prescription Drug Plan, nation building et al to rabidly supporting it.
I suspect the line in 2008 will be that the pollsters manipulate the polls until the week before the election, so we can't attribute anything to them before that time. While I really enjoy participating on this site, when it comes to some things it's little more than an echo chamber.
So, Rasmussen was pretty decent. So was Survey USA (excepting Virginia) and Mason-Dixon.
Wow, the *final* poll was pretty close. But who cares about the final poll? What about the polls 1, 2 and 4 weeks out?
All of them? I assume you're kidding, right?
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.