Posted on 10/19/2006 9:17:17 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
The MSM is going to commit mass suicide on the evening of November 7th.
They think they can mold political results by merely predicting the result they want, but those days are over.
Anything the MSM has to say on this election is useless. The bias is just too great.
Here is an example. CNN's website has a section called "Political Ticker" that has headlines associated with the 2006 election. Here are the current healines:
New political web ads: from "HeadOn" to terrorism
Source: Priest who allegedly abused Foley identified
Sources: House clerk warned GOP about Foley years ago
GOP campaign threatened California Hispanics, says AG
Poll: Half think most members of Congress are corrupt
GOP uneasy -- even in Idaho
GOP gubernatorial ad illegally used classified info
They aren't even trying to hide their bias anymore. They act with impunity.
"The MSM is going to commit mass suicide on the evening of November 7th."
Please oh please let that be true! I'd PAY to see it!
"I'd really love to hear the reasons for your optimism."
Just look at some of the last few elections and how wrong the polls were! One case in point, Bush v. Kerry, Kerry thought he had it all sewn up because of the precious polls and he LOST!!!!!!
It has gotten even worse since then with polls being skewed toward the dems.
It's a good article, pretty well balanced.
Todd's assessment seems like a fair one. On that graphic they have a link to with "key races" I see some surprises. For example, the Graf v Gifford race is rated tossup. I thought most analysts thought the Dem was a sure winner. The OR governor race also is much closer than expected. The Dems expect big state house gains but it might not be as big as they thought. Interesting.
On what basis do you come to that conclusion?
Uhh, the polls weren't 'that' wrong. The GOP won most of the tossups the past two elections, that's all that happened. With the exception of Zogsauce, most of the polls from races we won were in the margin of error.
And we weren't trailing consistently in virtually any of the races we won except Saxby Chambliss in 2002. And even that had a big Saxby uptick in the last few days.
All I'm saying is be realistic. This isn't going to be a good year for us.
Don't you remember the 2004 exit polls?
Polls don't mean jack shit.
Interesting quote from Snow about the media and this election:
"These stories almost look like suppression efforts to bring down Republican morale"
JMO, you'll be crying in your Starbuck's on the morning of Novemeber 8th.
Easy to get these results when you vastly over sample Democrats. Just more of the "surpress the Republican vote turn out" noise.
Recent Polls Outside The Historical Norm For Party ID.
The Corner (National Review?) ^ | 17 October 2006 | Rich Lowry (?)
Posted on 10/17/2006 6:21:54 PM CDT by shrinkermd
Recent Polls Outside The Historical Norm For Party ID. A spate of recent polls paints a very gloomy electoral outlook for GOP candidates in next month's elections. One reason for that, possibly, is a set of samples in recent polls that do not mirror the historical norm for party ID.
A memo circulating among Republicans on the Hill, authored by GOP pollster David Winston, takes a look at the historical spread between Democrats and Republicans in House elections and polling over the last 14 years. According to Winston's analysis, there is a material discrepancy between the party identification listed by people in exit polls (people who actually voted) between 1992 and 2004, and those used over the last few weeks.
In most of the years between 1992 and 2004, Democrats held a slight advantage in party ID. Winston based his data on VNS/Media exit surveys, and concluded in 1992, Democrats held a 3 point advantage; in 1996, they held a 4 point advantage; in 1998, a 1 point advantage; and in 2000, a 3 point advantage. In two election years, 1994 and 2004, the percentages of people identifying themselves as Republicans and Democrats were identical, i.e., no advantage to either party. 2002 was the only year in which Republicans held an advantage over Democrats, with 40% identifying themselves to exit pollsters as Republicans and 38% identifying themselves as Democrats.
In short, between 1992 and 2004, only once did one party enjoy an advantage as large as 4 points over the other in party ID. But in recent polling samples used by eight different polling organizations (USA Today/Gallup, CBS/NYTimes, ABC/Washington Post, CNN/Opinion Research, Newsweek, AP/Ipsos, Pew, and Time), the Democratic advantage in the sample surveyed was never less than 5 points.
All these organizations conducted surveys in early October. According to Winston, the Democrats held the following party ID advantages in these early-October surveys: * USAToday/Gallup: 9 points. * CBS/NYT: 5 points * ABC/WP: 8 points * CNN: did not provide sample party ID details. * Newsweek: 11 points. * AP/Ipsos: 8 points. * Pew: 7 points. * Time: 8 points.
Party registrations shift over time, and many political operatives believe the country starts to gravitate away from a party that has been in power over an extended period of time. Republicans have controlled the House since 1995. Winston acknowledges that possibility in his memo, writing, "It is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that this year's election could fall outside of historical results, but any survey that does should acknowledge that
I'm afraid that I have to agree with you. Everyone here seems to be pooh-poohing the polls unless they're in our favor then the poll must be accurate.
That's the myth alright, but these were the 2004 polling averages in reality:
Most people won't bother to read the article, but Todd does a very fair job at looking at the dynamics in play this year.
I'm not optimistic because I'm cherry-picking polls; I'm optimistic because Rove Foresees GOP Victory.
Go read it, and you'll understand the optimism.
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.