On the Trail: Is This '94? 5 reasons why this will be just like GOP revolution and 5 why it won't

MSNBC ^ | 10/18/2006 | Chuck Todd

[SirLinksalot]

WASHINGTON — There are two ways to look at any election cycle -- by comparing it to past cycles or taking it at face value. The problem for prognosticators is that we have to use both methods simultaneously.

History is my guiding principle on all things political, but I also believe that every election is an individual snowflake.

The similarities between this midterm cycle and '94 are striking, and yet the differences are stark. I've broken down this debate into reasons why the cycles are and are not similar.

The reasons why '06 seems similar to '94 are:

1. One-Party Control: This is probably the single most important similarity framing this cycle. In order for a "change" election atmosphere to work for the minority party, the party in power has to be viewed as in control of everything. And right now it's clear that Republicans are in charge. Still, GOP partisans will argue that no one really controls the Senate without 60 votes, but that doesn't resonate with voters. A Republican is speaker of the House, a Republican is Senate majority leader and there's a Republican in the White House. And thanks to the controversy involving Terri Schiavo, the public presumably views the judiciary as skewing to the right.

Similarly, in '94, there was no denying that the Democrats were in charge. Democrats held all three positions.

2. Unpopular President: Like '94, this president has a job rating south of 45 percent. And because President Bush is a member of the party leading Capitol Hill, his problems are Congress' problems. The thing that ought to scare Republicans a bit more about this cycle, compared with how '94 should have scared Democrats, is that Bush's job rating is hovering just beneath 40 percent.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Actually, it's going to be EXACTLY like '94, with the GOP on top once again.

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.

[Pete]

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.

[SirLinksalot]

Actually, it's going to be EXACTLY like '94, with the GOP on top once again.

Aren't you being wildly optimistic in the face of all the polls that seem to point to the opposite ?

I'd really love to hear the reasons for your optimism.

[LegalEagle61]

"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!

[LegalEagle61]

"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.

[zbigreddogz]

It's a good article, pretty well balanced.

[TNCMAXQ]

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.

[knightshadow]

On what basis do you come to that conclusion?

[zbigreddogz]

Just look at some of the last few elections and how wrong the polls were!

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.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Aren't you being wildly optimistic in the face of all the polls that seem to point to the opposite ?

Don't you remember the 2004 exit polls?

Polls don't mean jack shit.

[rwfromkansas]

Interesting quote from Snow about the media and this election:

"These stories almost look like suppression efforts to bring down Republican morale"

[Dane]

All I'm saying is be realistic. This isn't going to be a good year for us.

JMO, you'll be crying in your Starbuck's on the morning of Novemeber 8th.

[SirLinksalot]

All I'm saying is be realistic. This isn't going to be a good year for us.

Exactly... but note -- don't be too pessimistic as well. I suspect these talk of a major landslide that will give Congress ( both upper and lower house ) to the Dems are widely over-optimistic.

My personal read is -- GOP still controls both houses, albeit with diminished majorities.

This will be good for 2008. It'll teach the GOP that if they campaign as conservatives, they have to put their money where their mouth is and if they campaign on keeping a high ethical standard in office, they darn well better be ethical. I can't tell you how much time we've wasted on issues like Abramoff, Delay and Foley.

Also, I'd really love to see the Uber-Rino Lincoln Chafee go and Joe Lieberman win. That'll show the left how un-attractive their foolish cut-and-run position is with the American people.

[MNJohnnie]

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

[surrey]

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.

[AntiGuv]

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!!!!!!

That's the myth alright, but these were the 2004 polling averages in reality:

2004 Presidential Election Polls

[tobyhill]

I was just reading about how pollsters have gotten it so wrong for the past 10 years and it has to do with who and how they call. The pollsters use Automated Random Dialing and may only get 1 out of every 10 calls answered and more than likely will support a Democrat.

1) Ones that support Democrats are more likely to be unemployed and are at home when the pollster call.

2) Republican supporters are less likely to be victims of ID theft because they won't answer questions from people claiming to be pollsters.

3) Republican supporters usually have high speed internet and more likely to have VOIP telephone which numbers are usually not listed in data bases that pollsters use.

4) More Republican supporters use only cell phones than a home phone which are also not in a pollsters data base.

5) Democrat supporters believe there is some sort of benefit following a pollster so they are more likely to tell a pollster what they think they want to hear than a honest answer.

6) The people hired to actually ask the questions are low wage telemarketers that read from a script and the way they ask often influences the way it's answered.

I think the Republicans may lose some seats but it will only be a modest handful mainly due to open seats. I believe a poll done with proper calculations would indicate the President with a 45% approval rating and congress being favored by Dems by a 48% to Republican 46% and 6% it doesn't matter.

[GraniteStateConservative]

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.

[TonyInOhio]

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.

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.