[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.

[zbigreddogz]

It's a good article, pretty well balanced.

[rwfromkansas]

Interesting quote from Snow about the media and this election:

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

[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

[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.