Posted on 06/21/2017 2:15:52 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Say, wasn’t Ossoff supposed to win this race sort of handily? Two different polls taken over the past month had him leading by seven(!) points. Between May 10th and June 15th, he led in every poll tracked by RCP except one — and that one was tied. The polls blew it again!
Well … not exactly. Per Sean Trende, note the trend below over the race’s final days, as Handel finally achieved liftoff:
On June 12th Ossoff led comfortably, 49.8 to 45. One week later it was Handel 49.0 to Ossoff’s 48.8. She was actually a verrrrry slight favorite by the time polls opened yesterday morning. She ended up winning by nearly four points, not 0.2, but combine the margin of error with the really obvious late break towards the Republican candidate and there’s nothing all that surprising about last night’s result. Data nerds are laughing at journalists on social media today, in fact, for seeming perplexed that a toss-up race in a red district might have ended up tilting towards the GOP nominee by a number in line with the average poll’s MOE.
Like, you looked at this chart and thought "there's no way Handel wins" -and I should trust you to report a school board meeting accurately? pic.twitter.com/xiEVcnrCct
— Micah Cohen (@micahcohen) June 21, 2017
Three notes about the final numbers. For the second time in eight months, the little-known Republican pollster Trafalgar Group almost nailed a tight race in which the conventional wisdom was pointing the other way. You may remember Trafalgar from the closing days of the presidential election in November, when they boldly predicted narrow Trump victories in Michigan and Pennsylvania — unthinkable upsets at the time. Their final poll of this race had Handel winning by two, making them the only pollster to have her on top since early May. They’re building quite a reputation for final-week surveys with eerily accurate results.
Was the late break towards Handel a straightforward matter of late-deciders in a Republican district coming home to the party or was there something more to it? Last night I kept thinking of what a local GOP chairman told WaPo a few days ago: “I think the [Scalise] shooting is going to win this election for us.” At least one outside group ran an ad (denounced by both Ossoff and Handel) framing the race as a referendum on whether the left’s worst elements would be rewarded after the assassination attempt in Virginia with an Ossoff victory. Handel’s numbers in the chart above began climbing before the shooting, with her average jumping 0.8 points between June 12th and June 13th, but they really took off after the violence on the 14th. She gained nearly three points over the final week of the race. Outraged at the attempted murder of Scalise, Republicans in the Sixth District may have turned out in higher numbers than expected to send a message to Democrats.
Last point, via Nate Silver: Did Democrats place too many of their eggs in this basket?
By the way, Democrats were dumb not to put more resources into South Carolina 5, which elected a Dem to the House as recently as 2008.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) June 21, 2017
Hindsight is 20/20 and South Carolina’s Fifth District is ruby red, making it a much smaller target — in theory — for Dems than the Georgia special election was. Shockingly, though, the South Carolina outcome ended up tighter than the Handel/Ossoff race did. Republican Ralph Norman won by a mere 3.2 points over Democrat Archie Parnell in a district that’s 19 points more Republican demographically than America as a whole. The counterpoint to Silver is that Parnell made it as close as it was only because Democrats didn’t aggressively compete there: Local Republican voters may have assumed Norman would win and stayed home while Democrats turned out en masse, producing a surprisingly narrow Republican victory. If Democrats had gone all-in to promote the race, those lazy GOP voters would have behaved differently. Even so, $23 million was a lot of cheddar to sprinkle on a single House race in Georgia. How would Parnell have done if, say, 20 percent of Ossoff’s haul had been directed his way instead? Fortunately we’ll never know.
No, they just didn’t get them right.
Better question - when have these media polls been correct in recent elections?
The polls are all wrong.
Conservatives are working, they’re not sitting home answering the phone.
Smart people never answer the phone when it’s an unknown caller.
I like my question beeter
I lie to pollsters.
Everybody should.
It’s FUN!.....................
This - and the SC election - are proving one thing to me: we can’t be complacent. Both races were way closer than they should have been. We’ve gotta urge voting in better numbers.
YOU BET LIE AND AVOID ANSWERING THE PHONE.
There is no way to account for this.
Polls aren’t trying to accurately predict a winner.
Polls are trying to persuade the voters; polls are trying to manufacture a winner.
And once again, the polls failed in their mission.
If they paid pollsters on a deferred compensation with a bonus for accuracy, the performance might improve.
excellent question and better too.
Polls are ALWAYS wrong..us Trump voters don’t even respond to these idiotic polls which is why whenever I see some poll showing Trump with 38 percent approval, just add an additional 12 points to that and you have his real approval number
LIBERAL SPIN
Monday:
Wednesday:
No, they just didnt get them right.
Did the polls/media try to make the race closer than it would have been if not for all the attention?
I think this means the Democrats really won . . . or something. These guys need real jobs.
The author makes the assumption that the purpose of the polls was to accurately predict the race... rather than to actively shape it.
I like to tell them what they want to hear.
It makes them happy.
You can actually hear the pollsters, usually young early 20’s, smiling as you answer the questions.
Just spreadin’ the happy around.................
:)
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.