Ten days from now, I’ll be trying to figure out what happened. My biggest fear is that people will stay home, discouraged by the steady drumbeat of doom from the Main Stream Media, based on polls that are probably inaccurate. I say this based on several years in the public opinion business. This election is unlike any in history, and the only way to approach it is to vote. Then, if there is reason to be discouraged, do so after the election. Consider this:
…This is the most unpredictable election in my memory, and, indeed, I can’t even think of one that rivals it….
…Consider the tools we usually use to project electoral outcomes. They are, without a doubt, providing as many questions as answers in this most unique electoral cycles.
Usually, an election forecaster makes the bulk of his/her determinations about how an election is going to go based on the polls. But this year, that has proven more difficult to utilize, and for two reasons.
- The Likely Voter Thing: We have been told for years that pollsters use "likely voters" because it provides a more accurate landscape for taking a snapshot of the electorate. After all, what is the use of recording the preferences of voters who aren’t, in all probability, going to vote on Election Day, anyway?
While this is inherently logical, there is a problem with that assessment this cycle. There have always been gaps between the outcomes of polls between "likely voters" and the less restrictive screen of "registered voters." Historically, that gap has equated to better Republican performance among likely voters (as Alan Abramowitz noted over at Pollster a while back). But that hasn’t always been the case. In the Democratic wave election of 2006, the majority of the polls which offered both LV and RV data had their LV screens slightly favoring the Democrat. What’s more (and this could have big implications for 2010): those screens almost universally (75% of the time) overstated the Democratic performance in the race.
Indeed, in the last two election cycles, the "registered voter" screen has been closer to the final outcome more often than the "likely voter" screen. And it wasn’t all that close: the RV screen came closer 57% of the time, the LV screen was closer to the truth 38% of the time, and they split the difference 5% of the time.
Another unique feature of the electoral cycle has been the width of the gaps between RV’s and LV’s. In the 2006 and 2008 cycles, the majority of the gaps between RVs and LVs consisted of gaps ranging from 0 to 2 points. In this election, gaps as wide as 13 points have been reported (an early October CNN poll of Nevada). Of course that has been owed to the most oft-used phrase of the cycle: the enthusiasm gap. More on that later.
- The Pollster Hegemony Thing: Around two months ago, I noted that a majority of the polls in my database for this cycle either emanated from Republican private polling or from Rasmussen (which, of course, could easily be described as Republican public polling). As the trickle became a flood of data (what was, at that time, around 1000 polls is now 2040 and counting), those numbers have changed, but only slightly. Even at this point, 47% of the polls released in this cycle have come from GOP or GOP-sympathetic (read: Rasmussen) sources. By contrast, just 8.5% of the polls have come from Democratic sources.
This can be read two ways. For one thing, in 2006, it was Democratic polls that swamped polls from GOP sources. Read this way, this can be interpreted as a bad sign for Democrats. Republicans are releasing more polls because…well…they can. The data contained in them is data they want to have the public consume. But there is an alternate viewpoint: they can also simply be skewing the reality of the electoral situation. As Nate noted last week, these polls come with a thumb on the scale. If (as has happened this year), twice as many sponsored polls have been come from the GOP side as the Dem side, it will paint a picture that is, perhaps, overly optimistic for the Republicans… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Daily Kos>
I encourage you to read the entire article.
Based on my experience, the polls I have seen, and my knowledge of candidates’ positions, here are my projections. I project that the next Senate will have 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and two Independents, leaving an effective net of 52-48 (counting LIEberman as a Republican). I project that the House will have a slim majority, but there are too many dead heat races to say whose majority it will be. Finally, I project that there is a strong possibility that I have no idea what I’m talking about! There are just too many variables.
So, in conclusion, I urge you to act as if there were no polls. In national races I urge you to vote for Democrats, with the caveat that in rare cases, that is not ethically possible. I could not in good conscience vote for Blanche Lincoln, if I lived in AR, for example.
Vote!
14 Responses to “Don’t Let Those Polls Discourage You!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
TomCat,
It was delightful hearing your voice and getting your sound and solid input directly on the election on Gwen Barry’s “Here Be Monsters” online radio show yesterday! I think you are correct to assert unpredictability this year for all the reasons you stated. Myself, I have a hard time believing that a majority of voters (or even a heavy minority) agree the Tea Party extremism, or that they will outright reject and do an about-face on the path of governance they so strongly supported a mere two years ago. I think our MSM has been short-selling us by presenting spectacle and conflict instead of substance and fact, and part of this has manifested itself in their coverage of teabaggers, whom they seem to overhype and present as legitimate candidates. For this reason, I believe we will maintain slim Democratic majorities in both houses, or, at the worst, the GOP will steal an ultra-thin majority in the House. But the net result will be more gridlock and more obstruction anyway. This current batch of Republicans is more surly and “my way or the highway” than they’ve ever been, and hopefully that will give Obama huge amounts of ammunition to fire at them when he stages a 1948-style comeback win in 2012!
Jack, it was such a pleasure to have been there that, had you scrolled down a bit to today’s Open Thread, you would have found a mention and a link to the show. 😀
The Democrats will be improved by this, because most of the losers will be the Blue Dogs that watered down legislation only to side with Republicans more often than not. If we can hold in both houses, and if the Democrats act to end the filibuster on day one, we may actually see more progressive legislation.
Can Dems end the filibuster? Yes they can. Will they? No, they probably won’t. Sigh…
Dave, I’m hoping that they realize it’s necessary for survival.
Tom this is all about MSM playing games and creating this crap. They say it will be a bloodbath but beyond losing a normal amount of seats I don’t think so.
Jim, I’m not so sure they’re playing games. I think it’s more that they are being lazy.
As a former media worker, I hope the MSM ends up with muck all over their big fat corporate faces and that the stench will cost them readers and viewers. They deserve nothing less.
Agree Leslie, but with a few exceptions such as Keith and Rachel.
I definately agree about Rachel but I’ve never been all that crazy about Keith. Too much drama.
I liker his drama. Catch his special comment tomorrow night.
I agree with Leslie – I don’t watch the polls; I think they’re all bullshit. And I don’t watch the MSM either. And now that I have a DVR, I record all my shows and skip through all the political bullshit ads. Other than the phone calls (I got a phone call from the Warren Township Republican Party the other day – it was a prerecorded message so I couldn’t even yell at anyone, which bummed me out.). So I’m pretty free and clear of the BS surrounding the election cycle. I do watch Rachel and Keith though because I agree with them. I have a feeling we’re going to stick it to the Repubs and Teabaggers this election. 😎 At least I hope so.
I hope you’re right, Lisa, but I doubt it.
Oh how I want to believe the left will have it’s own tsunami and swallow up the GOP, but your prediction seems logical TC. The filibuster rule change is desperately needed and should have been done last year. Come on Dems!!
Thanks Sue. It’s certainly not what I want to say. Part is based on polls. I know which are most and least reliable. Part is based on having traveled all over the country and having an intuitive feel for what people are like in different locales. Part is sheer gut feeling.