The Lay Of The Land: The Aggregate Polls, And The Voter Who Shows

by DemFromCT

Andy Kohut of The Pew Research Center was interviewed on NPR about the recent Pew Poll. He noted that while the voter sentiment hasn't changed, what has changed is Republicans are more energized than they were. The poll was adjusted to reflect that, and there we have the explanation for the poll tightening. Subgroups who have a Dem lead (but not as much as before) include women and independents. The slew of polls we covered yesterday looked at those subgruops as well.

The WSJ has a free article this am looking that the all-important swing voter.

The 2006 midterm elections could go down in the books as the year that Karl Rove's strategy of energizing the Republican base reached its limits, and Iraq opened the door for Democrats to court disaffected independent voters.

As voters head to the polls tomorrow, Republicans still hope to hold on to power in Congress by mobilizing conservative supporters and using negative ads to taint Democrats and suppress their turnout. But this time, with Democrats making a strong bid for at least the House, the outcome could rest more on voters who aren't hard-core party loyalists.

"There are some elections where the fear of the status quo is greater than the fear of change," says Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster. "This is one of those elections."

How much change could depend on how voters -- particularly independents -- resolve these questions: How much has Iraq trumped the larger war against terror, which two years ago was the president's great link to swing voters? How effectively have Republicans used a tough-on-immigration and antitax posture to counter the erosion of support for the war? How unshakable is the economic pessimism in the Midwest? And what is the lasting impact of political scandals, topped by former Rep. Mark Foley's sexual approaches to former teenage pages?

It's not that all of a sudden Bush and Iraq became popular on Friday. What happened over the weekend is interviews suggested that as unhappy as Republican voters are, they'll hold their nose and vote for the GOP. To that extent, the GOP "play to the base" campaign worked as designed.

The importance of likely voter models therefore should be appreciated. Gallup's been doing theirs for a long time, yet in a wave election, the sentiment for change can be underestimated (by definition, the LV model isn't based on changing from the past). Frank Newport thinks it looks like 1994, and the difference is strong enough to take the House.

The different polls have their own way of looking at the situation. Charles Franklin is plotting the generic ballot changes at pollster.com for the election, and has looked at the last set of polls (click here and scroll to see the individual poll discussions at Daily Kos). Click the pic for a bigger version. The blue line in each of the graphs represents the aggregate generic ballot difference.

Prof. Franklin says

While these shifts this MAY signal a sharp change of opinion going into the weekend, the magnitude of the drop is quite uncertain with only three polls. We routinely see lots of variation across polls, especially when looking at the generic ballot margin. Nonetheless, the shifts have been enough to convince my "local regression" estimator (the blue line in the figure) to turn down for the first time in a while. Since the blue trend line considers ALL the polls, it is not overly sensitive to single polls, though the combined weight of Gallup, ABC/WP and Pew is enough to move it down about 4 points, from +15 to +11 for the Dems. It is likely that the individual polls are overstating the extent of the downturn. The trend estimator captures the "signal" among all the "noise" from poll to poll. It would take more polls to "know" how much this downturn really represents. But the "poll" taken on Tuesday will answer the question for sure.

However, the current estimate of the Democratic lead based on the trend of all recent surveys remains at roughly +11. While down from the peak of early October, check my post and comparison graphic from earlier this week.  The final Democratic advantage has not been over 10 points (or even close) in the last 12 years. 

As discussed previously on this blog, there's a "natural tightening" that occurs as the loose voters decide whether they fear change more than they dislike the status quo. Those that decided long ago for change were picked up by the polls early. The late deciding swing voter will decide this election.

Pew says they may or may not show. Gallup says they might will. TIME and Newsweek say they will. We'll see on Tuesday. But, when you think about it, this is something that we've always known, at least if you've been coming here and reading us.

Comments

[p.lukasiak]

One big tactical failure on the part of the Democrats is that they let the media and the GOP partially redefine the election in terms of "what will happen if the Democrats win?" --- without forcing the question "what will happen if the GOP stays in power?"

Instead of allowing the question to be about "speaker Pelosi" on the gabfests, Dems should have turned the question around, and pointed to "speaker Hastert" as the real issue --- yet they never did. Hastert is inextricably linked to the Foley scandal, and reminding voters of that would have been a good idea...

[al-Fubar]

Doesn't this tightening at the end almost always happen, as voters "come home?" God knows we've been at the losing end of it often enough.

I also seem to recall that movement picked up in the last round of polling often stalls or reverses in the last 48 hours, too late to be detected in the polls.

Wavering voters are probably voting for the less frightening outcome, weighing fear of the unknown against fear of staying the course. When the headline is "Dem Wave!" they are pushed toward the Republicans, because they are staring at the specter of change and uncertainty. But when the headline changes to "Polls Tightening!" the most immediate fear becomes getting more of the same ... which could push them back toward the Dems.

[Mimikatz]

p lukasiak is right. I was thinking this am that the Dems should have run commercials saying "Ten more years of war in Iraq: That's what is at stake if the Republicans win Congress. If you want change, vote Dem on Nov 7!"

I still thinkl we will win enough seats to take the House, and I'm betting that there will be some seats that surprise the GOP incumbents, the GOP and the pundits--seats on no ones radar that the GOP KITV machine missed.

There are enough seats in NY and the West if we just take 9-10 in the areas where polls close at 8:00 Eastern. It's going to be ok even if it isn't as big as I wanted. Stay calm.

[Jodi]

The inertia will carry the House for the Democrats, though the Sadam verdict is helping the Republicans.

"Stay calm" quote by Mimikatz

What Mimikatz? You now feel it necessary to treat the [Enraged], [Engaged] and [Ernest] Democrats like a bunch of frightened rabbits?

[Jodi]

For DemFromCT,

another of my metaphors.

You got to keep playing until they run you off the court.

:)

[freepatriot]

the repuglican candidate for Florida's Governor wouldn't appear beside george bush

you're doin a heck of a job KKKarl

tommorrow the repuglican party will be greeted as liberators

cue the flowers

ROTFLMAO

[demtom]

My ancient home computer has been acting up and preventing me from posting here the past few days -- which has been maddening at such a key moment.

Equally maddening has been the poll craziness. I suggested here a week ago it was best to simply stop listening to new numbers, but, of course, I failed to take my own advice, and succumbed to some of the emotional contagion -- finally having to snap CNN off, as they were in full Dewey Defeats Truman mode. (ABC, surprisingly, was better balanced -- though their own poll was one of the sources of worry, they took care to note that Bush campaigning in deep-red territory even yesterday was hardly a positive sign for the GOP)

I was obviously happy to see today's (better) polls, but even last night I gave myself a good talking to: forcing myself to remember that a landscape shaped over the course of an entire year is unlikely to be sharply changed in a few days. There will always be some people contending such (CNN had a poll a few days out from Election '92 saying it was suddenly a 1-point race). There is always back-and-forth involved in voters' minds -- when change is at issue, by definition you're talking about people voting for a different party than they did last time -- but, especially when times are bad, the electorate tends to stick with we-need-change when they hit the voting booth. They certainly did in '74, '80, '92 and '94.

As for why polls suddenly went south Sunday, and came back up today -- maybe it's like al-Fubar suggests, a shift followed by a stall. Or maybe, like Chuck Todd suggested the other night, polls mostly taken at the height of the "Kerry Crisis" would present the GOP best case, and things floated back to status quo as soon as that passed.

All I know is, I want to fast-forward to midnight tomorrow night, and be assured we'll all be in good moods then.

[DemFromCT]

demtom, it's none of the above. The polls show the same numbers, but the LV modles are skewing the numbers. new post tyo follow.

[al-Fubar]

An analyst on one of the cables (alas, I don't remember whom) confirmed my recollection. In 1994, the last round of polls showed a sharp tightening that made it look like Dems might dodge the bullet. The trouble was it turned out to be a shotgun blast.

[Paul Lyon]

``But the "poll" taken on Tuesday will answer the question for sure.''

Are you sure about that? For example, did the D's in Ohio make enough of a fuss, preferably in the form of filings for court injunctions, to prevent the vile Kenneth Blackwell from putting more voting machines per expected turnout in R precincts than in D precincts? Will we read tomorrow night about long waits in Cleveland or Columbus city precincts and short waits in suburban/ex-urban precincts?

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

Paul Lyon, I happened to talk today with someone who has many contacts in Ohio. Parsing what I heard, the Republican corruption, incompetence, and fecklessness is now so evident that **the suburban precincts** will be electing Dems this year. The suburbs aren't going to save the R's, no matter what crap Blackwell tries to pull.

The polls have been especially important this year, even if only to set expectations that -- statistically, anecdotally -- there's no way the R's can hang onto the House. Republican claims of electoral 'wins' will simply not be plausible. Listen to some of the background in the news reports; the Republican's have to bring their mothers to their fundraisers and events, whereas the coverage of Dem events started exuding optimism in mid-September. And it's been building: look at the sales of "State of Denial," the dwindling Faux News ratings, the headlines and endorsements around the nation (especially in places like Boise and Denver), the viewership of blogs, increased activism (almost all Dem), plus the kind of money the Dems have pulled in this year.

It's all over but the shoutin' for the Republicans, no matter what crap they try to pull with voting machines.

[janinsanfran]

Out here in Tracy, CA turning out vote for Jerry McNerney, we keep finding the Sierra Club's doorhangers on our target doors with exactly the message suggested here: "Vote for Change." I've taken to saying it to the undecided (yes they still exist -- we have to move them and then turn them out, still) and it works. They want change.

Just anecdotal of course.

[vwcat]

The year Rove was shown for who he really is: not a mystic or brain but, an unprincipaled, sleazy operative who played the same hand one too many times.

[wuuzzee]

An advice for 2008 and further:

Use guerilla voting tactics!

Register as a republican, vote for a GOP-Loser in the primary, but vote dem in the elections.

Voters in GOP-unpopular minority areas should do that to keep their voting right safe from voting suppression measures. If the GOP thinks you’re gonna vote for them, they most likely won’t touch your voting rights.

[Paul Lyon]

reader of tea leaves wrote:

``It's all over but the shoutin' for the Republicans, no matter what crap they try to pull with voting machines.''

I hope you are right but there are many consituencies (state as well as federal) which are very close, including some in Ohio. Those are the ones to watch out for hanky-panky. (As far as I can see, nothing will save the vile Blackwell's gubinitorial bid, thank goodness. :-)