Polling Note

by DemFromCT

We political junkies inhale polls, and are immediately hungry for more. But especially as the myriad House polls add to our enjoyment and understanding, keep in mind the volatility and margin of error in these polls.

A timely Mystery Pollster (Mark Blumenthal) analysis reviews some of the pitfalls of House polling (and be sure to check the comments on these pollster.com offerings - a lot of experienced poll watchers check in). Some of the differences between statewide (Senate and Presidential job approval) and district polling have to do with the voter

Of course, in the top 25 or 30 House races, the candidates (and political parties) have already been airing television advertising. However, if you expand the list to the next 30-40 races that could be in play, the flow of information to voters drops off considerably. Middle-tier campaigns in districts in expensive media markets (like New York or Chicago) will depend on direct mail rather than television to reach voters.

So generally speaking, voter preferences in down ballot races are more tentative and uncertain. The (Democratic affiliated) Democracy Corps survey of Republican swing districts released last week reported 26% of likely voters saying there is at least a "small chance" they may still change their minds about their choice for Congress. When they asked the same question about the presidential race in mid-October 2004, only 14% said they saw a "small chance" or better of changing their mind about voting for Kerry or Bush.

and some have to do with the methodology

This greater uncertainty means that minor differences in methodology can have a big impact on the results. Specifically, pollsters may vary widely in terms of the size of the undecided they report depending on how hard they push uncertain voters...

Nearly half of all the House race polls come from two automated pollsters: SurveyUSA (23) and especially the Majority Watch project of RT-Strategies and Constituent Dynamics (56). Also, more than a quarter of the total (52) are partisan surveys conducted by the campaigns, the party committees or their allies, with far more coming from Democrats (44) than Republicans (8).

The sample sizes for House race surveys are also typically smaller. While national surveys typically involve 800 to 1000 likely voters, and statewide surveys 500 to 600, many of the House polls involve only 400 to 500 interviews (although the Majority Watch surveys have been interviewing at least 1000 voters in each district).

Finally, very few districts have been surveyed by public pollsters more than a few times since Labor Day. Only two of the 25 seats now held by Republicans rated as "toss-ups" by the Cook Political report have been polled 5 or more times. Most of these critical seats have been polled 2 to 4 times. Put this all together, and the results are likely to be more varied and more subject to all sorts of error than other kind of political polls.

Given that, we will have the task of putting the macro environment to gether with the micro data from each district to judge the races. With that in mind, enjoy the polls, and let me offer some gossip from the BBC, worth the price of a cup of coffee:

I have not seen this list - full disclosure here on the lack of first-hand reporting - but a couple of Republican politicos I have talked to have mentioned an internal document which suggests that the Republican party has now given up on 12 of the in-play midterm congressional seats. (Given that you have enough interest to read this blog you probably already know that 15 losses would result in a Democratic party victory next month.)

Apparently the name of the candidate in each "lost" seat has a G next to it - as in Gone. Of course it isn't that they want to bin these fine men and women - they just cannot afford the advertising necessary to keep them in play. In other words, this is an economic rather than a political decision.

What's that mean? We'll see on election day (though the GOP sorely misses Abramoff's cash machine). But on the one hand, don't mistake Republican arrogance and confidence for secret knowledge about October surprises. It's their M.O. and if they don't act confident, their shaky troops will turn an orderly withdrawal into a rout. And don't worry about overconfidence in Democrats. After being out of power for so long, there's no such thing as an overconfident Democrat. Find one, and we'll write about them. It'll be "man bites dog".

Comments

[Jodi]

This is certainly an education.

You live and die the polls. Many deaths, many ressurections, mostly just anxiety.

Subjectivity couched in objectivity, or vice versa?

No teenager ever mulled more over their jump shot.

[DemFromCT]

We in the reality-based community like to have data where possible to back up our "we know because..." It's a different world view. You think too small, and get your info from too small a circle. And you don't challenge what you think you know nearly enough. "They're all the same..". "There's no plan." That's what you say.

To suggest it's just about polls is deliberately pigheaded. Rather, "I think what I think" based on my own experiences and conversations AND I can back up some of it with hard data.

This approach - wait for it - actually allows you to change your mind when you're wrong. That's not how Republicans do it. But it helps you both know when you're winning AND govern afterwards. You should try it sometime. ;-)

[DemFromCT]

by the way, the short take on this one is "polls are fun, but they aren't TRVTH".

[Mimikatz]

Some districts have been polled a fair amount. Last night I posted a few links which I will repeat here:

The TPM Election tracker lists every poll in each district. You have to click on that district. This includes partisan polls.

This site has all independent polls in all races.

I use a combination of polls, candidate websites, local blogs and local news articles, and national pundits like CQ and Cook. The major trends I see borne out by several sources are (1) when Iraq goes up, Bush and the GOP go down; (2) occasional and swing Dems and Indies are coming home to the Dems; (3) people seem to be tiring of attack ads.

Incumbency is powerful until it isn't. Much of the power of incumbency lies in discouraging strong challengers and the money advantage that allows negative ad barrages. The rest is familiarity and in some cases delivering to constituents.

Only the latter is going to help this year in a great many contested races, and, as in NM-01, it may not be enough to counter a well-funded, strong challenger with whom voters are also familiar. At some point incumbency is like gerrymandering--as the old Wall Street saying goes, when the tide goes out, we see who has been swimming naked.

[DemFromCT]

Agreed! That's why I'd rather read you than the WaPo.

Also, what the polls tell us is that many unexpected races are now close. when a tide beaks, it typically breaks one way. anyone think it'll break R? No, of course not. So, the question becomes how big the wave.

data aquisition may help to know, but we won't really know until 11/8.

[William Ockham]

Here's a bit of anecdotal data that I think is interesting in the context of this discussion. Yesterday, the management of the company I work for invited our Congressman to speak at our monthly employee meeting. This guy is running in one of the safest possible Republican seats (suburban Houston, Texas, no serious opposition). He had a very friendly crowd (mostly Republican and unfailingly polite to invited guests). I found his speech interesting for the things he didn't say (and he few things he did say).

He didn't mention George Bush by title or name. He didn't mention his own party affiliation, although he did get in a few stock slams against the Democrats (but not by name) (taxes, spending, and regulations). He mentioned Iraq only in the context of his visit to monitor the elections last year. He didn't mention the Foley scandal, Abramoff, or Tom DeLay (to whom he owes his seat, btw).

He spent a few minutes on issues of special interest to his audience (small business issues), but most of the time he spent talking about immigration and dissing the Senate. He complained quite a bit about the Senate not voting on bills that the House passed. He briefly mentioned the War on Terror (once, in passing), but he made a big deal about his interest in protecting missing and exploited children.

The preliminary conclusions I draw from this are these:

Every Republican is running away from George Bush as fast as he (or the occasional she) can. If you don't bring him up in Houston, where can you talk about him?

The Republican brand has been seriously damaged.

The Republicans fear the nationalization of this election. This is a big switch from the way they've campaigned down here in the past.

[Mimikatz]

More evidence of movement our way in the fundraising dept, where Dems are doing well:

Democratic candidates out-raised their Republican opponents in nearly half of 27 tossup races for the House from July through September, new campaign finance reports show.
Most of the GOP candidates — 19 — had more cash on hand as of Sept. 30. And as of last week, the Republican Party and its allies were spending more heavily in the 27 districts.

Still, independent analysts called the Democratic surge unusual and said it suggests momentum for Democrats going into the final weeks of the campaign.

"Most of the time the late money follows the winner, and the winner is mostly the incumbent," said Stuart Rothenberg, who ranked the 27 races in his Rothenberg Political Report. This year, "the smell of Democratic victory is in the air."

And this means we can challenge in more races, like Colorado. And speaking of polls, in MN-06, Patty Wetterling's lead has grown.

[Jodi]

DemFromCT,

did my example of Democrats coasting on empty (plans) down to the finish line only because the Republicans were laid up in the ditch cause that little twitch of your knee?" --"pigheaded"

:)

I think that I will use a saying that a coach had for a High School All Start game. I like it and have used it a lot since then.

"Cowards die a thousand deaths. The Brave die only once."

As someone above said, the final vote count is all that matters.

I would say that you are a Poll junkie. (Did someone already say that? )

:)

[DemFromCT]

I would say that you are a Poll junkie

oh, yeah. ;-)

it's a feature not a bug.

[terry chay]

IEM agrees with this assessment.

When the Foley story broke, I was hoping for some movement there. This is better than one could have expected.

[demtom]

And that goes to show that the allegedly genius Markets are simply followers of conventional wisdom. In September it was Pubs all the way. What changed? Why, the polls. Why do people persist in quoting this market as if it has unique power to see the future? Any of us can read the papers and change our minds accordingly.

Didn't this group suddenly make Kerry the favorite after the first exit polls were released on Election Day '04?

[DemFromCT]

yes, and i quote agree with demtom. The IEM and Intrade are infallible as long as CW is correct.