2010: Will Dems be saved by those awful, awful, AWFUL Republicans?
[Posted by Karl]
The tide of bad polling data for Pres. Obama continues to roll in, with people disapproving of his handling of every major issue. Allahpundit, ever the skeptic, wonders if some of the data is simply too grim to be true.
The establishment media and the Leftosphere certainly thinks so. The WaPo’s Chris Cillizza emphasizes that the newest WaPo/ABC News poll suggests “the GOP still faces serious perception problems in the eyes of the American public”:
And, perhaps most troubling for GOP hopes is the fact that just 20 percent of the Post sample identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest that number has been in Post polling since 1983. (No, that is not a typo.)
These numbers, coming roughly one year before the 2010 midterm elections, show that any celebration on the GOP’s behalf is premature as the party has yet to convince most voters that it can be a viable alternative to Democratic control in Washington today.
Ed Morrissey explains why he thinks the new WaPo poll is a bit fishy. He is right that Democrats winning the generic Congressional ballot by twelve points (51%/39%) is way out of line with other polls. Pollster.com’s poll of polls currently has Dems +2.9%. However, Ed also complains about the WaPo/ABC News sample (33% Dems, 20% GOP) — which is close to the Pollster.com average for adults, though the average for registered and likely voters shows a much smaller gap, with the GOP gradually gaining on the Dems. (Larry Sabato thinks the Party ID totals in WaPo/ABC poll are very misleading, though that’s because he knows that voting behavior is more important.)
Regardless of the merits of the WaPo poll, Cillizza’s indictment of the GOP it is what the Leftosphere wanted to hear, and they lapped it up. Indeed, it is the continuation of a hypothesis developed in the Leftosphere — perhaps most articulately by Brendan Nyhan — that the GOP brand is so damaged that the 2010 Congressional campaign will not end as badly for the Dems as the 1994 campaign. The current net negatives of the GOP should be cause for concern, though the lefty fans of this theory tend to gloss over that the trend is increasingly negative for the Dems, too. Moreover, as Nyhan himself admits, the generic Congressional ballot should (in principle) take much of this difference into account.
Furthermore, when Nyhan first floated his theory, Charlie Cook pointed out how this ignored the actual political terrain on which the 2010 campaign will be waged, and Nyhan’s response is weak. Similarly, Cillizza’s assessment of the GOP’s poll numbers does not match up so well with his current analyses of Senate and House campaigns.
There is not much disagreement across the political spectrum that the GOP needs to get its act together, and that most the polling data now reflects disapproval of Pres. Obama and the Democrat-led Congress, as opposed to approval of the GOP. However, the notion that all of the data showing the GOP gaining near-parity with the Dems on the generic ballot (not to mention the recent WSJ/NBC poll showing re-elect numbers for Congress as bad as in 1994) should be discounted due to the GOP’s poor poll numbers on issues is wishful thinking. The hypothesis does not account for the scenario in which people disapprove of both parties and thus vote GOP to create gridlock. Moreover, the hypothesis it is not borne out in the current polling for actual 2010 campaigns.
—
Update: Kellyanne Conway has a deeper look at the WaPo/ABC News poll. It turns out there is a problem with the sample that emerges when you look at the composition of Republican and Democrat “leaners.” However, that does not affect the generally poor numbers for the GOP across a range of polls, or the main points of this post.
–Karl
Other factors to consider:
National polls of party affiliation are less important than local affiliation, and in particular, in battleground districts which may have significantly different breakdowns.
To some extent, elections are Democrat-v-Republican, but they are also conservative leaning-v-liberal leaning, and ‘conservative’ polls much better than ‘Republican’… and, of course, better than ‘liberal’.
2010 will be a referendum on Obama and the incumbents, and with fewer incumbents, the GOP gets the benefit of simply being the ‘other guy’, especially if voters remain unhappy with the economy.
This isn’t to say that the GOP can’t and won’t shoot itself in the foot again.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 10/21/2009 @ 9:38 amPerhaps the Dems are trying to create some momentum for themselves.
TheAudacity (2fd5ad) — 10/21/2009 @ 9:40 amthough the lefty fans of this theory
If words like “lefty” or certainly “progressive” reflect a sentimental, big-benefit-of-the-doubt judgment of people’s philosophy, and a sense that the stereotype of a person of the left being more big hearted and concerned about hardship and unhappiness — sort of like a mommy or nursemaid — than, yea, there are enough folks throughout society (including closeted liberals) to give the upper hand to “progressives,” in polls or at the voting booth.
Mark (411533) — 10/21/2009 @ 9:43 amThe skewed WaPo poll was probably the result of multiple bot calls to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 10/21/2009 @ 9:45 amI think the NY-23 race is very important. It could be a wake-up call to the RNC. Right now, I believe the RNC still doesn’t get it and is just going with “we have a different letter” type stuff in their local picks.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 10/21/2009 @ 9:49 amPolls don’t vote – people do. And they sometimes lie to pollsters.
I know I do.
mojo (8096f2) — 10/21/2009 @ 10:14 amHmm asking random adults which party they identify with is like asking men on the street about fabric softner
EricPWJohnson (94fbdd) — 10/21/2009 @ 10:15 amAre we sure this poll wasn’t farmed out to Acorn to conduct?
quasimodo (4af144) — 10/21/2009 @ 10:17 amWhich is generally more truth-y, Karl? The polls themselves, or the memes the MSM chooses to push from the polls?
JD (d71a7a) — 10/21/2009 @ 10:31 amPeople are going to go to the polls because Democrats forced them too. Democrats lied to the people about three clear things spending, ethics, and the war. People have a strong grasp of the fact that Bush never really was in power due to the media saturation propping up the sagging democrats so in a tidal wave picked up only a small wading pool of seats – all very vulnerable
EricPWJohnson (94fbdd) — 10/21/2009 @ 10:31 amI predict if Democrats are successful in passing health care reform over the protests of the voters and then pass cap and trade. The Republicans can regain control of both houses by running on the campaign of repeal.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (a01503) — 10/21/2009 @ 10:36 amJD,
I have a problem referring to polls as truthy, but I also have a problem with the commenters on this same post at HA who simply don’t believe in polling.
It’s sort of like saying I don’t believe in hammers. In fact I do believe in hammers, but my trust in carpentry depends on the carpenter.
It’s a variation on my usual explanation that analyzing polling is as much art as science — and I have a big problem with the media which (perhaps due to bias, but more likely ignorance) treats them as more scientific than they are. Understanding the sample, question wording and sequencing, heuristics etc. are generally beyond the ken of the avg journo, let alone the person on the street (and I think this WaPo poll has problems with most of the above).
Thus, if you read in the Leftosphere, you will see this recurring bafflement over the fact that elements of ObamaCare are popular, but ObamaCare is not popular overall. They don’t understand how the underlying biases that find their way into these polls produce some of these results, and they ignore the polling showing a basic lack of trust in the ability of Big Gov’t to deliver on the promises of ObamaCare.
Actually, even attempts at “objectivity” in polls like these carry a risk. Pollsters spend time coming up with questions they believe are neutral (and fail a fair amount of the time). But even assuming “neutral” questions, few ever stop to consider that the issues themselves will not be discussed neutrally in the political sphere. That’s why I find it interesting — and write about it — when Democracy Corps or Kaiser actually polls on opinion in light of the arguments that are likely to be made in the political sphere. ObamaCare has never held up very well in that environment, which is the sort of environment we are only really getting to now, as bills are prepared for debate.
Karl (57ffa9) — 10/21/2009 @ 11:19 amThe opportunity for a center-libertarian party has never been greater, and may never be greater.
Both mainstream parties have dragged themselves over to their most authoritarian edge (whether it’s economic control for the Dems, or social control for the Reps) and most of the voters aren’t thrilled being controlled. Worse, neither party has any fiscal discipline, or even apparent fiscal competence. When my wife is convinced she could run things better they are really in trouble!
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 10/21/2009 @ 11:23 amNote that I don’t consider the current Libertarian Party as viable — pretty much the People’s Front of Judea.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 10/21/2009 @ 11:25 amI thought it was the Judean People’s Front?
Polls are bad because:
1) Questions are asked/written to skew results in one direction
2) True random sampling is beyond most groups’ ability to conduct
3) Viewers/listeners to poll results are generally less than savvy; easily misguided
4) Bloggers/media outlets rarely include polls favoring issues/people they endorse (unless to poke holes in that poll)
Unless a polling organization steps up and is recognized as unbiased by the vast majority, the results of any poll is suspect. Even Pollster’s poll of polls.
The general public has been saturated by poll numbers and trend analyses – they are shell-shocked, disinterested, non-believers, skeptics, ignorant, take-your-pick of one or more from the above. If they believe something, they’ll find a poll to back them up. If they change their mind, they’ll find another poll.
Corwin (ea9428) — 10/21/2009 @ 11:45 amA few points come to mind regarding these poll results:
– the oversampling issue
– the desire of disinterested people to claim to be on the “right side” of an issue as framed by the MSM
– the differences in voting behavior vs answering poll behavior
– the number of former Republicans (myself included) who now when asked say specifically that they are Conservative – not Republican. As noted, the number of self-described Conservative number was 38%
– many Independents who voted for Obama a year ago are abandoning his ranks as they see now what change Obama has in mind. If you look at Fox viewer demographics, you’ll see that skepticism in the growing number of liberals and independents tuning in to Fox for news and perspective they can’t get elsewhere. As the Obama administration knows, once you’ve seen what the MSM is hiding, your support of Obama drops.
– wait until Health Care and Cap & Trade are ramrodded through (again), then the truth comes out bit by bit about the true costs and loss of options and freedom in the everyday things that matter (like health care) and we’ll see if the Dem numbers hold up
I believe that by a year from now, many Americans will gladly vote to throw a monkey wrench into the Obama steamroller’s gears…
in_awe (a55176) — 10/21/2009 @ 11:47 amThanks, Karl. Polls just seem like a lazy tool for the media to create stories based on their flawed methodologies and biases, to this very humble and biased observer.
JD (07f478) — 10/21/2009 @ 11:48 amLOL… Wapo’s historical lowpoint is 1983? 1984, the GOP won 49 states in the electoral college! They have to tilt things to cover up the real story, but can’t get away with it in the internet era.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/21/2009 @ 12:02 pmCorwin writes:
and
I would say there is some of both, which is the danger of generalizing about what the public thinks, even about polls.
And in most of the media polls, the skew is more subconscious than intentional. Ed Morrissey’s discussion of the WaPo question on the public option (link in original post) is instructive in this regard. I doubt that the person(s) who drafted that question saw it as biased. It is more likely that the drafter is simply so locked into a lefty mindset that the problem with the question never enters their radar screen. And — as I have noted before — the lack of follow-up questions masks the shallowness of support also.
Other polling questions are not nearly so prone to these forms of bias. The generic ballot is one such question — though it is of limited use (and usually understates the GOP by a few points). Re-elect numbers would be another example. Party ID is prone to a number of problems, one of which is hinted at by in_awe. People will shift in and out of Independent status depending on how embarrassed they are by the party they normally support. Most recently, liberals have become more prone to say they are Dems, while conservatives have become less likely to ID with the GOP. But for a given moment in time, it is possible to look at the Party ID numbers (w/ and w/o leaners) to get a basic sense of things, e.g., that the WaPo poll sample here was more to the Left than other recent polls.
Karl (57ffa9) — 10/21/2009 @ 12:12 pmDustin (18) makes a good point about the irony of the 1983 low point — though the GOP was a long way from capturing Congress then. You can find other polls with low GOP favorability from the 1993-94 period also. Another possibility the lefty hypothesis fails to address is the degree to which favorability is a leading indicator, when one could argue it’s a lagging indicator to some degree. Ppl in the middle like to have confidence that our system produces good results, so there is likely some bandwagon effect in favorability numbers.
Karl (57ffa9) — 10/21/2009 @ 12:17 pmIronically, they used to claim to be moderates, believing that their Leftist views were, in fact, moderate.
JD (07f478) — 10/21/2009 @ 12:25 pmOr centrists … forgot that one. The MSM likes to use those classifications for liberals as well.
JD (07f478) — 10/21/2009 @ 12:31 pm“Washington Post Poll: Only 20% Identify As Republicans, Lowest Since 1983”
“Reporting on the new ABC/Washington Post poll has mostly focused on support for a public health care option. But the poll also shows that, while Republicans have succeeded in stonewalling Democratic initiatives in Congress, they have not managed to rebuild their party.
Only 20 percent of respondents identified themselves as Republicans — the lowest number since 1983.
“These numbers, coming roughly one year before the 2010 midterm elections, show that any celebration on the GOP’s behalf is premature as the party has yet to convince most voters that it can be a viable alternative to Democratic control in Washington today,” wrote Chris Cillizza.
George Stephanopoulos adds:
Only 19% trust Republicans in Congress to make the right decisions for the country’s future — compared to 49% trust in Obama. In addition, President Obama outpaces his fellow Democrats on the Hill — by 15 points — in this measure, providing some ammunition to the perpetual White House argument to Democratic members that their political success is inextricably linked to the president’s. And unlike other recent polls, ABC-Post give Democrats a 51-39 edge in the generic Congressional ballot.
Of course, the poll also has some troubling news for President Obama. Among Democrats, strong approval of the president’s handling of health care has dropped 15 percentage points since mid-September.” – source, huffingtonpost.com, 10/20/09
Hmmm. Seems appropriate for the GOP to be whistling past the graveyard having scared off independents as Halloween approaches. Perhaps their ‘boos’ mask their ‘boo-hoos.’
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 10/21/2009 @ 12:44 pmA Post-Modern Centrist….
AD - RtR/OS! (748050) — 10/21/2009 @ 12:46 pmSomeone whose only criticism of the North Koreans is the use of the goose-step by parading army troops.
Perhaps I haven’t been around long enough, or don’t know my history well enough – but I believe citizen’s distrust of both parties and the Federal government (in general) are at an all-time high. And opting for a lesser of two evils approach is no longer a desireable (or sought after) option.
Corwin (ea9428) — 10/21/2009 @ 12:47 pmPeople want someone who isn’t Dem or Rep, perhaps not even Lib or Cons – given how those running for office try to label themselves based on who they want voting for them, rather than the views they hold.
Perhaps for this reason, more people (voters) are having a tougher time identifying themselves when only given Dem, Rep, Lib, Cons as choices.
I can’t throw all the bums out because there would be no one left to vote for. (Except Sarah Palin) 🙂
You really are an idiot, IMP. Can you read, or do you just copy and paste drivel from HuffandBlow?
JD (07f478) — 10/21/2009 @ 12:52 pmDCSCA: “And unlike other recent polls, ABC-Post give Democrats a 51-39 edge in the generic Congressional ballot.”
Oh yeah, like this is really and truly beliveable. DCSCA, can you say bias? (Not that any arm of the ObamaMedia would EVER be biased.)
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 10/21/2009 @ 12:58 pmDCSCA, see post #15, part 3). I believe you fit that description.
Corwin (ea9428) — 10/21/2009 @ 1:00 pmKarl @ 20,
you’re right that favorability is a backwards indicator.
However, what I think is happening is that the pollsters are changing the sample to get results that ‘feel right’. They don’t see how certain issues could swing so wildly, but the only way to maintain this view is to accept a wild change in the number of republicans sampled. Like you say, polling is an art, and this is where these pollsters have to outright guess.
We can still see the trends. If 4 out of 5 Americans are not Republicans, then Obama is massively failing to translate his massive mandate into policy, public support of policy, or even approval. I do think the GOP has managed to alienate everyone from PUMAs to Palin fans, but the real story is that Obama’s ideas are surprisingly poorly accepted.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/21/2009 @ 1:09 pmIn other words, low GOP weighting in polls is a natural reaction that will occur many times the democrats lose public support too rapidly for the pollsters to believe.
Pollsters will attempt to moderate and water down anything, so as to reduce their exposure to embarrassment, and this is how they are doing it. This weighting nonsense is never on the money anyway, and no one cares as much as they care that OBAMA HAS 50% APPROVAL, etc.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/21/2009 @ 1:13 pmAre nominations closed for this years Baghdad Bob Award? If not, I nominate Chris Cillizza. What other American journalist so thoroughly embodies the example set by Baghdad Bob?
Now, I acknowledge the field is awash with worthy candidates, but Cillizza has conspicuously distinguished himself. Indeed, few journalists are so transparently corrupt as to offer the very mechanism of deceit as proof of the deception’s veracity.
Perfidy at Cillizza’s level has been virtually unknown in the Western World, and deserves to be recognized and identified as an outstanding example of the blending of Internationalism and diversity in the field of current American journalism.
I’m confident Cillizza’s contributions fully qualify him to kneel at the feet of totalitarians everywhere.
ropelight (360224) — 10/21/2009 @ 1:17 pmI lost a long comment in another server seizure. Anyway, NY 23 is a major indicator this year. here is what Jim Geraghty says:
It’s Time for the RNC and NRCC to Ask for Their Money Back
Earlier this week, I was noting that it was unrealistic for conservatives to expect national Republican committees, like the RNC and National Republican Congressional Committee, to do anything but back the Republican in New York’s special congressional election.
But the situation has changed.
It’s not just the inanity of Dede Scozzafava’s campaign calling the cops on a reporter; it’s doubling down and calling McCormack a liar. With audiotape now exposing the Scozzafava campaign as the liar in their account of the candidate’s interaction with John McCormack, it’s a different ballgame. I’m actually finding myself driven to a position beyond the editors.
It’s time for the NRCC and RNC to cut their ties, and more. It’s embarrassing enough when a candidate won’t answer reasonable questions from reasonable press and her campaign attempts to smear them in order to cover up their mess. Forwarding McCormack’s e-mails to Talking Points Memo just shows how upside-down the Scozzafava campaign is.
The time has come for the RNC and NRCC to ask for their money back. This goes well beyond any reasonable difference on policy. There’s room in the party for pro-choice Republicans and pro-gay-marriage Republicans and maybe even the odd pro-card-check Republican. But not this kind of arrogance, this kind of clumsy dishonesty, this kind of reckless hostility to a reporter and a publication that need not be an enemy.
I sent an e-mail to Glenn Reynolds last weekend on this race and he posted it. The GOP has got to figure out that this is another Perot year. The old BS pols are not going to make it. They have to figure out that the tea party folks are mostly libertarian, concerned about taxes and spending. The rest is secondary.
A second theme is weakness with foreign policy but the economy is the key. They need to recruit the right candidates and get the dead wood to retire. In 1994, the guy who really was the brains of the House, aside form Armey who is involved with the tea parties, was Bill Paxson. he was forced out by Gingrich but Newt quickly cashed in and lost his tactical sense. Novak’s book is scathing about Gingrich.
I sure hope they figure it out. I wonder if Steele is up to it. He does seem to be raising money but they’ve got to get the message out. Look at this:
Democrat John Tanner has represented Tennessee’s eighth district in Congress since 1989. The last time he faced serious opposition was 1994. He ran unopposed last year, and won 99.97 percent of the vote. He is the epitome of a longtime, well-known, well-established Democratic Blue Dog with a wide-ranging network of connections and supporters.
Stephen Fincher is a farmer and gospel singer who has never lived outside of the perfectly-named Frog Jump, Tennessee. His biography prominently mentions his work as a Little League coach and performances in the family singing group since age nine. He is the epitome of a not-well-known, non-traditional, unlikely political candidate and longshot challenger.
Last quarter, Tanner raised $62,000. The gospel-singing farmer who’s never run for office before raised… $300,000.
There is an earthquake coming. I hope the Republicans are smart enough to see it.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/21/2009 @ 1:32 pmIn terms of the 1994 vs 2010 comparison right now I would in fact agree that 2010 is not looking as bad for incumbent Democrats. Either or both of health care or cap & trade could easily change that, but right now there is no major legislation to point at as a rallying point. I can easily see 2010 being a low turn-out election if neither bill becomes law. I know plenty of unhappy people but they don’t feel like they have a chance to do anything different. The blinders are starting to come off that R or D there is not in fact a lessor of evils.
I agree that a true non-spending party is starting to look good, but trying to wean abortion or gay rights or whatever other issue voters away in favor of such policies is going to be tough. How many pro-gun folks would be willing to vote for a pro-control budget hawk? I’m not sure I would and that’s what is going to make budget control so hard, people want more out of government than it should deliver. Paid for by others of course.
Soronel Haetir (2b4c2b) — 10/21/2009 @ 1:36 pm33
I think 2010 will be ALL about spending and jobs. I think Conservative candidates should steer far away from abortion and GLBT issues. Roe V Wade isn’t going anywhere, and we’ll be saddled with whatever GLBT legislation Obama may have passed by then. No undoing that, either.
I did have another interesting thought just now. How are pollsters going to reach anyone, as more and more of us no longer have landlines? Just curious.
sybilll (01af10) — 10/21/2009 @ 2:18 pmActually, I think a lot of people will be happy to return to the lighter level of corruption and government fraud and waste of 2004.
While they will want more, a lot of the people who care about guns or abortion or Afghanistan or spending are still going to vote against Obama’s party… they have scared the bejesus out of a lot of people.
Will this get spending under control? Nope. Nothing will. That ship has sailed. Politicians are buying votes with tax dollars, and there is no electoral way around this. The US Dollar is going to be worth much less in 25 years, and we all should figure out ways to survive in the coming world.
But I do think the democrats will have a very hard pushback. There are a hell of a lot of volatile house seats.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/21/2009 @ 2:24 pmHow many pro-gun folks would be willing to vote for a pro-control budget hawk?
Those people don’t exist in politics anymore except a few Obamabots. Look at the polls on gun control. I also agree that abortion and gay marriage will be secondary issues.
One hopeful sign is the absolute cluelessness on the left, as exemplified at Wash Monthly. They don’t let me comment anymore so I just skim the posts but they are really oblivious.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/21/2009 @ 2:41 pm#32, Mike K said, “There is an earthquake coming. I hope the Republicans are smart enough to see it.”
They call the GOP the Stupid Party for good reason. In all honesty how can the GOP support Dede Scozzafava and expect voters to support them?
Lapdogs, yes, cowards and jelly fish, yes, bootlickers, yes, and nitwits too, but not free men and women. Not anyone with a brain, or a sense of honor, integrity, or independence. No, no one who’s got an iota of self-respect would let the GOP get away with an such insulting, arrogant, and contemptuous betrayal.
Rationalize it anyway you will. I’ll have none of it. I’d rather engage my opponent face to face than be repeatedly stabbed in the back by treacherous turn-coats. The modern GOP makes Benedict Arnold look like a patriot.
ropelight (360224) — 10/21/2009 @ 2:44 pmugh… SCOZZAFAVA.
You can succinctly sum up everything wrong with the world, the GOP, America, and people with one little name.
I do not want the GOP to be pure. But Scozzafava is not welcome in any political party that I will feel comfortable in.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/21/2009 @ 3:01 pmDede Scozzafava. Dede Scozzafava. Now, that’s quite a handle, but it becomes more understandable when you realize it’s really just Italian for Harriet Miers.
ropelight (360224) — 10/21/2009 @ 3:17 pmMeanwhile, Harry Reid just embarrassed Democrats with his utter incompetence in the procedural vote on the freeze on cuts in doctor’s medicare payments.
Incompetent buffoon – good company with Pelosi.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/21/2009 @ 3:43 pmsybilll,
re: the decline of landlines
In past cycles, the effect has not been big enough to materially affect their operations.
More recently, at least some pollsters have been specifically seeking out cellphone responses as part of their samples.
Longer term, it is an issue pollsters are increasingly concerned about.
Karl (57ffa9) — 10/21/2009 @ 3:43 pmThe International Man of Parody’s contribution above shows that he did not even bother to read Karl’s post.
Typical of IMP’s performance.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/21/2009 @ 3:47 pmKarl – I only know a handful of people where we live that have landlines. The ones that do only do so for company fax machines. We have not had a landline in over 7 years, but I realize we are an exception.
JD (b93fb4) — 10/21/2009 @ 3:57 pmJD, I don’t think you’re an exception. I haven’t had a landline since the year 2000. Not only that, but many conservatives (and moderates, and libs, though not as many) are too busy working to answer these polls, and many conservatives do not trust polling organizations and simply won’t answer their questions accurately or at all.
Then again, the real poll showed that 52% of voters thought Obama should be president. So… that sucks.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/21/2009 @ 4:17 pmI agree with Corwin #25 and Mike K #32. Elections in the next 2 years could result in a seismic shift away from both parties, but my instinct says a lot of people will show their displeasure by staying home. So the only polls I’m paying attention to will be of ‘likely voters’ taken by polling organizations with a good track record for identifying who they are.
DRJ (dff2ca) — 10/21/2009 @ 4:23 pmOh good night, don’t get me started on the Scozzafava fiasco. The NY GOP/Newt, and Steele really boffed this one. Thank goodness Glenn and Rush brought it to the forefront. Puhlease get that woman to step down.
sybilll (01af10) — 10/21/2009 @ 5:32 pmIf words like “lefty” or certainly “progressive” reflect a sentimental, big-benefit-of-the-doubt judgment of people’s philosophy, and a sense that the stereotype of a person of the left being more big hearted and concerned about hardship and unhappiness — sort of like a mommy or nursemaid — …
No, ‘lefty’ means those cruel, ignorant, insufferably elitist socialist boobs who keep assaulting the rest of society with their failed social engineering dreams – taxing us for the privilege of a deformed healthcare system, taking away our gas guzzlers on the alter of the phony religion of CO2 hatred, hectoring us as war-mongering sexists for letting little johnny play with plastic squirt guns, and insisting on destroying education for hispanic kids by keeping them in the ghetto of failed bilingual education.
Soft-in-the-head leftists are deep down also cold-in-the-heart. If they were not, they’d own up to the failure of the left ideas and become … gee, I dunno, neo-cons or something a bit more useful in life.
Travis Monitor (e991bc) — 10/21/2009 @ 7:46 pm“I also agree that abortion and gay marriage will be secondary issues.”
GOP beats Dems by double-digits on abortion.
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/10/democrats-heading-for-fall.html
No, its not the top issue. That is JOBS … but it certainly doesnt hurt to point out that the Obama administration is extremely radical on this and other issues – undermining DOMA, supporting taxpayer funding for abortions while denying it, etc.
Travis Monitor (e991bc) — 10/21/2009 @ 7:51 pmI thought it was the Judean People’s Front?
That’s the Constitution Party. … Splitters!
Travis Monitor (e991bc) — 10/21/2009 @ 8:01 pmTrust me, any “conservative” party which disavows Pro-Lifers will always be a minority party. Since abortion is murder in my eyes, I will never vote for a pro-abort candidate. If they can’t get this one right, they’re going to be very wrong on many more issues. And I’ll vote third-party or bypass that portion of the ballot before voting for a pro-abort.
And there are huge numbers like me.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 10/21/2009 @ 8:09 pmWay back when slide-rules ruled the earth, I took a course in statistics. Because I had too. I thought I would hate it, but ended up loving it.
That class taught me two things. Polls are valid barometers of what people are thinking if done properly.
But, the other thing that the class taught me is that you can’t depend on how statistics, or polls, are reported, because you don’t have all the data.
You’re relying on people who either don’t understand statistics or who do understand, but don’t give you all the information to draw an informed opinion.
So, in today’s world, I generally look at polls the same way I look at the white stripes on a highway. Those stripes can give you guidance when most people stay within the white lines. But, when some stray they really cause a lot of chaos, confusion, tragedy and death — accidentally or on purpose.
Ag80 (2a7a2a) — 10/21/2009 @ 8:24 pm[…] Last week, I took a look at the Left’s wishful hypothesis that a tarnished GOP brand was going to save the Dems in the 2010 midterm Congressional elections. I missed the most recent Congressional Battleground survey from Democracy Corps (.pdf) — an outfit led by James Carville and pollster Stanley Greenberg — mostly because they made little effort to promote it. The money and effort put into this survey — which covered 1500 likely voters in 40 Democratic-held and 20 Republican-held target House districts — makes it the sort of project you generally would not like to put under a bushel. […]
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » 2010: The polling Carville & Greenberg only whisper about (e2f069) — 10/28/2009 @ 7:32 am[…] the answer is yes.” Moreover, PPP’s description of the internals further deflates the lefty theory that that the GOP brand is so damaged that the 2010 Congressional campaign will not end as badly […]
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » 2010: Alarm bells for Dems from Arkansas (e2f069) — 11/16/2009 @ 9:59 pm[…] like the answer is yes.” Moreover, PPP’s description of the internals further deflates the lefty theory that that the GOP brand is so damaged that the 2010 Congressional campaign will not end as badly […]
Patterico's Pontifications » 2010: Alarm bells for Dems from Arkansas (e4ab32) — 11/17/2009 @ 1:44 pm[…] weighs in at 2,074 pages Protein Wisdom: No Shame [Darleen Click] Patterico’s Pontifications: 2010: Will Dems be saved by those awful, awful, AWFUL Republicans? Gateway Pundit: Dem’s Nationalized Health Care Vote Delayed?… Pelosi Doesn’t Have the Votes […]
Insanity: Senate Health Care Bill… Not Read, Not Understood, Not Released to Voters to Review, But WILL Be Voted on Saturday… Tell Them ‘No’ and Kill the Bill « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 11/20/2009 @ 8:42 am[…] lefty wishful thinking that the damaged GOP brand will save them is being […]
Patterico's Pontifications » 2010: Even more alarm bells for Dems, in MO, NC, AR, etc. (e4ab32) — 11/20/2009 @ 2:01 pm[…] The Mammogram message Protein Wisdom: No Shame [Darleen Click] Patterico’s Pontifications: 2010: Will Dems be saved by those awful, awful, AWFUL Republicans? and Criminal Penalties in House Health Care Bill Jason Killian Meath, Big Hollywood: ‘So […]
More Botching of Health Care: Democrats Will Increase Tax on Swine Flu Vaccine, Give Preferential Treatment to Gitmo Terrorists & Wall Street Execs for Vaccine (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 11/22/2009 @ 8:01 am[…] The Mammogram message Protein Wisdom: No Shame [Darleen Click] Patterico’s Pontifications: 2010: Will Dems be saved by those awful, awful, AWFUL Republicans? and Criminal Penalties in House Health Care Bill Boston Globe: Taking a hit on health care? Why, […]
Mattel: Then there is the unveiling [pun intended] of Burka Barbie. Just what every little girl living under Sharia Law wants… « VotingFemale Speaks! (5c5d07) — 11/22/2009 @ 9:36 am[…] supposedly bad image. Greenberg — and Democrats generally — ignore the possibility that voters will care more about stopping the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda than about the GOP’s […]
Hot Air » Blog Archive » 2010: Time is already running out for Dems (e2f069) — 4/1/2010 @ 3:23 pm