Friday, October 22, 2010

Poll shows Democrats with decisive lead

I figured that once we got within 2 weeks of the election, the pollsters would stop playing chicken and catch up to reality. Now they have.

A new Newsweek poll shows the Democrats with a lead in the upcoming House elections. Though the lead is small, it is nonetheless decisive:

The Democrats even hold a lead among likely voters using a likely voter model that has already been proven to be too generous to the GOP. Plus, this survey also shows a significant narrowing of the feared enthusiasm gap that has plagued this campaign cycle.

The message from this poll is that the election won't be a Democratic landslide - but the Democrats will come out ahead by a pretty commanding margin.

In all honesty, I knew this would happen, but nobody seemed to buy my prediction. Now these skeptics are the ones with the humble pie caked all over their faces.

If we (the American people) can keep some of the worst Republicans out of the Senate AND keep the GOP from retaking either house of Congress, I can't say the political climate will be any worse than what it was. And it looks we're going to accomplish all of the above. I'm a Green, but I'll take a weak Democratic Party over Republican megalomania any day.

Maybe this is what happens when the Republicans run a bunch of totalitarian lunatics instead of acting like a normal party.



  2. Um, Rasmussen is a Republican pollster, and the Gallup one was discredited when they admitted using a 55% conservative sample. Besides, those polls are from Monday at the latest.

  3. 1. Rasmussen is not a Republican pollster. They actually have very accurate polls.

    2. Gallup was not discredited. Conservatives are just more likely to vote.

    3. Polls do not change that dramatically in such a short time.

    4. You only addressed Rasmussen and Gallup. What about the Associated Press poll? Or any of the others?

    5. Of the seven polls, six show a Republican lead. One showed a Democratic lead. You chose to focus only on that poll. Instead of saying that all other polls are biased, wouldn't it make more sense to say that the ONE poll showing the Democrats in the lead is wrong, and that it itself is biased?

  4. In fact, Newsweek was last on that accuracy list. The MOST accurate isn't anything to believe, but the LEAST accurate is.

  5. I stopped reading when you said, "Rasmussen is not a Republican pollster."

  6. In other words, you read it all, you can't answer it, you know you lost, so you just dismiss the issue. Is the Associated Press a Republican pollster? Their Republican lead is ONE point below Rasmussen's. Does that make all the difference in the world?

  7. The AP poll used the likely voter model that was already proven to be flawed. Besides, that poll is nearly a week old.

    Even if the election goes exactly like the average of the previous polls, the Republicans still don't win back Congress.

  8. "Likely voter" models are not flawed. They produce more accurate outcomes then "registered voters".

    And so what if it is a week old? That still doesn't change the underlying fact that you don't trust the most accurate poll, but you do trust the least accurate.

  9. Newsweek also used the likely voter model too.

  10. "And so what if it is a week old?" Seriously, that's your response?

  11. And guess what? Newsweek shows the Democrats winning even with the likely voter model!

  12. That's YOUR response? Taking a snippet of ONE PART of my response, and acting as if that's all I said. That's like if I said.


    Seriously? That's your whole response?

  13. "And guess what? Newsweek shows the Democrats winning even with the likely voter model!"

    And Newsweek is a lousy poll!

  14. What I noticed is that I take all of your points and answer them all, whereas you take a fraction of my points, and answer some of that. Your next post after this one should answer the following:

    1. Why you chose the one good poll out of seven bad ones.

    2. Why you only trust what I've shown to be the least accurate poll.

    3. Why you call Rasmussen a Republican poll for no reason whatsoever.

    4. Why you incorrectly think that likely voter outcomes are the worst method.

    If you don't answer all of these, I will take it that you gave up in the debate.

  15. 1) The bad ones are too old.

    2) Where did you "show" that Newsweek is the least accurate?

    3) Even Wikipedia says Rasmussen is Republican.

    4) The likely voter model has already been shown on other blogs to have a Republican bias.

  16. 1. They're one week old. That's not enough time for major change.

    2. Here:

    3. Rasmussen. Not Rasmussen Reports.

    4. It's also more accurate. Republican bias does not equal false.

  17. A few words about polling and pollsters... Polling is a BUSINESS. That means pollsters make money at what they do.

    They are hired by (who else) the media. So the results skew GOP until mid-October because that's what their clients want. The media wants to build a narrative of a GOP takeover, so that's what pollsters give them.

    But when the election gets closer, they strive for accuracy, not building a you get more realistic looking polls.

    I think that is what we see here.

    Happened in '08, it's happening now.

  18. The People are really looking forward to Election Night, when Tim will eat West Virginia pepperoni rolls and blog live as results come in.

  19. I don't know yet whether I'm going to be home that evening.

  20. You'll be right there at BWH blogging away because it's your job! We've all got a job to do and blogging election results is yours!

  21. Then Google AdSense needs to pay me the money they stole.