Discussion for article #229826
Once has to wonder about intentions here. In the 2012 election, Republicans were tricked into thinking they were just fine. This time, it’s the Democrats turn. Like Larry Sabato says, it’s time for the pollsters to face some close scrutiny.
1 Like
I am breathlessly waiting Nate Silver’s 2014 predictions for the 2016 race. If you recall, right after the 2012 election, he called the 2014 midterms for the Republicans. Please Nate, give us your wisdom to drive the media narrative over the next two years.
1 Like
In other words, they overestimated turnout for Dems and underestimated Dem apathy. Yawn.
Let’s see a study on how much of the turnout problem related to Voter ID and other suppression tactics.
7 Likes
Yep. Some pollsters have some explaining to do.
No intentions necessary. The “fundamentals” favoring republicans + lousy mid-term polling led to closer numbers but not incorrect outcomes. There are a few surprises (MD-Gov and close in NH-Sen).
2 Likes
No they don’t.
It’s a technically hard problem, to poll state races accurately. Especially when they are close, and especially when turnout is low. Most of the races were within margin of error. You do understand what the phrase “margin of error” means, yes?
2 Likes
No conspiracy people. It’s all about the likely voter screen. Every two years it’s adjusted to account for shifting demographics and also includes some historical information. It is a best guess model for turnout. This leads to a polling bias that averages about 3%. Further, it is not knowable which way that polling bias will go because the LV screen adjustment is simply an informed guess among even the most respect pollsters. This time the bias broke towards the Democrats by about 4%. That’s enough for a sweep of the close races.
5 Likes
Exactly so.
1 Like
This is what I want to know - especially in Georgia. I expected a Republican victory after a run-off. No way did I expect a defeat like this give the extraordinary GOTV effort the Dems had going in GA.
The biggest problem the Democrats have is that no one knows what they want to do once they get elected. Immigration reform? Probably. Minimum wage increase? Meh. Haven’t heard much about that from the party leaders. I follow politics and policy and I have no idea what is first, second and third on our agenda. So I’m left voting against evil Republicans and not for something. Not very motivating.
1 Like
Don’t even bother with this guy… I never did. Go to oddschecker.com or some such site and you will get better odds than Silver has ever given. I said this in 2008 and I was right, in 2010, and I was right, in 2012, and I was right, and now once again I am right. Why do people even spend energy on this guy when better resources have always been around? Because the DC villagers are such idiots that this guy looks smart…
I live in Maryland. This is the second time in a row that a Democratic Lt. Gov has failed in a succession bid to become governor. Katherine Kennedy Townsend was the first one. I voted for the current Lt. Gov., but he was an uninspiring, weak candidate, who had a bruising primary campaign. A smart guy, no doubt, but he utterly failed in the one key public task he was given-- getting the state insurance exchange up and running. He made the federal exchange’s problems seem trivial. Nevertheless, he would have probably won if registered Democrats just bothered voting. But a lot of folks thought - perhaps wrongly - that the Democrats had pushed issues and expenditures too fast, and had raised taxes to do so. Lessons here for the future. No one expects much from the winner, Larry Hogan, and Hogan will get his head handed to him on a platter if he pulls any right wing stuff (which he has sworn off), but if he manages to cut taxes a little and keep U of Md tuition down, he will be doing what most folks in the state want.
1 Like
Uh, Nate, Sam Wang wrote weeks ago that midterm state polls are ALWAYS off by about 4 points in the same direction. The problem is that no one knows before election day in which direction.
WHAT conspiracy? Gillespie’s OWN polls showed the race out of reach. Larry Sabato is a twit.
3 Likes
All good points. Let me add another: You can’t win if you only get 25% of the white vote. And you can’t get enough white votes if you don’t both listen to them and talk to them. Michelle Nunn understood that, I think, but was overwhelmed by the anti-Obama, anti-Democratic tide.
3 Likes
You hear it (minimum wage increase, immigration reform) from the President’. But, elected and prospective democrats at the lower level apparently thinks it smart and savvy to half ass and give people no idea where you stand, or even if you can stand. You don’t have to breathe liberal fire, but stand for something and maybe someone will stand with you.
2 Likes
I don’t know what kind of progress Democrats would have to produce that could earn the gratitude of the American people.
Jobs, Bin Laden, Health Care, Record High Stocks, Low gas prices.
It’s a mystery.
1 Like
So… Democratic voters didn’t turn out as highly as expected in a cycle in which most Democratic candidates ran on nothing. Shocking.
2 Likes
Not true. It was either Wang or Silver (can’t remember which) who detailed over/underperformance in midterm polls over the past 30-40 years. Dems underperformed in – you guessed it – 1994, 2002, etc. GOP underperformed in – you guessed it – 1986, 2006, 2012, etc.
So, like generals fighting the last war in their strategy, pollsters will now tilt the scales in favor of the GOP in 2016, and will be off again.