Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review, reports the latest White House Bulletin at NRO's The Corner:
* Recent Polls Outside The Historical Norm For Party ID. A spate of recent polls paints a very gloomy electoral outlook for GOP candidates in next month's elections. One reason for that, possibly, is a set of samples in recent polls that do not mirror the historical norm for party ID. A memo circulating among Republicans on the Hill, authored by GOP pollster David Winston, takes a look at the historical spread between Democrats and Republicans in House elections and polling over the last 14 years. According to Winston's analysis, there is a material discrepancy between the party identification listed by people in exit polls (people who actually voted) between 1992 and 2004, and those used over the last few weeks.
In most of the years between 1992 and 2004, Democrats held a slight advantage in party ID. Winston based his data on VNS/Media exit surveys, and concluded in 1992, Democrats held a 3 point advantage; in 1996, they held a 4 point advantage; in 1998, a 1 point advantage; and in 2000, a 3 point advantage. In two election years, 1994 and 2004, the percentages of people identifying themselves as Republicans and Democrats were identical, i.e., no advantage to either party. 2002 was the only year in which Republicans held an advantage over Democrats, with 40% identifying themselves to exit pollsters as Republicans and 38% identifying themselves as Democrats.In short, between 1992 and 2004, only once did one party enjoy an advantage as large as 4 points over the other in party ID. But in recent polling samples used by eight different polling organizations (USA Today/Gallup, CBS/NYTimes, ABC/Washington Post, CNN/Opinion Research, Newsweek, AP/Ipsos, Pew, and Time), the Democratic advantage in the sample surveyed was never less than 5 points. All these organizations conducted surveys in early October. According to Winston, the Democrats held the following party ID advantages in these early-October surveys:
* USAToday/Gallup: 9 points.
* CBS/NYT: 5 points
* ABC/WP: 8 points
* CNN: did not provide sample party ID details.
* Newsweek: 11 points.
* AP/Ipsos: 8 points.
* Pew: 7 points.
* Time: 8 points.Party registrations shift over time, and many political operatives believe the country starts to gravitate away from a party that has been in power over an extended period of time. Republicans have controlled the House since 1995. Winston acknowledges that possibility in his memo, writing, "It is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that this year's election could fall outside of historical results, but any survey that does should acknowledge that the data presented are based on a foundation that reflects a structural shift in the way the electorate identifies itself with a party."
As White House communications are in the public domain, I've taken the liberty of reproducing Rich's posting of this in full. For NRO's latest, visit The Corner.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
Commentary, Polls
Comments (3)
In this election, we'll see... (Below threshold)1. Posted by lyle | October 18, 2006 9:17 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
In this election, we'll see whether technology has made traditional telephone polling obsolete.
A generation ago, about 80% of phones were answered, and a majority of respondents were willing to cooperate. If the numbers were randomly called, it was a reasonably random sample which could be tweaked for accuracy.
Now, about 20% of phones get answered, and less than 40% of those are willing to cooperate.
A self-selected minority - less than 10% of the sample pool - is willing to sacrifice their time to discuss politics with a total stranger. The percentage among middle-aged, middle-class white voters is bound to be drastically lower.
Is it reasonable to assume that the tiny fraction who cooperate fairly represent the 90% who opt out? Are Democrats and Republicans equally likely to be outspoken in public? Equally likely to speak up in class? Equally likely to march and protest? Equally likely to storm auditoriums and shout down speakers? Equally likely to sport obnoxious t-shirts and bumper stickers?
Even among Republicans, the mouthiest 10% are not representative of the rest.
We'll see.
1. Posted by lyle | October 18, 2006 9:17 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 18, 2006 09:17
2. Posted by Eddie Stewart | October 18, 2006 10:51 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is my outlook!! We voters have gotten smarter and wiser over the years; i.e. MSM bias reporting, pollsters (Zogby joining a liberal talk show one example). Take for example 2004, Kerry was our next president, according to the exit polls and celebration was just a matter of time. This is where my theory of a smarter and wiser voter comes to play. Since we (the voter) knows this going into the election year, what is it to say, hey we pulled a fast one over on you MSM, pollsters. Saying one thing and actually doing another. Just to have the MSM and pollsters bias schemes exposed.
2. Posted by Eddie Stewart | October 18, 2006 10:51 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 18, 2006 10:51
3. Posted by Charles | October 19, 2006 4:22 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Rasmussen accounts for the percentages of each party in his polling and has the Democrats gaining in both the House and the Senate. In addition, his polling nailed the election in 2004.
One interesting item is the number of people who only have cell phones. Pollsters do not contact cell phone users which is leaving out a larger and larger sample of the population. Zogby has tried to work around that with Internet polling, however the data on that is still not conclusive.
3. Posted by Charles | October 19, 2006 4:22 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 19, 2006 04:22