How Pathetically Bad Were Pollsters on Virginia 2013? Really, Really Bad.

[lowkell]

http://bluevirginia.us/diary/10570/how-pathetically-bad-were-pollsters-on-virginia-2013-really-really-bad

[Cal33]

1. Just read my post, which is directly above yours: Did McAuliffe really win by only 2 points?....

[BlueCaliDem]

2. Either all pollsters were wrong (even PPP) or something else was going on, like, voter suppression

in certain areas. Remember, over 50,000 people, that we know of, had already been purged from the voter rolls.

The only thing that had stopped the GOTP from stealing this election was the fact that Cuccinelli was never ahead in any of the polls. It would look too suspect that he trailed in all the polls yet would win the gubernatorial, wouldn't it? Even the power brokers behind the GOTP aren't that dumb.

So instead, and in my humble opinion, they decided to step back and use the "it was very close!" narrative in order to keep the hope alive for the Teapublicans for the next elections. They are now saying that it wasn't a real loss since it's so close, and that Cuccinelli would've won had McAuliffe not outspent him by $15 million.

[RBInMaine]

8. Yours is more the paranoia theory. See mine and others below for the real reasons.

[BlueCaliDem]

10. Nothing paranoid about it. Unless, of course, you deny that Cuccinelli and McDonnell *weren't*

purging voters right before the election. And that would be an ignorant assessment based on the facts.

It's totally ridiculous to claim that my theorizing is based on paranoia and yours, also just a theory, isn't. It's ridiculous and arrogant.

[RBInMaine]

13. There would not have been enough purging to account for the discrepancies we saw in the polling vs.

the election day numbers. Other dynamics had to be at work, most likely a last minute shift of TeaPubs from the Libertarian to the Cooch-Hole. That is the first point. Next, I believe anyone who showed up and found they were improperly purged could cast a provisional ballot and return with the documents to have it counted. If that is true, then they need to return with their materials and do that.

[onenote]

17. The "facts"

The number purged was 38,000, not 50,000. The evidence submitted in the lawsuit against the purging indicated that while some of those purged should not have been purged, the evidence supported purging most of them. If there number of incorrect purging orders was as high as some here seem to assume, the lawyers who were challenging the purging orders would have had lots of examples to cite. But they didn't.
It is fair to assume that the 38,000 purged voters would have turned out in the same proportion as the electorate in general: around 37 percent. So the number of purged voters that didn't get to vote, in theory, was probably around 14,000 (and that's making a pretty broad assumption). If every single one of those 14,000 voters had planned to vote for McAuliffe (and that's another leap of logic given that there is no party registration in Virginia (and no evidence was submitted that the purging occurred only in districts where Democrats did better than repubs in past elections), the impact on the outcome would have been that McAuliffe would have had 14,000 more votes or sixth tenths of one percent, more votes. The reality is that at least some of the purged voters, even if they were from Democratic leaning districts, would have been either cooch or sarvis voters since there isn't a district in virginia where McAuliffe won unanimous support. So the actual impact, worst case for McAuliffe, was probably a difference of 2 or three tenths of one percent.

That is an analysis based on facts, not paranoia.

[Mike Daniels]

16. McCaulliff's campaign said their internals showed a very tight race despite all the polls

If the candidate isn't surprised by the small margin then it sounds like it's what they were expecting.

[Scuba]

3. Could have been vote rigging. Were there exit polls?

[BlueCaliDem]

11. According to RBinMaine

such theories are born out of paranoia. Because we all know that all our elections, especially in a state like Virginia, are on the up and up.

[RBInMaine]

12. Look, I'm just saying that we shouldn't immediately jump to these "vote fraud" theories as some do.

Really, it gets silly. "Vote fraud, vote fraud, vote fraud...electronic voting machine conspiracies...." It really has become paranoia. Should we be aware that there can occasionally be an issue with a voting machine, and should we fight to stop any attempts at voter suppression? Sure. But too many on the far left IMMEDIATELY jump to conspiracy theories in explaining election results, and that is indeed paranoia.

What seems to have happened in this election was a combination of fairly typical odd-year election dynamics with a reliable red base coming out and many, who reported in the polling they were going to vote for the Libertarian, switching to Cooch in the endgame. Virtually all polls showed a five to ten point McAuliffe win with they Libertarian taking about ten percent. McAuliffe dropped to a three percent win and the Libertarian dropped to six and a half percent of the vote. It is very likely that there was a peel-off of them to Cooch at the last day or two fueled by Cooch's ObamaCare arguments and them seeing that McAuliffe was favored to win so they flipped to Cooch to try to stop that. PPP is very reliable polling, and their pre-election numbers show that this may well have been what happened.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. This is McDonnell's and Cuccinelli's Virginia - the two who wanted to bring about their Christian

Last edited Thu Nov 7, 2013, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

version of Sharia law into the state, and to suppress their womenfolk with gems like trans-vaginal probes.

Virginia is also a strategically crucial state to the Koch Bros (who back these loons) for the 2016 elections since Barack Obama won the state twice against all odds. It would be a psychological victory for the Teapublican Party should they keep Virginia and win it back in the 2016 presidential elections. There's more than this past election riding on winning that state. Much more.

So if you believe everything was on the up and up in this past election, then you're giving the moneyed powers behind McDonnell and Cuccinelli way too much benefit of the doubt. This isn't paranoia or any conspiracy theory. This is how dirty politics in the United States has been working.

Virtually all polls showed a five to ten point McAuliffe win with they Libertarian taking about ten percent. McAuliffe dropped to a three percent win and the Libertarian dropped to six and a half percent of the vote. It is very likely that there was a peel-off of them to Cooch at the last day or two fueled by Cooch's ObamaCare arguments and them seeing that McAuliffe was favored to win so they flipped to Cooch to try to stop that. PPP is very reliable polling, and their pre-election numbers show that this may well have been what happened.

Yes, I know what the punditry have been saying about the election results, and yes, I know that the PPP is a very reliable pollster. And yes, your theory could be very well right, but is it so difficult to at least entertain the thought that the discepancies between the PPP's numbers and the ultimate results (as far as we know them) not a combination of both our theories since?

* Just a few moments ago, I watched yesterday's Hardball with Chris Matthews, and they had David Axelrod on. According to Axelrod, McAuliffe's internal polling had shown, consistently since June 2013, that he was 2-4 points ahead of Cuccinelli. If this is true (and I've heard someone else mention this as well), then the outcome is exactly what the McAuliffe camp had predicted, so could this mean we were both barking up the wrong tree?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. PPP is that reliable

[Gman]

4. The libertarian had as much as 10% in polls

And last night finished with like 6.6%. That likely means 3.x% flocked back to Cuch giving him the boost that made it closer than expected.

[RBInMaine]

7. ABSOLUTELY ! That is OBVIOUSLY what happened. See my post below.

[Gman]

9. I think you also posted about this last night

which is when it became very apparent to me what happened. ==I couldn't remember who it was that posted it!

[geek tragedy]

5. turnout models are really tough in odd-year elections.

Midterms are somewhat predictable, but when it's just state offices, crap shoot.

[RBInMaine]

6. HARD to be predictive in polling on turnout in off-cycle 3-WAY races. Here's what happened:

Last edited Thu Nov 7, 2013, 06:49 AM - Edit history (1)

My educated theory is: Cucinelli did gain some ground with the attack on ObamaCare in the endgame. This, as well as shear fear of a McAuliffe victory, enticed many of the right wingers who were going to vote for the Libertarian to switch last-minute to the Cooch-Hole.
I have no doubt. Polls showed the Libertarian winning 10% or more. Those who peeled off OBVIOUSLY switched overwhelmingly to Cooch-Hole. Also, there are some LIBERALS out there who voted for the Libertarian because of his LEFTIST stances on international war, the bloated military, supporting gay marriage, ending the drug wars, etc.

Also, while D turnout was relatively strong for an off-year election, it did not boom as well as predicted nor as it should have in the end. Maybe that was because some became complacent thinking McAuliffe had it in the bag, but it was obviously largely because too many D's were just not "inspired" enough with McAuliffe. Many were motivated to vote AGAINST Cooch and not FOR McAuliffe. He had to run to the center, and he has some baggage as a wheeler-dealer, Washington insider, the thing with the flopped green car company, etc. And he's just not very exciting. Also, again, too many D's just won't come out and vote in non-Presidential years, especially young voters which is too bad and which happened in this election.

To his credit though, McAuliffe ran as a good a campaign as could be expected and did a lot right. And Dems did great uniting and beating up on the Cooch-Hole. But these off-years when a D has the White House always favors the R in that state, and TeaPubs are more reliable than Dems. Dems need to get off their asses and get the hell to the polls in bigger number in these odd-year cycles, period !

[Still Waters]

14. lowkell, I would like to thank you for all the good Virginia information

you brought here during this election cycle. Excellent work!