2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPolitico’s Poll Showing Democrats In Trouble This Midterm Election Is a Total Crock
However, please let's not let up on GOTV
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/19/politicos-poll-showing-democrats-trouble-midterm-election-total-crock.html
Along racial demographics, this polls respondents are mostly white. While less than 64% of this country now identifies as being non-Hispanic white, 77% of those interviewed by Politicos polling firm are white. Only 7% of those polled are Hispanic, despite Hispanics making up over 16% of the population now. Even when going based on likely voter percentages, it still provides a skewed total. Non-Hispanic whites represented less than 74% of the actual voters in the last election and 73% of the registered voters. Considering the efforts to get more Hispanics registered and engaged, it would seem like they are underrepresented in this poll. But, once again, it could just be the districts and states.
Theres another piece of data that strains the credibility of this poll. While weve already pointed out how the poll is skewed to represent old, white Republicans, it is possible that this is just what the data provides in these competitive races. However, when it is broken down by region, we see that 31% of the respondents are from the South Atlantic. However, this region represents only three of the 16 Senate races this poll is supposed to cover (Georgia, West Virginia, North Carolina) as well as eleven (four in Florida, one in Georgia, one in North Carolina, three in West Virginia, two in Virginia) of sixty House races. So, even though the South Atlantic only accounts for 18.75% of the competitive Senate races and 18.33% of the House races, Southern voters make up nearly one-third of the polls respondents.
Now, it could be that the combined population of the districts and states for the South Atlantic is greater than that of the other races they are polling, leading to the preponderance of Southern voters in this poll. However, when you combine all of these little outliers we see in this poll together, you get a very Republican-friendly result. Basically, you have a bunch of old, white, Southern voters who are still angry about Obamacare, despite the fact that the rest of the country has moved on (60% of respondents stated that we should still be debating the health care law, which is pretty much the opposite of what weve seen in recent nationwide polls.)
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)Politico is a right wing site. They have probably "unskewed" their own poll.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)brooklynite
(94,520 posts)Anytiome you see a poll result you don't like, claim its intentionally biased. Worked really well for the Republicans...
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,412 posts)if and when legitimate criticisms should be raised. Many of the polls in 2012, as I recall, had Romney winning and Obama losing though obviously he didn't (and why did anybody *really* think that he would?). Also, a singular poll is less revealing that multiple polls taken over a period of time. Plus, Politico can hardly be said to be friendly/unbiased towards Dems. This could well be an outlier. None of this is to say that we shouldn't take bad results seriously and/or that we should convince ourselves that all is well and that we should just rest on our laurels but there are some funky polls put out there sometimes and questioning them doesn't mean that we are just deluding ourselves into believing something that isn't true. Just like we shouldn't disbelieve everything we hear/read, neither should we uncritically believe everything that everybody puts out there either, particularly coming from a source that is known to be hostile to Dems.
riqster
(13,986 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,013 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Yeah, that's the ticket!
FailureToCommunicate
(14,013 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Polls that over sample whites, older, Republicans do so based upon previous midterms in which older white Republicans ALWAYS vote, the party out of power always votes---and everyone else mostly stays home.
There will be lots of angry minority and poor Democratic voters in red states who did not get the Medicaid expansion. The problem there is will their numbers be enough---those are red states. I say that they can be enough, if the Dems spend enough money and if they send in the right Democrats to rally voters and get them fired up to turn out to kick out the folks that denied them healthcare, especially in purplish states like Pennsylvania.
There should be a lot of happy, happy folks who got insurance and of insurance related jobs in Blue states. Dems need to persuade them to turn out in order to keep their insurance.
Remember how the GOP was going to make this fall's election be all about the ACA? And then they changed their minds? Well, the Dems need to make this fall's election be all about the ACA. We need to start covering the red state deaths---especially people in rural areas who can not get timely care because their hospitals are closing. I'll bet that people in the Grady ER are seeing folks flown in who would have done much better had they had an ER closer to home. These people need to be encouraged to share their stories with the rest of the country. Same in Texas and every other state where the local politicians decided to just say no to health care for the poor.
Remember how a single image of a woman dead in her own blood kept the choice movement going? I think dozens of similar images/stories from all across the country will put the GOP on the defensive and convince Democrats that they need to turn out the vote this fall if they do not want the same thing happening to them. It's the politics of fear, but this time it is a reasonable fear. The GOP could actually do it to people, if they got a veto proof majority in Congress.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)How can anyone vote for a party that stands for nothing. Everything is no, no, no that Obama tries to pass. They said that from day 1. Yeah, that's real progress for the country! And of course no one showed up to vote in 2010 to stop it. We need to spread the word around and get people out to vote. YES, it DOES make a difference when we vote. Get these deadbeats out of office.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Except for we voters.
hue
(4,949 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,618 posts)K&R!
doxydad
(1,363 posts)Start watching their 'polls' after Labor day...and compare them back to now. You will fully believe that you're looking at 2 different websites
FBaggins
(26,731 posts)The 2010 electorate was 75-80% white (depending on which exit polls you look at). 2006 was similar.
Only 7% of those polled are Hispanic, despite Hispanics making up over 16% of the population now.
Hispanics made up less than 8% of the 2010 electorate. Pew had it at 6.6% (even less in 2006).
However, when it is broken down by region, we see that 31% of the respondents are from the South Atlantic. However, this region represents only three of the 16 Senate races this poll is supposed to cover (Georgia, West Virginia, North Carolina) as well as eleven (four in Florida, one in Georgia, one in North Carolina, three in West Virginia, two in Virginia) of sixty House races.
That may be true... but misses the point. The "Democrats in Trouble" narative is really just that we could lose the Senate. In the House we're projected to lose a handful of seats (historacally a very good result for the President's party in an off-year)... and the Gubernatorial seats look pretty good (we'll likely net a gain of a couple).
Where the "Democrats are in trouble" this year has always been the Senate. We could try to compare the proportion of the poll covering different regions, but nothing changes the fact that control of the Senate will ride on voters in NC/AK/AR/CO/IA/GA/KY/WV/MT/SD. Perhaps the poll oversampled the South Atlantic, but there isn't much reason to believe that this skewed the results when the under-sampled areas (for Senate races) are not much less challenging.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Get Out The Vote -- with a focus on minority precincts.