"How Much Do Democrats Have to Win By to Actually Win?" - Bowers

[greeneyedboy]

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/25/13291/514

Chris Bowers and others analyze past polling vs. official results, and concludes that the Democratic Party needs to stay at 58% or more on the generic national ballot to ensure victory (or 53%+ for 90% chance of victory).

. . . .The system of damns {sic} in levees that Republicans have in places (maps, voter suppression, fundraising, media, GOTV) appears incapable of withstanding a blow of grater than eight percent. In what had been a fairly static, evenly divided nation from 1992-2004, that advantage of up to eight points was overwhelming, as we slowly depressingly learned over the past decade. That advantage was also why narrowly targeting the swing via triangulation was a nearly hopeless crusade for Democrats, since we needed a big win to break the system. However, with a wave of greater than eight points, not only can we take control, but we can also smash much of the Republican power system. We can dismantle the K-Street project, redraw maps, shift the media, shift fundraising, make real electoral reform--the works. We can significantly reduce the eight-point, built in Republican advantage by taking control, which will come in very handy should the nation revert to an even split. So, when you are watching generic ballot polls, keep the number 8 in mind. Anything above, and we should have blue skies up ahead. . . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/25/13291/514

[asjr]

1. I think it is a matter of how many of Dems votes

get counted rather than how many votes are cast. I feel the "game is afoot, Watson." The votes are probably being discounted now.

[greeneyedboy]

2. read the full text. he is drawing on stats from past "stolen" races.

if they weren't stolen, we'd need 50% plus 1. the firewall we need against theft seems to be 8% lead on the nationwide generic ballot.

[asjr]

5. Thanks, will do.

[Tiggeroshii]

3. They've mostly reflected far moe than eight in generic ballots

Gallup has routinely polled the at 10 or more. There was a poll within the last month(an't rememebr by whom) that showed the Democrats with an 18 point lead.

[greeneyedboy]

6. yeah, wasn't it 55-37 recently?

[Tiggeroshii]

7. Shorly after the Foley thing, methinks

It may have narrowed a bit since then, but I'm sure most polls will still put their lead above eight points.

[longship]

4. MyDD is good, but they are so-o-o-o cautious.

I think that they are deliberately understating things, which would be normal for somebody who's attempting to predict things.

All the prognosticators are relying so much on candidate polls and money and are mostly ignoring the big picture which shows something entirely different. But in a year where the voter anger (nearly all against the Repukes) is strong the standard models may not have the predictive value of past elections.

If you remember what happened in 1994, it was not until the very last minute that people began saying that the Repukes would have large gains. I suggest that the parallels between 1994 and 2006 are more than coincidental. We're seeing something real happening here and the picture is not going to be crystal clear until election night. Then, the Repukes may be going down in a big way.

[Apollo11]

8. depends on who is counting the votes

What you are saying would be true ... if votes were counted in a fair and transparent manner so that the declared election results reflect the intention of the voters.

Unfortunately, recent experience has taught us that the other side has other means of "winning" an election.

[greeneyedboy]

9. see post #2, or read the text of the article.

the 8% margin accounts for all the vote-stealing techniques. and IMO with more people watching this time, it will be harder to get away with any extreme "upsets". super-close races, yes--but we are miles ahead in many races.

again, i encourage you to read the article.