If you have been following the discussion in the polling community about the widely varying numbers used by pollsters to determine 'likely voters' you will be interested in Blumenthal's latest analysis. His conclusion is that the difference on the generic ballot would be about 5%. He then concludes that will still mean a loss of the House and the possibility of losing the Senate. That might be true in a normal election year.
However this year the success of Tea Party candidates in Republican primaries has widened the "idiot gap" between a generic Republican candidate and this year's batch of 'foaming at the mouthers'. For example a generic battle might show that DE would be going Blue but Intrade is putting Democratic chances at 94%. And here is the kind of thing generic ballots don't register. Democrats look to be a lock to pick up Castle's seat with the latest poll. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/ppp-poll-dems-set-to-pick-up-mike-castles-delaware-house-seat-too.phpIs An 'Attentiveness Gap' Blowing Up Pollster's Likely Voter Models?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/is-an-attentiveness-gap-b_n_774501.htmlThe narrowing of the leader's margin in October is consistent with a previous history that Gallup acknowledges: In 2006, 2002 and 1994, Gallup reported leads for one party in early October that faded significantly by election day.
What is this late fade about? And can it tell us something about a similar pattern we are seeing at the statewide level, where Democratic candidates appear to be closing gaps in states like Colorado and Pennsylvania?
I have a theory that this year's clear gap in enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats, which no doubt tells us that Republicans will enjoy a turnout advantage next week, may have blown up some pollsters likely voter models, especially in the late summer and fall, producing Republican margins that were far greater in some polls than other. The rest of this post explores data that supports the theory. But let's be clear: This is not a theory that should bring much cheer to Democrats. Even if the true Republican lead on the generic ballot question is just 5 or 6 percentage points, Republicans should win a majority of the House and come very close to a Senate majority. This is also not a theory about a late Democratic "surge." If anything it suggests that some of the apparent "narrowing" is really an artifact of polling leads among likely voters that were artificially high a few weeks or months ago,
. . .
I believe this last table is a road map to some of the discrepancies we have seen among some "likely voter" polls and turnout scenarios this year. If we could see everything about how pollsters model likely voters and all of their data, my educated guess is that the more these models rely on self-reported attention paid to the campaign, the more they tend to produce outsized Republican leads. 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
