Google Ads


Site Stats

IN-09: New Poll Shows Hill Underwater; SUSA Responds to SSP

by: James L.

Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 9:47 PM EST


Before anything else, the poll.

SurveyUSA for Firedoglake (1/17-19, likely voters):

Baron Hill (D): 41
Mike Sodrel (R): 49
Undecided: 10
(MoE: ±4.1%)

I'm not so sure if FDL made the right choice here. Sodrel is not the only option in the Republican primary -- attorney Todd Young has banked quite a bit money for the primary already, and teabaggers' choice Travis Hankins is also staking out a position as a real wingnut's wingnut. Sodrel has a lot of name recognition, sure, but you have to wonder if 9th CD Republicans are eyeing their options.

And now, for the other stuff: If you've been following SSP this week, you probably saw that we raised some questions about SurveyUSA's latest round of House race polls that they've conducted for Firedoglake. We were particularly concerned with SurveyUSA's sample composition in its poll of New York's 1st Congressional District. More to the point, we had problems with a poll that pegged the share of 18-34 year-olds among likely voters at just one percent of the electorate. SUSA founder Jay Leve has responded:

The sample is not "pretty weird." It is a sample of likely mid-term voters. There is no one "right" way to draw a sample in a congressional district 10 months from a midterm election, but this sample was drawn carefully and defensibly. To be included in the sample (SurveyUSA's criteria, not the client's):  the voter had to be registered with the secretary of state; had to have a telephone; had to have voted in 2008 and had to have voted in either [2006 or 2002], and had to confirm that he/she resided in the district being surveyed.  By design, this was not a survey of registered voters (which would have resulted in a younger sample).

Reasonable people can disagree about exactly what percentage of the electorate in 2010 will be age 18 to 34 , and I am not defending any specific turnout target. But most would agree that midterm voters are older.  That's what these results show.  When SurveyUSA re-weights the respondents in NY-01 to be younger, the survey results do not meaningfully change. This may seem to some counter-intuitive; it is not.

When, for internal analysis, SurveyUSA re-weights the respondents to be younger in AR-02, OH-01, and IN-09, the survey results do not change.

To respond to Leve's reply, I would first of all, with all due respect, point out that merely saying that a sample is "not pretty weird" does not actually make it so.

It is true that midterm voters are older. National exit polling for the last two presidential elections showed that voters between the ages of 18 and 29 made up 18% of the electorate in 2008 and 17% in 2004, but only made up 12% in 2006. Please note that these numbers are of 18 to 29 year-olds, and not the 18-to-34 bracket that SUSA uses in its demographic breakdowns, so the comparison is numerically kind here.

Next, SUSA attempts to address the concern by "re-weighting" their sample for the NY-01 poll, to bring up the 18-to-34 demographic from 1% to 3% of the electorate. The result actually benefits Republican Randy Altschuler, tightening his race against Democrat Tim Bishop to 47-46 from 47-45 in the original sample. While I question whether or not adjusting the sub-sample from 1% to 3% is a meaningful or satisfactory correction, this raises another issue: Just how exactly do you re-weight from a 1% sample? With such a small pool of sampled 18-to-34 year-old voters, aren't we dealing with an astronomical margin of error here?

People who read SSP with any degree of regularity know that we like and respect SurveyUSA, and we're not trying to suggest that anything untoward happened when these polls were drawn up. Leve seems to be confusing "drawing a sample" with "the sample you end up with." It's entirely possible to have a sound methodology that, for whatever reason, winds up with a sample that's not quite right. And that's all we're suggesting here. (Though I would also point out that SUSA's criteria that one has to have voted in 2006 means that there was no one younger than 21 or 22 captured in their polling.)

RaceTracker Wiki: IN-09

James L. :: IN-09: New Poll Shows Hill Underwater; SUSA Responds to SSP
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

18-to-34-year-olds and "telephones"
Wow, let me get this straight: 18-34s were 1% of what, 500 or so surveyed? So he expects to be able to re-weight using a sample size of 5? Five?!?

And further, the reason that 18-34-year-olds in these samples lean Republican is not because young people have suddenly gone from being massively Democratic to massively Republican--it's probably for several reasons.

#1- I desperately hope by "telephone" he means cell phones, too, because most 18-to-34-year-olds I know, including me, have only mobile phones these days and the people who have regular phones lean Republican.

#2- "had to have voted in 2008 and had to have voted in either [2006 or 2002]" ... Yeah, that will basically miss all college students, super-important in Hill's district and to a lesser extent in the others. It would also miss people who are very mobile, who tend to be well-educated (Democrats).

#3- Demographically, the percentage of young voters is almost certain to at least meet, if not exceed, the percentage of 2006, if for no other reason than more of the Millennials (who are more numerous than even Baby Boomers) are eligible to vote.

Simply put, this voter screen screens out young people. And as one of them, I would like to say: Eat a bag of dicks. Or something else appropriately youthful.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.


I know, wtf?
Excluding young people in IU's district of all places...also for some reason I feel the state of Indiana in general is slightly younger than the nation as a whole, but I could be making that up.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


[ Parent ]
Idiotic methodology
Not even worth a thread.

[ Parent ]
So you think the poll is crappy
Because of how it was conducted as well Tommy?

[ Parent ]
Not cell phones
Survey companies don't call cell phones because cell phone numbers are no longer effectively linked to geography.

Additionally, although probably not the case here, when combining a poll with non-political questions, there are a complicated series of obligations that have to be complied before calling cell phones and if you comply with them you get a misleading sample.  In short, not worth the hassle.

This is an accelerating problem with polling that will get worse as larger portions of the electorate move away from land-line home phones.  It's why samples almost always skew old, but top pollsters take efforts to address this issue.  Again, more expensive, and firedoglake may not have wanted to pay for that.


[ Parent ]
The geography of area codes
Um, like two weeks ago, I got polled on my 913 area code cell phone (Kansas City suburbs) for a California State Rep. seat (where I am registered to vote). So it's possible.

The bottom line is that survey companies are gonna have to figure it out--and fast--or risk becoming pollsters of the oldsters.  

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.


[ Parent ]
When I did market research...
... (which is a form of polling since it wasn't a sales call, just information gathering) the people I worked for got numbers that were gathered based on cold robo dialing.  Every possible active phone number for a given area code is found with wrong numbers filtered out. (Sometimes when you get called and just hear a click after hanging up it isn't your crazy ex-girlfriend.) Then a random number of those phone numbers were placed in the calling pool.  If they reached a business the caller would apologize and mark that on the computer.  Same thing if it reached a fax number.  But this was done so that cell phone and unlisted numbers could be reached.

I assume now that "do not call" is enacted into law that those numbers are filtered out of the list generated by the robo calls.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...


[ Parent ]
SUSA has always had screwy internals
I remember the Virginia polls showing McDonnell getting a ridiculous percentage of the black vote, like 15-20%. Regardless, they were still spot-on.

True
But SUSA also had some famous problems with their 18-34 demographic in their Minnesota '08 polls (the kids apparently loved them some Norm Coleman and John McCain), and it definitely had an adverse impact on the toplines.

[ Parent ]
SUSA
Is terrible at polling Minnesota, for some reason they have a strong republican bias in the state.

20, male, independent, WI-07.

[ Parent ]
The telephone thing is my sticking point
One thing that will always stick out with me when it comes to SUSA is how poorly the polled Obama vs McCain in MN, they were completely off the mark every single time.  Every other pollster had Obama carrying the state by high single digits to low double digits, and Obama ended up winning by 10%.  SUSA, however, had it as a barn burner throughout the entire race and they always showed the 18-34 demographic being much more Republican than they should have.

What I always hypothesized was that they were screwing up the 18-29  or 18-34 year old vote (whichever) because of cell phones.  Minneapolis/St Paul is a very highly educated and high tech oriented metropolis and people my age simply do not have land lines and I hope never will, they are a dying technology that we dont need anymore.  And we have many many many colleges and universities, Minneapolis has a big ten school and St Paul has one of the highest concentrations of post-secondary schools compared to population in the country.  I think we were just simply missed because we dont have landlines.

Really interestingly, I even got polled once (it made my life) and they asked if I would vote for Rep. McCollum or her competitor, McCollum being my representative at college in St Paul.  Except, they called what would technically be my landline number, which is 45 minutes away, at my permanent address, at my parents home, in Bachmann's district!  And I was luckily home that weekend.  Not sure if it was SUSA or anything but its a good anecdotal story nonetheless.

SUSA is still one of the polling firms I trust most and Im glad SSP got a response from them as now I see why they dont, in my opinion, properly account for the youth vote; they have a very tight voter turn-out and polling model they follow.  Which, whatever, they get good results for the most part so Im fine with it.


What is FDL trying to prove?
All of these polls have been going after Dems from tough districts who have voted with the party on most issues, including HCR and cap and trade. Hill was the only Blue Dog of the four, and his voting record is among the better of the Blue Dogs. These polls are just encouraging Republicans to work harder in these districts, and discouraging the congressmen to vote with their party on more issues.

There are people I really hope they don't poll for those reasons. A few examples: Zack Space, Tom Perriello, Marion Berry, Chris Carney, Mike Arcuri, and Chet Edwards (even though he voted against HCR and C&T, he's a pretty good Democrat most of the time).


I think they're trying to prove
the country wants more progressive healthcare, and failing miserably, so they're trying to spin it in ways I couldn't have possibly imagined months ago.  

[ Parent ]
So you think
There polls are BS as well DTO? Can't tell by your comments. I think you do but not sure.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, that's really an insufficient response
and I usually stand up for SUSA. The right answer is to seek out more young people and then weight to the percentage expected to show up (even as self-reported).  

Wow
These polls are starting to scare even me.  How in the world is Hill losing to Sodrel?

29/D/Male/NY-01

even you?
dot dot dot

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


[ Parent ]
Well
Tezilla, aren't we scheduled for a 100 seat loss in the House and a 5+ seat loss in the senate in November. This shouldn't surprise you.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
100 losses?
No Eh, your being too nice. According to Tek were supposed to lose 200 seats in the House, about 25 in the Senate and any competitive race in the Governors, Mayors, State Legislature and Dog Catcher races. Granted there's no data to back this up but Tek said it IT MUST BE TRUE!!! SKY IS FALLING OMG!!!

[ Parent ]
ME
It certainly won't be that bad, but I think people on this site are way too optimistic about the year we are going to have.  Every poll that is coming out of every Lean R seat or even Toss up seat is going to the Republican as of now.  That worries me.  I understand the rest of you are not worried at all, and somehow you think the Senate will break even and we will only lose 10 in the house, but I just don't see that being possible.

29/D/Male/NY-01

[ Parent ]
Who's been maing those predictions?
Certainly not me. I peg the losses as 25 in the House and 4-5 in the Senate. Anyone here who thinks were only going to lose 10 in the House is on some really bad drugs.

[ Parent ]
Who in January 2006
was saying that we'd gain 6 Senate seats and 30 House seats?

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)


[ Parent ]
I certainly wasn't
I knew by then it would be a good year for us but I wasn't even thinking of a takeback of Congress. The House came to my thoughts a few months later and the Senate after the George Allen Manaca incident.

[ Parent ]
This is just not true
I understand the rest of you are not worried at all, and somehow you think the Senate will break even and we will only lose 10 in the house, but I just don't see that being possible.

There are some people who have been, in my opinion, too optimistic about 2010, but I would in no way characterize that projection as some kind of "community consensus".


[ Parent ]
And those of us who have been optimistic, like myself
Are slowly allowing that optimism to fade.  Im still hoping the economy turns around and we get some net job growth because that would be quite the kick in the teeth to the GOP, but even then, we're going to lose House seats.  It's kind of the natural ebb and flow of elections. this is a 50/50 nation and the Democrats are very over extended.  And we really shouldnt be surprised, we signed up to be the ones to fix this mess Bush created.  One of my poli sci profs always had the question, why the hell would you want to run for President in 2008 and be the one charged with fixing absolutely everything?  Every area of public policy needs attention and anyone running for office is really just setting themselves up for a fuck ton of work and a whole lot of frustration and perception of failure.

[ Parent ]
How can we predict anything
How anyone has any certainty is really baffling to me.  especially when trying to predict the overall results.  

For fun, break down the last 2+ years and look at things that happened 6 months beforehand.  Then answer me this:

1.  6 Months before today, what % of people on here would have guessed Massachusetts would have a Republican Senator.
2.  6 Months before the 2008 Pres election that Sarah Palin would be VP.
3.  6 months before the Iowa Caucus that Obama would be the Dem nminee for President.
4.  6 months before the Iowa Caucus that John Edwards was the least moral of the Dem Pres Primary candidates.  (I liked him, but sheesh what a sleazeball he is becoming more known as).
5.  6 months before 2008 Congressional elections that Periello would win in VA.

And so on.  The fact we're all so sure the apocalypse is coming doesn't really matter.  We knew we were going to lose seats, but I don't necessarily think things have gotten worse for Dems.  I think common sense said all along that 10% unemployment would never be good for the party in control of Congress and the White House, no matter what happened with healthcare.  

So as we learned from Masachusetts, candidates and campaigns matter now mroe than ever.  So given that we still have a long way to go, Dems need to focus there.  

And I predict with 0% certainty that there's any chance right now that I know the impact of the 2010 Congressional elections.

 


[ Parent ]
SUSA's internals are sometimes screwy...
but their toplines are usually right or in the ballpark. Either way, this doesnt look rosy.

Can we get some good news?
So how many districts have they (SurveyUsa) polled so far? I think Kissell was the only Dem over 50%.  

PPP
did the Kissell poll.

Libertarian secular Republican, MO-7

[ Parent ]
regardless of the internals
Do you guys think this and the other Survey USA polls the past 10 days or so are accurate?

Libertarian secular Republican, MO-7

Right now they're dead on......
We're looking the worst we've looked since 1994 in the news, perhaps even worse than anytime that year.  And we have no messaging out there to counter events.

I don't doubt if the election were today that we'd lose the House, and maybe a whopping 70 seats in doing so.  And I'm no Tekzilla, I spent all of 2009 confident that the political environment would shift in our favor.

But like everyone else I didn't think on Labor Day that health care would be incomplete at the end of January, and I never saw the loss of MA-Sen coming.  And I really thought unemployment would drop below 10% by now, but that didn't happen in December and the weekly jobless benefits claims are suggesting that won't happen for January.

Really if you're a Democrat you're as dejected as can be right now, and if you're not a political junkie or an otherwise chronic voter, you're not likely to show up to vote this November.

But that's right now.  And the election isn't right now.

Regardless, we're in the worst shape right now in my adult life.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
If Obama doesn't change the perception
that he and Congress are Wall Street lackeys or the economy doesn't improve, things are going to get worse, not better.

[ Parent ]
Based on the news today
Im betting even if he does, the "Obama is tanking the market with his draconian bank rules" will also makes things worse.

I get the feeling we've walked into some trap.  


[ Parent ]
Those people who say this
"Obama is tanking the market with his draconian bank rules"

aren't voting Democratic anyway.  People need to get that.

The Democrats' best strategy is to ignore the pundits, hucksters, and the media, and stand up for what they believe in.  They have nothing to lose right now, and their majority to gain.

Although, a strong anti-Wall Street message might lose a few seats in the NYC area.  You put NY-19, NY-1, CT-4, and maybe NY-13 at risk.  But it might save 20-25 seats in the rest of the country.  


[ Parent ]
I don't know dude
the media was doing a real good job trying to link the the Dow Jones to general unemployment and a bad economy.

All they need to do is convince people that a lower stock market equals bad economy and the entire argument can end up kicking us in the ass.

Even today I saw no less than three discussions on whether or not these new bank rules will cause another recession! and the general consensus was...yes!


[ Parent ]
The "consensus" is among paid hucksters and pundits
not among general people.  It is quite the other way among average people, who don't trust the corporations, government, or the media.  

Actual people see it very differently than these shills on CNBC.  They see the bailouts as propping up Wall Street, the stimulus as waste of money and pork, and health care bill as a bunch giveways to special interests and not helping them enough.  And they see the financial institutions as completely evil and responsible for this whole mess.

I think the stock market is going to crash this year.  If Obama and the Dems don't unhook themselves from Wall Street, and hook the GOP to Wall Street, they're going to crash and deserve it as well.


[ Parent ]
This was on MSNBC
and CNN.

But yeah we said all this about healthcare reform too.  


[ Parent ]
MSNBC
may be liberal, but they are still pro-corporate liberals.  The public is neither pro-corporate or liberal.  The Democrats have been both in the last year, which is a deadly combination.

[ Parent ]
the public is whatever the media tells them it is
that's pretty clear now.  

[ Parent ]
It's wrong to make these decisions based on "the general people"......
Obama's and Congressional Democrats' obligation is to do what is best for the economy, without regard to populist fervor.  Americans are not a nation of economists or financial experts or whatnot.  I don't know what the right answers are because I don't work in the relevant fields, but I know I don't want broad economic policy decided by public opinion surveys.

You do what's right and take your lumps.  That's the only responsible thing to do, it's not all about polling numbers.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
2006
'The Democrats' best strategy is to ignore the pundits, hucksters, and the media, and stand up for what they believe in.  They have nothing to lose right now, and their majority to gain. '

This is what Republicans were telling themselves about Bush in 2006.


[ Parent ]
As someone from outside the Democratic Party
you are in a unique position to suggest what they could do that has some likelihood of being more effective in improving their electoral chances. So please have at it.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
As someone from outside the Democratic Party
you are in a unique position to suggest what they could do that has some likelihood of being more effective in improving their electoral chances. So please have at it.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Sorry for the double post n/t


"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
On another note
When the House failed to pass the bailout the first time in October 2008, Pelosi made a big mistake.  She should have just let the banks fail and blamed the GOP.

I think we'd be a lot better off today if the bad banks were allowed to fail and not bailed out.  It is these bailouts that are really pissing off the public.


[ Parent ]
um no
we definitely would not have been in a better situation now had the banks failed...I don't even know if we'd even have a situation.

Plus it wasn't the GOP's fault the bailout failed, it was liberal votes that killed it. She had a lot of GOP votes.  


[ Parent ]
BS
Only 60-65 Repubs voted for the bailout the first time when it failed.  

The banks should have been allowed to fail, and the country should have reaped what it sowed for electing Bush.  And then the economy should have been rebuilt using much more radical approaches.


[ Parent ]
um, wow
do you live here?  

[ Parent ]
Yes I do
The only way that we are going to get the needed reform is for this corrupt financial system to go down.  The banking system should have been temporarily nationalized, and lending should have been done directly by the government.

If Democrats and liberals are not going to take the populist mantle, the teabaggers certainly will.


[ Parent ]
This is different
than letting the banks failed and depended on the administration in power when they did...that administration was Bush's


[ Parent ]
Not quite
the Dems could have simply let TARP fail, unless there was a plan for nationalization.  Pelosi didn't have to whip for TARP, she could tell the GOP to either vote en masse for Bush's bill or she'll let it go down.

[ Parent ]
I don't think forcing an economic depression
much less playing politics with the credit supply -

is a path to electoral success.


[ Parent ]
Actually it is a clear path
Any credible evidence that opposing a bank bailout favored by less than 30% of the public in October 2008 would have hurt the Dems in 2008?

You can argue that it would be irresponsible morally (I would disagree strongly), but to suggest that it would have hurt the Dems politically in 2008 to ditch a highly unpopular bill sponsored by Bush and Paulson is absurd.


[ Parent ]
Somehow, I think 20% unemployment would hurt Ds more electorally
than the support of the bank bailout (TARP).

Policy choices have consequences, and the consequences must be considered politically - and for their real life effects.


[ Parent ]
That's how I feel
I feel the public would care more about losing their jobs then TARP because that effects them directly. Plus without TARP we could be in another depression and that be worse obviously.

[ Parent ]
Our leaders' obligation is to govern responsibly, not be lackeys of populism......
It is morally wrong to allow the Second Great Depression to happen just to try to manufacture in real life your ideological wet dreams.

The bailouts, all of them, were the right thing to do and we're dramatically less worse off for having done them.  And by "we" I'm including Dubya, not just Democrats.  As much as I despise him, as much damage as he did to our country, as much blame he deserves for this mess in the first place, he actually did the right thing last September and October.

I realize there are a lot of angry people who are out there thinking if none of the bailouts happened that somehow our country wouldn't be any worse off.  They're wrong, and if we can't convince them and take lumps for it, so be it.

You still have to do the right thing and just swallow the reality that no good deed goes unpunished.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
Tarp was the best thing Bush ever did
Everyone is pissed at the banks, including me, but letting the whole system collapse last year would have been the height of irresponsibility. What we need to do now is to make sure we never get put in that posistion again (today was a good start).

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

[ Parent ]
The banks should have been nationalized
Short of that, the bad ones should have been allowed to fail.  Pelosi should have just let the GOP in the House kill TARP.


[ Parent ]
How the hell does the GOP "kill" TARP?
There's no filibuster in the House, she only needs 218 votes and she had a 236 member caucus. How do you blame the GOP when you don't get your own caucus to vote for something? What is she going to say "It's the GOP's fault that only 65 of them voted for it and 35 of my caucus members didn't vote for it?"

You can blame the other party in the Senate where procedural votes allow the minority to kill things, you can't do it in the House


[ Parent ]
Firstly it was Bush's bill
Pelosi has no need to pass it w/o GOP votes.  If GOP Congresspeople don't support their Prez, you simply blame it on them.  

Pelosi simply shouldn't have made any deals and adjourned the House after TARP failed, and sent Congress home until after the election.


[ Parent ]
This doesn't even make sense
Are you saying she should've let the banks fail because only 65 Republicans supported the President's bill? What was she supposed to say? "I can't pass this bill even though I have the votes because the Republicans won't support it sufficiently enough?"

I really don't get your logic here.  


[ Parent ]
You say nothing
Just let the bill die and say that if the bill is to pass, the President will have to convince his party members to pass the bill.  With Bush in the toilet, he wasn't going to be able to get the votes.

To be quite honest, if I were Pelosi, I would have simply told Paulson that I wasn't going to pass a giveaway to the banks without something (i.e. massive reform) in return.



[ Parent ]
Okay, I think we can move on to other topics now.


[ Parent ]
But your views on this
Are dangerous and extreme. If we didn't allow TARP to pass and let the banks to fail we could have entered into another great depression and I don't want and no one here wants to suffer through that just so we can say F-U to the GOP. Glad no one here agree with you on that one.

[ Parent ]
Dangerous and Extreme
I don't post often here since I'm just left of center indy but Dangerous and Extreme is letting the goldman sachs people continue to run the economics of this country and thereby the world. I work 1 block from ground zero and 1.5 blocks from NYSE trust me when I say the folks here couldnt give a crap about anybody including even themselves. The markets haven't worked properly for years I'd be happy to bone up on my Adam Smith again and discuss the reasons in detail over several drinks with anyone who actually gives a crap.  J Smith has the feeling of the indy electorate pegged better than anyone i've seen for years most folks who are not associated with a party in this country voted for Obama b/c they want REAL change I am actually glad now for the teabaggers because HCR has been exposed for what it always was - just MORE corporate welfare.  Pelosi/Reid only care about power just like anybody else who has been in Washington for more than 1 term.  Unfortunately, the only way anything will change in this country is to have a true 50 state 3rd party so that talking points morphing into facts might be replaced with actual dialogue and a legislature that doesn't have its head up its ass.

[ Parent ]
Your glad for the teabaggers?
Yeah your going to last long here. Regardless of what you and the other Naderites like you think, the bailout was right because without it it would lead us into another great depression and the HCR even with it's flaws is an improvement of what we have. I'm not going further on this because i'm going to be respectful for the moment but if you think J Smith got the people in this country pegged and you think the teabaggers are right, then you need to re=examine you thoughts because your dead wrong and your comments are absurd.

[ Parent ]
And regardless if you want to believe it or not
Your views along with Smiths are dangerous and extreme. Letting the banks collpase would of led to a 2nd great deprssion and i'm not going through that just to get back at the GOP and your happy for the teabsggers? That's dangerious just saying you think those extremist are doing the right thing. Do yourself a favor and go back to what you were doing before: don't post that often. Your better off.

[ Parent ]
I said my peace and the same probally goes with you
So let's drop it and move on. James wants up to move on and let's i'm not getting banned because I engaged into a flame war with a person who believes the teabaggers are doing a good thing in this country. Your not worth it.

[ Parent ]
Extreme?
Didn't know that it is extreme to have position that is likely shared by 70% of the public, which is what opposed the bailout in 2008.

[ Parent ]
Yeah the bailout was unpopular
Some things are but need to be passed anyways this being one of them. And having taking on a position where you would the financial markets to fail and suffer a economic depression is extreme, yes.

[ Parent ]
This is true
Some things are but need to be passed anyways this being one of them

for health care.  The giveaway to the big banks is not one of them.  The banks should have been nationalized, not bailed out with hard earned tax payer money.  It is bad policy and bad politics.


[ Parent ]
No your wrong..
Healthcare your right on I can't agree more on this. But nationalizing the banks wasn't in the cards and probally would have the approval to pass. The TARP was the right because it halped up from a 2nd great depression. It's not bad policy and politics when your saving the country from another economic meltdown.

[ Parent ]
Naderite not even close
I don't agree with anything the teabaggers stand for - the reason I am happy for them is that their death panel bs delayed HCR to the point where the current insurance company handout will not pass.  This POS needs to be re-done from scratch - if a government option is not on the table then it is pointless. AIG is the only firm that HAD to be saved and that was a windfall for Goldman and JP Morgan with no legitimate oversight.  Most of the panic that went on down here was predatory option BS because of the removal of Glass/Steagal protections.  Financially our system is right back in the late 1800's/early 1900's boom bust era.  We will be revisiting this again and again without a reality check and that is one of the things that J Smith is right about the pulse of the electorate. We need reform not K Street reform which is no reform at all. I don't care what the 3rd party is anything from lib-dems to conservative is fine just as long as the news cycle stops the he said/she said party hack crap which is all that anybody hears anymore.

[ Parent ]
bawambi
Everything you said is way offtopic. Consider this a warning.

[ Parent ]
Remove my user name
Forget the warning just delete my account please.

[ Parent ]
"Forget the warning just delete my account please."
Good idea, you better off since your not going to get anywhere here with those views. OpenLeft is more suitable for you.

[ Parent ]
Like I said your views are extreme and dangerous
You come on here advocating 3rd parties and then you go on saying we got to start from stratch on HCR. In your wildest dreams. We've spens half a year on this and there's no going back. The bills has some flaws but has more benefit than good and if it dosen't get psssed, dire consequences will happen and i'm not going to let that happen because you want to be a Dennis Kucinich and be a troll. As for Wall Street reform it's happening. And whatever you don't believe it or not, the fact that you are glad what the teabaggers are doing makes you a supporter of their extremeist movement. Like I said you won't last long here with these views. Have a nice day.

[ Parent ]
Markets up big during Obama presidency
S&P up 31% in the past year. Dow up 25%. Nasdaq up 48%. Let em try to make the Obama is tanking the markets arguement.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

[ Parent ]
Oh they'll do it
because the markets will continue to crash as Obama pushes these reforms through. I wouldn't be shocked to see 20% across the board drops.

Not that I particularly care, but the ones with the 401ks certainly will.  


[ Parent ]
I disagree
Granted I don't believe in most of Smith's views one bit but I think Obama striking a populist tone with going after the banks will only help him not hurt him because people have been wanting to see him doing that for awhile and that mixed with HCR passing and getting then jobs bills passed will only help him come 2010 it will halp stabilize the losses were going to have and that's a good thing. So no I don't think this is a trap one bit. Question when you say this:

"Obama is tanking the market with his draconian bank rules" will also makes things worse.

Is that what your saying or what the MSM is saying that. Because if your saying that I disagree with your thinking. No I think this can help him.


[ Parent ]
I agree it could...
but the problem is the Market News is all done by Republicans.  An up day in the stock market is due to Republicams and a bad day is due to Democrats.  Watch the news or CNBC or something.

With the liberal media that is available, you only here about these proposed bank rules is from him directly, the MSM is not there with any support.

So I think it actually hurts him and he will be blamed successfully for anything negative.  

It begs the question: Where is the Dem PR machine to counter the business media?  There shouldnt need to spin on this, but clear explanation of what their doing and it benefits.  And it needs to be real clear, and not wordy, cuz the Repubs in the business community can say "markets are down because of Obama and bank rules" and that is really easy to understand and will work VERY well if not re-buffed, early and often.


[ Parent ]
Very true
It can help him and I know the business media is done by republicans like Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli. That would be a problem for the President because while he's proposing something good to fix the markets or go after the banks, these guys would tear him apart because they don't want him to go after them because there on the banks side of opinion. And when something good in the markets happen they'll just say Bush's economic program is starting to work and not the work of the Democrats or some BS like that so I know where your coming from. So I know where your coming. As for our spin machine. Not too much out of it outside of Robert Gibbs and he's only just one man. And your right about news coming from the President I hear it directly from him, not Chris Matthews or Joe Scarborough and Co.

[ Parent ]
No, Admiral Ackbar
It's a TARP!

And, frankly, damn the political consequences, I want my pound of flesh from Jamie Dimon & Lloyd Blankfein. Alternately, I would be satisfied with tearing them limb from limb. But I think Obama's tax and regulation proposal is more likely to happen. :)

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.


[ Parent ]
Not to sound stupid or ingorant
But who is that comment directed towards if you don't mind me asking.

[ Parent ]
I think picking apart polls is silly right now......
Any internals are overwhelmed by the reality we're in deep shit, and no poll that shows a Democrat losing in a purple or red district can be honestly disregarded.

I agree with the sentiment that FireDogLake is only hurting its, and our, own side with all these polls.  DailyKos has a different mission in its polling than FDL and I don't have a problem with DailyKos polls, but given that FDL is trying to spin health care more favorably to its liberal purity test, they are really doing a big disservice to everyone.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


None of these polls
make an argument for a more liberal healthcare bill, that's the problem.

In fact, it makes the exact opposite argument.

I don't even think FDL wants a more progressive healthcare bill at this point, they've given up on that, they just want to cause pain because they lost.  


[ Parent ]
I don't think it's ever silly to ask for good polling
Yeah, Dems are facing a monumentally bad tide this year, but we at least deserve quality data. And that goes for polls that are too pro-Dem, too, like that recent CO-Sen R2K that I believe sampled too many Democrats.

[ Parent ]
Let me elaborate on my point......
Does anyone really think there's anything questionable about the proposition that Baron Hill, in a rural white Indiana district that even in our party's best year our otherwise victorious Presidential nominee still lost, could be in trouble?  Even deep trouble?

And from a technocratic perspective, Jay Leve is actually right that tweaking the turnout model to include more under-35 voters doesn't really change much.  That's one thing people don't realize about all polling, that when you actually do the math to recalculate per more realistic turnout models or more historically consistent voting behavior among various demographics, the toplines don't change much.  Only if a poll shows a very close race, maybe 5 points or less, can samplling screw-ups matter very much.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10


[ Parent ]
I think the numbers are pretty accurate

and the source doesn't matter.  FDL is not causing anything.

I think the Democratic support numbers will continue to soften but could improve if/when Harry Reid announces that he's not running for reelection.


[ Parent ]
Most of us here hope Reid retires
But I'm not sure anyone is confident that he will.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Well Pan
When Reid says going going to "Vaporize" his opponents, that's a pretty good sign he's not retiring one bit.

[ Parent ]
Too bad he has no such magic powers, eh?
n/t

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Hey maybe when Reid..
Says he's going to vaporize his opponents, he going run Vicks vapor rub on all of them? Sounds like it.

[ Parent ]
You're confusing Reid with John Ensign. But even Ensign prefers whipped cream. (nm)
nm

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
No it's the source...
FDL has have a axe to grind with Dems that voted for HCR for awhile because it's not liberal enough for Jane Hamsher's liking so there making there presence known with their crappy polling to makes these Dems look bad. Now if this was R2K by Kos I would agree with you because regardless of Markos views, when he does polling he dosen't have a agenda like FDL has, he's out there to do one thing: poll the district or state to see what's happening there and that's it.

[ Parent ]
He did have an agenda once
Jim Cooper was being a bit of pooper on HCR so he polled his Nashville based district and had some HCR related questions asked.

[ Parent ]
But those questions...
were fairly neutral, and didn't go anywhere near what FDL did with their loaded questions on "forcing" you to pay a fine.  I don't mind policy questions when they're properly asked with proper context.

[ Parent ]
Your
The thing I like about Markos is he's not a shitflinger like Jane Hamsher's people. All he's looking for is answers from our Congresscritters and a good progressive majority. Hamsher's people got axes to grind with the progressives (DTOrefers to these people as shitflingers) and when they do they try to disrupt legislation by telling his members to kill the decent bill rather than pass it because there being purist about it or do what there doing now polling valnerable Democrats and asking them loaded questions so the polling makes them bad so they can give us a I told you so. That's why I respect Markos because he's willing to support Democrats that aren't hardcore liberals (although he's asked members to stop donating to Blue Dogs) he wants a progressive majority, he's great when it comes to his R2K polls because those are straight forward polls and plus he's the Blogfather lol.

[ Parent ]
no

If you look at FDL's polling, they are sort of finding what they were looking for.  But probably not clearly enough to make the case, or make it yet.

What they're polling for is whether they can plausibly argue for inclusion of the public option with polling evidence.  Along the lines of with p/o: a bunch of House moderates will be reelected; without p/o: they'll probably lose.

The problem is that people vaguely know that the problem is not their Democratic House Reps as much as the Democratic Senate.  So the House Reps poll badly in reflection of the problem in the Senate- people don't want the House to be an additional problem- but their numbers don't rebound enough if they do back the public option.


[ Parent ]
SUSA founder Jay Leve responded...
with a load of bullshit.

Sorry.  

A poll that produces 1% of the electorate as under 35 is a dud poll.  Sorry.  They happen to even the best pollsters.  Statistically, they have to.

That doesn't necessarily mean the topline is incorrect, although it would necessarily be more correct if the underlying demographics were more reasonable.  And on its own, it certainly doesn't mean that SUSA is a bad pollster.

The defense of this poll from SUSA's founder, on the other hand, is much more disconcerting.

I hate to step this far out on a subject that I'm really not an expert in, but I am an expert in reading, and that middle paragraph is, in the classic sense of the word, bullshit.  

Reasonable people can disagree about exactly what percentage of the electorate in 2010 will be age 18 to 34 , and I am not defending any specific turnout target. But most would agree that midterm voters are older.  That's what these results show.  When SurveyUSA re-weights the respondents in NY-01 to be younger, the survey results do not meaningfully change. This may seem to some counter-intuitive; it is not.

Those first three sentences are professional-politician-grade evasion and misdirection.  The question at hand is whether reasonable people can agree that having 1% of the electorate as under 35 is a reasonable forecast.  They can't, because it's not.

If they admit that it's a dud poll though they presumably owe their clients a rerun, and evidently they thought the cost of a rerun would be greater than the hit their credibility would take in the course of defending this poll.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08


How does a pollster look for more under-35s?
I'm assuming pollsters have to call actual phone numbers. While there have been attempts, cell numbers (AFAIK) aren't listed.

So for that substantial portion of younger voters who are cell only, how does a pollster find them?

In addition, what's the effect of the "Do Not Call" lists? is there a political lean of those who are on that list?

The logical response is "online," but that leads to the Zogby problem.


Do Not Call lists do not apply to surveys
The National Do Not Call Registry does not limit calls by political organizations, charities, or telephone surveyors.

https://www.donotcall.gov/FAQ/...

As far as how to get sufficient responses from hard to reach demo groups, a larger list, a longer survey period and additional call-backs would all help.

SUSA is doing these polls on the cheap and doesn't want to spend any extra time or money when they aren't forced to.  And, if the clients (e.g., FDL) don't demand it (or pay for it) and the press doesn't question it, nothing will change.


[ Parent ]
People on "do not call" lists / cell phones
I suspect are less likely to respond to phone surveys. So I believe that it is important to understand the political lean of that demographic.

The "simple" assumption is that people who place themselves on "do not call" lists split just like the rest of the population. I'm not convinced that's the case.

As for "hard to reach" demo groups, automated calls aren't allowed to cell phones, ref

Federal Communications Commission regulations prohibit the use of automated dialers to call cell phone numbers, so most telemarketers won't cold-call consumers on their cell phones - despite urban myths and emails to the contrary.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pub...

It begs the question - how much greater is the cost of a poll where all calls are "human dialed"?


[ Parent ]
Damm FDL
What good does this do for them? I mean they are trying to prove something like we need more liberal Hcr of something like that correct? Well Hill has been plenty liberal and all this does is make him go to the right or even retire. STUPID!!!!! I do not want Sodrel as my rep again!!!

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

To answer your question
What good does this do for them?

Absolutely Nothing. I don't like in IN-9 but I wouldn't want Sodrel back as my rep either. Baron Hill despite being a Bluedog has been pretty reliable on major legislation. One of the few Blue Dog I acually respect and would give money for. So to answer to your question is does no good but to make them out to be the shitflingers and purists that they are.


[ Parent ]
Reviewing the internals
I was surprised that their model shows 26% Republican, 40% Democrat, and 31% Independent (I guess 3% other...sounds kind of high).  Is that pretty accurate for this district?  Also, Independents are going heavily towards Sodrel, so I'm guessing a lot of these Indies are really teabaggers.

I'm not going to dismiss this poll in its entirety, but I have issues with other parts of the internals.  Extrapolating it even further, 5% (18-34 year olds) of a 600 person sample is 30.  That means roughly 16 of these voters are voting for Sodrel, 10 are voting for Hill.  That really doesn't show us much at all about this age group and therefore could change dramatically.

On other issues, I'm surprised that Hill did the best with the 50-64 year olds in this sample.  I actually believe this split (47-45 Sodrel) is somewhat accurate, and probably the same could be said for the 65+ sample (49-43 to Sodrel).  I have a hard time believing that the 35-49 year voters are breaking 51-35 for Sodrel.

This poll shouldn't be looked at as a fair representation of IN-9 voters.  I'm under no illusion that Hill doesn't have a fight on his hands, but I don't believe it's as dire as this poll would indicate.  I just hope I'm not wrong.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04



Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox