Newsweek Generic Congressional Poll. Democrats lead 48-43

[FBaggins]

Suer would like to see a few more like this in the coming days.


http://nw-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/1005-ftop.pdf

[geek tragedy]

1. That study projects that 97% of RVs are likely voters.

81% saying they will 'definitely' vote.

Ooookaayyyyyy . . .

[karynnj]

22. That really shows why asking if they will definitely vote really doesn't work

It is part of why the likely voter models are so difficult to do. There is a large bias in opinion polling on questions where people know what the "right" answer is. If someone has already indicated who they prefer, to then say they might vote - but if it's a nasty rainy day - maybe not. Many use a question of whether they voted in the primary or in the last election as a proxy - eliminating many of the young.

Clearly 97% of all registered voters will not vote - it was nowhere near that even in high energy Presidential years.

[Exilednight]

24. There is no way you get a 81% turnout for a midterm. We didn't even get that for the last .........

presidential election. The closest any state came to that number was Minnesota with 78.1%. Most states averaged around the mid 60s with the national average being around 61%.

During the 2006 midterms the national average was 41% with Minnesota, again, with the highest percentage at 60.1%.

These numbers are fairly consistent with our most recent history. Likely voter turnout will be somewhere around the high 30s to low 40s for a midterm election.

[Aramchek]

2. quick, sweep that under the rug!

[Beetwasher]

3. Whoa! That's pretty stunning

If more polls come out like this, outlook starts changing pretty drastically.

[FBaggins]

4. Wouldn't that be something?

Seems unlikely at this point (can't think of anything that would reflect
this large an apparet shift)... But I couldn't be happier to be wrong.

[Beetwasher]

5. I can think of a lot of reasons for it I just didn't expect a swing this big so quickly

what were their data last poll and when was it?

[FBaggins]

6. It was just Wed/Thur

About as recent as you can get... and no weekend days. Just registered voters, but that wouldn't explain the difference with the other polls.

I can think of a lot of reasons for it

Ah...no doubt. But can you see any reasons that weren't there the last five times you thought the surge had begun only to see it fade away?

A 6-8 point swing in just a few days would be an historic event.

[Beetwasher]

10. Data has been pointing to Dems surging for a couple weeks now

as I've consisently predicted would happen after labor day.

[FBaggins]

12. And you see it BECAUSE you predicted it.

Not because it actually exists.

You see positive movement in a few races (CA, WA, etc) and ignore movement in the other direction in a comparable number of races (WV, FL, etc). You saw it in July and you saw it again in September and it just wasn't there.

The net picture isn't moving much. The overall race is tightening up overall, taking the nightmare scenario almost entirely off the table, but also removing the chance of limiting losses to just a few seats. Removing an almost sure R pickup in DE... but replacing it with increased chances in WI and WV (I still can't buy into the notion that CT is in play).

The surge doesn't show up in the expert's predictions... it doesn't show up on the betting sites... it doesn't show up on IEM

[Beetwasher]

16. No Its Happening As I Predicted

the generic ballot is obviously tightening, feel free to deny of if it makes u feel better.

[FBaggins]

20. You have a creative memory re: what you have predicted.

and an equally creative ability to forget prior predictions.

[Beetwasher]

25. Aww poor you can't admit I was right

and for some reason you refuse to acknowledge what's clear to everyone else; Dems now have the momentum just as I predicted they would. Oh well live in denial if it makes you feel better.

[FBaggins]

26. I'll happily admit it... if it ever happens.

So far... nothing to hope for there.

Or are you forgetting your predictions about AK now being a tossup... Crist being a shoe-in to win in FL and then caucus with Democrats. Feingold being safe... the republicans "blew their wad" in August (only to be followed by their largest polling leads in history)...how close KY and LA were to flipping (and maybe even IN)? I suppose WV and CT are surging our way too?

And I just love how you're now focusing on a single generic congressional poll when a month ago that was irrelevant and we had to focus on the individual races.

[Beetwasher]

27. I predicted Dems would close after labor day and I was right

stay on topic. It really gets yr goat too! :rofl:

[FBaggins]

28. Lol

If you make the same prediction ("close next week") every week... you will eventually be able to claim to be right with just normal polling fluctuations (hint... there isn't any confirmed "closing" yet). You also predicted closing "in a week or two" back in August.

But by all means... back it up. Where's the post?

[Beetwasher]

29. poor you forced to make shit up instead of admitting I was right

Repubs did blow their wad in August and Dems are closing just as I predicted.

[FBaggins]

30. Sure wish someone other than you could see it.

But I guess you get that alot, eh?

[Beetwasher]

31. you seem to b the only one who can't see the Dems current momentum

maybe you should remove yr shit colored glasses.

[FBaggins]

32. Really?

The professional prognosticators can't seem to see it (actually moving in the other direction)... the odds sites can't seem to see it (ditto)... the betting sites can't seem to see it (ditto). The average of the last several generic polls is right where it was at the end of August (about four points) when you claimed things were turning around.

Who exactly does see this supposed surge?

You need to learn the difference between normal variability and a statistically significant move. You also need to get past your ability to forget past blunders and think they never happened. Unless you can convince others to do the same, you just look foolish.

[Beetwasher]

33. you posted the poll and it's further evidence of dem momentum

the generic gap has been closing, individual races will too. Not my problem you want to ignore the evidence you yrself posted. But feel free to deny it if it makes you feel better.

[FBaggins]

34. It's one poll BW.

One or two polls aren't evidence of much of anything (particularly since you seem to think this surge is a couple weeks old already)... which is why I said that we needed to see a few more like this. There are going to be polls showing a small Democratic lead and there are going to be a handfull of polls showing a 10-12 point republican lead. That's what you expect when the real number is in the 4-6 point range and you add on the mix of LV/RV polling plus the MOE. The dead even polls aren't evidence of a surge any more than the 12-point polls are evidence of a collapse. It's just statistical "noise"

Did you read the last two days' posts on 538? The ones titled "G.O.P. Stays on Upswing in Senate Forecast" and "House Forecast: As October Dawns, November’s Math Still Strong for G.O.P." ??? Charlie Cook's latest "The GOP Wave Keeps Coming" ??? How about Stu Rothenberg's piece yesterday "For Democrats, Senate Still a Possible Nightmare"?

Why can't these experts see the surge that you think everyone but me can see? Must be those sh1t-colored glasses.

[Beetwasher]

35. it's amusing watching you squirm instead of admitting dems having momentum

and my being right about it. And it's more than one poll. Look at the averages on TPM it's clear undeniable movement. But deny away if it makes you feel better.

[FBaggins]

36. Ok... I'm looking. Can you point to it on the chart?

Nuts... I can't get their chart embedding to work.

Go to their generic congressional ballot. Limit the range to 40%-50% (just to make the trend clearer)... then limit the dates to 5/1 forward. Turn off the plots and then turn on the grid lines.

[Beetwasher]

37. you don't see the movement in the generic ballot?

the two lines converging? I can't post links right now but I will later.

[FBaggins]

39. Compared to June?

A statistically significant move?

Not really.

If a few more polls show the same thing then we'll see some significant tightenting as the older polls drop off, but I can't see anything that doesn't fit normal statistical variation.

Let's simplify it. When Democracy Corp and the AP showed a ten point Republican advantage... do you think that's really where the race was? Or is it more likely that it was a six point race and they were just at the upper end of the margin of error? When ABC and the Washington Post showed republicans up by 13 points while Gallup showed the race tied... where do you think the "real" race was?

I assure you that the real race doesn't jump around by a dozen points in a day or two unless Pelosi shows up on Capital Hill with an M-16 and shoots a few people. When CNN shows the race nine points one way and Newsweek sees it five points the other way just days later, that doesn't represent a shift in the race... it represents cheap polling. A "surge" will show up in eight of the next ten polls. Right now there's no evidence that this is any different than July when Gallup said it was six points in our favor while others said it was 6-8 in the other direction.

[Beetwasher]

40. post labor day which is what were discussing and yr denial of it makes it hard to

to take you seriously.

[FBaggins]

41. If you "surge" post labor day...

and still don't get back to where you were in June... or even close... and you were behind in June (when the generic poll hardly ever shows any advantage for republicans even in years when they make gains)... how weak is your definition of a surge?

[Beetwasher]

43. momentum is momentum and the timing is right and just as I predicted

why you feel it necessary to deny it is yr problem. But yr contortions are hilarious. Some people are funny like that I guess.

[joeglow3]

44. Lets not start sucking each other's dicks just yet

Lets wait a couple weeks and see where we are at.

[Beetwasher]

45. no please go ahead and start sucking right now

thanks!

[joeglow3]

51. Good luck with that premature ejaculation.

[Beetwasher]

55. no worries yr not that good

too much teeth. Ow!

[FBaggins]

47. "momentum" as evidenced by race rating changes since Labor Day

•NEW HAMPSHIRE | Governor: Solid Democrat to Toss Up (9/30/10)
•MARYLAND | Governor: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (9/30/10)
•MAINE | Governor: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (9/30/10)
•IOWA | Governor: Toss Up to Likely Republican (9/30/10)
•WEST VIRGINIA | Senate: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (9/30/10)
•WASHINGTON | District 9: Solid Democrat to Likely Democrat (9/27/10)
•NEW YORK | District 22: Solid Democrat to Likely Democrat (9/27/10)
•MISSISSIPPI | District 4: Solid Democrat to Likely Democrat (9/27/10)
•MASSACHUSETTS | District 5: Solid Democrat to Likely Democrat (9/27/10)
•MAINE | District 2: Solid Democrat to Likely Democrat (9/27/10)
•WASHINGTON | District 3: Toss Up to Lean Republican (9/23/10)
•TENNESSEE | District 8: Toss Up to Lean Republican (9/23/10)
•RHODE ISLAND | District 1: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat (9/23/10)
•PENNSYLVANIA | District 7: Toss Up to Lean Republican (9/23/10)
•MICHIGAN | District 1: Toss Up to Lean Republican (9/23/10)
•INDIANA | District 8: Lean Republican to Likely Republican (9/23/10)
•ALABAMA | District 5: Lean Republican to Likely Republican (9/23/10)
•ALASKA | Senate: Solid Republican to Likely Republican (9/20/10)
•WEST VIRGINIA | District 3: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat (9/16/10)
•OHIO | District 6: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat (9/16/10)
•MAINE | District 1: Solid Democrat to Likely Democrat (9/16/10)
•IOWA | District 2: Solid Democrat to Likely Democrat (9/16/10)
•ILLINOIS | District 17: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (9/16/10)
•CONNECTICUT | Senate: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (9/16/10)
•DELAWARE | Senate: Likely Republican to Likely Democrat (9/15/10)

[Beetwasher]

50. In Fluid Race, House Majority Is Uncertain, G.O.P. Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/us/politics/03campaign.html?_r=2

Oh, and the generic ballot you had problems understanding showing obvious tightening since Labor Day:

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-cong-generic-ballot?ref=fpb

You're vaunted expert Charlie Cook, posted by you yourself:

A new poll suggests Dems may turn out in higher numbers than expected.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x464281

Nahh, no momentum for Dems. Must be a figment of my imagination. :rofl:

Oh, and by the way, how'd that prediction of yours about AK that Murkowski would never ever ever go write in work out for you? :rofl:

"She isn't going to run a write in campaign (and if she did it wouldn't come close to impacting the final results). The "sore loser" stigma added on to the existing "daddy gave me the seat" stigma would ruin her and hurt the family name. She's plenty young enough to run for the other Senate seat and/or later for governor.

She either picks up the libertarian line or doesn't continue.

To make it simpler - she isn't going to run just to hand the race over to us. She would only continue if she thought she could win. A write-in campaign doesn't do that for her."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=420790#421663

-Frodo showing his grasp of reality.

[FBaggins]

52. Sigh... you didn't actually read the article, did you?

"Most of the experts who analyzed the NBC/WSJ numbers concluded that the results represent no big change in the overall political climate"

"Much of the rest of the new NBC/WSJ poll was bad news for Democrats"

"the structure and direction of this election hasn't changed"

Oh, and by the way, how'd that prediction of yours about AK that Murkowski would never ever ever go write in work out for you?

I said that if she tried she wouldn't impact the final results. As of now, the only impact appears to be that it's even less likely that our candidate can make it a competitive race. If you feel better about that, fine. My ability to gloat on your ridiculous predictions will necessarily be tempered by the fact that winning means losing.

Frodo showing his grasp of reality.

I love how you find one example where you think my prediction was wrong and are suddenly willing to shift the topic that you've self-limited the conversation to... but of course we won't return to the half-dozen or so predictions that you made that look ridiculous, now will we? Of course not... it has been decreed that that isn't what the thread is about. :rofl:

[Beetwasher]

54. Its amazing how u post a thread that is evidence of Dem momentum and then deny it

one might say its downright delusional.And its evidence on top of other evidence. it seems very important for u to deny it. Amazing.

Sort of like yr insistence there was no way Murkowski would go write in despite the evidence to the contrary. :rofl:

[FBaggins]

56. But it's not amazing that you would MISSread a thread

Despite the clear language of the author of the piece. It is in fact par for the course.

You must have such a tough time sleeping at night if you really think that the "momentum" changes every couple days like that.

Here's a hint that may make the next one easier. If a poll comes out Monday saying republicans are up by four... It is NOT a shift
in momentum. It's normal polling variability.

[Beetwasher]

58. Awww, Poor Frodo, Doesn't Like The Evidence That My Prediction Was Correct, While His

Prediction makes him look like an utter fool. :rofl:

Frodo on Murkowski going write in:

"She isn't going to run a write in campaign (and if she did it wouldn't come close to impacting the final results). The "sore loser" stigma added on to the existing "daddy gave me the seat" stigma would ruin her and hurt the family name. She's plenty young enough to run for the other Senate seat and/or later for governor.

She either picks up the libertarian line or doesn't continue.

To make it simpler - she isn't going to run just to hand the race over to us. She would only continue if she thought she could win. A write-in campaign doesn't do that for her."



Oh, and just for the record, my prediction which I've been very consistent about and which it seems the evidence is mounting that I was correct:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Beetwasher/92

[FBaggins]

59. So much for that theory, eh?

Time to move on to the next BS claim?

Try reading the thread linked below. It will keep you from looking so foolish next time.

Or do you really want to claim that Democrats gained momentum and then republicans picked up massive momentum just days later?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x466285

[Beetwasher]

60. Still Denying The Momentum Any Way You Can Huh?

:rofl:

Even (R)asmussen shows Dem surge

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/4/907694/-Even-(R)asmussen-shows-Dem-surge

[FBaggins]

61. Didn't even read the article, did you?

I can help with any of the big words if you get stuck.

Or I can just summarize Nate's ("One Of The Best Out There") piece for you:

"Some democrats got excited, thinking that momentum was now on their side. They were wrong. It could still happen, but hasn't yet."

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

57. That's right because people don't start paying attention to politics until *after* Labor Day.

That's why I can't understand why the so-called "Progressive Left" was complaining about Democrats not campaigning. DUH! It's customary for them to wait until people start paying attention. In addition, the Republicans generally have more money and can start campaigning earlier.

Methinks the Republicans surged too early.

Once Americans actually wake up and consider what's at stake, the numbers will change.

[The Hitman]

7. They have been all over the map this cycle

Remember that -10 from last month?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142718/GOP-Unprecedented-Lead-Generic-Ballot.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=plaintextlink&utm_term=Politics

[thelordofhell]

53. Yeah, and the media that hyped the "unprecedented" lead

Won't even mention the "unprecedented" loss of it

[RBInMaine]

8. Please, keep ATTACKING the RADICAL REPUKES ! Donate, rally, canvass, phonebank, signage. DO IT !

[oswaldactedalone]

19. Rinse and repeat...

As often as possible. We must kick Rethuglican Teabagger ass back to the stone ages.

[Kdillard]

9. That is great. Hope it translates to the races come

November.

[donco]

11. It looks like the voters are seeing

a lot of Christine O’Donnell lately and are having a big WTF moment.

[Life Long Dem]

13. Interesting

No wonder there's no polls lately in the news media. The tide is turning back. 2006 was a good year for voter turnout, so why not 2010?

[book_worm]

14. And among definite voters it's 50-42 for Dems

43 48 9 =100
Republican RVs 93 4 3 =100
Democrat RVs 2 96 2 =100
Independent RVs 47 30 23 =100
Definite voters2 42 50 8 =100

http://nw-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/1005-ftop.pdf

[FBaggins]

15. That causes me to question the rest of the poll

I don't think any other poll has shown a shift like that in our favor among a measure of likely voting. Sure would be nice to see... but I want to look a bit more at their internals.

Newsweek's results have been challenged before... but I thought the criticism in August was answered well. OTOH, they have had some wild results in the past. They showed a 16 point Democratic advantage on the eve of the 2006 elections (though they weren't the only ones). That was obviously a pretty good year for us, but I think we won by more like seven points.

All of which is why we could use two or three better polls to confirm a move.

[Imajika]

21. Yeah, something isn't right about that poll...

Any poll showing likely voters breaking for the Dems like that is seriously suspect at this time.

Either something is seriously wrong with this polls assumptions/methodology or we should start seeing lots of other polls showing this monumental swing to the Democrats. So far no other poll shows anything remotely close to this.

I fully expect things to tighten up, and I also think if we energize the base we could avoid losing either chamber - but this poll would almost indicate we were about to make gains which is simply not believable at all.

When I see a batch of other polls showing LV's going towards Democrats so strongly I would consider taking this poll seriously. Until then, I would suspect this poll is seriously flawed somehow.

[Mefistofeles]

17. But I thought corporate pollsters hated us

Go figure.

[Mass]

18. Assumptions about who will vote or not vary widely depending on the pollsters and their models.

There is not way to know who is right or wrong before November 2. But this could make the difference between 1994 and 1998. At that point, some will be seen as geniuses and others as losers, even though the whole enterprise is more like clairvoyance.

Only thing to do is to remind people they should go vote to avoid a Republican Congress.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. This cycle started on Labor Day

Everything before that was pointless. All the polls, trends, campaigning, all of it was devoid of meaning. To see any trend, start with Labor Day and go forward. As a frequent critic of the administraion here, I will say that they understood that and started right on time. Sep, Oct. Summer is summer. Fall is elections. Meg Whitman spent all those tens of millions when no one was listening at all.
I've said it before. Asking any voter in July who they will vote for in November is like asking an 8 year old what they want for their 10th Birthday. You can ask, but chances are they will change their mind in the interval.

[Change Happens]

38. See the latest from Charlie Cook!!! Very good news, and...

We are just getting started :)

[Inuca]

42. Link? n/t

[FBaggins]

49. Would that be the "latest" where he said:

"In my view, the structure and direction of this election hasn't changed."

??

[BzaDem]

46. That poll has the same party ID sample as actually voted in 2008.

Something tells me that in November, the party ID sample will not be nearly so favorable for Democrats. The opposition party almost always boots turnout relative to the party in power in first midterm elections.

[FBaggins]

48. That's not uncommon for polling firms.

They have to adjust their sample to some party balance. The turnout from prior elections is the most common one to use. Polling firms may suspect that the electorate has changed, and even have polling data to indicate that (though probably not Newsweek), but they've gotten in trouble in the past when they weight to this new presumed balance.