Sunday, February 21, 2010
Republican Blizzard on the Generic Ballot
Here are the major decisions Obama has made:
1.Ignoring previous Republican crimes, misdemeanors and profligacy – e.g. tax cuts for the wealthy.
2. Supporting a stingy stimulus that was half of what was needed and was one-third tax breaks, not jobs.
3. Killing the only option that would have slowed the cost of health care & led to universal coverage.
4. Accelerating the Bush bailout, $ 4.3 Trillions in bailouts, guarantees and purchasing assets from the private sector at well above market value.
5. Escalating a meaningless and fruitless war.
6. Gutting real financial reform and substitute finger wagging and silly taxes and fees, while banking fees continue up, lending freezes and credit tightens.
7. Not helping people with bankruptcy and mortgages remediation – accelerating middle class decline.
8. Fiddling around and not passing a jobs bill.
Taken together, Obama's decisions represent Republican policies (either accelerating previous Republican policies or selecting corporate welfare over the public welfare).
It is not surprising that the Democrats who've chosen to support Obama's Republican policies will find themselves defeated by Republicans.
Obama turned his back on the very voters who put him into office.
The Republicans have the appearance of having actually read the health bill; the Democrats appear not to and insist on saying that change is good, without being able to explain why.
A good president will listen to public opinion; a great president will lead public opinion.
This president will lead the Democrats down the road to Perdition and sadly, not understand how that happened.
Put that together with a R congress that has no desire to partake in governance, instead they'd rather see the economy worsen so they can run in and save the day in November. What a bunch of cowards. The whole lot of them make me ill. Obama's the only one with a lick of sense but no cojones to match, apparently.
I tried doing that, but here is the low down. First, you extrapolate what percentage of the two-party (Dems and Pubs) vote Republicans currently hold... As of your writing, it was 50.3 (43.6/(43.6+43)). You then take that number and plug it into a regression model (which I link to on the blog), and you are able to determine what percentage of the vote you would expect them to get in November. You can see that regression model in action by looking at the line with all the blues surrounding it on the graph.
What you basically have is that the generic ballot this far from an election almost always overestimates the percentage of the vote the party who holds the White House... In your case, the 49.7% the Dems would get of the House popular vote would actually be more like 46 (and an 8 point edge for the Pubs) on election day considering historical trends...
Does that help?
The only explanation has been based on "previous Democratic administrations". Well, that reduces it to Clinton, Carter, LBJ/Kennedy, and then you are going back over 50 years to the "Dewey beats Truman" days. This is such a small sample size, just 4 data points, that they are essentially useless.
A better explanation is that current economic conditions are dragging down the Democratic vote. As the economic has been improving, it seems unlikely for Republicans to gain ground on a trend going the wrong direction for them. Unemployment has fallen 0.3% since November, not risen, and we have 8 months left.
This is irresponsible political analysis and presenting it as more than speculation is junk journalism.
Oh and please don't make this about me being a Republican... cause I'm actually a registered Democrat in NYC... and was the get out the vote chair for the College Democrats effort in 2008...
Let me ask you a question? Can you point out why you disagree with this?
And I think you successfully show that regardless of polling company the D's have a bad lag in the Popular Vote from their break even point.
The quibble I have is how do we know that the conversion of popular vote to seats lost is linear? Is not the biggest swing the 54 seats from 1994? It would seem that is probably a base level of Democrat seats that are not going to be persuadable, at least not in one cycle. The would suggest that the Generic Ballot/Seats Lost correlation tapers off at some point. Your suggestion of 50-60 is beyond what has ever occurred so I wonder if that is the resistance level.
BTW- become a Republican now. You are likely to in later life anyway, so get it out of the way now.
We'll see what happens later in life...
I'm also curious: where does '06 fit on the Barfumi Erikson Wlezien graph, and is it reasonable to dismiss '02 as an outlier?
I too have a MS in economics:
Some notes for you:
The economy cant save the Democrats. The election is about big govt, just like 1994, 1978 and 1966 were. In each of those good years for the GOP, the economy was actually better than it had been two years previous. Between 1992 and 1994, the unemployment rate fell 2% points GDP gwoth was over 4% and 6 million new jobs were created in 1993-94, to no avail for the Dems.
As for 2010 unemployment. The census is responsible for the decline in unemployment and will continue to help reduce unemployment until March. Beginning in the summer, those 1.2m census workers will get laid off again, probably pushing the unemployment rate up.
The Nov election as far as the economy goes, isnt 8 months away, it is 6. The last employment report before the elections will be Sep, just as the last of the census workers is laid off.
As for falling unemployment, 4% GDP growth and unemployment falling from 7.8% to 7.5% didnt much help GHW Bush in 1992 did it??
I'm also curious: where does '06 fit on the Barfumi Erikson Wlezien graph, and is it reasonable to dismiss '02 as an outlier?"
I think my boss in the fall Mark Blumenthal over at Pollster.com has had some great write-ups on it (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/why_is_rasmussen_so_different.php)... The basic point is that it's probably a combination of things... Likely voter model + automated methodology (that by its nature gets the most motivated of voters)...
What I will say is as I've argued here http://poughies.blogspot.com/2010/02/another-argument-against-ivr-polling.html that I trust the automated methodology (sorry Gary Langer)... Now of course, Rasmussen is clearly a bit of an outlier... Could it be because they will actually have it right in the end (as the likely voter model helps predict what the actual turnout will be in November)? Maybe. They could just be flat wrong.
I'm just a big believer of using averages... They help to account for outliers.... and more than that, I took out Rasmussen, and it still looks like a disaster...
As for what the generic polls look liked in 06, I've actually got an email to Joe Bafumi requesting the dataset they used....
I do however have a dataset that Charles Franklin emailed me... I don't want to give away too much because I believe some of this data will be used for something else (and I don't have the time to complete a true average from the entire 241-300 day period).... BUT, from my calculations, the polls conducted over the same two week period as we are in right now (using polls that included leaners if say Gallup had one that did and one that didn't), I come up with an estimate of Democratic party taking the two way popular vote with about 53.7% (they had an average of 55.5% on the ballot) of the vote.... Pretty good... no?
I believe they won with 53% of the two way party vote...
I love your blog!!
ps. Link Exchange??
The GOP will do well in 2010 for the same reason the Democrats did well in 2006: the country is a mess and the guys in power have done nothing to make it any better.
Keep up the good work!
Ego drove his every move
that his legacy be reached
But the bottom line on Clinton Blythe
will forever read IMPEACHED!
Keep up the good work!"
First off, always good to meet a fellow member of the Big Green.
Second, the model does not (to my knowledge) in anyway control for that factor. The question is that a problem?
I don't believe it is... Here's my reason. The so-called regional divide has been in effect for many years... especially since 1994 (it's part of the reason the Republicans did so well that year... seats that were in the south that were naturally Republican were held on by yellow dog (or now blue dog) Democrats, and they simply reverted to what we would have expected).
If the regional divide had an effect on the generic ballot in such a way as to throw off the model, one would expect that elections from 1994 onward would have shown some inaccuracy or incongruity with prior years...
I don't really see that in the chart (granted, it's only a few cases)... In fact, I see only 2002 being a true outlier (due to 9/11 one would think), and in that case the error benefited the GOP.
Just my thoughts...
Indeed, the exact opposite is more likely due to majority minority districts that will vote 85-15 for the D. A nationwide tie is bad news for Ds, because that D support is overly concentrated in places like NY-16, TX-18, or CA-35.
Also, did you get the email I sent? I wanted to know if you're interested in joining a listserv of wonks and journalists.
SO a message to all,"VOTE". If you have a message to send, VOTE. You can't complain if you don't VOTE.
I care more about the bottom line numbers for Burr, Isakson, etc.
Show me a poll that has Burr trailing, and we'll talk... Until then, I'm not getting overexcited...
Do keep in mind that no Senator has retained that North Carolina since something like 1974... Flips parties every six years... I think that's going to change this year...
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]