Back to MyDD Weblog

"...the best insights available..." that's how the Political Predictions for the 2002 Mid-Term Elections forum, at the George Washington University School of Political Management, is introduced. The program was on C-Span, Monday, October 21, in Washington, DC; it's available online at their Recent Programs.

In a related article, as these commentators rely much on polling for their indications, Tough calls: Political polling is a DMN article that details the increasing difficulties of getting accurate poll results:

STATS
9,737 – Number of calls placed by the automatic dialer during two four-hour shifts

179 – Number of people talked to during about nine hours of calling

31 – Number of people who agreed to take the survey

This is an actual response rate of .003; which of course, calls into question the accuracy of the polling. Ed Goas, who is a Republican pollster, said in the forum that that the recent polling he's looked at shows about a 15% drop in voter intensity, for this time of the year, compared with other elections. That is, there's about 15% of the potential voters that are sitting back and watching, uncommitted. That seems to be true, and its unclear if in fact they will become engaged in the election, given the likelihood of increased negative TV ads with soft money ending.

Goas makes the statement that Republicans are more intense voters this cycle, given the events of Sept 11th. This seems more like wishful thinking on his part, as the Nov 6th elections of 2001 followed Sept 11th, and showed nothing like that materializing-- the Democrats won election after election across the nation. Even in the Republican leaning state of VA, and with a conservative candidate in NJ; where Republicans trailed Democrats going into the Governor election dates, this proved not to be the case. Similarly, Goas made the statement that Democrats, and in particular minorities, have less intensity to vote. Again, wishful thinking on the part of Goas. One need only look at the Democratic primary turnout in Texas and Florida this year to see that just the opposite is happening.

What does seem the case (and this is backed up by the SUSA polling respondents) is that the polls favor the likelihood that conservatives are the ones being polled. Goas states that everywhere that Bush goes, he pops the GOP numbers by 3-4 percent. Is this really the case? Or is it just the case that partisan Republicans are more likely to want to be amongst the .003 of the population that is actually interested in shaping the poll numbers. Consider the freepers, and the time they waste disproportionately influencing online polls; and further, the general positioning of social conservatives to not only voice their ideology, but attempt to impose their beliefs on the general populace and laws. Clearly, the SUSA results are following in the POA footsteps; where, in general, conservatives make up ~ 45% the poll respondents, skewing the results toward Republican candidates.

Ron Faucheux, was the only one to give firm numbers of where he see's the election standing at this time. Like Cook, Rothenberg, and Sabato, the Oddsmaker bases his numbers upon the polling data that is available. Here's where he's at:

House
Republican: 223 holding, of those, 28 at risk
Democratic: 206 holding, of those, 20 at risk
Toss-Up: 6

GOP 1-2 net gain

Senate
Toss-up

Governor
In 23 of 36 Governor contests, the party in power at risk of turning over control. The intensity and resentment is high at the state level, with a strong push for change occurring.

Mellman, a Democratic pollster, noted that there are only 40-45 competitive House races, and that compared to previous years, this is very low. Later in the show, he predicts as "an upset in the making" the TN Senate race. Alexander, with ties to a corporation that illegally avoided paying taxes being exposed this past weekend, is caught-up in a corporate accountability scandal. Goas followed up by stating that in Georgia, with Cleland below 50% in the polls, Bush and the Republicans are focusing in on the race.

Cook followed with some interesting historical insights, when looking for precedents to this election. "There's been no ebb and flow" he stated, both parties are at a deadlock and it's unclear if this election will show "one part of the nation pull ahead of the other part." Cook likens the election to 1962, with the Iraq Invasion debate freezing the campaign in a similar way that the Cuban missile crisis did, with a "rallying around the President" effect. He goes on to state that turnout is likely to be only 1/3rd of the voting population this year; and that what is driving turnout is not the federal races, but the gubernatorial elections. The general dissatisfaction with the economy is playing out at the state level, where the Democrats have the strong advantage of being the party of change, and Republicans are trying to make the argument that their current leadership direction is just fine.

This last point is most clear in Florida. The debate between McBride and Bush is also on C-SPAN. I did not listen or watch the first two debates, but I did watch this one, and McBride clearly was impressive as a different sort of politician. He really took Bush to task at one point in the debate, telling him "you need to raise the level of your game" in turning the tables on Bush's attempt to link McBride with intolerant comments made by a black supporter of McBride. It was quite heated and direct; Bill "I've measured him [Bush] up, and I can take him" McBride may have won the election with that turnabout. McBride's closing statement on the "Florida family" was quite remarkable as well-- slow, deliberate, calm, and original; especially in comparison to Jeb's, whose closing statement was chipper, fast, and so well-polished & smooth that it came off as saying nothing for two minutes. Hey, McBride won the debate.

Back to MyDD Weblog