Aug 26 2010
Just The Tip Of The November Tsunami
Update: ABC News even notes the fact this year’s polls are not proving to be accurate. Which means the only thing one can trust is the trend – which has been heading towards rout of Dems come November – end update
What if this year’s political tsunami was also like an iceberg, where just the tip of the wave was visible right now? In fact, all tsunami waves look like any other wave in the deep ocean. It is not until they reach the shore that the shallowing water forces the wave up to its true height. But specialized sensors can detect these waves even out to sea because they do have features (like wavelength) which set them apart.
As we approach the November elections, we may discover that the primaries we have seen to date are just the tip of the tsunami, which is now hidden from pollsters because of two very basic and acceptable reasons:
- The angriest element of the electorate have tuned out until November. And part of that tuning out is boycotting pollsters. And what if these were mostly independent voters fed up with both parties as well as the entire political process who will be voting come hell or high water? How would that effect polling models?
- The resistance of voter turnout models to massively changing views. Turnout models assume a state’s electorate will behave reasonably close to the way it has behaved in previous, similar election cycles. That is how they turn a 600 person sample into a representation of millions of diverse and independent people. The problem is, if you are off by even a fraction in the turn out model, you will be off by huge amounts when voting day comes around. And if the voters change their mood dramatically, the models will be tuned to the past, not the present.
So here we have two factors that could be hiding a wave of discontent in the poll numbers. In addition, we have two primary elections this week which behaved as if these conditions actually do exist. Though some put it down to the quirks of small voter turnout in primaries which exaggerate forces that will be muted and swamped in the fall when the ‘normal’ voters arrive. That also may not hold water.
In Alaska, Lisa Murkowski’s cruise to renomination for her senate seat looked all but certain. No poll even hinted at an upset. Yet here we are awaiting the counting of absentee ballots to see if she survived. Even if she does go on to survive, what is interesting is the anti-incumbent, anti-big government wave finally appeared out of nowhere with incredible force.
Same thing in FL in the GOP primary. And in fact, FL also was a good method to see the trend where the Democrats are still voting for big government, political elites (or incumbents) while masses of people are voting GOP and voting out the professional pol (just look at the governor primary results).
Sean Trende over at RCP did the analysis I was going to attempt (and he did much better than I would have) that discusses this concept of a hidden wave. He too, like me, looks at the governor races in 2009 and the MA senate special election in January 2010 as indicators of a massive wave heading towards to the Democrat Party – the party of intrusive big government. His approach is very simple and defendable. He tries to ascertain the general mood of the country based on the VA, NJ and MA elections, to see if a common shift in the turn out models has already occured. He finds one:
As IÂ explained in December 2009:
In Virginia, the Republicans’ share of the electorate increased by 12% from 2008 to 2009; in New Jersey it was 10%. In Virginia, Democrats were at about 84% of their 2009 level; in New Jersey it was 93%.
In both states, the Democrats’ share of the Republican vote dropped by about 50% (50% in Virginia, 56% in New Jersey), and their share of the Independent vote dropped about 66%. The Democrats’ share of the Democratic vote was pretty stable; up 1% in Virginia and up 2% in New Jersey.
As we entered December of 2009, Republicans began whispering about a potential upset in Massachusetts. In the absence of much polling, IÂ asked what would happen if the Massachusetts electorate were to shift in the same way that the Virginia and New Jersey electorates did. The results showed a 51.1%-48.9% Coakley win – a much closer race than almost any analyst was suggesting would be possible at the time.
The fact that Scott Brown performed only a few points better than this model suggested implies that the Massachusetts electorate did in fact move in much the same way as the New Jersey and Virginia electorates did (unfortunately we don’t have exit polls to verify this conclusion directly).
What he then did is apply this same general mood adjustment to all the pending senate races, based on previous election results!
The composition of the electorate was altered in each state so that the electorates would be 11 percent more Republican, 5 percent more Independent and 11 percent less Democratic than they were in the 2008 presidential race.
This is important to note in his methodology. He simply models a universal shift in attitude from 2008 to 2010 and determines what would be the outcome of the Senate races. Interestingly, most of the races are now trending towards his predicted outcomes. A few are not, because of the strength or weakness of individual candidates (which actually proves his theory is right). In AR he nailed Blanche Lincoln’s sad situation, and in IL his model shows the two equally flawed candidates would be in a tight race. Trende’s model shows the GOP picking up 12 seats (without accounting for quirks of individual races).
That means the Democrats are NOT starting with +10 (as everyone assumes), but instead are starting at -12. that means they will need to win back 3 seats to keep the majority if the wave is out there and ‘baked in the cake’ so to speak.
Back in late 2009 and early 2010, anyone who claimed WI, CA, WA, DE, PA and others states would be within reach of the GOP would have been deemed nuts. But not now, even left leaning pollsters are starting to sense the swell rising. Take the respected Nate Silver:
The Democratic majority is in increasing jeopardy in the Senate, according to the latest FiveThirtyEight forecasting model. The Democrats now have an approximately 20 percent chance of losing 10 or more seats in the Senate, according to the model, which would cost them control of the chamber unless Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, who is running for the Senate as an independent, both wins his race and decides to caucus with them.
His prediction now is the Dems lose 6-7 seats. He still has CA, WA, IL and WI going Democrat (as do most pollsters). I like his approach because he is looking historically at how strong poll leads at this stage before an election hold until the election:
The forecasts are based on a program designed to evaluate current polling and demographic data, and to compare these present-day conditions to outcomes in United States Senate races over the past six election cycles.
This approach can be more accurate because it simply determines how solid the November picture right now, based on previous cycles. However, it is also weak because it is based on previous cycles, and assumes poll accuracies this year are as good as previous cycles. That is a questionable assumption (as Sean Trende indicates). What if the turn out models in place this year are still too heavily weighted towards past cycles (instead of the tuning process they will go through in the coming weeks, weighting new poll data to adjust the turn out models to current conditions)?
What if that 5% of the electorate that is so angry and so energized it lifted up the Tea Party movement is ignoring pollster calls? What if there is a largely center-right, libertarian, Tea Party movement not completely visible to the pollsters out there?
If both Trende and Silver are basically correct, then Silver’s model is going to shift right and consume states like IL, CA and WA. It may even take out IL and CT. We don’t know. What we do know is no one saw Alaska coming, and only one pollster detected the Scott win over McCullum in FL – for very interesting reasons:
We used a loose screen in determining who to call that may have picked up more non-typical primary voters who went for Scott. Instead of calling a list of people who had a history of voting in past primary elections, as we usually do, we just called folks who had a history of voting in general elections and then screened on voting intent for the primary from there. If the folks who voted yesterday had been exactly the same as the folks who voted in the 2006 primary I imagine McCollum would have won. That’s because he was the Republican establishment choice and the kinds of folks who vote in every primary likely went to him. But there were hundreds of thousands more people voting yesterday than in 2006 and my sense is the newbies went strongly for Scott.
We picked up a Republican electorate that was exceedingly conservative. In 2008 exit polls showed 61% of Presidential primary voters were conservatives. Our poll over the weekend suggested 72% of primary voters this year identified as conservatives. Given that Scott was winning conservatives and McCollum was winning everyone else, identifying that conservative shift in the Republican electorate probably helped contribute to our poll’s accuracy.
The one pollster that basically nailed Scott’s wave in FL is the one who shifted their turnout model from the 2006 and 2008 parameters to one more conservative and with higher energy on the anti-incumbent side. Coincidence?
I think not.
Especially since now upwards of 100 house seats are in play and the tsunami may have already consumed the Democrat House (not to mention the governor mansions). The tide, she is still arising!
You could be right. In fact my circle of friends tends this way, the iceberg theory. Not really tuning in until the day before.
If you look at Florida D-R turnout, the numbers are against the Ds by a huge number. It was like +60% for Republicans in Florida, when it is normally +30% for Democrats. Near 100% shift.
But your iceberg makes sense. There simply may be enough people who are waiting until November, not knowing or caring what candidate is involved, like normal, and plan on executing a simple strategy … Vote the D’s out. The iceberg theory.
I know I was totally fed up with the calls, and just shut off my phones in response.
http://vodpod.com/watch/4279914-when-youre-holding-a-hammer-everything-looks-like-a-nail
“‘There is frequently a lack of understanding of what power is—I’ve got power, therefore I’m right,’ he said. ‘When you’ve got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.’
[1981 New York Times 11 Nov. D13]”
They had the hammer and misused it now it’s gonna change hands!
I hope Joe Miller holds on in Alaska, but Conservatives and Republicans are horrible at “countin” the votes.
I hope there’s no cars headed for Alaska from Minnesooota with trunks full of ballots!
AJ,
See this Karl Rove quote from Gatewaypundit:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/karl-rove-we-havent-seen-gop-turnout-like-this-since-1926-video/
Karl Rove on GOP primary turnout:
“If you look at the entire year, Republicans have turned out, before tonight, nearly 4 million more people have voted in the Republican primaries than have voted in the democratic primaries this year. Four years ago, 3 million more people voted in the democratic primary than the Republican. Eight years ago 3 million more people voted in the democratic primary than the Republican. You know when the last time was that Republicans, in an off year election, that I could find that more people voted in the Republican primary than the democratic primaries? 1926.â€
Two points stand out.
One, the primary season is not over yet and we have seen a seven million voter swing to Republicans.
Two, the increased Republican turn out represents _new Primary voters_.
It does not represent the very angry but less focused on the political process voter.
Which is what the political pros call the “general election voting public.”
I am not impressed or convinced by these theories or projections.
What would be impressive is a enduring shift in the thinking of the electorate.
America is hostage to the “independent center”. This group votes in what ever direction the current popular sentiment flows. Just 2 years ago the Obama wave hit America, the center hopped on the surf board and rode the extreme leftist wave. Now they are on the move to the Tea party move to”right wave.”
Are independents serious about smaller, less intrusive, lest costly government? That remains to be seen.
AJ,
This stands out for me from the PPP quote:
Instead of calling a list of people who had a history of voting in past primary elections, as we usually do, we just called folks who had a history of voting in general elections and then screened on voting intent for the primary from there.
A significant percentage of the Presidential General election conservative voter is now a low turn out mid-term primary voter.
Which means that the Republican primaries are now filed with new, conservative but not party aligned, independent voters.
The name for them used to be “Reagan Democrat.”
dhunter,
Vote rigging works best when it is set up before the election and not after.
Murkowski didn’t see this coming, she had been 40 points ahead six weeks ago, AKA she does not have the vote stealing machinery and rigged vote counters in place.
She can’t cheat big enough _after the fact_ without getting the whole vote rigging conspiracy jailed.
That is why you are hearing about her 3rd party election bid.
AJ,
Micheal Barone is on this case too:
The returns from this week’s Florida and Arizona primaries show, once again, that Republicans have an impressive advantage in the balance of enthusiasm this year.
In Florida, the turnout in the top Republican race (for governor) was 1,282,490, while the turnout in the top Democratic race (for U.S. senator) was 909,307. That’s in a state where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by 612,773. About one-third (32%) of registered Republicans showed up and voted. Only one-fifth (20%) of registered Democrats did so.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/republicans-ahead-in-florida-arizona-turnout-101508729.html#ixzz0xivZno2P
…..and adding even more credence: Rasmussen now has Fiorina w/i 1 of Boxer in CA. (Other polls have Fiorina anywhere from +3 to +5). In any event the senate seat in CA is now a “toss-up”.
I suspect if bad economic news continues into mid October the wave will still be growing, and quite frankly, I see nothing on the horizon which could be good news for the Democrats.
And when the wave hits on November 2???????
“What would be impressive is a enduring shift in the thinking of the electorate.”
That only happens when a party or group takes power and then shows that it is indeed able to govern effectively and is not just willing, but eager to honestly address the true concerns of the citizenry.
The Republicans had this chance from 2000 – 2006 and admit it, they blew it with all of the self-dealing and pork barrel crap that they pulled. They deserved to be thrown out of power, because they handled the publics trust badly and proved that they were just as much in love with big government as the dem’s were.
The the Dems were given the chance – and they have spent the last 2 years proving that they are even less worthy of the public’s trust than the previous group was.
So now the wheel turns – but winning is just the granting of the opportunity. Governing well is what is required to truly win the publics trust, and that is going to be (as always) the hard part.
“So now the wheel turns – but winning is just the granting of the opportunity. Governing well is what is required to truly win the publics trust, and that is going to be (as always) the hard part.”
And that my friends is why we need the entrenched, entitled fossils OUT OF THERE and new young blood IN.
Young blood who are going to be affected by the spending and theft of the old timers who have used the publics money as their own personal, private campaign coffers and have panderered and tried to buy off every constituency in sight.
Fiscal responsibility has got to be returned to the Feds, the States and the idividual, money sent to DC is siphoned off and a pittance returned to the masses. The theft of private earnings has got to stop.
I would suggest a National Sales tax replace the current corrupt system!
AJ:
I believe SurveyUSA is one pollster who has adjusted their turnout model for the changes between 2008 and 2010. Their polls have been very accurate this primary season and they have departed from other pollsters.
BTW, they have Rossi +7 and Fiorina +5.
[…] else can a phony Blue Dog Democrat to do when faced with an electoral tsunami in […]
MarkN,
Those kinds of numbers in WA and CA mean the Dems are going to get wiped out – and bad.
That would be good news if the Dems get wiped out badly because they lose control on the redistricting of their own states, especially California.
Hotair just linked to an article indicating that some NRSC lawyer is heading to Alaska to help Murkowski keep her seat.
Then I read how the Republican establishment is helping Matt Dohey over Doug Huffman in NY-23.
Gee, they sure are still interested in keeping incumbents.
I’ve been ignoring pollster calls for years but I vote every year. This year, I’m also ignoring calls from the Republican fundraisers whom I have given money in the past. I am saving my money for select candidates in close races (e.g. if Fiorina is close to kicking deadwood Boxer out, I will send a few bucks that way) and the rest I will contribute to the Tea Party. My thinking has never been representative of any significant segment of the population in the past (so far as I could tell), but if lots of other people are thinking along similar lines this time, look out!
AJ:
I live in CA and the Fiorina numbers are hard to believe unless the Central Valley turns out big. The smelt issue is huge in the Fresno, Modesto, Stockton areas.
The WA numbers are not off by much. With the Republicans winning the Senate primary 50-48-2 and the race now down to Rossi and Murray, the 52-45 poll is not unreasonable. I personally think it is more like 52-48 with leaners. However, SurveyUSA may be on to the fact that the leaners will not break towards the Democrats come Nov. 2nd.
BTW, Owens in the incumbent in NY-23 not Doheny. Matt Doheny is a good candidate. We will see in the primary if the establishment is overtaken by the Tea Party in NY-23. It may be another case of Scott vs. McCollum.
MarkN, thanks for the correction. Which district is Matt Doheny running in? I couldn’t remember.
As for NY-23, hope Doug Hoffman will push Owen out.
Wilbur Post
“I am saving my money for select candidates in close races (e.g. if Fiorina is close to kicking deadwood Boxer out, I will send a few bucks that way) and the rest I will contribute to the Tea Party.”
This is the wave of today (and the future). With the internet, you can find out who the candidates are, their positions on the issues, and (most importantly) donate to their campaign. This is how Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. And believe me, living here in the Northeast, you cannot know how HUGE that was (Ted Kennedy’s…errr I mean “the people’s” seat) – and it literally happened over the course of a very short few months.
At one time, giving to a national party organization may have made some sense, as they could strategically provide funding to candidates nationwide. Today, any candidate can organize a “money bomb” and raise a lot of needed campaign funds continuously over the internet.
Maybe AJ could provide a list (or links to lists) of candidates who could use some help…
All this celebrating may be premature if the NSRC has anything to say about it.
Why would they use contributed money to go to Alaska to defend a seat, in a PRIMARY RACE, that was inherited, given by a corrupt father to his daughter.
This is the kind of inside the beltway mentality and lack of concern for “The Peoples” wishes that needs to be exterminated, not rewarded!
Has this Murkowski ever defended this seat and won or does she deserve it cause shes’ an insider now?