Tweet
I don’t think there’s a question that Democrats face a structural gap and an intensity gap for the midterms. Structural in the sense that core Democratic voting groups don’t turn out for midterms as frequently as other core Republican voting groups; intensity in the sense that Republicans are simply more excited about voting in 2010. However, these gaps, however expansive, may not result in as big a slaughter as advertised (especially by the GOP). That’s because the conservative noise machine has crept into that seemingly incorruptible social science: polling.
There’s a good reason that polls show a major Republican swing for November – 28% of them come from Rasmussen, a Republican pollster who has “flooded the zone” this election cycle. This doesn’t mean they’re wrong – they obviously feel that the electorate will look a certain way. But it does mean that a large percentage of the polling out there reflects this lean, and it works its way into the overall narrative about the election. At that point, you have to question whether the polling reflects the electorate, or if the electorate starts to reflect the polling, with conservatives energized by news of a good showing, and vice-versa.
Rasmussen apparently got a wave of funding recently, allowing them to do their work:
Yes, Rasmussen Reports has fielded far more polls so far this cycle, both in absolute terms (45 vs. 13) and as a percentage of the total (28% vs 18%). One likely explanation is the “major growth capital investment” from a private equity firm they announced this past August:
“This investment will enable Rasmussen Reports to expand and enhance all aspects of our business,” said Scott Rasmussen, founder and president of Rasmussen Reports. “That includes expanding our Premium Membership service and subscription base, developing new index products and sponsorship opportunities, and exploring new research techniques.”
I’d certainly like to follow the money on that one.
Other pollsters are starting to see a subtle but pronounced bounce back to Democrats, and they may even keep more Senate seats than expected. I’d still expect some healthy losses. But I do think the Rasmussen question should be answered. Obviously, there’s no restriction on polling frequency. But by “flooding the zone” and dominating the electoral narrative, Rasmussen is driving the election and maybe even molding opinions about it.
3 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
You may not like what Rasmussen says, but he has a record of accuracy:
“Poll Accuracy in the 2008 Presidential Election
—Initial Report, November 5, 2008—
Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D.
Department of Political Science
Fordham University
For all the derision directed toward pre-election polling, the final poll estimates were not far off from the actual nationwide voteshares for the two candidates. On average, preelection polls from 23 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of 7.52 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 1.37 percentage points away
from the current estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote.
Following the procedures proposed by Martin, Traugott and Kennedy (see Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall 2006, pp. 342-369) to assess poll accuracy, I analyze poll estimates from these 23 polling organizations. Four of these polls appear to have overestimated McCain support (indicated with a * below), while most polls (17) overestimated Obama strength.
Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were perfectly in agreement with the actual election result (**).”
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%20election.pdf
He has an accuracy at the END of the cycle. His polls undergo a transformation from their house effect early in a cycle to the end. What he’s doing now is as much narrative-setting as polling.
I think this is a non-starter and it would only serve to feed criticism of FDL if it were true as FDL has been criticized for causing Congresspeople to not seek re-election based on polls commissioned by FDL (with the answer being that FDL didn’t cause it by polling, but rather those in question were doing poorly, which I believe is true). Like did SurveyUSA drive the last election with its 22% market share or was it Republicans who are at fault for having lost then? My money is on that the polls didn’t drive the last elections, but instead that the Republicans drove themselves off a cliff and with the way Democrats are acting now they seem to desire to drive off that same cliff for the same reasons that cost the Republicans the last go around.