September 20, 2006

Polls: Beyond The Numbers

The MSM loves reporting about "newly released polls" (especially if they like the results) because frankly it's easy enough to throw out raw (and often select) numbers and make suggestions as to what they mean in the grand scheme of things.

But whether you like the results or not, it's critical to put them into historical context. This is just what Rich Galen of Mullings.com does on the recent data showing a trend in favor of the Republicans:

The big news was the answer to the question: "If the election for Congress were being held today which party's candidate would you vote for in your Congressional District?" This is known as the "generic vote;" it is asked without using candidates' names because the incumbent is often much better known than the challenger and will tend to sway the results.

Among likely voters, the answer was: Republican 48%; Democrat 48%. A Tie.

Among some Republican electoral experts, the feeling is: If the GOP is in the minus five percentage point range going into election day, that's good enough because the Republican turnout operation will overcome that.

He goes on to point out that, at this same time in 2004, the Democrats led Republicans on the generic ballot 45-41. The final result? Republicans won 50% to 48% at the Congressional level.

Yes, things are looking gloomy again for Democrats. But Republicans should be aware of what has made this shift. It's not so much a referendum on President Bush as it is on his anti-terror policies. And as long the GOP are able to keep the focus on this most important issue the more voters are inclined to keep to the status quo. Unless you're an unhinged Bush-hating moonbat, why risk it otherwise? Republican candidates should embrace the President on this issue.

Democrats, on the other hand have focused their full firepower on the President counting on the countries uneasiness over Iraq to be his undoing. Galen explains why this "strategery" is flawed:

I have thought this because the Democrats are making the same mistakes this year as we (I was running GOPAC that cycle, so I take my share of the blame for a flawed strategy) made in 1998: It was all anti-Clinton all the time.

The Democrats have placed all their electoral eggs in being all anti-Bush in the same strategic way. They have no positive message and, with less than two months to go, the chances of finally crafting a coordinated national message which will attract a majority of voters in a majority of the Congressional Districts are fading fast.

Of course, the vote for Members of Congress is not a national vote. It is 435 separate elections and while there are only seven weeks to go, there are still seven weeks to go.

Personally, I hope they keep it up.

Posted by: Gary at 07:10 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Joe is in "lock step" with his party, the Republican party.

Posted by: F Kruger at September 20, 2006 09:39 AM (IhG+Q)

2 "Lock-step" with Republicans? Yeah, of course. That's why he's earned a 75 rating from the uber-Left wing Americans For Democratic Action (ADA), an 83 rating from the ACLU, an 86 rating from the AFSCME union, and a 100 rating from the environmentalist League of Conservation Voters. While on the flip side, he scores a ZERO from the American Conservative Union and a 3 from the National Tax-Limitation Committee. And on the following major pieces of legislation in the last Congress, he's voted accordingly: Ban ANWR Drilling - YES Approve Tax Cuts - NO Energy Bill - NO Supporting Roe V. Wade - YES Partial Birth Abortion Ban - NO Assault Weapons Ban - YES Same-Sex Marriage Ban - NO Restrict Missile Defense - YES His one vote that went against the rest of the Dems - Fund the Iraq War: YES For data on the above see: The Record Yeah, that's "lock-step" with the Republicans. Do some homework next time, jack-ass.

Posted by: Gary at September 20, 2006 12:56 PM (PLHs9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
18kb generated in CPU 0.0287, elapsed 0.0994 seconds.
115 queries taking 0.0856 seconds, 239 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.