From year to year, democrats run the same election strategy. It starts with false polls aimed at demoralizing a republican base.
Sometimes it works and GOP destroys its own candidates (as in the case of Todd Akin, Roy Moore, etc.). Media forecasts become self -fulfilling.
But when the Republicans do not give up, as in 2016, the dishonesty of the survey ultimately becomes noticeable.
Here is my forecast: The home control will be strictly questioned, and GOP is more than likely.
What makes the polls bias? How do newspapers evaluate the facts?
1. Sampling error
Of course, the focal point of the survey is biasing samples.
This year’s election models assumed that the class of democrats, which usually do not turn out to be half, will vote in historically disproportionate numbers.
For example, in one survey, in which Democrat “Beto” O’Rourke two points before the Ted Cruz GOP tried 463 Republicans (47.4%), 423 Democrats (43.3%) and 90 independent (9.2%) – Although Texas was supposed to reach Trump 52%-43%.
Sampling erroneousness result from domestic party preferences. But it is stupid to draw conclusions based on these polls.
At the beginning a lot of this energy will be sucked by “super blue” districts, such as New York, Boston, San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Hence the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey showed that the Americans preferred the democratic control of the 50%-41%margin. But in “competitive” districts this gap disappeared to “dead heat”.
And although there is a enormous number of GOP pensions, those that remain, have a high diagnosis and like voters who hate congress and generally GOP.
This year, sampling may be even more incorrectly prone to democrats than for samples in 2014 and 2016.
The reason is that the interviewers adopted a huge assumption.
And now it has been appearing since early voting that this assumption is wrong.
It is assumed that Latinos and youthful people will vote in historical numbers.
The reality is that the Latin and Youth attendance in early vote was not in anticipation.
In fact, on the same day on which the Associated Press informed about the disappointing early attendance of this demographic data, Wall Street Journal published the results of the survey in which Latinos told the interviewers in record numbers that they intend to vote.
It is possible that voting on the day of election will be stronger than the historical forecasts would suggest.
But the greater likelihood is that telling the interviewee you intend to vote is different from the actual vote.
2. Other forms of bias
A. “Szafa-Trumper”
. New York Times He published a song on October 14 about the re -appearance of the “Republican White Man” as a powerful voting block in Columbus, Ohio and in the Middle West.
With the exception of party officials, the interlocutors from GOP asked that their names would not be used, for fear of damage to their companies. Democrats did not have such scruples.
B. Differential treatment comparable surveys results
Organizations that categorize the breeds (such as the Cook report) already adopt prejudiced election data and categorize similarly situated breeds as “or pike” based on their expectations of “blue wave”.
For example, Mia Love (R-Utah) in Utah-4 was classified as “throwing”, although love was in some polls.
However, surveys showing that New Hampshire-1 closing within 8 points did not lead to the “Tossup” category.
C. Anecdotal protruding value
When the messages are not good for democrats, they return to anecdotal articles on the values of the protruding GOP, whose first support for the Democrat allegedly presents a huge demographic change.
This year New York Times I chose the only stickers for the “Beto” bumper in the Mega-Kościol evangelical parking lot. (October 10)
Four days later Times He deepened Montana’s ranch, who felt that the liberal Jon Tester was a “Montanan who understands Montana.”
In 2016 Times He massively assessed the results in Florida, because he obtained the Cubans’ assessment of southern Florida from the representative of Seiu from southern Florida.
3. So where are we?
Well, we reached the Crescendo of another campaign to employ the misleading data to suppress republican voices – a strange strategy for a party that constantly moans about the “suppressing” of its own voters.
. New York Times It informs us that there is an 85% chance that the Republicans will lose the house – a number as enormous as 85% chance that Clinton will win the presidency in 2016.
. Times They also predicted that the Republicans would lose the Senate in 2014. This specific gaffe led the newspaper to the perspective of time that the interviewers overestimated the democratic force by 3.4%.
. Times I am looking for a redemption, claiming that the polls were biased towards the Republicans in 2012. But it was the year of Todd Akina and Robert Mourdock – Republican Senate candidates who were abandoned by their party.
4. Is it 2012 or 2016?
The answer is a bit of both.
RNC and NRCC reportedly took 10-15 places-which many looked like won. Candidates loss of support (like Mike Bishop from Michigan) were overtaken in some polls.
Black GOP Conservative Eddie Edwards, in New Hampshire, has only 8 points in a wild storage survey. But it seems that there is not much domestic support. On the other hand, “Beto” O’Rourke has a less chance of winning. And yet the Democrats did not give up.
If, as it occurs in the case of GOP home, you can only afford to lose 22 places, probably a mistake is blowing 10-15 of them.
The good news for GOP is that due to its own fault, a national mood swing can save them from their own defeteiz.
Are the expectations of the “blue wave” of the interviewers justified? Even the polls throw doubts.
The October survey of the NPR/PBS News House/Marist was found that the percentage of democrats and republicans, who perceive this as “very important” elections, ended 82% and 80%, respectively. Quinnipiac showed that the party preferences from GOP for Democrats were closed by 50% in one month. AND Wall Street Journal He stated that he did not exist in “competitive” races. This, as I said, although the numbers do not include voters who hate Trump, but like their congressmen.
And although the media never mentions it, home control can rotate around a diminutive number of places.
Recently, a real radiant rating gave GOP 201 places or bending, 205 places for democrats and 29 throws. If they broke evenly, the democrats would have one to two places more than necessary to take the house.
Note, however, that the switch of only one or two places would retain republican control.
And if the polls are as pro-democratic as in 2016 and 2014, these places 1-2 GOP probably are there. This is especially true if the surveys are moving towards the Republicans.
5. Life in the “Blue” Echo chamber has its drawbacks.
In fact, one most crucial factor in determining the result of the election in 2016 was democratic excessively optimalism, driven by a survey of based with democrat.
If Clinton focused his energy on creating support in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida, the result would be different.
Instead, she was convinced that these states were secure, and Utah, Arizona, Texas and Georgia were “feasible”.
Is the same thing now?
The interviewers encourage Democrats to convince that the election battlefield develops dramatically into very red jurisdictions.
As a result, “Beto” O’Rourke sucks funds worth $ 38 million for probably in vain.
In Western Virginia, Democrat Richard Ojeda raised $ 1.3 million in a district that went to Trump by 50 points.
In Kentucky, Democrat Amy McGrath attracted $ 3.25 million in a challenging district for Dema, in which Andy Barr sucking is still ahead of us.
Which leads to the final problem.
Democrats really managed to collect money this year – both from diminutive donors and billionaires.
They suffered a bit less effective in managing it in the way they could do it.
Certainly illusory surveys suggesting that the Senate could be reversed, caused among colleagues. My guess is that the Republicans will end with at least 53 places – and can easily reach 58.
6. Summary.
There is a slender border between the clever and stupid. You cannot be unrealistic about your potential customers. You can’t surrender just because your enemy tells you.
Republicans, if they work strenuous, have a reason to carefully keep an optimist about keeping the house. Lack of this will introduce the MSNBC circus directly to the capital.
