Interesting: Final AP poll in '94 had Dems up by 7-points on congressional ballot

[WI_DEM]

From the November 5, 1994 Milwaukee Journal:

"However, 45 percent said they would personally vote Democratic, compared with 38 percent who sid Republican. This 7-point advantegae is an improvement over a statistically insignificant 1-point edge for the Democrats in an AP poll taken three weeks earlier.

Democrats seem to have made strides too in some individual races where incumbents were in trouble..."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=yKYaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0S0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=3793,2714287&hl=en

The thing is most pundits had predicted in '94 that while the Dems would likely lose 20-25 seats in the House and maybe 5-6 senate seats--very few predicted that the GOP would win congress which they did by taking 54 House seats and 8 Senate seats.

Pundits/polls are sometimes wrong and Democrats are putting much more into GOTV than they did in '94 because they have been prepared for this. So lets not give up hope until the last vote is cast.

[still_one]

1. There is no excuse not to vote, but most of the polls do not paint a good picture for us /nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. The Logical Inference From Your Post Is That The Pollster Sucks

If every or most pollsters had similiar numbers then I would conclude that polling in general sucks and is not to be relied upon.

[WI_DEM]

3. pollsters aren't always wrong, but they might be wrong in predicting the magnitude of

the election or they may be right. We'll find out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. But In This Instance

Practically every pollster,pundit, and independent analyst is predicting the Republicans are going to retake the House.

Could they all be wrong?

Of course.

Is it likely they are all wrong?


Not likely,

[oswaldactedalone]

4. I think there is a significant difference between '94 and now

and that is, the communication that goes on to encourage voting. In '94, there was no internet, no email, no Facebook, no Youtube, very little GOTV effort, and no cable news beyond CNN. Fundraising was limited to the well-heeled who could afford X number of dollars per plate at a high falutin' dinner. The Democratic Party was caught completely off guard by the Rethug tidal wave that year, and has taken steps since to be way more prepared for elections. I mean you just about to have to live in a cave not to know that an important election is taking place now.

[Ter]

8. There was an Internet in 1994, e-mail too

And plenty of cable news beyond CNN. No YouTube and Facebook though.

[oswaldactedalone]

9. C'mon man...

AOL didn't crank up 'til 95, I got online in '97 and I knew plenty of people who still didn't own a PC then. There was no widespread email going on, maybe inter-office but nothing else, and very few of the endless talking head crap that clutters up cable news. Plus, there was no False News PAC pissing off Democrats. I didn't get involved with campaigning myself until '96, which was as a direct result of the '94 tsunami.

[Ter]

21. I meant no offense

AOL is not the internet, it is merely a service that offers internet. Remember GEnie? I had it in early 1993. CompuServe was another at the time. I used Mosaic web browser back then. I just checked and it's release was April 22, 1993. So the WWW has been available since at least early 1993.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(web_browser)

Not sure when e-mail was first offered, but it was quite some time before 1994. I did, however, have cable TV then, and there were several political channels besides CNN. Headline News, C-Span 1 and 2, and a few others.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you at all, please take no offense to this. But saying there was no internet, e-mail, or news channels other than CNN is clearly not the case.

[bemildred]

6. Pollsters assume voting patterns are consistent over time.

They therefore ALWAYS miss it when the electorate or it's voting patterns change in some fundamental way.

[Bitwit1234]

7. I do not trust the poll takers..they are too republican owned to

be honest. Get this for example...CNN reporting Toomey up 7 points bad news for Sestak..

Nest article - The polls SUGGEST that Brown and Boxer are ahead..CNN reporting.

See...they take the poll for granted that give Toomey a lead but the come up with SUGGEST in the polls that have Brown and Boxer with a BIGGER lead.

And besides how in the world does 700 people mostly republicans as per the polling company, tell us who is ahead. I think these polling companies like the rest of the republican spew is just a money making outfit.

[Stevepol]

10. With the electronic voting machines doing 97% of the counting,

none of these polls makes any difference whatever.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. The last two Gallup generic ballot numbers in '94 were tied

October 1994 and November 1994

[Valienteman]

13. That's false

Gallup predicted a Republican victory by 7%. Republicans went on to win by 7%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/24493/election-polls-accuracy-record-midterm-congressional-elections.aspx

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Well... that's a touch overstated.

What exactly are you saying is false?

My statement is true. The last two results in the normal polling series were as I described. You can look it up.

On the other hand, your point is well taken that Gallup's final prediction of the election was what you linked to.

Gallup does a final prediction in elections where they shape the raw data, putting it through their most up to date likely voter model and "forcing" the undecideds.

That prediction is not a poll. It is derived from polling but the numbers they put out on election eve are not the results of an actual poll.

Gallup predicted, accurately, that the undecideds would go R and thus their final prediction was correct.

But my statement remains true. The Gallup generic ballot polling at this point in time (one week from election) was 46% 46%.

And apples to apples that is the number most relevant to the OP.

[Valienteman]

16. It is false that the last Gallup generic poll was 46%-46%

And that is why you don't have a link. I linked to a generic poll conducted in early November. That's why there's a sub-headline that reads, "Gallup Poll Accuracy Record: Midterm Congressional Elections".

And no, that's not data "derived" from other polls. Those are polls.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. You are mistaken and I really don't care whether you can grasp that or not.

You cannot even seem to understand the material you linked to but make up for it by being a real jerk, though I responded to your (incorrect) post politely enough.

I'm not running a school here. You were given the information. You don't feel like absorbing it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. The final decision will be made in a voting booth

Up until then there is always the possibility of changing one's mind. Sometimes, what sounds good in the heat of the moment- when one is upset about something or another- sounds less good when soberly considering the potential outcome of decisions.

My ultimate prediction is that it's going to be a "worse-than-normal" midterm election for the Democrats but it's not going to be a "wave" (or Tsunami) for the Republicans either. Michael Moore argued in one of his early books ("Downsize This") that most 1994 races ended up being fairly close and that if the Democrats had gotten a few more votes, then we might not have lost control of the House and/or the Senate. I guess we'll know for sure what we're dealing with once the dust settles next week. Also, I would like to point out- in regards to polling- that discussing "likely voters" or "registered voters" is ultimately irrelevant because only actual VOTERS will decide the election one way or another and we won't know that until next week.

[old mark]

14. Quite a few people here seem happy that we might lose. Why is that?..nt

[flpoljunkie]

17. Any here who may appear to feel that way pale in comparison to the political talking heads!

[yurbud]

19. how many people used cell phones back then? since most polls are landline only

that skews the results toward the old and therefore conservative.

[8 track mind]

20. I don't think this is anywhere near 1994

Gingrich was running the show then and the pubs were more organized then. They spewed bullshit and a LOT of people bought into it. If memory serves me correct, the Dems didn't fight as hard as they should have. I don't think that's the case this year. The younger generation is engaged in This election with the GOTV effort. I personally think this is the highest level of enthusiasm I've ever seen for the Dems. The Pubs have tried to sway this election with money and outright propaganda and I don't think it really worked that well for them.