Politics Blog

Washington Whispers says that GOPers are unhappy with pollster John Zogby:

Republican leaders have put out a contract on pollster John Zogby. Known for his accuracy, the GOP says he got too many midterm congressional races wrong and provided bad advice. “He’s out,” says a top Senate GOP aide. Incoming House Majority Leader Tom DeLay echoes that message to House members. Of course, it didn’t help that Zogby worked for DeLay’s foe. Zogby shrugs the critics off. “I’d continue to pay attention to me.”

Known for his accurate predictions in presidential elections, Zogby’s numbers are much less reliable in other races. He was widely off in most close Senate races this year, overstating the Democratic vote in virtually every one. Worse, Zogby used to be a hard-left radical and spins his polling numbers relentlessly in his “analyses” to the benefit of Democrats.

Which raises an interesting issue. Could Zogby’s biased, inaccurate polls have cost the GOP a Senate seat? The surprising answer is Yes.

When South Dakotans went to the polls, Republicans enjoyed a huge (23,000) voter registration advantage (remember Bush won this state by 23 points.) However, they voted for Democratic senator Tim Johnson over challenger John Thune by about 500 votes. In a post-election survey, 54% of South Dakotans said that Senate control was a very important factor in their vote. In other words, most of those Republicans who crossed over to vote for Johnson did so to keep Daschle as majority leader. If Zogby’s polls had been accurate, the pundits may have stopped bleating about a “50-50″ election. South Dakotans might have realized that Senate control wouldn’t hang on their votes and might have voted their principles. I’m sure at least 500 Republicans would have decided to pull the lever for Thune.

There you have it. In a real-life parody of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, Zogby’s bad polls cost the GOP a Senate seat.

In analyses of the 2002 election results, one topic hasn’t been explored very much: the idea that voters prefer divided government.

Polls routinely show that voters favor “divided government” (one party has the Presidency, the other has Congress) by 2-1 margins. Why then did they vote for a unified GOP government? The shallow answer is that Americans say one thing to pollsters and do another at the polling booth. I think there’s an alternate explanation.

I’m a Conservative. If you asked me to choose between a divided government and a GOP-controlled government, I’d pick the latter. Yet, if you were to ask me the generic question “Do you prefer divided government?” I’d say yes. That’s because the thought of a unified Democratic government scares the heck out of me.

So liberals are scared by the thought of a united GOP government and conservatives are terrified at the thought of repeating Bill Clinton’s first two years. That explains the numbers and the voting behavior, right? Not quite.

According to polls, there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in this country. So voters may find the thought of a unified GOP government quite pleasant.

Rather than the generic “divided government” question, pollsters should pose the following three questions:

1. Do you prefer a divided government or a government controlled by Republicans?

2. Do you prefer a divided government or a government controlled by Democrats?

3. Do you prefer a government controlled by Republicans or a government controlled by Democrats?

I bet the results will be surprising.

Ron Brownstein says that Democrats will get an unwelcome geography lesson in 2004. I couldn’t agree more.

Political Wire reports that Asa Hutchinson may challenge Arkansas senator Blanche Lincoln in 2004. He’d be a stronger candidate than even governor Mike Huckabee, who was considering running.

My complete 2004 Senate analysis is here.

Washington Whispers says that GOPers are unhappy with pollster John Zogby:

Republican leaders have put out a contract on pollster John Zogby. Known for his accuracy, the GOP says he got too many midterm congressional races wrong and provided bad advice. “He’s out,” says a top Senate GOP aide. Incoming House Majority Leader Tom DeLay echoes that message to House members. Of course, it didn’t help that Zogby worked for DeLay’s foe. Zogby shrugs the critics off. “I’d continue to pay attention to me.”

Known for his accurate predictions in presidential elections, Zogby’s numbers are much less reliable in other races. He was widely off in most close Senate races this year, overstating the Democratic vote in virtually every one. Worse, Zogby used to be a hard-left radical and spins his polling numbers relentlessly in his “analyses” to the benefit of Democrats.

Which raises an interesting issue. Could Zogby’s biased, inaccurate polls have cost the GOP a Senate seat? The surprising answer is Yes.

When South Dakotans went to the polls, Republicans enjoyed a huge (23,000) voter registration advantage (remember Bush won this state by 23 points.) However, they voted for Democratic senator Tim Johnson over challenger John Thune by about 500 votes. In a post-election survey, 54% of South Dakotans said that Senate control was a very important factor in their vote. In other words, most of those Republicans who crossed over to vote for Johnson did so to keep Daschle as majority leader. If Zogby’s polls had been accurate, the pundits may have stopped bleating about a “50-50″ election. South Dakotans might have realized that Senate control wouldn’t hang on their votes and might have voted their principles. I’m sure at least 500 Republicans would have decided to pull the lever for Thune.

There you have it. In a real-life parody of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, Zogby’s bad polls cost the GOP a Senate seat.

In analyses of the 2002 election results, one topic hasn’t been explored very much: the idea that voters prefer divided government.

Polls routinely show that voters favor “divided government” (one party has the Presidency, the other has Congress) by 2-1 margins. Why then did they vote for a unified GOP government? The shallow answer is that Americans say one thing to pollsters and do another at the polling booth. I think there’s an alternate explanation.

I’m a Conservative. If you asked me to choose between a divided government and a GOP-controlled government, I’d pick the latter. Yet, if you were to ask me the generic question “Do you prefer divided government?” I’d say yes. That’s because the thought of a unified Democratic government scares the heck out of me.

So liberals are scared by the thought of a united GOP government and conservatives are terrified at the thought of repeating Bill Clinton’s first two years. That explains the numbers and the voting behavior, right? Not quite.

According to polls, there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in this country. So voters may find the thought of a unified GOP government quite pleasant.

Rather than the generic “divided government” question, pollsters should pose the following three questions:

1. Do you prefer a divided government or a government controlled by Republicans?

2. Do you prefer a divided government or a government controlled by Democrats?

3. Do you prefer a government controlled by Republicans or a government controlled by Democrats?

I bet the results will be surprising.

Ron Brownstein says that Democrats will get an unwelcome geography lesson in 2004. I couldn’t agree more.

Political Wire reports that Asa Hutchinson may challenge Arkansas senator Blanche Lincoln in 2004. He’d be a stronger candidate than even governor Mike Huckabee, who was considering running.

My complete 2004 Senate analysis is here.

Paul Krugman, who has a steady job penning Bush-hating diatribes in the New York Times, attempts to claim that Al Gore’s delusions about the “weird media” are true. He argues for stopping the few conservative voices in the liberal media by applying draconian government-bureaucrat measures to silence the voices of the people.

When reading rants like this, it’s hard to stay calm. I can only take consolation from the fact that we’re going to deliver a staggering blow to liberals in 2004. And in Peter Mulhern’s Liberal Cocoon theory.

See my post on Al Gore’s paranoid ravings here.

Louisiana football fans won’t have an LSU game to go to on December 7, the Senate race run-off date. That should bring out some more Terrell voters.