The Dangers of Under Confidence
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on
DickMorris.com on October 4, 2010
Printer-Friendly Version
Just as when the Republican establishment wrote off Scott Brown's effort
to capture "Ted Kennedy's" seat in the Senate, the Washington
Republicans may be under estimating the number of seats the GOP can
capture in the House of Representatives.
Over confidence is not a danger. Everybody is working as hard as
they can to elect Republicans all over America. Nobody is
apathetic on the right. The only indifference and passivity in the
nation is on the left. But under confidence - writing off seats
that we can win - is a huge obstacle to further progress.
The swath of destruction Obama has cut through our economy, banking
system, manufacturing base, and medical profession is so broad
and ugly that Republicans and Independents everywhere are
determined to end his mandate by electing a Republican Congress
in 2010. Seats that Republicans had no chance to win in
previous elections are suddenly in play. With scores of
Democratic incumbent Congressmen polling at under 50% of the
vote, the possibilities for Republican gains are enormous.
But Republican funding and tactical focus is having a hard time
keeping pace with the political developments on the ground.
Handicappers like Cook Political Report are slow in switching
their predictions quickly enough as the Republican wave sweeps
through the nation. GOP national committees and PACs run
the risk that they will concentrate too much money on races that
are already won, leaving opportunities to rot on the vine in
other districts. |
This process of under estimating the
chances for Republican victories is fed by two mistakes in polling
methodology - and one in survey analysis -- which are understating
Republican chances in the coming elections.
While most pollsters survey only likely voters, their screens to
determine who will vote are too porous, letting through many who will
not actually make it to the polls. Most surveys simply ask if
voters are likely to participate or not rather than asking how
enthusiastic the survey participant is about voting. Rankings
based on enthusiasm and intensity - sure guides to actual turnout - are
generating far more Republican samples than those that are ultimately
published.
And many pollsters are weighting their data so their samples conform to
traditional party distribution. When their samples yield too many
self-described Republicans and too few Democrats (as measured against
historic norms) they weight down the Republican interviews and weight up
the Democratic ones to adjust. But, in reality, they are obscuring
the very findings of their surveys. Voters are becoming more
Republican and Democrats are becoming Independents. These trends
are hard to spot when data is weighted.
Finally, in assessing the meaning of the polls, analysts are
underestimating the ability of Republican challengers to defeat
Democratic incumbents who are under 50% of the vote. The undecided
vote usually goes to the challenger. A host of Republican
insurgents with limited name recognition are running behind their
Democratic incumbent adversaries because voters don't know who they are.
But, if the incumbent is failing to win a majority of his district,
these voters will likely vote for the challenger when they learn his
name as the campaign unfolds.
Taken together, these flaws in polling and the widening range of
Republican capabilities should militate for readjusting GOP sights to
aim at more Democratic districts and races that once seemed impossible.
Over confidence is not our problem. A lack of belief in our
potential is.
GO TO
DICKMORRIS.COM! TO READ ALL OF DICK'S COLUMNS!
THANK YOU!
***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2010.***
|
|