AuH2O
YaBB God
Posts: 4,239
|
 |
« on: November 06, 2005, 02:52:42 AM » |
|
I have to put this out there so that, should the actual election results make me think I was correct, my analysis is not made in hindsight. Note that this is pure speculation, not anything clearly factual:
'Moderate' or 'independent' voters are always less likely to turn out than partisan voters. Most polls are either of registered or likely voters; though sometimes polls are done of 'adults' that is rarely the case in the elections such as those coming up.
However, just polling registered voters is problematic because, especially in off year races (and 2005 is REALLY an off year with so few taking place) turnout is generally low. Poll error would then, beyond the normal factors, also occur insofar as the people that turn out differ from the voter pool as a whole.
None of this is revolutionary. However, I think it's possible VA and NJ polls alike are underrating Republican candidates, because Bush's struggles and various other GOP problems have their most significant effect amongst 'independent' voters.
Democrats already opposed Republicans. Internal GOP support has presumably been hurt to a marginal degree, but for the most part hardcore GOP voters are on board and supportive of their nominees. The least partisan potential voters are thus most inclined to experience swings in their political attitudes (at least in partisan terms).
Thus, independent voters are responding to polls with a Democratic lean that won't fully materialize on election day because those voters won't turn out in large numbers. That doesn't get Forrester out of the woods (haha) because in NJ Democrats are stronger anyway. But in Virginia it could make a significant difference.
If in fact the GOP does OK in NJ and VA, the disparity between the results and polls could be explained by something along those lines.
|
