-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
This morning Nate Silver posted an analysis, based on data from the American Action Forum, suggesting that generic ballot polls may be underestimating Democrats’ strength. AAF asked people in 31 closely contested House districts if they would vote for the Republican or the Democrat, then asked the same respondents about the actual candidates they’d encounter on the ballot. In these races, named Democrats are outperforming the “generic Democrat” by an average of 4 points. Silver’s hypothesis is that Democrats’ attempts to localize close races (since the national environment is stacked against them) might be succeeding in these districts.
Henry Olsen of AEI combs through the same data and counters that much of the discrepancy can be accounted for by Republican challengers’ lower name identification. His hypothesis is that as the election approaches and the name-ID gaps close, the discrepancy Silver highlights is likely to fade.
In general, I’m skeptical of generic ballot polls, and when I make election night predictions I always focus on polls that name candidates. But given that, as Olsen notes (citing Silver!), the generic poll has generally overstated Democratic strength, Democrats are probably fooling themselves if they take much comfort in the data Silver cites.
View all comments (4) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/21/how-bad-are-things-for-democra
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Booger| 9.22.10 @ 12:06AM
In response to the title of your post: NOT BAD ENOUGH. But we're working on it.
Susie W| 9.22.10 @ 12:37AM
The NRSC called the other day asking for $$$. I told the caller that I wanted NONE of my $$$ going to RINO's like McCain, the Maine twins, Graham, etc. Instead, I would be sending $$ to
Senator DeMint's Senate Conservative Fund. She was speechless. I hung up on her.
John - TMF| 9.22.10 @ 7:09AM
1. "All politics is local." -- Tip O'Neill
2. How many times have we heard?
"That pork is terrible, but that special project helps my community."
"Your congressman is a vile politician out to steal other people's money. My congressman is a good guy who watches out for the 'little man'."
"Congress is terrible, I don't trust it. I trust that my congressman is going to clean house..."
The list is lengthy; however you get the gist. Regardless of the "nationalization factor", the O'Neill rule remains intact.
That is why the Republican Congress of 1994-2006 corrupted so quickly. The voters hate everybody else's pork but their own. Patronage remains an eternal infection.
Regards,
The Mighty Fahvaag
Booger| 9.22.10 @ 8:24AM
True. Too many people talk about corrupt politicians. An honest electorate may be fooled by a corrupt pol once. When they knowingly put the corrupt pol in place over and over you have a corrupt electorate. Which is just what FDR was after with his great society.