The Proverbial Sacrificial Lamb
An Interesting Changing Happening on Gun Owner Demographics
Wisdom From the Founders: Madison and 'Gradual and Silent Encroachments'
CFPB Director Exemplifies the Worst of Washington Hypocrisy
Gen. Milley Makes Stunning Admission About Incoming Trump Administration
ICE Sends Hochul Grim Warning After Arresting Wanted Illegal Immigrant
Sickening: An Illegal Alien Allegedly Raped a 14-Year-Old Girl in Colorado
Wait Until You Hear What Planned Parenthood Was Just Caught Doing
One of the First Things Elon Musk, Vivek Plan to Cut Under DOGE
The Media Turns Its Attention to Other Trump Picks Now That Gaetz Is...
Trump Victory: From Neocons to Americons
It’s Time to Make Healthcare Great Again
Deportation Is Necessary to Undo Harm Done at the Border
Do You Know Where the Migrant Children Are? Why States Can't Wait for...
Biden’s Union-Based Concerns Undercut U.S. Security and Jeopardize Steel Production
Tipsheet

NYT: Here's Why We're Nervous Our Polls Will Be Wrong Again

AP Photo/David Goldman

An interesting dichotomy in the current election cycle is the gap between race-specific polling -- which is quasi-okay-to-fairly-bad for Democrats -- and, well, everything else.  I'll have more analysis on polling versus 'fundamentals' and 'follow the money' in the coming days, but suffice it to say that based on history, presidential approval, economic dissatisfaction and right track/wrong track data, the environment remains quite grim for the ruling party.  The fact that Democrats and outside groups are frantically plowing last-minute millions into statewide races in New York and Washington feels like a pretty significant tell, as does a round of GOP investments into deeper blue territory.  And the professional prognosticators are shifting projections, too.  Based on the non-polling indicators, it's beginning to look a lot like Christmas for Republicans:

Advertisement

The national polling (not specific to individual races) is also looking pretty bleak for Democrats.  Look at this:

Those numbers speak for themselves, particularly on the top-tier issues (these are leads among those voters naming issue X as their top priority).  Republicans have even cut into Democrats' advantage on abortion, despite widespread fear-mongering and distortions, perhaps because Republicans have managed to partially neutralize the attacks by highlighting Democrats' own extreme and grotesque stance on the issue.  Gallup also measures a huge gulf on the priorities of Republicans and Democrats.  Which issue set is more likely to resonate with independents and late-breakers, I wonder?  

Advertisement

Look at this movement among suburban white women in the latest Wall Street Journal national poll (of registered, not likely, voters):

And yet, progressives this week have been crowing about a fresh set of New York Times/Siena surveys showing Democratic Senate candidates leading in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia -- and tied in Nevada.  That's not very red-wavey is it?  We could pick through each one of those results, noting that (a) the Libertarian has since dropped out of the Arizona race while endorsing Republican Blake Masters, (b) that most of the Keystone State poll was in the field before The Debate, with post-debate data looking much worse for Fetterman, and (c) that another major statewide Georgia poll shows Herschel Walker slightly ahead.  More significant, though, is the New York Times' own top data analyst warning that the numbers they've published could very well substantially under-sample Republican-leaning voters, and for a familiar reason:

Advertisement

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, most pollsters concluded that the polls probably underestimated Donald J. Trump because of something called nonresponse bias. In short, Mr. Trump’s supporters were less likely to respond to surveys than Joe Biden’s supporters, even among people who had the same demographic characteristics. While nonresponse bias is challenging to prove, there was one possible marker of it in the New York Times/Siena College data in 2020: White registered Democrats were more than 20 percent likelier to respond to our surveys than white registered Republicans. In our final wave of Senate and House polls in the last few days, that hallmark of nonresponse bias looks as if it’s back. Overall, white registered Democrats were 28 percent likelier to respond to our Senate polls than Republicans — a disparity exceeding that from our pre-election polling in 2020...the wide disparity in Democratic and Republican response rates was most likely symptomatic of a deeper nonresponse bias: Biden voters, regardless of their party, were probably likelier to respond than Trump voters. This drove up the Democratic response rate, but it did more than that. It meant there were too many Biden Democrats; too many Biden Republicans; too many Biden independents. Weighting by party wasn’t enough. This time around, the response patterns by district and state certainly raise the possibility that there’s a similar challenge.

Advertisement

He's not definitively predicting these polls will be wrong, but he's observing that a similar effect that hurt this series' accuracy last cycle is back in play -- and is even a bit more pronounced this time.  A pre-emptive red flag.  Progressive media is in early cope mode, engaging in what looks like shades of 'unskew the polls' wish-casting, as conservatives did circa 2012:

I'll leave you with some new polls showing GOP nominees tied or ahead in the Pennsylvania and New Hampshire Senate races:

For what it's worth, this PA poll predicted a five-point Biden win in 2020.  Biden's actual margin was one point.  This NH poll predicted a Biden win of eight points in 2020, coming within less than a point of accuracy.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement