Brilliant analysis DJ:

Your description sounds much like the true conditions on the ground. A nation that understands it is at war and that the party in power has kept us safe, a booming economy, a stock market going through the roof, low unemployment, and gas prices and a deficit that are falling through the floor. And yet, we're being told that a wholesale change in congress is about to occur with the Democrats taking over the house and maybe even the senate. Why? Because polls promoted by a hostile press say so. Or at least the way they are being reported says so.

I've been feeling like Lt. Colonel Kiley, the character portrayed by Henry Fonda in the Battle of the Bulge. At a time, many think World War II is over, he's seeing the German Army maintaining a high level of training and motivation, heavy arms and weaponry showing up where there's presumably no activity, recruitment of English speaking Germans for a special operation and the sudden appearance of a highly decorated Panzer commander in a peaceful area. Kiley is convinced a major attack is coming, while his commander and others in his unit dismiss him as crazy, because after all, the Germans have already lost. In his case, like ours, all the signs that should be the most reliable point to one thing. Yet we are told just the opposite is true. History proved Kiley was right. Is history about to repeat itself?

Ken

DJ,

I appreciate your spirit, but I think you may want to re-examine your facts.

Real clear politics has Talent, Burns, Dewine, Santorum and Chaffee trailing in their averages. So there are four, not five. Menendez is New Jersey (not New Mexico) and has an advantage.

Ford has an ever so slight advantage (0.8% on the RCP average) in Tenn. Cardin has the advantage in Maryland. So looking at the RCP averages, I see five republican incumbents behind, one open republican seat ever so slightly behind, one open democratic seat ahead in Maryland and no incumbent democrat behind. I don't think that is going to add up to 6 seats to flip the senate either, but I don't think the polls are making that case.

Can you explain in more detail your statements "Looking at those polls I could find in RCP, in the Senate only four races show polls with the incumbent trailing, and one of those is the Democrat Menendez in New Mexico. You can talk all you want about 'close' here and 'if' there, the fact right now is that the incumbent or incumbent party is leading in 15 of the 19 states where polls were posted."?

Because my quick look at RCP shows 6 races, not 4, with the republican incumbent (or his party in an open race) behind.

The concept of RCP and others who simply average all available polls is designed to negate the effect of one or two which may be flawed. That works just fine if only one or two are flawed, and you have six or more to average in.

Unfortunately, the flaws still come through - just as if you made a milkshake with five parts ice cream, four parts milk, and one part dog poop, you will have a flawed flavor. I suspect far more than one or two out of six are flawed, and only rarely are that many recent polls available anyway.

My belief is that changes in American society over the last couple of decades has rendered polling very difficult. For instance, the proliferation of cell phones which aren't called, the aversion to telemarketing of any kind, "no-call lists," and suspicion of pollsters by conservatives in particular and many people in general, all combine to make it very difficult to get an sample of sufficient size to render an accurate result.

Obtaining an adequate sample in these changed circumstances is quite expensive, so most polling outfits simply do the best they can within a limited budget. It isn't good enough, though, as witnessed by the continuing failure of the polls as an aggregate predicter of results.

Jim whoever, my thoughts exactly for about a month. The public polls simply do not have the resources to obtain an adequate sample in today's difficult polling environment. However, internal polls paid by the candidates have the resources and the local knowledge to get the demographics, and turnout model's correct. I told a depressed friend last month to focus on these internal polls. There is just one problem: the campaigns usually don't release them for public consumption, unless they are leaked. Now given the MSM's close relationship with the Democratic party, if the internal polls were more favorable than the public polls, I would expect a lot of leaking. Enough to sink a cruise ship. I haven't seen much strategic leaking from the democratic side. I suspect their internal polls are not that favorable.

"Now given the MSM's close relationship with the Democratic party, if the internal polls were more favorable than the public polls, I would expect a lot of leaking. Enough to sink a cruise ship. I haven't seen much strategic leaking from the democratic side. I suspect their internal polls are not that favorable."

Excellent point. I had not thought about that.

On the other hand, I've seen some references to internal Republican polling that show the GOP in a good postion to hold onto the House and Senate.

Karl Rove and company are not idiots and they wouldn't be this optimistic if there internal polling showed a disaster approaching for the GOP.

I rather think they enjoy seeing the media get into such a tizzy only to be humiliated on election day. I know I would.

LorenU ~ An excellent point. If the internal Democratic polls were more favorable than the public ones, they would certainly be leaked, and they have not been. We can safely assume that the status revealed by the public polls is the worst case scenario.

The public polls have their problems, as noted in the Winston's analysis and the Geraghty survey upon which we have previously reported.

Rove's confidence is most reassuring. He could easily protect his reputation as an Evil Genius by hedging his comments on the midterm results. Since he is the President's poltical adviser, there is no real reason for him to insert himself into the congressional races if it were going to be a big loss.

There is a real chance this whole PR campaign by the Democrats and the fMSM could backfire. It's intended to discourage conservatives, Republicans, and religious voters from going to the polls, but after Foley, our groups are starting to get MAD instead.

Our GOTV machine is all-volunteer and well-oiled. The base is coming home. All this "blue wave" talk could have exactly the opposite effect by making the marginal Democratic voters overconfident and LESS likely to show up themselves because they think it's in the bag.

Not to start a blog war, but something has been fishy at RCP since they teamed up with Time. Maybe the Joe Scarborough Syndrome has taken hold with all of their doom and glooming. Also, the addition of Ryan Sager, a Libertarian (Capital L intentional) who is hostile to religious conservatives, has titled RCP into the "we need to lose" camp, IMHO. Also, the fact that RCP uses EVERY poll that comes out, including clowns like Charlie Cook's Constituent Dynamics and SUSA, throws off their numbers.

Also,

FWIW, Scott at electionprojection has mentioned behind his pay wall that he is ditching Constituent Dynamics. I won't go further out of respect for The Blogging Caesar, but CD's ties to other groups is suspect (he didn't mention this, but my own research shows it is tied to Charlie Cook. 'Nuff said.).

BTW, sign up with his site. It's awesome.

I am not connected in any way to EP.com or its principals.

Eddiebear

I just checked EP and he's still using Constituent Dynamics...

Maybe I misread things. My bad.