March 11, 2010 02:34 PM UTC

How can both Rasmussen *and* PPP be right? And are Democrats done for?

•  
• by: roguestaffer

( – promoted by Middle of the Road)

In my PPP diary, as well as other diaries, we’re seeing a back-and-forth take place over polling. People are saying that polls are cooked, and using various results to advance their ideological agendas, whether from the right or from the left.

Here’s my take.

I think Scott Rasmussen is a solid pollster. This diary isn’t meant to be a takedown, by any means. I’m not the one to do it, since I’m still studying survey methods and statistical analysis.

It’s that I get the feeling (and I’m not alone in this – there are others, like the folks at Swing State Project) that Scott is releasing polling at a nearly spam-like rate, nearly all general election based, and it’s beginning to look like he’s trying to advance a general theme that Republicans are headed for massive gains at every level.

Now, I think that Democrats will lose seats. That’s what happens when you run the White House and Congress. Moreover, a lot of those seats are in conservative districts – the days that you’ll see the DCCC running six rounds of Red-to-Blue are long past.

Will they get wiped out, though? That’s a much harder question to answer, even as I’m sure people here will nod vigorously yes. I think the jury is still out on that – passing health care reform will help, an economic uptick will help, &c.

The other thing that Democrats have going for them this cycle is the desperate lack of funds on the Republican side. While the GOP is outfundraising the Dems for the second month in a row, Dems still have a nearly 2-1 cash on hand advantage. We’ll see if that continues to narrow.

Back to Rasmussen. One thing that sticks out is the divergence between the two polls. They both show leads outside the margin of error, and it’s a wide spread, to boot. I’m not saying the results are cooked; I am saying that we need to be paying attention. Either McInnis is leading (which is possible) or Hickenlooper is (more probable), but both cannot be true…unless the two pollsters are sampling widely divergent populations.

Which is what I think is happening here: check this Democracy Corps poll (PDF) or this Gallup poll. They both show similar dynamics: that a demoralized, unenthusiastic base is the Democrats’ biggest challenge going into the midterms.

Let me elaborate.

[taking a moment to watch Wade Norris, JO, &c. jump, cheer, celebrate – done? Great. Moving on.]

According to DemCorps, likely voters are much more opposed to Democrats than unlikely voters (whom DemCorps dubs “drop-off voters”). How much more? Check it out:

President Obama’s Job Performance:

Likely voters:     47% yes, 48% no

Drop-off voters: 59% yes, 35% no

“If the election were held today, would you be voting for [DEM HOUSE CANDIDATE] or [GOP HOUSE CANDIDATE]?”

Likely voters:     44% D, 47% R

Drop-off voters: 55% D, 30% R

Simply astounding.

Gallup shows the same striking demoralization of the Democratic base. Here’s a graphic from their daily tracking poll:

(courtesy Gallup daily tracker & Jon Chait)

Republicans look fired up and seem ready to go, while the Democrats are anything but.

What does that look like in a specific race? Well, the next graph ought to make Mr Norris glad, given his frequent cross-referencing of the Pennsylvania Senate race:

(courtesy Salon’s Numerologist, Dave Jarman)

The first set of numbers show Toomey taking advantage of an electorate likely dominated by Republicans. The second set shows a different electorate, this time with Democratic turnout.

That’s precisely the same divergence you see here between McInnis and Hickenlooper.

Rasmussen, it turns out, is probably modeling likely voters, and these folks are mostly Republicans. PPP is probably modeling drop-off voters, who are by and large Democrats.

If I were advising a Democratic candidate, I’d be telling that candidate to start appealing to the Democratic base. In other words, I’d be telling them to do what Michael Bennet has been doing lately, regardless of whether the candidate was in a primary or not. Hickenlooper might be able to get away with not doing it, but in this environment, I think that’s a high risk maneuver.

One other thing. Based on what I’ve just written, many folks here would respond by saying, with respect to health care reform, that that’s why Democrats should include the public option.

I don’t want to start off another whole debate on a totally different topic, but I’m indifferent to that strategy. Here’s why.

Getting health care reform, with or without a public option, is a progressive victory in and of itself.

I’d love to see a public option included, but it’s not necessary to the plan, and it can be added later.

Now, before people start screaming about insurance company giveaways and such, I want folks to hear me out, all grown-up like.

Way back at the beginning of this fight, a number of progressive organizations decided to make the fight for health care reform a proxy fight for progressive power. The vehicle they chose for this fight was the inclusion of a public health insurance option.

That is the reason why it keeps coming back to life, over and over again. There’s nothing magical or necessary about its inclusion in the health care reform legislation. In fact, it might even be better to move it as a separate piece of legislation…which is precisely what Florida Congressman Alan Grayson is doing! (You should click on that link, by the way.)

Grayson’s proposal, broadly stated, is even better than the weak public option that I’m so indifferent about. That’s because the public option that folks are so fired up about would only have been available to anywhere from 2% to 6% of the population, while Grayson is talking about opening Medicare eligibility for everyone.

Yes, you read that right. Everyone.

Now, isn’t that better than the public option? OK, off you go. Sign Grayson’s petition and tell your representatives to co-sponsor HR 4789.

Do it now, OK? Please? Your pithy, brilliant comments can wait. :-).