This’ll be a a
Quick backwards looking post at Election 2010. Now that we are a few weeks out, we’ve got a bit more perspective on what happened (and why). I find it is generally useful to look back, after things are all said and done, in order to further refine one’s ability to look forward. Since we know what we thought would happen and we know what happened, it’s time to re-calibrate.
And we’re off…
1) Speaking of “off” here’s Rasmussen.
Every election cycle has its winners and losers: not just the among the candidates, but also the pollsters.
On Tuesday, polls conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports — which released more than 100 surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, including some commissioned under a subsidiary on behalf of Fox News — badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates.
The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points
Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average.
[full blog post here]
Hardly a day goes by that I don’t hear about a Rasmussen opinion poll somewhere. If their real polls, the one where they make their bacon, where so far off, how bad do you think their “Do you like the President?” poll is?
Speaking of general bias in polling, one we’ve suspected for a while has finally become distinct and knowable.
A new analysis of 2010 election polling found that surveys that relied only on landline telephone users were more skewed toward Republicans, as opposed to polls that also included cell-phone users.
According to the Pew Research Center, polls that included landlines gave Republicans a roughly 6-point boost compared with polls that included both landline and mobile phones. According to Pew, its landline-only surveys found the GOP with a 12-point lead in House races ahead of Election Day. But when cell-phone users were included, the Republican lead dropped to just 6 points — a result much closer to what actually happened on election night.
We’ve discussed before (and will again shortly) how the U.S. Election of 2010 was dominated by old people, one can also see how this tends to skews the land-line polls. I haven’t had a landline in many, many years, and I doubt a sizeable percentage of people younger than me will ever have an official one. While this is generally just a thing, for the polling world, it has had predicted results now show up in hindsight.
Speaking of old-people, hindsight, the Tea Party and Election 2010, (see what I did there?), here’s a summary picture of the electorate’s attitude…
And here’s the poll summary data illustrating the same point.
According to an Associated Press-GfK Poll this month, 84 percent who call themselves tea party supporters don’t like how President Barack Obama is handling his job — a view shared by just 35 percent of all other adults.
Tea partiers are about four times likelier than others to back repealing Obama’s health care overhaul and twice as likely to favor renewing tax cuts for the highest-earning Americans.
Tea party backers were about five times likelier to blame Obama for the country’s economic ills, three times likelier to say Obama’s policies will be harmful and twice as apt to see the country on the wrong track.
These aren’t subtle shadings between tea party backers and the majority of Americans, who don’t support the movement; they’re Grand Canyon-size chasms.
Tea partiers are likelier to be white, male, older and more affluent than everyone else, the polls show — groups that tend to be more conservative. Yet even compared with the 47 percent of conservatives who don’t back the tea party, the views of conservatives who do support the movement stand out.
Among conservatives who are tea party backers, 74 percent are glad Republicans will run the House next year while Democrats retain control of the Senate and White House. Just 36 percent of conservatives who don’t back the tea party agree that divided government will be good for the country, likely because of concern over gridlock. [see the special note on why this level of partisan hatred is bad thing]
Tea party backers are also far likelier than other conservatives to like Palin, the former Alaska governor.
[full story based largely on exit polls]
For those in need of another picture summary of who the Tea Party is, why they broke 100% for the Republicans, and why that’s not really a good thing for the country, here ya go…
I know, I know, it’s totally uncouth to call racists assholes, and I understand the only thing Teabaggers hate more than being called racists are minorities, but I have to point out the content-free character-assassination crap that just keeps coming from these dolts. And there’s ever-more evidence that empowering them was a very bad idea, but hey, what are you going to do, vote against them?
Ha! No one has more time to vote, and more reason to, than someone who’s well-being, income and healthcare, is paid directly by the govenment. There’s a reason “small government” Republicans ran against the cuts (read: needing, obvious cuts) to Medicare that were a part of HCR.
When your core constituency is dependent on the government and complete dedicated to the fight against socialism, you’d best get while the getting’s good, because that’s not a stable situation that can last terribly long. There are, of course ways to extend that cognitive dissonance…
So while I’m somewhat disappointed by the general outcome of the election, at least I’m not confused about why it happened (as is most of the world watching).
In the real world [and our special note mentioned earlier] we have Capitalist A#1 [who actually does kind of control the world] praising the Obama administration for their actions in saving the country…
Nor was it just business that was in peril: 300 million Americans were in the domino line as well. Just days before, the jobs, income, 401(k)’s and money-market funds of these citizens had seemed secure. Then, virtually overnight, everything began to turn into pumpkins and mice. There was no hiding place. A destructive economic force unlike any seen for generations had been unleashed.
Only one counterforce was available, and that was you, Uncle Sam. Yes, you are often clumsy, even inept. But when businesses and people worldwide race to get liquid, you are the only party with the resources to take the other side of the transaction. And when our citizens are losing trust by the hour in institutions they once revered, only you can restore calm.
When the crisis struck, I felt you would understand the role you had to play. But you’ve never been known for speed, and in a meltdown minutes matter. I worried whether the barrage of shattering surprises would disorient you. You would have to improvise solutions on the run, stretch legal boundaries and avoid slowdowns, like Congressional hearings and studies. You would also need to get turf-conscious departments to work together in mounting your counterattack. The challenge was huge, and many people thought you were not up to it.
Well, Uncle Sam, you delivered.
In the crazy world, where Commie-Jew-Bankers hold Kenyan-puppets on strings and Socialism, Socialism, Socialism is all you need to know about Beelzebub HUSSEIN Obummer, I guess people are happy that our most effective tool in fighting for our shared prosperity has been effectively hamstrung.
I guess we’ll see, in hindsight, if they turned out to be correct.