Pryce for Congress
One of the brighter spots in Campaign ’06 is Ohio’s 15th CD, where Deborah Pryce is running for re-election. She has received the endorsement of the Colombus Dispatch, which wrote in part:
Voters in the 15 th District, encompassing a good part of central and western Franklin and most of Union and Madison counties, should return Deborah Pryce to Congress for her eighth term.
Pryce, who’s in a tough race against Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy, has a wealth of experience. Her track record in representing central Ohio’s needs in Washington makes her the better choice.
Congresswoman Pryce is from Warren, Ohio, btw, which pretty much should guarantee a win.
UPDATE: An e-mail on the polls:
Thank you so much for bringing attention on the all the faulty polling being done. You are not crazy, you are absolutely, 100% spot-on on this. I have worked my entire adult life, 25 years, processing market research and public opinion surveys. I know enough about surveys to be able to construct one that shows people prefer Pepsi over Coke, 60%-40%, or vice versa, and you would have no idea how I got either result even if I gave you the internals and methodology. You don’t have to take it on faith that there is a media conspiracy to misrepresent polling, they admit it in their own poll results. I have yet to see a general population poll that did not show adults 2%-4% more liberal than registered voters and registered voters 2%-4% more liberal than likely voters, and yet the media has no qualms about citing adults or registered voters when they want to give the Dems an added boost. Likewise, most 7 day tracking studies show a liberal 2%-4% bias when collecting over the weekend, yet the weekend seems to be the favorite time to poll. But the most important flaw is the one you have been talking about, the fact that every poll seems to over sample Democrats by 5%-10% consistently.
The proof of their inaccuracy is, as you state, in the exit polls. They are taken of a sample of actual voters, and can be verified against the actual voting results. The party affiliation was even in 2004, and +2% for the Republicans in 2002, and this seems pretty correct considering the election results (though given the vote counts it may still undercount Republicans by 1% or 2%).
The common error is to assume that their rigorous random sampling methodology truly gives them a representative sample of voters. By reviewing the accuracy of their predictions, it is obvious that, for a variety of reasons, the likely voters they talk to in October contain more Democrats than actually cast a vote in November. My theory on this is that Republicans are serious adult citizens, Democrats and Independents are not. Republicans by and large take their citizenship seriously, inform themselves and vote accordingly. The rest of the population doesn’t even register to vote, or only vote when they are sufficiently ginned up, or when they are herded on busses to the polls. They base their opinions on chanted slogans or newspaper headlines, and take their responsibility to vote about as serious as all their other responsibilities as citizens.
Come November 7, I am confident (as is Karl Rove) that more serious adults will show up at the polls than Democrats. All our election experience tells us that 2006 will be a status quo election, a small number of seats gained in the House by the Democrats, and a small number of seats gained in the Senate by the Republicans. The ONLY evidence offered of this “Blue Wave