Based on my analysis of their historical ratings, Cook, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball are probably underestimating Democrats' House win probability by about 30 percentage points
Thanks for bringing the data to something that has been intuitively obvious for a while. Another element that is also obvious is the change latency and that is a serious problem right now given accelerating fuel prices, tariff effects and also the effects from other issues that are important to large slices of the electorate, all negatives for the GOP
Careful, Elliott: You're analysis is sophisticated but I think there may be a major flaw. In examining prediction-result patterns historically, your (small) set of elections (2010, 2014, 2018, 2022) balances three elections with a Democrat in the White House (2010, 2014, 2022) against one with a Republican (2018).
There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it contributes strongly to the overall impression that the incumbency bias is nonpartisan -- i.e., bi-directional.
A strong case can be made, however, for regarding 2018 as highly atypical -- essentially a one-off, black swan event. Karl Rove, in a fit of pique over his displacement by Steve Bannon, took the 2018 election off. And I would submit that his talents -- i.e., his dark arts -- were sorely missed. (I'd also note, parenthetically, that the 2018 blue wave yielded a net gain of 40 House seats [and a *loss* of two Senate seats] while the 2010 red wave yielded a net gain of 63 House seats for the GOP -- an asymmetry not fully explained by organic factors.)
If 2018 had as much to do with who was navigating the GOP bus as with purported generic polling bias, then we're left with a series of elections in which pollsters missed to the left. And we can add to that the 2020 election, in which of 27 House contests rated tossup by Cook, the GOP won every single one (and also won 7 Democratic leaners while losing none of their own), and similar, if less egregious misses in 2016 and 2024.
So overall, the clear pattern in the computerized voting era is pollsters overestimating Democratic strength, making corrections, and overestimating Democratic strength yet again (pace 2018). Pollsters don't stay in business by erring repeatedly and consistently *in the same direction*! So it is understandable that Cook et al are lowballing Democratic prospects in these midterms. They have touched the hot stove -- over and over -- and are very wary of doing it yet again.
You can draw your own conclusions on why they keep missing in the same direction -- why, that is, there is a pervasive polling-to-votecount red shift, even after they tweak their sampling methodologies to account for it. Maybe there really is a "reluctant Bush/Trump responder" phenomenon that results in an oversampling of Democrats (but there is demographic stratification to handle that). Or, just spitballing here, maybe unreliable vote counts (from suppression schemes and/or vote-count manipulation) are a factor? Maybe all the red thumbs on the electoral scales have left the pollsters wondering what they keep doing wrong, when they're not doing much of anything wrong at all?
This is worth our consideration as we move toward an election in which Donald Trump has called upon his side (voters, administrators, operatives, vendors...) to "cheat like hell."
What do we know about mail-in ballots relative to in person ballots? Have there been polls of already voted mail-ins one or two weeks before election day? (screening call is have you already mailed in your ballot and if yes you're in the survey. Or the question could be already voted/definitely will vote/ likely vote. Weighting the responses generates another complexity)
As is currently being noted on the talk shows voting is starting now and those votes won't change (in any significant way) from time of mailing to election day. Are there estimates of percentage of mail in ballots returned 4 weeks, 3 weeks, 2 weeks and 1 week prior to the election? Sentiment (or events) one week before the election won't change large percentage of the mail in vote.
Dammit, large GOP money well be hawking the “ewwww” factor, the fifth grade schoolyard stuff *really* hard starting in two weeks. It’s inconceivable that it will sway things — but it’s also inconceivable that it worked in 2024.
Maybe this time that will prove to be a well that had been gone to once too often? I’m still not completely over 1980, so we’ll see.
There are $6 diesel "billboards" that have been posted all over the country. There are $7/lb ground beef signs up in grocery stores. Elon can't by a $3 diesel billboard or reprice ground beef. Money can't buy you love and has significant limitations in buying votes.
I mean, that makes total sense. Selzer STILL hasn't lived down calling Iowa for Biden in 2024. Democrats are so het up at the moment that even if the magnitude is *slightly* off in the GOP's favor, pollsters are going to deal with a lot of shit. If they undersell it there's a lot less to lose.
Would love to see this broken down further from when Dems are the out party and when Republicans are the out party. There is definitely a difference in the commentary and the columns Charlie Cook writes throughout the cycle.
Thanks for bringing the data to something that has been intuitively obvious for a while. Another element that is also obvious is the change latency and that is a serious problem right now given accelerating fuel prices, tariff effects and also the effects from other issues that are important to large slices of the electorate, all negatives for the GOP
Careful, Elliott: You're analysis is sophisticated but I think there may be a major flaw. In examining prediction-result patterns historically, your (small) set of elections (2010, 2014, 2018, 2022) balances three elections with a Democrat in the White House (2010, 2014, 2022) against one with a Republican (2018).
There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it contributes strongly to the overall impression that the incumbency bias is nonpartisan -- i.e., bi-directional.
A strong case can be made, however, for regarding 2018 as highly atypical -- essentially a one-off, black swan event. Karl Rove, in a fit of pique over his displacement by Steve Bannon, took the 2018 election off. And I would submit that his talents -- i.e., his dark arts -- were sorely missed. (I'd also note, parenthetically, that the 2018 blue wave yielded a net gain of 40 House seats [and a *loss* of two Senate seats] while the 2010 red wave yielded a net gain of 63 House seats for the GOP -- an asymmetry not fully explained by organic factors.)
If 2018 had as much to do with who was navigating the GOP bus as with purported generic polling bias, then we're left with a series of elections in which pollsters missed to the left. And we can add to that the 2020 election, in which of 27 House contests rated tossup by Cook, the GOP won every single one (and also won 7 Democratic leaners while losing none of their own), and similar, if less egregious misses in 2016 and 2024.
So overall, the clear pattern in the computerized voting era is pollsters overestimating Democratic strength, making corrections, and overestimating Democratic strength yet again (pace 2018). Pollsters don't stay in business by erring repeatedly and consistently *in the same direction*! So it is understandable that Cook et al are lowballing Democratic prospects in these midterms. They have touched the hot stove -- over and over -- and are very wary of doing it yet again.
You can draw your own conclusions on why they keep missing in the same direction -- why, that is, there is a pervasive polling-to-votecount red shift, even after they tweak their sampling methodologies to account for it. Maybe there really is a "reluctant Bush/Trump responder" phenomenon that results in an oversampling of Democrats (but there is demographic stratification to handle that). Or, just spitballing here, maybe unreliable vote counts (from suppression schemes and/or vote-count manipulation) are a factor? Maybe all the red thumbs on the electoral scales have left the pollsters wondering what they keep doing wrong, when they're not doing much of anything wrong at all?
This is worth our consideration as we move toward an election in which Donald Trump has called upon his side (voters, administrators, operatives, vendors...) to "cheat like hell."
What do we know about mail-in ballots relative to in person ballots? Have there been polls of already voted mail-ins one or two weeks before election day? (screening call is have you already mailed in your ballot and if yes you're in the survey. Or the question could be already voted/definitely will vote/ likely vote. Weighting the responses generates another complexity)
As is currently being noted on the talk shows voting is starting now and those votes won't change (in any significant way) from time of mailing to election day. Are there estimates of percentage of mail in ballots returned 4 weeks, 3 weeks, 2 weeks and 1 week prior to the election? Sentiment (or events) one week before the election won't change large percentage of the mail in vote.
Dammit, large GOP money well be hawking the “ewwww” factor, the fifth grade schoolyard stuff *really* hard starting in two weeks. It’s inconceivable that it will sway things — but it’s also inconceivable that it worked in 2024.
Maybe this time that will prove to be a well that had been gone to once too often? I’m still not completely over 1980, so we’ll see.
There are $6 diesel "billboards" that have been posted all over the country. There are $7/lb ground beef signs up in grocery stores. Elon can't by a $3 diesel billboard or reprice ground beef. Money can't buy you love and has significant limitations in buying votes.
I mean, that makes total sense. Selzer STILL hasn't lived down calling Iowa for Biden in 2024. Democrats are so het up at the moment that even if the magnitude is *slightly* off in the GOP's favor, pollsters are going to deal with a lot of shit. If they undersell it there's a lot less to lose.
The biggest X factor for November is whether half a billion of GOP SuperPAC spending this fall will shift close races towards the GOP.
That spending is up against the soaring prices of gas and diesel which will push voters towards Democrats.
Would love to see this broken down further from when Dems are the out party and when Republicans are the out party. There is definitely a difference in the commentary and the columns Charlie Cook writes throughout the cycle.
You're really putting yourself out there, Elliott. I sincerely hope you are right.