WWTBAM Bored

Interesting article about how pollsters in general and Republican pollsters in particular are having difficulty accurately sampling voters. One pollster had Eric Cantor ahead by 34 points in his primary election race. Ooops.

It's not all pro-Republican bias either, but it does harm them. Last year, Republican polls did not show how close the Virginia governor's race actually was and they failed to spend money that might have made a difference. Republican internal polls had Romney much closer to Obama than what happened which probably explains how befuddled Karl Rove was and his refusal to believe the Ohio numbers that came in.

The Cantor Prediction is Part of a Pattern

Republican pollsters have had problems since Dewey back in 1948, and possibly before.

I've held off talking about Cantor's defeat, since there wasn't an open discussion, and I didn't want to open a can of worms, but here's my take as someone who used to be in Cantor's district (though my precinct was gerrymandered out last apportionment; basically, they swapped my majority-minority precinct, along with a few others, with some primarily Republican precincts east of town in the 3rd district. This was primarily to help out both incumbents.)

The few dealings I've had with Mr. Cantor, going back to his initial days, have basically been that he could care less with helping his constituents, and his staff (who I'd expect to handle much of the things I had to deal with him anyway) reflected that same attitude. After last weeks elections, there have been a lot of similar stories from his constituents that have come out. Basically, a lot of folks just got tired of his arrogance. (My personal fave -- he never actively campaigned in the district during this primary. He said he was in the district every week, but it seems much of it was to go play golf with some national donors for his personal PAC rather than interact with the voters.) Quite honestly, a lot of folks had wanted him out here, but this was the first real opposition in years.

To give my personal example of how poorly Mr. Cantor ran the campaign: Every week, I got at least three mailings from his campaign -- even though my address is no longer in his district. The ultimate sign of idiocy: I got the last mailing from him two days after the election. (OK, that may be the fault of the USPS.) Then, I looked at it -- and it was addressed to my mother. And she's been dead for three years, and wasn't on any voter rolls because I made sure she was taken off shortly after her death.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Republican pollsters have had problems since Dewey back in 1948, and possibly before.

I've held off talking about Cantor's defeat, since there wasn't an open discussion, and I didn't want to open a can of worms, but here's my take as someone who used to be in Cantor's district (though my precinct was gerrymandered out last apportionment; basically, they swapped my majority-minority precinct, along with a few others, with some primarily Republican precincts east of town in the 3rd district. This was primarily to help out both incumbents.)

The few dealings I've had with Mr. Cantor, going back to his initial days, have basically been that he could care less with helping his constituents, and his staff (who I'd expect to handle much of the things I had to deal with him anyway) reflected that same attitude. After last weeks elections, there have been a lot of similar stories from his constituents that have come out. Basically, a lot of folks just got tired of his arrogance. (My personal fave -- he never actively campaigned in the district during this primary. He said he was in the district every week, but it seems much of it was to go play golf with some national donors for his personal PAC rather than interact with the voters.) Quite honestly, a lot of folks had wanted him out here, but this was the first real opposition in years.

To give my personal example of how poorly Mr. Cantor ran the campaign: Every week, I got at least three mailings from his campaign -- even though my address is no longer in his district. The ultimate sign of idiocy: I got the last mailing from him two days after the election. (OK, that may be the fault of the USPS.) Then, I looked at it -- and it was addressed to my mother. And she's been dead for three years, and wasn't on any voter rolls because I made sure she was taken off shortly after her death.

Hey, they'd have taken money and votes from anyone.

So what's your take on David Brat? Does he have a snowball's chance of winning the general election?

SpacemanSpiff wrote: To give my personal example of how poorly Mr. Cantor ran the campaign: Every week, I got at least three mailings from his campaign -- even though my address is no longer in his district. The ultimate sign of idiocy: I got the last mailing from him two days after the election. (OK, that may be the fault of the USPS.) Then, I looked at it -- and it was addressed to my mother. And she's been dead for three years, and wasn't on any voter rolls because I made sure she was taken off shortly after her death.

Before the Georgia primary, Mrs. SSS and I got tons of mail from the various candidates as well as eight or ten robocalls a day the last two weeks. We also got calls from what may or may not have been pollsters (some candidates sponsor "push" polls that are actually designed to make opponents look bad, like by asking: "If you knew that Eric Cantor was really the best man at Barack Obama's wedding and the godfather to his children, would that affect your vote?"). We just kept hanging up on them. I'm sure a lot of others did as well, which makes getting a likely voter sample especially difficult.

Bob Juch wrote:So what's your take on David Brat? Does he have a snowball's chance of winning the general election?

I don't have a take on him, per se. He's basically laid low since the primary.

As far as his chances in the general election? I'd say pretty darn good, considering that the district is gerrymandered to be heavily Republican. Ironically, the Democratic candidate (who the party threw into the ring on primarily election day, the last day they could do so) is also a Randolph-Macon professor.

Basically, as I've said on other boards, the folks in that district would rather vote for someone who had committed heinous crimes, as long as it was a Republican, than to vote for a Democrat.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:So what's your take on David Brat? Does he have a snowball's chance of winning the general election?

I don't have a take on him, per se. He's basically laid low since the primary.

As far as his chances in the general election? I'd say pretty darn good, considering that the district is gerrymandered to be heavily Republican. Ironically, the Democratic candidate (who the party threw into the ring on primarily election day, the last day they could do so) is also a Randolph-Macon professor.

Basically, as I've said on other boards, the folks in that district would rather vote for someone who had committed heinous crimes, as long as it was a Republican, than to vote for a Democrat.

Just curious, were previous Dems crimeridden? Because lcal shit everywhere is rife with idiots. Just observing what we have. I actually voted for a dem for commissioner since our county is shitridden.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:So what's your take on David Brat? Does he have a snowball's chance of winning the general election?

I don't have a take on him, per se. He's basically laid low since the primary.

As far as his chances in the general election? I'd say pretty darn good, considering that the district is gerrymandered to be heavily Republican. Ironically, the Democratic candidate (who the party threw into the ring on primarily election day, the last day they could do so) is also a Randolph-Macon professor.

Basically, as I've said on other boards, the folks in that district would rather vote for someone who had committed heinous crimes, as long as it was a Republican, than to vote for a Democrat.

There was a chance that the Democratic challenger, Jack Trammell, could have won if Cantor had mounted a write-in campaign, which he had toyed with for about a minute. (An independent campaign a la Joe Lieberman is illegal under Virginia law.) Cantor and Brat would have likely split the Republican votes and allowed Trammell to sneak in through the back door. I think Cantor thought ahead to that because not only did he decide not to do a write-in campaign, he resigned his leadership position altogether.

Beebs52 wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Basically, as I've said on other boards, the folks in that district would rather vote for someone who had committed heinous crimes, as long as it was a Republican, than to vote for a Democrat.

Just curious, were previous Dems crimeridden? Because lcal shit everywhere is rife with idiots. Just observing what we have. I actually voted for a dem for commissioner since our county is shitridden.

I'm just saying it's a heavily Republican district. It'd take a lot for that area to vote otherwise. Ergo, Mr. Brat's pretty much as close to a lock as it can be.

The Dems, as I noted, threw a name in there at the last minute just to have someone on the ballot; they assumed that Cantor would be the winner, and their chances would be nonexistant.

Pastor Fireball wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:So what's your take on David Brat? Does he have a snowball's chance of winning the general election?

I don't have a take on him, per se. He's basically laid low since the primary.

As far as his chances in the general election? I'd say pretty darn good, considering that the district is gerrymandered to be heavily Republican. Ironically, the Democratic candidate (who the party threw into the ring on primarily election day, the last day they could do so) is also a Randolph-Macon professor.

Basically, as I've said on other boards, the folks in that district would rather vote for someone who had committed heinous crimes, as long as it was a Republican, than to vote for a Democrat.

There was a chance that the Democratic challenger, Jack Trammell, could have won if Cantor had mounted a write-in campaign, which he had toyed with for about a minute. (An independent campaign a la Joe Lieberman is illegal under Virginia law.) Cantor and Brat would have likely split the Republican votes and allowed Trammell to sneak in through the back door. I think Cantor thought ahead to that because not only did he decide not to do a write-in campaign, he resigned his leadership position altogether.

Jack Trammell did win; it was a primary election and he ran unopposed.

Bob Juch wrote: Jack Trammell did win; it was a primary election and he ran unopposed.

One odd coincidence out of all of this. Randolph-Macon College is guaranteed to have a professor in the House next term. Both Brat and Trammell are professors at the school.

I guess if you teach at a ritzy private college, you've got plenty of time to run for Congress.

The nickname of Randolph-Macon's sports teams is the Yellow Jackets, so they can't be all bad.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Jack Trammell did win; it was a primary election and he ran unopposed.

One odd coincidence out of all of this. Randolph-Macon College is guaranteed to have a professor in the House next term. Both Brat and Trammell are professors at the school.

I guess if you teach at a ritzy private college, you've got plenty of time to run for Congress.

The nickname of Randolph-Macon's sports teams is the Yellow Jackets, so they can't be all bad.

The longtime (now former) owner of the company I work for is on the Randy Mac board. In fact, they had a board meeting the night my Jeopardy! episode aired -- and he insisted they take a break in the meeting when the show aired (7:30) to watch it.

Bob Juch wrote:

Pastor Fireball wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote: I don't have a take on him, per se. He's basically laid low since the primary.

As far as his chances in the general election? I'd say pretty darn good, considering that the district is gerrymandered to be heavily Republican. Ironically, the Democratic candidate (who the party threw into the ring on primarily election day, the last day they could do so) is also a Randolph-Macon professor.

Basically, as I've said on other boards, the folks in that district would rather vote for someone who had committed heinous crimes, as long as it was a Republican, than to vote for a Democrat.

There was a chance that the Democratic challenger, Jack Trammell, could have won if Cantor had mounted a write-in campaign, which he had toyed with for about a minute. (An independent campaign a la Joe Lieberman is illegal under Virginia law.) Cantor and Brat would have likely split the Republican votes and allowed Trammell to sneak in through the back door. I think Cantor thought ahead to that because not only did he decide not to do a write-in campaign, he resigned his leadership position altogether.

Jack Trammell did win; it was a primary election and he ran unopposed.

He was referring to Trammell's chances of winning the seat. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Pastor Fireball wrote:
There was a chance that the Democratic challenger, Jack Trammell, could have won if Cantor had mounted a write-in campaign, which he had toyed with for about a minute. (An independent campaign a la Joe Lieberman is illegal under Virginia law.) Cantor and Brat would have likely split the Republican votes and allowed Trammell to sneak in through the back door. I think Cantor thought ahead to that because not only did he decide not to do a write-in campaign, he resigned his leadership position altogether.

Jack Trammell did win; it was a primary election and he ran unopposed.

He was referring to Trammell's chances of winning the seat. --Bob

He was speaking of the future using works like "could have won" and "would have"?

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Jack Trammell did win; it was a primary election and he ran unopposed.

He was referring to Trammell's chances of winning the seat. --Bob

He was speaking of the future using works like "could have won" and "would have"?

Yes. The implication is that absent a write-in campaign that split the Republican vote (which we now know will not happen), Trammell has no realistic chance. --Bob

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Jack Trammell did win; it was a primary election and he ran unopposed.

One odd coincidence out of all of this. Randolph-Macon College is guaranteed to have a professor in the House next term. Both Brat and Trammell are professors at the school.

I guess if you teach at a ritzy private college, you've got plenty of time to run for Congress.

The nickname of Randolph-Macon's sports teams is the Yellow Jackets, so they can't be all bad.

The longtime (now former) owner of the company I work for is on the Randy Mac board. In fact, they had a board meeting the night my Jeopardy! episode aired -- and he insisted they take a break in the meeting when the show aired (7:30) to watch it.

About a million years ago, I was closely involved with the local leadership training group, and we were having a meet and greet in a suite at a ritzy hotel. There was of course a television in the suite, and one of us (not present at that particular meeting) was on J! The chair turned the television off and refused to let us watch her! To this day, I'm sure she has no idea what that cost her in good will and leadership effectiveness. Good for your CEO!

Cantor's defeat eventually led to Paul Ryan becoming Speaker. Now Ryan has a primary fight on his hands:

Paul Ryan Opponent At Heart of Proxy Fight Between Trump and GOP

If Ryan loses, will any establishment Republican want a leadership position?

jarnon wrote:Cantor's defeat eventually led to Paul Ryan becoming Speaker. Now Ryan has a primary fight on his hands:

Paul Ryan Opponent At Heart of Proxy Fight Between Trump and GOP

If Ryan loses, will any establishment Republican want a leadership position?

Ryan is not in serious danger.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blog ... /87993796/

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

jarnon wrote:Cantor's defeat eventually led to Paul Ryan becoming Speaker. Now Ryan has a primary fight on his hands:

Paul Ryan Opponent At Heart of Proxy Fight Between Trump and GOP

If Ryan loses, will any establishment Republican want a leadership position?

Ryan is not in serious danger.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blog ... /87993796/

Didn't polls miss Cantor's defeat? --Bob

TheCalvinator24 wrote:
Ryan is not in serious danger.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blog ... /87993796/

The problem with primaries is that turnout is often very low, especially for those primaries that aren't held in conjunction with a contested presidential primary. According to 538, in 2014, less than 15% of eligible voters voted in that year's primaries. This means that a challenger with a more motivated supporter base can beat an incumbent who is generally well liked, but whose supporters don't show up to vote.

silverscreenselect wrote:The problem with primaries is that turnout is often very low, especially for those primaries that aren't held in conjunction with a contested presidential primary. According to 538, in 2014, less than 15% of eligible voters voted in that year's primaries. This means that a challenger with a more motivated supporter base can beat an incumbent who is generally well liked, but whose supporters don't show up to vote.

(emphasis mine)

Therein was the issue with Cantor. There were a lot of folks who didn't care for him, but this was the first time anyone ran against him at the primary level, and in a district that was Gerrymandered to be heavily Republican, the occasional Democratic fool/sacrificial lamb that ran against him was doomed from the outset. Basically, the folks in his district haven't much cared for him since about 2004, but weren't going to vote for anyone without an "R" beside their name.

As noted before, one of the biggest beefs was that he rarely came to his home district (which was, what, 100 miles +/- from DC?) except for a fundraiser, and that was usually a fundraiser for his own PAC. The natives got tired of his blatantly playing national politics instead of local politics.