Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

Majority Watch Mashup

Topics: 2006 , IVR , IVR Polls , The 2006 Race

Picking up on the post from earlier tonight, the new Majority Watch surveys released today provide another strong indicator of recent trends, in this case regarding the race for the U.S. House.  The partnership of RT Strategies and Constituent Dynamics released 41 new automated surveys conducted in the most competitive House districts. 

Since they conducted identical surveys roughly two weeks ago in 27 30 of the 41 districts, we have an opportunity for an apples-to-apples comparison involving roughly 27,000 30,000 interviews in each wave.  The table below shows the results from both waves from each of those 27 30 districts.  The bottom line average indicates that overall, the Democratic margin in these districts increased slightly, from +1.9 to +2.7 percentage during October. 

10-30%20market%20watch.jpg

Whatever one may think of their automated methodology, the Majority Watch surveys used the same methodology and sampling procedures for both waves.  And as with the similar "mashup" of polls in the most competitive Senate races in the previous post, these also show no signs of an abating wave.

Interests disclosed: Constituent Dynamics provided Pollster.com with technical assistance in the creation of our national maps and summary tables

 

Comments
E J Hosdil:

All polls of course have margins of error and the there are alway a few outliers. However, this latest batch seems a bit odd. While the Democrats are winning a few seats that are strong Republican areas, the GOP are not doing to badly in other district in what is suposed to be somewhat of a tidal wave year. I guess we will know next week just how good Constituent Dynamics is.

____________________

Gary Kilbride:

Excellent. I was concerned about Foley-skewed margins and mood in the early October batch, possibly temporary. Regardless of the individual numbers, an overall recoil would have been distinct is that had been true, given the sample size and widespread terrain.

Perhaps the Foley episode pushed voters where they wanted to be all along.

Were others among today's 41 were previously sampled in Majority Watch's first batch in September, pre-Foley? That might be an interesting side-by-side, if there are enough of them. Actualy I can think of one immediately, NV-3 virtually unchanged, from 51-43 Porter to 51-44.

____________________

Edward Witten:

I think one could do the following. To get a test of the methodology used by this polling company, and the hypothesis that the difference between two two polls is mainly caused by national trends plus statistical fluctuations, one can ask to what extent the difference found in the last column is consistent with being caused by statistical fluctuations with a standard Gaussian distribution.

It is true that if we get a negative answer to this, we won't know if there is a problem with the methodology of the polling company or we are detecting trends in individual districts.
But if we get a positive answer, this will confirm the hypothesis that the changes are
dominated by a national trend plus statistical
fluctuations. (Mainly the latter since the national trend found by the average of the last column is weak.)

____________________

Hmmm. You said 30 races, but show 27. Of them, the Dems led in 14 two weeks ago, Reps led in 11, with two tied. Now it's 19 Dem - 9 Rep. Dems up 4, Reps down 2, for a Dem swing of 6.

Refining a bit, the individual MOE is 2.9-3.1%. Using a rough standard of regarding all races with leads less than 3 as within the MOE, the Dems led 12-6 two weeks ago (12 within MOE) and lead 14-5 now (11 within MOE). Dems up 2, Reps down 1 for a Dem swing of 3.

Using a rough standard of regarding all races with leads less than or equal to 3 as within the MOE, Dems led 10-4 (16 within MOE) two weeks ago and lead 13-2 now (15 within MOE). Dems up 3, Reps down 2 for a Dem swing of 5.

Any way you slice it, Dem fortunes seem to be improving. But the basic question still remains--which will predominate, the Dem wave or the GOP infrastructure? This is what's signified by the large number of seats within the MOE.

OTOH, being a wave election, when all the micro-slicing is said and done, there's always a chance that seats still not regarded as in play could fall. Reps could lose all the seats in this poll plus another 10-20 besides.

____________________

fmrgop:

I have problems with this methodology because it uses phone numbers from voter lists. Huge percentages of voters don't list their numbers on voter registration forms. This means that the sample size, though huge, misses a significant percentage of voters.

I have no idea if it skews Rep or Dem, but all polling for Congressional races are filled with doubt. In Senatorial races, the phoning can be random and the polling results are far more reliable.

This is not meant to be a criticism, because I have no idea how I would do any better. It is only a word of caution to those who are feeling secure in these numbers.

____________________

Regardless of your concerns with a possible *skew* you can agree that the increase is real within the demographic reached by this methodology?

____________________

Ralonda Mason:

Patty is still in the game.

Sam

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR