Mediaboss Marketing

Seven weeks out from the midterm elections, Democrats are facing better prospects than when they entered the summer of 2022. Inflation has improved, gas prices are dropping, and as they go back home, congressional Democrats can claim a host of accomplishments from their time in DC.

But theres one win some Democrats are concerned may be more of a liability than an asset: the Biden administrations plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student loans.

Before the plan became a reality, the country was split in its support of debt forgiveness: Republicans largely opposed it, but it had long been a hit among a large subset of younger voters, according to progressive pollsters. Now, polling shows a stark partisan split in support for the plan, and concerningly for Democrats in tight races, soft support among independents.

Timed curiously after a score of legislative wins and a few months before elections, the announcement sparked outrage among conservatives who thought the bailout was unfair to those who did not seek a college education or had already paid off their loans. At the same time, the policy announcement landed as President Joe Biden saw a rebound in support, especially among younger Americans. But on the campaign trail, the plan hasnt made the positive electoral impact that many proponents had touted as one of the political advantages of forgiving student debt. And its providing fodder to Republican candidates wholly opposed to Bidens economic agenda.

Thats part of the reason a handful of vulnerable Democratic incumbents (and challengers) criticized the policy when the White House announced it. Some of those campaigns have since told me that they either arent making it an issue in their races or simply arent hearing much about it from Democratic voters.

Negative blowback to the policy hasnt yet registered in polling on whats motivating voters, but theres still time for either side to make it an issue. If Republicans are successful in doing so, some Democrats worry the policy could cost them badly needed support in swing states and races, and could eat away at their chances of keeping a Senate majority while limiting losses in the House.

Biden had already extended the moratorium on student loan payments four times ahead of his August 24 announcement and had been hesitant to commit to loan cancellation for most of his first year in office. Hed faced criticism from progressives in his party and from advocacy groups, including the charge that he was breaking a campaign promise (even though he never committed to full loan cancellation). In response, he gave himself a September deadline and promised a decision on debt relief or another extension of the moratorium.

This years spring and summer, however, delivered devastating approval numbers for Biden, driven in large part by high inflation. The president and his party were shedding support from young voters and liberal Democrats and his numbers with independents were underwater. Many progressive advocacy groups and student loan relief activists argued that erasing student debt would be one easy, major way to stop the bleeding.

Polling leading up to the decision showed a divided country. Nationally, more than six in 10 Americans supported some kind of student loan forgiveness in a February Data for Progress poll that student loan relief champions used as evidence of popularity. But complete loan forgiveness had the support of only a quarter of respondents. Broken down by party and age, a majority of Republicans and a plurality of older Americans opposed any action, while half of Democrats and a plurality of young Americans and independents backed some, but not all, debt cancellation.

That partisan split still exists. The country is divided nearly in half in support and opposition to Bidens policy, and its unpopular with independent and Republican voters, according to a Politico/Morning Consult poll taken immediately after the announcement. Support from independents remains roughly equally divided, while Republicans have grown more opposed to it.

Before Bidens announcement, there was a risk that such a decision, which helps many (but not just those) in the Democratic base, could alienate swing voters independent, working-class, and non-college-educated voters that Democrats in tight races are trying to persuade. Now the divide that shows up in national polling has sparked concerns from pundits, political strategists, and vulnerable Democratic candidates that aside from placating the left flank, there might not be a tremendous political boost.

Regardless of the electoral effect, the most progressive constituents of the Democratic party say the Biden action was worth it because it will energize voters disillusioned with Democrats. It helps galvanize the base to understand that Biden and the Democrats are listening, Dakota Hall, the executive director of the Alliance for Youth Action, told me. Its a sign of good faith that Biden did this before the election, to show the base that he is listening, that he wants to make good on his promises.

It remains to be seen, however, just how much student loan forgiveness will bring out young voters. Its important to remember that even young voters were split on just how much debt relief to support (a third opposed any action earlier this year). Some of the speculation about the policys impact on younger voters rests on the common wisdom that younger Americans are more progressive than older cohorts, but that is only partially true. Young Americans are still more moderate than you might expect.

What is apparent is that Bidens action is not as popular with the kind of voter that tends to matter in midterm elections in swing states: older white Americans and independents. And Republicans in battleground states are already folding criticism of student debt relief into their bigger case against Democrats centered around inflation and economic mismanagement in states like Arizona, Nevada, Florida, and Wisconsin.

That has many campaigns in swing states concerned. And because of that, they arent necessarily talking up the policy in the general election, either to not unsettle independent voters or to avoid giving Republicans more fodder to attack them.

In swing-state Ohio, where Rep. Tim Ryan is in a tight race with former venture capitalist and author J.D. Vance for an open seat, Ryan has openly opposed Bidens plan.

Tim believes using executive action to wipe away six-figure earners debt goes too far, his communications director Izzi Levy told Vox in a statement. [He] believes the administration would have been better served by prioritizing across-the-board economic relief that benefits all working- and middle-class Ohioans, whether or not they attended college.

A member of Ryans campaign leadership told me that his stance is due to both the working-class nature of the states electorate (only about a quarter of the population has a college degree) and because voters havent really brought it up in conversation, as opposed to topics like inflation and affordability.

In Colorado, a swing state that is trending Democratic, Sen. Michael Bennet also criticized the presidents plan, saying in August that the administration should have further targeted the relief, and proposed a way to pay for this plan. While immediate relief to families is important, one-time debt cancellation does not solve the underlying problem.

About four in 10 Coloradans have a college education, but a Bennet campaign spokesperson told me that he hasnt heard much about student loan cancellation on the trail. Costs, climate, and public lands are top of mind, the spokesperson told me. Most of all, were hearing concerns abortion will become illegal following the SCOTUS decision on Roe.

Its hard to gauge just how much student debt relief is motivating voters without specific polling in each state. In Nevada, for example, 61 percent of voters polled oppose the action, according to a recent Emerson College poll. That survey also showed the ultra-right-wing Republican election denier Adam Laxalt with a one-point lead against incumbent Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto, who has struggled to maintain high support throughout her reelection campaign. Cortez-Masto also came out against the plan after it was announced. In neighboring Arizona, however, incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly has endorsed the presidents executive action. No recent in-state polling shows how people feel about the policy, but Arizona has more than 30 percent college-educated residents to Nevadas more than 25 percent.

Still, it may be too early to judge the effect student loan cancellation is having on races or whether, despite Republican attempts to make it an issue, it will have any effect at all. The policy is most popular with a very specific subset of the country Democrats often see as their base: younger Americans, college-educated voters, and fervent liberals the sort of voters who would have likely voted for Democrats even if loans had not been forgiven.

Ultimately, the policy might have had the effect of stopping the bleeding of support that Biden and Democrats were experiencing among their base, and changing the narrative of whether Democrats especially young ones would be as motivated or engaged to vote this year as Republicans.

There are also plenty of other issues taking precedence in voters minds, especially inflation for independents and young voters, and abortion for college-educated and white Democrats. Republicans may find opportunities to tie debt relief to inflation worries (plenty of Americans are worried about the effect of loan cancellation on inflation), but as a standalone issue, running on or against student loan cancellation seems like a wash.

Politics aside, when the action goes into effect next year, it may be one of the most recent direct pieces of evidence that government and electoral politics are capable of delivering tangible, positive effects for a swath of working people, people of color, and younger Americans who held debt that was forgiven. That shouldnt be understated. For now, though, student loan relief seems like a slight political vulnerability likely to be outweighed by deeper, longstanding economic and social concerns that are already motivating the voters most likely to cast ballots.

Read more from the original source:
Student loan forgiveness isnt the midterms savior some Democrats wanted - Vox.com

Last fall, in a panic surrounding moderate Democrat Terry McAuliffes loss in Virginias gubernatorial race, the House of Representatives rushed to finally pass an infrastructure law. House progressives who had insisted on linking the bipartisan legislations passage to the success of a broader plan focused on climate change and social spending capitulated and delivered their votes.

Over the following eight months, the fate of that broader plan twisted and turned on the whims and wants of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). All the while, President Joe Bidens approval rating continued to slip, and Democratic political fortunes seemed destined to follow. According to a FiveThirtyEight tracker, Bidens net approval rating dropped 8 percentage points, bottoming out at just 39% approval with a 55% majority disapproving.

In late July, however, Manchin reached an agreement with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on a scaled-down version of the package, now called the Inflation Reduction Act. Both chambers of Congress quickly passed it on party-line votes, and Biden signed it into law Aug. 15.

Since then, the presidents approval rating has risen by a net 4 percentage points on the FiveThirtyEight tracker. While this is not nearly enough to defy historical precedents and deliver Democrats a whopping midterm victory in November, its a major reason why some of the partys most ambitious challengers and endangered incumbents feel better about their electoral chances today.

Isolating the impact of either law is nearly impossible: The Inflation Reduction Act was passed as gas prices were dropping in much of the U.S., and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law arrived as much of the nation realized inflation was set to be a sticky economic problem. But polls, as well as interviews with and advertising from Democrats around the country, make it clear that the IRA is providing a more substantial political boost than the infrastructure law did.

For the progressives who wanted to link the two pieces of legislation together, its a belated justification of their abandoned plan and proof that their priorities are popular. For moderate Democrats who insisted that the infrastructure law was a model of what the American people wanted from Washington incrementalism that can bring the two parties together its a splash of water to the face.

According to Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the reason is simple. It has things that affect peoples everyday lives, she said in an interview with HuffPost, pointing to the Inflation Reduction Acts investments in clean energy and provisions limiting the costs of prescription drugs for seniors to $2,000 a year.

The infrastructure law funds a lot of projects, and those are big projects. But it isnt something where people can wake up and feel the impact on their lives, she added.

Both laws are popular in public surveys, and Democrats are embracing them in the run-up to Novembers elections. Biden held an event Monday in Boston to highlight the infrastructure laws investments in airports, and he hosted a celebration of the Inflation Reduction Act on Tuesday in Washington.

But its the IRA especially its health care provision boosting subsidies and limiting drug costs that is proving politically valuable for Democrats in tough races. A survey from Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC, found that parts of the Inflation Reduction Act were the three most popular policy achievements of the Biden administration out of 22 tested. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law ranked fifth, the political action committee said.

Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), perhaps the House member facing the toughest reelection in the country, mentions the IRAs prescription drug provisions in a spot touting how hes brought Maine common sense ... back on the table in Washington. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) brags about how he stood up to Big Pharma in a separate ad released late last month. And Senate Majority PAC, which is controlled by allies of Schumer, aired an ad attacking Adam Laxalt, the GOPs nominee for Senate in Nevada, for opposing the law after taking donations from pharmaceutical companies.

Though the infrastructure law has popped up in campaign ads Kelly boasted about money for a highway, and Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) is touting port funding, for example surveys have also indicated that voters know relatively little about it. Third Way, a moderate Democratic think tank, released a report in July finding that while the deals provisions were popular, only a quarter of voters even knew that the law had passed.

The media cycle around the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was not that helpful for Democrats, said Aliza Astrow, a senior political analyst for Third Way, adding that coverage of the law remained overshadowed by questions about what would happen to the social spending and climate package. Democrats got a clean win out of the IRA.

Astrow also said that the path for the latter from the multitrillion-dollar Build Back Better plan to the $780 billion Inflation Reduction Act made the law significantly more moderate and likely palatable to persuadable voters.

Its helpful that its not a complete overhaul of the system, she said. A more moderate bill is actually going to mitigate that backlash that parties often experience when they try to implement their own agenda.

The relative moderation of the IRA also means that Republicans will be the ones who delivered the biggest shock to the political status quo over the past two years, following the Supreme Courts overturn of Roe v. Wade in June. Democratic strategists of all stripes agreed that protecting abortion rights will be a bigger part of the partys midterm message than either piece of legislation.

The bipartisan law also delivered another benefit. It forms a bedrock piece of Bidens argument that he was able to bring Congress together in a way his predecessors could not.

I was determined to work with Republicans, and Ive done that on historic laws like [the] infrastructure law, Biden said Tuesday, also highlighting the CHIPS Act to increase semiconductor production and a law protecting veterans exposed to the militarys waste disposal burn pits as bipartisan successes.

In fact, I think its fair to say weve achieved more bipartisan agreement in these nearly two years in my ... [presidency] than anyone thought was even remotely possible when I entered office.

He quickly moved on to the more urgent pre-midterm message. I believe Republicans could have and should have joined us on this bill [the Inflation Reduction Act] as well, he said, before ticking off the laws provisions.

Read this article:
Why The Inflation Reduction Act Boosted Democrats While The Infrastructure Law Failed - HuffPost

Always amazed at the delusional nature of the conservative mind. Case in point a recent letter critical of Democrats in Washington state and the nation.

To call our president, governor and state senators RINOs (Republican in name only) indicates the lack of critical thinking.

The Democratic Party give us many beneficial legislative programs; womens right to vote, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Securities and Exchange Act, Rural Electrification Act, Peace Corps, unemployment benefits, Fair Labor Act, GI Bill, Federal Home Loan Program, eight-hour work day, national school lunch, Voting Rights Act, Head Start, Civil Rights Act, student loans, Family and Medical Leave Act to name a few.

Red States, those controlled by Republicans, have higher rates of; spousal abuse, obesity, smoking, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, bankruptcies, homicide/murders, infant mortality, maternal mortality, forcible rape, robbery-aggravated assault, school dropouts, divorce, contaminated air/water, opiate addiction, unskilled workers, parasitic infections, income-wealth inequality, covid deaths, unvaccinated people, federal subsidies, people on welfare, child poverty, homelessness, spousal murder, unemployment, death from auto accidents, people living on disability.

This can be varied with a google search. The above red state items can be checked in an article in The Hartmann Report: When Will Americans Again Believe in America?

When you add the Big Lie, attempt at an insurrection, voter suppression, threats of violence against citizens for not agreeing to their political ideology why would you vote for a Republican?

Granted there are issues with both parties, but the current cult of Trump and the Republican Party has gone off the rails. Current policy of Republicans is blocking any legislation the democratic party is trying to pass even if it helps its own constituents.

Stuart Clift

Everett

See the original post here:
Compare parties if you think Democrats have a problem | HeraldNet.com - The Daily Herald

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said that his caucus fraught debate over whether to vote on public safety bills this month, for instance, remained a very important question, but one that might not be politically wise at the moment.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, left, walks with Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., at the Capitol in Washington, Feb. 11, 2020.|Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

It might not make sense for us to poke the bear. Lets win the majority back and then do what we can do then, the senior Black Caucus member said. I think we are working on reducing the likelihood of tumult.

Other Democrats, though, argue its still critical to show voters the party is supporting law enforcement after years of GOP attacks. Democrats need to demonstrate we can be pro-law enforcement while being against bad cops, and so Id like to see us vote on this package, moderate Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) said.

Such tension is a reminder that theres zero guarantee of a drama-free September. With the House slated for just eight more days in session this month, lawmakers face a high-stakes to-do list that includes averting a government shutdown, delivering military aid to Ukraine and resolving a contentious bicameral dispute over Sen. Joe Manchins (D-W.Va.) energy permitting push.

Democrats are also facing a pile-up of other priorities: Party leaders had already committed to tackling some delayed bills, including that policing and public safety package that openly split the caucus just weeks earlier. Theres keen interest in voting on a measure to ban stock trading for members of Congress.

Some hope to tackle even loftier ambitions, such as the nearly two year-old push to reform the 19th-century Electoral Count Act in the wake of the Capitol riot. Internal caucus discussions remain active on both topics.

We dont want to see a dustup over anything, said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), describing the partys push for unity in its waning days before the election. Summing up Democrats main task this month, he quipped: Just brag about everything weve gotten done.

The most pressing matter for party leaders is government funding now ominously linked with a summertime accord between Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to pass a major energy permitting package by the end of September.

A group of House progressives, led by Natural Resources Chair Ral Grijalva (D-Ariz.), have taken a hard line against the deal, which theyve criticized as propping up the fossil fuel industry.

And theyve threatened they could oppose stopgap government funding if Manchins plan is included, though they say theyre intent on negotiating to avoid that outcome. The simpler solution, they say, is to separate the proposal from the must-pass funding bill, which would also avert a humiliating pre-election shutdown.

You avoid the drama. You avoid the pressure that members are going to be under. You avoid splitting our caucus. And you avoid a messy situation before the midterms, Grijalva said in an interview. Hed rather see the issue be punted until the lame-duck session: I think more time to negotiate is a good thing.

Democratic leaders have worked behind the scenes to mollify some of that angst: Schumer, for instance, has been phoning some House progressives who signed Grijalvas 70-plus-member letter, including Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) speaks to reporters outside of the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 23, 2021 in Washington, D.C.|Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Jayapal said shes spoken multiple times to Schumer in recent weeks, conversations where hes reiterated his commitment to the permitting agreement with Manchin, since it proved key to securing Democrats tax, climate and health care bill.

I get it, he is trying to move it. I am not just sure its going to be able to go forward [in the Senate], Jayapal said. I understand they felt they had to make some sort of a deal. But they didnt talk to the other chamber that has to pass it.

Other senior House Democrats, too, have stressed the need to avoid an end-of-September funding standoff at all costs. During Wednesdays first closed-door meeting in nearly two months, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told members that under no circumstance could Democrats allow a government shutdown come Oct. 1.

In the same meeting, both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic campaigns chief Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) talked about their brightening though still challenging prospects to cling to their majority in November. Maloney urged his fellow Democrats to remain focused on the goal ahead.

Stay focused and stay together, said Rep. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.), echoing leaderships message to fellow Democrats. Meeks said most members are still cautious, observing no jumping for joy yet, but said hes begun to see a shift in attitude.

Meeks recalled, for example, Democrats flocking to Biden at his celebratory White House event earlier this week a long way from members who publicly declared just weeks ago that the president shouldnt seek reelection in 2024.

Republicans, needless to say, look across the aisle and see little but unearned optimism ahead of a midterm cycle that still trends their way overall.

Were confident, said House GOP campaigns chief Tom Emmer (R-Minn.). We have the best class of candidates ever. Were in the strongest financial position weve ever been in. And we have the messages that overwhelmingly resonate with the voters who are going to decide these elections.

Another major open question for Democrats is whether they can reach an agreement for floor votes on a slew of public safety and policing bills that several moderates have called critical to their own reelection chances.

That push came back to life this week as Pelosi sat down with moderate Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Congressional Black Caucus Chair Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio). But while the discussions seemed to be gaining momentum after two months of impasse, its not clear yet whether any accord could emerge that gets enough votes from Democrats four-seat majority.

Some even acknowledged there is little to gain politically if a public safety debate would trigger a fresh round of infighting.

Id much rather us not take any action if its going to mean pitting us against each other, said one Democratic lawmaker close to the talks.

Josh Siegel, Burgess Everett and Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

See the rest here:
Democrats' No. 1 fall goal: Try not to 'poke the bear' - POLITICO

ILLUSTRATION BY EMILY SCHERER

As Democrats prospects for the midterms have improved theyre now up to a 71 percent chance of keeping the Senate and a 29 percent chance of retaining the House, according to the 2022 FiveThirtyEight midterm election forecast Ive observed a corresponding increase in concern among liberals that the polls might overestimate Democrats position again, as they did in 2016 and 2020. Even among commenters who are analyzing the race from an arms-length distance, there sometimes seems to be a presumption that the polls will be biased toward Democrats.

The best version of this argument comes from Other Nate (Nate Cohn, of The New York Times). He pointed out in a piece on Monday that states such as Wisconsin and Ohio where Democratic Senate candidates are outperforming FiveThirtyEights fundamentals index like how the state has voted in other recent elections were also prone to significant polling errors in 2020. Cohns analysis is worth reading in full.

Here, Im going to present something of a rebuttal. Not necessarily to Cohns specific claims, but rather to the presumption I often see in discussion about polling that polling bias is predictable and necessarily favors Democrats. My contention is that while the polls could have another bad year, its hard to know right now whether that bias will benefit Democrats or Republicans. Peoples guesses about this are often wrong. In 2014, for example, there was a lot of discussion about whether the polls would have a pro-Republican bias, as they did in 2012. But they turned out to have a pro-Democratic bias instead.

Theres one important complication to this, however. Our model actually assumes that current polling probably does overstate the case for Democrats. Its just not necessarily for the reasons people assume.

As I mentioned, the Deluxe version of our forecast gives Democrats a 71 percent and 29 percent chance of keeping the Senate and House, respectively. But the Deluxe forecast isnt just based on polls: It incorporates the fundamentals I mentioned earlier, along with expert ratings about these races. Furthermore, it accounts for the historical tendency of the presidents party to perform poorly at the midterms, President Bidens mediocre (although improving) approval rating and the fact that Democrats may not perform as well in polls of likely voters as among registered voters. As the election approaches, it tends to put more weight on the polls and less on these other factors, but it never zeros them out completely. (In this respect, it differs from our presidential forecast.)

By contrast, the Lite version of our forecast, which is more or less a polls-only view of the race, gives Democrats an 81 percent chance of keeping the Senate and a 41 percent chance of keeping the House. It also suggests that theyll win somewhat more seats: There are 52.4 Democratic Senate seats in an average Lite simulation as compared with 50.8 in a Deluxe simulation, or 212 Democratic House seats in an average Lite simulation versus 209 in a Deluxe simulation. Notably, this corresponds to current polls overstating Democrats position by the equivalent of 1.5 or 2 percentage points. Put another way, we should think of a race in which the polling average shows Democrats 2 points ahead as being tied.

Thats not quite the same thing as saying that the polls are systematically biased, though. Polls reflect a snapshot of what is happening today, and Democrats might indeed do very well if the election were held now instead of in November. In states like Ohio, for instance, theyve enjoyed a significant advertising advantage thanks to superior fundraising, but that will probably even out to some extent by Election Day.

Meanwhile, Biden and Democrats have also been on something of a winning streak lately, between a series of policy accomplishments, inflation trending downward and the political backlash to the Supreme Courts unpopular decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. But a worse-than-expected inflation report this week and a narrowly averted rail workers strike, which could have caused substantial supply chain disruptions, are reminders that uncertain real-world events wont necessarily continue to play out in Democrats favor.

Its also the case that in individual races, information besides the polls can help make a more accurate prediction, even when you have a lot of polls. For example, the partisan lean of a state still tells you something. Lets say the polling average has the Democrat ahead by 10 points in a state where the fundamentals put the Republican up by 2. Empirically, the best forecast in a race like this uses a blend of mostly polls and some fundamentals (exactly how much weight is given to the polls depends on how many polls there are and how close it is to the election). And you might end up with a forecast that has the Democrat winning by 7 or 8 points rather than 10 points, for instance. In that sense, in races such as Wisconsin and Ohio where there is a significant divergence between polls and fundamentals, Democrats probably should have concerns.

What I resist, though, is the implication that it can be presumed that the polls have a predictable, persistent, systematic bias toward Democrats. Is Rep. Tim Ryan going to underperform his current polls in Ohios Senate race? Well see, but more likely than not, the answer is yes. But is it just a thing now that polls always overrate Democrats?

Im skeptical. Here are seven reasons why:

Our historical database of polls shows that theres not much in the way of consistent polling bias. Two cycles of a pro-Republican bias in 1998 and 2000 were followed by a Democratic bias in 2002. A fairly sharp Republican bias in 2012 reversed itself, and the polls were biased toward Democrats in both 2014 and 2016.

Weighted-average statistical bias in polls in final 21 days of thecampaign

Bias is calculated only for races in which the top two finishers are a Democrat and a Republican. Therefore, it is not calculated for presidential primaries. Pollsters that are banned by FiveThirtyEight are not included in the averages. So as not to give a more prolific pollster too much influence over the average, polls are weighted by one over the square root of the number of polls each pollster conducted in a specific category.

Historically, the correlation between the polling bias in a given cycle and the bias in the previous cycle is either essentially zero or slightly negative, depending on whether you define previous cycle as two years ago or four years ago.

Pollsters get a lot of crap from people, but one nice thing about their job is that they regularly get to compare their results against reality. Sure, its possible for a pollster to get unlucky because of sampling error if you survey 500 people, sometimes youll draw a sample showing the Republican winning even if the Democrat is really up by 5 points. For the most part, though, pollsters can and do consider changes to their methodology based on errors in past elections.

And precisely because pollsters are subject to public scrutiny and there are relatively objective ways to measure their performance, they have strong financial and professional incentives to scrutinize their methods for potential sources of error and fix them if they can. Its the same incentive that a professional golfer has to fix his swing: If hes consistently hitting every shot to the left side of the fairway, for instance, at some point hell make adjustments. Maybe hell even overcompensate and start hitting everything to the right side instead.

Even if pollsters dont change their methods, the market will change the polling landscape on its own, at least to some degree. Pollsters who performed well in previous elections will get more business, and those who performed poorly will lose it.

For instance, weve seen relatively few traditional gold standard polls sponsored by major media organizations this cycle, perhaps because those polls tended to have a Democratic bias in 2020. Thats a shame, because most of these polling organizations have good long-term track records despite some recent problems. But it does mean that polling averages are more weighted toward Republican-leaning firms that have done comparatively well in recent election cycles, such as Rasmussen Reports and Trafalgar Group. This is especially true for FiveThirtyEights polling averages, which weight polls in part based on their historical accuracy. Groups like Rasmussen, for instance, get more say in the polling average than they did in 2020 because their rating is now higher.

As you can see in the table in the first point, polls did not have a systematic Democratic bias in 2018. That seems relevant, considering that was the most recent midterm.

Polls have also generally not had a Democratic bias in other elections in the Trump era when Trump himself was not on the ballot. They didnt have one in the Alabama Senate special election in 2017, for instance, or the Georgia Senate runoffs in January 2021, or in last years Virginia gubernatorial race.

There have also been some races where Democrats have overperformed their polls, such as in last years California gubernatorial recall election and in the 2017 governors race in Virginia. But these errors dont tend to get as much attention from the media as those that underestimated Republicans.

It may be that Republicans benefit from higher turnout only when Trump himself is on the ballot. A certain number of voters were willing to walk over glass to vote for Trump: Would they do the same for J.D. Vance, Mehmet Oz, Ron Johnson or Blake Masters? Evidence from non-Trump elections in the Trump era suggests maybe not. I tend not to buy the so-called shy Trump theory, or that voters are reluctant to state their preference for Trump. But it may nonetheless be hard to reach Trump voters, who may be more socially isolated, or who may be irregular voters who are screened out by likely voter models.

Democrats have had a lot of success in elections since the Supreme Courts Dobbs decision and importantly for our purposes, theyve done as well or better than polls predicted in these races:

I couldnt find any polls for the special elections in New Yorks 23rd Congressional District or Nebrakas 1st Congressional District, also held since the Dobbs decision.

Ironically, polls conducted before large parts of the country were shut down in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were more accurate than those conducted immediately before Election Day in 2020. Take the FiveThirtyEight polling average on March 1, 2020. It showed Biden up by 4.1 percentage points nationally, very close to his eventual 4.5-point popular vote margin. Our polling averages also correctly showed a very close race in states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

This may be because the pandemic profoundly affected who answered the polls. Specifically, Democrats were more likely to be in jurisdictions that implemented stay-at-home orders, and liberals were otherwise more likely to voluntarily limit their social interactions. Having more time at home on their hands, they may have been more likely to respond to polls. Thats less of a concern this year, with few voters treating COVID-19 as a high priority and few government restrictions in place.

Elections have consequences, and theyre relatively infrequent events. So the second-guessing and recriminations tend to linger for a while.

But that doesnt change the fact that peoples concerns about the polls stem mostly from a sample of exactly two elections, 2020 and 2016. You can point out that polls also had a Democratic bias in 2014. But, of course, they had a Republican bias in 2012, were largely unbiased in 2018, and have either tended to be unbiased or had a Republican bias in recent special elections.

True, in 2020 and 2016, polls were off the mark in a large number of races and states. But the whole notion of a systematic polling error is that its, well, systematic: It affects nearly all races, or at least the large majority of them. There just isnt a meaningful sample size to work with here, or anything close to it.

Again, that doesnt mean you should expect the polls to be spot-on. It may be that were living in a universe with larger polling errors than before in response to declining response rates. And there are some decent reasons to suspect that Democrats wont perform as well in November as they would in an election right now. Still, Ill stick to my usual advice: Prepare for the polls to be wrong in either direction.

See the original post:
Will The Polls Overestimate Democrats Again? - FiveThirtyEight