By Mary Mostert, Analyst, www.originalsources.com
November 2, 2000
It was almost exactly two years ago to the day, November 3, 1998, when I wrote in an analysis about the polls that predicted the Democrats would easily take back the Congress from the Republican upset in 1998.
One day before the election, I wrote:
"Today, we are told by Gallup Polls out of liberal Princeton University, we 'voters nationwide are tilting towards Democratic Congressional candidates over Republican candidates, by a 49% to 45% margin. This represents a movement towards the Democrats in the final days of the campaign. A Gallup poll conducted the previous weekend, October 23-25, showed Republicans ahead by a two point margin, although Democrats have led in earlier polls this fall.'
"Results will depend largely on turn-out. Will large numbers of voters rush to the rescue of Bill Clinton as they did for Harry Truman in 1948, when all the polls called Thomas Dewey the winner in headlines printed the night of the election, only to discover the next day that Harry Truman had won? Will little old ladies walk for miles down from the hills of Tennessee to vote, as they did for Harry Truman, because 'the president needs me?'
"Somehow, I don't think so. The Democrat base is composed largely of those addicted to government checks in the mail, based on recent Democrat commercials. Will those who benefit from entitlements, welfare, school lunches, public housing, medical care (both Medicare and Medicaid) come out and vote for Democrats because they think the Democrats will give them more? Two years ago little old ladies voted for Democrats because they had been told their social security was going to be taken away by the Republicans. Today the Democrats who are running strong races often sound more conservative than their Republican opponents. Even candidates like Sen. Russell Feingold, of Wisconsin, who has consistently voted to uphold Clinton's veto of Partial Birth Abortion Ban legislation, is trying to convince his constituents that he "opposes" Partial Birth Abortion, for example. Tax and spend Democrats claim ownership of the Balanced Budget, which they voted against time and time again.
"Will it be a Democrat victory, as the Gallup Poll appears to be telling us?"
It was not a Democrat victory. The Republicans kept control of the House and the Senate, the polls notwithstanding. And, this was not a unique occurrence where polls are concerned. As I noted in that November 3, 1998 analysis, Historically, pollsters are generally inaccurate. In 1996, for example, the polls were generally predicting a Clinton victory with, according to the N.Y. Times poll, Bill Clinton getting 53% of the vote and Bob Dole getting 35% of the vote, an 18 point spread. Various poll results and the vote looked like this:
Final Poll Projections, USA Today, November 7, 1996
Pollster Clinton Dole Perot Margin CBS/NY Times
53% 35% 9% 18% Pew Research
49% 36% 8% 13% ABC News
51% 39% 7% 12% Harris
51% 39% 9% 12% NBC/Wall Street
49% 37% 9% 12% USA Today
52% 41% 7% 11% CNN/Gallup
52% 41% 7% 11% Hotline
45% 36% 8% 9% Reuters/Zogby
49% 41% 8% 8%
Actual
49% 41% 8% 8%
Two years ago, the Senate races were considered the weathervane that would tell us what the public's true view was of the Impeachment of Bill Clinton. If the Republicans gained Senate seats, it would have to be considered a public vote for impeachment and for a ban on partial birth abortion. With that in mind I watched several senate seats which, according to Zogby, were critical:
New York: Al d'Amato and Charles Schumer. . Zogby showed D'Amato winner 47.3 to Schumer's 46.5. He predicted a D'Amato win. Schumer won.In 1998, Zogby, the most accurate of the pollsters, called 2 out of three of the most critical Senate races wrong. In the 105th Congress, there were 55 Republican Senators and 45 Democrats. With 34 Senate seats at stake, and the polls indicating an increase in the number of Democrat senators, the 1998 mid-term election ended with 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats.Missouri: While most polls predicted a win for Democrat Nixon, Zogby wrote: "When we factor in those Undecideds who are leaning, Bond leads Nixon 51% to 40.5%, with 8.5% undecided. When Undecideds are eliminated, Bond leads 55.7% to 44.3%." Bond won
Illinois: Zogby predicted Democrat Carol Moseley-Braun would win, since she led, when all undecideds were eliminated, 50.2% to Republican Peter Fitzgerald's 47.4%. Fitzgerald won.
In spite of the totally incorrect polls of two and four years ago, we are again totally immersed in polls in this election. This time, almost all the polls are showing Bush ahead:
I suspect the Electoral College vote will give George W. Bush a mandate level win and I think he will have a Republican House and Senate to work with. Which is probably why the leaders of the 106th Congress are showing some real backbone this week in standing up to Clinton's clumsy intimidation efforts in forcing the members of Congess to stay in Washington for daily continuing resolution votes while he races around the country desperately trying to shore up the Democrat base for Al Gore.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription