What do these Senate race changes mean overall?
Dean Heller has now led in three consecutive polls, with the latest showing the incumbent opening up a seven point lead. The last poll showing Heller down was from CNN and dates back to September. This seems to be a fairly consistent theme right now in the Senate, with at least four close Senate races breaking for the Republican candidate.
There seems to be little doubt that the GOP has caught a late Senate surge.
But I find it odd that conventional wisdom suggests that there is some inherent logic to Senate polling moving in the direction of the GOP, while generic polling and House polling is not? It seems awfully odd that there would be such a resounding polling disconnect? Why would people decide to drift towards Republican Senate candidates, while not showing the same inclination to drift towards Republican House candidates?
I understand how it would be easy to discount polling in heavy red states such as Texas, Tennessee, and North Dakota. Those are states that you would generically expect a Republican to win and a Democrat to lose. Some sort of balancing of the equilibrium so to speak. But there has also been movement in both Arizona and Nevada, and these are swing states?
Obviously part of the issue is the relatively small number of pollsters who bother to survey individual congressional districts. Those who do, deal with an inherently inconsistent polling method of very small overall potential voter pools, which leads to smaller samples. What prognosticators tend to do in projecting House races is focus as much on the generic ballot as they do on the actual individual polling. Right, wrong, or indifferent, we have a whole lot of pollsters now polling the generic ballot (when a few years back there were only a handful that bothered).
I am certainly not discounting the possibility that Senate Races are moving differently than House races. But the overall concept does not hit me as being all that logical.
20 comments:
I agree the different directions do not make apparent sense and would suggest we see a more aligned result when actual voting occurs. I do think there is bias in some liberal polling and its reporting, trying to create a narrative that conservatives are just wasting their time voting (voter suppression), though I don't think that works. I also think the apparent difference in funding for Democrats and Republicans is not going to have a major impact. I just don't buy funding is that important any more, look at Trump... and look at all the "free" advertising he is supplying the GOP. I think much of the advertising dollars is just a waste.
Also look at all the help inept Democrats are supplying to Republicans.
Daily.
Sen Mccasill in MO is burning thru cash like she is attempting to heat her house with it.
one thing i've noticed that i hadn't before is how some polls have made public the 'total calls to answered and polled calls' ratio. they making it sound like it's requiring a lot more dials to reach a person willing to be polled at all.
perhaps this has always been reported and i just missed it...
I think non-responce is becoming an issue in polling.
Blogger Commonsense said...
I think non-responce is becoming an issue in polling.
it sure seemed to be an issue in 2016.
Of course it is. Who wants to subject themselves to raging, screaming violent liberal hatred just for saying you support trump.
They'll say it in the voting booth.
The federal budget deficit rose 17 percent in fiscal 2018, according to the Trump administration.
Spending jumped, and revenue only increased slightly following the GOP tax cuts. Supply Side economics is untrue.
The Trump administration has pushed for dramatic budget cuts at several agencies and supported massive increases in military spending.
Fiscal 2018 budget deficit up 17% to $779 billion.
The U.S. federal budget deficit rose in fiscal 2018 to the highest level in six years as spending climbed, the Trump administration said Monday.
Mind keeping your spam on one thread or the other?
alky,
thanks for another installment of the ongoing saga:
"deficits matter when there's a republican in the white house."
brought to you by hypocrisy production studios LLC.
Hey Roger
Two questions for you:
Did revenues go down or up?
Was the increase in spending due to the mandatory or discretionary budget?
If you are incapable of doing a little research and answering those two questions... then I shall simply assume that you remain a stooge.
hey alky, why don't you go creep some more teenage girls on twitter?
no wonder you and the pederast are such buddies.
The latest monthly budget report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that revenues from federal income taxes were $76 billion higher in the first half of this year, compared with the first half of 2017. That's a 9% jump, even though the lower income tax withholding schedules went into effect in February.
The CBO says the gain "largely reflects increases in wages and salaries."
For the fiscal year as a whole — which started last October — all federal revenues are up by $31 billion. That's a 1.2% in increase over last year, the CBO says.
The Treasury Department, which issues a separate monthly report, says it expects federal revenues will continue to exceed last year's for the rest of the 2018 fiscal year.
Look at what's happened since the tax cuts went into effect.
Economists hiked their projections for growth this year once the tax cuts passed. The CBO changed its 2018 forecast from 2% before the tax cuts passed to 3.3% after they took effect. In that same report, the CBO admitted that this added growth would offset a significant chunk of the tax cuts.
Other Democratic big lies about the tax cuts continue to fall.
They called the tax cuts a giveaway to the rich. But the rich will end up paying a bigger share of income taxes because of the Trump tax plan.
They said workers wouldn't benefit, but millions got bonuses, raises, and improved benefits because of the corporate tax cuts. And real median household income is now at all-time highs.
Democrats also said that tax cuts would do nothing about the $2.9 trillion in profits that corporations had parked overseas.
In fact, corporations are bringing hundreds of billions of dollars in profits back as a direct result of changes in the corporate tax laws — 12% of the nearly $3 trillion held overseas came back to the U.S. in just the first three months of 2018. That will mean more economic growth and additional corporate revenues.
It's the Spending, Stupid
As we have said many times in this space, the problem the country faces isn't that taxes are too low, but that spending is too high. The CBO projects that even with the Trump tax cuts in place, taxes as a share of GDP will steadily rise over the next decade, and will be higher than the post-World War II average.
But bringing in more tax revenues doesn't help if spending goes up even faster. And that has, unfortunately, been the case, as the GOP-controlled Congress has gone on a spending spree.
Look at it this way. Tax revenues are up by $31 billion so far this fiscal year compared with last year. But spending is up $115 billion.
In other words, the entire increase in the deficit so far this year has been due to spending hikes, not tax cuts.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/income-tax-revenues-trump-tax-cuts-economic-growth/
Actually Rat
Congress only controls discretionary spending...
2009 1237
2010 1347
2011 1347
2012 1286
2013 1202
2014 1178
2015 1167
2016 1185
2017 1200
2018 1280
So we can hardly call the 2018 discretionary spending almost being back to 2012 levels as a spending spree.
So we can hardly call the 2018 discretionary spending almost being back to 2012 levels as a spending spree.
agreed. i'd like to see spending go down relative to the revenue increases so we can start retiring some of the debt we've racked up since '08.
So in the past fiscal year:
approx 30 billion increase in Mand spending
approx 80 billion increase in Disc spending
approx 50 billion increase in interest payments
offset by 22 billion increase in revenues
So the left is technically getting their collective panties in a bunch over an controllable increase to the deficit of about 48 billion. Would we rather see a decrease? Sure, but I think we can live with staying under 50 billion.
oh, and regarding the tax cuts for the rich bullshit...
Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Taxes in 2016
The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).
The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes.
In other words, the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Which small percentile of tax payers also paid 3 percent or more? You might have guessed it. It is the top 0.001%, or about 1,400 taxpayers. That group alone paid 3.25 percent of all income taxes. In 2001, the bottom 50 percent paid nearly 5 percent whereas the top 0.001 percent of filers paid 2.3 percent of income taxes.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-economics/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016#gs.R26g4ko
So the left is technically getting their collective panties in a bunch over an controllable increase to the deficit of about 48 billion.
don't you love it when the alky blindly posts something in an effort to score a cheap partisan point without first taking the time to understand it?
THWAP! ol' rog steps on a rake AGAIN.
Pretty simple
What Roger did was C&P someone elses opinion without bothering to research anything. He basically "fell for it".
What I did was go to the CBO source, and show the actual numbers as they exist. I refused to "fall for it".
Now... wait for Roger to make some sort of comment that I am just blindly supporting Trump because I didn't take his C&P article at it's word.
Sorry Rog...
Facts matter.
rrb said THWAP! ol' rog steps on a rake AGAIN.
I bet if Roger took a DNA test he would have more "rake" in it than Warren has Native American.
Perhaps a fling with a gardener several generations ago?
Lol.
Prat fall roger
Post a Comment