Nate Silver, the left-leaning statistician recently hired by the New York Times after running his own polling blog for several years, is warning Democrats not to dismiss the GOP generic ballot lead as a mere outlier.
Gallup released a poll yesterday, using the president's favorite word, "unprecedented," to describe the GOP's 10-point lead on the generic ballot question. It's the first time the Republican Party has achieved such a margin in the 70 years Gallup has been polling the question, and puts them 10 points ahead of their standing on the eve of the '94 wave election.
Silver had bad news for liberals looking to the Newsweek poll, which found the parties tied, for solace:
The poll is probably an outlier of sorts, by which I mean that if you were to take the exact same survey and put it into the field again — but interview 1,450 different registered voters, instead of the ones Gallup surveyed — you would most likely not find the G.O.P. with a 10-point advantage. This week’s generic ballot survey by Rasmussen Reports actually bounced back toward the Democrats somewhat (although still showing them with a 6-point deficit);polling averages have them trailing by around 5 points instead; and there was no specific news event last week that would have warranted such a large shift in voter preferences.
Still, even if the poll is an outlier, that doesn’t mean it should simply be dismissed. Instead, the question is: an outlier relative to what? If the Democrats’ true deficit on the generic ballot were 5 points, it would not be all that unusual to have a poll now and then that showed them trailing by 10 points instead, nor would it be so strange for a couple of polls to show the race about tied. Indeed, that seems to be about where the generic ballot sits now. No non-Internet survey has shown the Democrats with a lead larger than 1 point on the generic ballot for over a month now, whereas their worst results of late seem to put them in the range of 10 points to 11 points behind.
Democrats have been trying to lay the blame for this spectacular fall from grace solely at the feet of the economic situation, ignoring effects of the centerpiece of Obama's first two years in office — health care reform. A Politico piece on Democratic fears of losing the House completely ignored health care reform in favor of storylines like the Ground Zero Mosque. But even the energetic Obamacare shills at HCAN feel it's enough of a negative to urge candidates and activist not to even mention it.
Jay Cost offers an "It's the Obamacare, stupid" argument:
Partisans on both sides tell themselves stories about why they're up, why they're down, and why the other side is where it is. These stories usually contain at least a grain of truth, but they also help encourage ideologues in the face of an impending rejection by the electorate. Democrats ignored the political problem of health care in the fall and winter - arguing that Martha Coakley and Creigh Deeds were bad candidates, that voters had been turned off by the health care bill because of the process, and that they would come around once the many benefits kicked in. Now, they're pointing to the economy as the only significant reason why the party is in trouble.