The Coming Tidal Wave

I admit to being almost overwhelmed as I try to predict just what will happen on November 2nd.  In a recent essay in the Baltimore Sun I wrote that the 2010 midterms would likely be a wave election that would return House Democrats to where they were prior to the 2006 election.  That would mean a loss of 55 seats in the House. In my official prediction - as a member of the St. Mary's College faculty - I predicted a net Republican gain of 55 seats in the House and 9 in the Senate. Since making that prediction 1 week ago I now believe that I understated Republican gains in the House and overstated gains in the Senate.

Pictured below is the final collection of generic ballot results as compiled by Real Clear Politics. Look at the most recent polls from Fox, Pew, CNN, and Gallup - all show that Democrats have filed to close the gap with Republicans. President Obama and former President Clinton have been crisscrossing the country to motivate Democrats and yet they have made no impact - in fact, the CNN and Gallup numbers suggest that Republicans have gained strength in the closing days of the campaign. The momentum is with Republicans, and in close races that will likely translate into final victory by the GOP.

As Gallup notes in the write-up on its final poll, the current lead enjoyed by Republicans is unprecedented, it far surpasses their lead in 1994 or 2002. Gallup suggests that a 60 seat gain is likely the floor for gains. Several of the polls show the GOP leading even among registered voters - an almost unheard of occurrence.

Given the current state of the polls, just 48 hours before the polls close in most states, I am now revising my predictions. I believe that Republicans will gain 65 seats in the House, I also think that they'll gain 6 seats in the Senate an fall short of the number needed to claim a majority in the Senate. The gains will likely be in AK, IL, IN, ND, PA, WI - totaling 6 seats. It's possible that the GOP could pick up Harry Reid's seat in NV, but I suspect he is stronger than polls suggest and I know he has a better ground game.

Such gains in the House would be unrivaled since the age of sophisticated partisan gerrymandering, but if Republican turnout and enthusiasm, coupled with the overwhelming support of political Independents, is as predicted in current surveys - then the coming wave will be too large for gerrymandered districts and Blue state Senate candidates to withstand. Though some have tried to discount the accuracy of the polls by suggesting that the great multitude of cellphone users are not being surveyed, this is simply wrong. I stand by my argument that no matter the size of the Republican victory, it will not represent a mandate for party's agenda. Rather it will be a victory driven by Independents, many of whom voted for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 but are now unhappy with the agenda that Democrats pursued.

Generic Congressional Vote

Democratic Support Understated Due to Cell Phones? Not So Fast.

Over at Polising.com (and linked at Politicalwire.com), Jonathan Singer notes that the new McClatchy Poll finds Democrats in a much stronger position on the generic ballot and he thinks he knows why “The Democrats' strength among registered voters comes directly from the cell-only population... This data buttresses the findings published earlier this month by Pew that if pollsters are skipping cell-only voters -- exactly the type of voters who are more likely to vote Democratic -- their results may simply be too favorable for the GOP."

The problem is, pollsters are not excluding cell phone users. Pollster.com's Marc Blumenthal addressed this issue in a recent posting "At the national level, many organizations now routinely sample and call both landline and mobile phones. These include, in addition to the Pew Center, ABC News/Washington Post, AP/GfK, CBS News/New York Times, Gallup (both their daily tracking and the surveys in partnership with USA Today), Kaiser Family Foundation, McClatchy/Marist University, NBC News/Wall Street Journal and Newsweek."

Gallup, the most widely cited generic ballot pollster, has been including cell phones since 2008 and according their website "Gallup includes cell phones in each national Gallup poll. Further, cell phone-only households are now as likely to fall into national Gallup polls samples as those living in traditional landline households." Roughly 20% of households are cell phone only - and they are included in these national surveys.

If one looks at the recent polls at Realclearpolitics.com, it's clear that McClatchy is an outlier - I would advise against pinning Democratic hopes on some unmeasured mass of committed, eager to vote cell phone users (because they are in fact being measured). Could folks like Stu Rothenberg, Charlie Cook, and Larry Sabato be so shortsighted?

Absolutely No Evidence of a Democratic Rebound

Though some hopeful partisans and a few members of the press have written recently about renewed hope among Democrats that the 2010 midterms will not be as bad as previously thought there is in fact no evidence to support the theory of a Democratic rebound. In fact, things appear to be getting worse not better. Some, including myself, argued that the election of Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell in Delaware had eliminated all hope among the GOP of retaking the Senate and had served to awaken Democratic voters and wavering Independents... not so fast. The latest round of survey data in key states suggests that GOP still has a shot at the Senate. Recent surveys in West Virginia and Wisconsin show a clear Republican advantage. Sharon Angle appears to have pulled ahead in Nevada and now two new surveys show Dino Rossi leading Patti Murray in Washington state. Republicans appear poised to win in AR, CO, IN, ND, and PA for a gain of five seats.  Now add WV, WI, IL, NV, and WA and that's 10 states and the majority.

In the battle for the House news is equally bad for Democrats. Republicans enjoy a lead in every survey of likely voters and the lead ranges from 3 to 18 points. Historically, Republicans have rarely ever led on the generic ballot making the consistent lead across polls especially significant. The most recent CBS News/ New York Times survey finds Republicans with an 8 point lead a substantial increase from the 2 point lead they enjoyed last month.

Certainly no evidence of Democratic momentum there.

And Republicans seem to be expanding the battlefield "Republican challengers are suddenly threatening once-safe Democrats in New England and the Northwest, expanding the terrain for potential GOP gains and raising the party's hopes for a significant victory in next month's elections." And even a institution in the House like John Dingell of Michigan is polling below 40% and trailing in his reelection bid. "If Dingell is truly down in this D+13 district, what does this say for Democratic chances in the 5th (D+12) and the 12th (D+13), neither of which appear to be on anyone's radar screens?"

Last, a new strategy memo from Stan Greenberg and James Carville finds that Democrats have been doing more harm than good by telling voters that Republicans would move America in the wrong direction.

"Voters are not moved by Democratic messages that say 'go forward, not back,' mention President Bush, compare then and now, or even that hint the economy is 'showing signs of progress'... After hearing this battle of Republican and Democratic messages, 8 percent shift their vote to support the Republican, while only 5 percent move to the Democrats. We lose ground. These messages are helping the Republicans."

There has been no rebound...

Why I Criticize Newsweek's Polls

Update - The latest data from Gallup further illustrates why I dismiss Newsweek polls. Gallup finds that the GOP has 3 point lead among Registered Voters, but when Gallup models the data for Likely Voters that GOP lead balloons to 13 points. These polls are tied to an actual upcoming election as such a model (like Gallup's) that seeks to estimate voter behavior is useful, whereas a model that seeks to estimate the views of all registered voters - those who will vote as well as those who won't (Newsweek) - is meaningless.

I've enjoyed a very constructive e-mail conversation with Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal today and based on that exchange I would like to make clear my problems with Newsweek's polls. Essentially it boils down to this - Newsweek is trying to characterizing how Americans will vote next month based on a sample of self-identified registered voters, weighted to match general population parameters, rather than on a more reasonable sub-sample or model of the likely electorate. As Blumenthal indicated in our exchange, and as most political scientists are aware, between 75% and 80% of all adults will self report as registered voters, but midterm turnout among eligible adults typically hovers around 40%. By focusing on the universe of registered voters, weighted to match the population, Newsweek's poll(s) actually tell us little about the upcoming (or any) election.

Allow me to explain my problems with Newsweek's polling methods:

The latest Newsweek poll, unlike all others, shows Democrats with a 5 point lead in the generic ballot - 48% to 43%. But if you look at the crosstabs on page 2 of the poll it shows that Republicans prefer a Republican by a margin of 93 to 4 and Democrats prefer a Democrat by a margin of 96 to 2 - but Independents prefer a Republican by a huge 47% to 30% margin... and yet Newsweek reports that Democrats enjoy a 5 point lead.

Based on the reported sample size of 305 Republicans (34%), 327 Democrats (36%), and 234 Independents (26%) this simply cannot be - in fact based on those numbers the poll should show a 44% to 44% tie. The data is then weighted based on Census data and the result is an impressive 8% point advantage for Democrats among registered voters in the sample - 39% Dem, 31% Rep, 26% Ind. Then there are another 4% or 36 respondents not mentioned much anywhere in the results, but clearly included in the calculation. If one assumes that roughly 55% of those 36 unaffiliated voters prefer Democrats then indeed you can arrive at the 48% to 43% number.

If you weight your data to turn a 2% turnout advantage for Democrats into an 8% advantage you're likely to find some good news for the Democrats. But is it realistic? The Newsweek numbers are akin to the advantage enjoyed by Democrats in 2008, an unlikely scenario in 2010.

I'm not questioning Newsweek's motives, but I am suggesting that the assumptions upon which they weight their data are flawed when trying to predict actual voting. As flawed as the recent Washington Post poll of the Maryland gubernatorial contest and as flawed as the recent surveys in California that showed Democrats surging. If you ignore past turnout models, if you dismiss evidence of strong GOP turnout in your own sample, and if you make a series of assumptions that work only to the benefit of Democrats then your polls will indeed show good news for Democrats - but will they be accurate?

Weighting by "gender, age, education, race, region, and population density" based on Current Population Survey data is not at all uncommon, but may not be the best predictor of actual voting. If I were interetsted favorite ice cream flavor I would weight by CPS, but not for voting. For instance, were a firm to survey Maryland voters and then weight the sample for known population parameters the survey would overstate the share of the electorate that would be African American or from Baltimore City and understate the share that would be Republican. Whereas a review of actual turnout data would show that the actual voters in Maryland are quite different from the universe of possible voters derived from the CPS.

This is why building a weight based on actual past voter turnout and exit polls from prior elections is more useful and appropriate. Can anyone seriously say that the electorate come November is going to be 39% Democrat to 31% Republican? That Democrats will match their 2008 performance? The fact that the initial sample was 36% Dem to 34% Rep should have been an indicator of voter intention and preference.

To quote from Alvarez and Nagler (2005) "If the known and observable attributes (say age, which we observe in the population and measure in the sample) are correlated with the political behavior we want to estimate (say the Kerry-Bush vote in the 2004 election), then if we have a sample that does not accurately represent the age distribution of the electorate adjustment to the age distribution of our sample can help improve the accuracy of our behavioral estimate. This is where reliable weighting methodologies can help improve the accuracy of our inferences; this is also where poor weighting methodologies can lead our inferences astray."

Newsweek ignores actual vote trends and turnout in favor of a methodology that will almost always result in a weighted sample that is more Democratic than was the initial sample and, based on their track record, the actual voters.

One may well ask "Why should an unweighted sample with known biases toward older, whiter, better educated and more affluent Americans produce a more reliable estimate of party ID than a sample weighted to match Census estimates of gender, age, education, race, region, and population density?"

A reasonable answer would be, perhaps because in the current electoral environment, and in fact in nearly every election, the electorate will in fact be be older, whiter, better educated and more affluent than the population of registered voters and especially the actual population of those eligible to vote. Weighting a sample based on the CPS so that 21% of the sample is aged 18-29, for example, would not improve the findings given that 18-29 year olds are only 18% of actual voters. Or weighting it such that those 65+ were 12% of the sample would not help when they are in fact 16% of voters. When the weights that one applies result in a party ID breakdown that appears to be clearly at odds with present conditions and past voting patterns then it may be time to reconsider those weights.

I understand that the Newseek poll is in fact in line with other national polls given the margin of error, but Newsweek "makes news" with its polls and when they are writing stories suggesting that the 2010 political terrain isn't really that bad for Democrats (based solely on their own polls) as they did this month and last then I think that it is only right to point out their methods have a long history of overstating Democratic turnout. An unmotivated Democratic voter reading the latest issue of Newsweek may well conclude, "gee, 2010 might not be so bad, I guess I don't need to vote."

For Democrats, No Relief in Sight

Though the Realclearpolitics average of Generic Ballot questions has shown a decided narrowing between Republicans and Democrats a slew of recent stories suggests that the playing field has far from improved for Democrats. Consider these three tidbits from the last 12 hours:

• The Voter Confidence Index, created by NBC News, is a combination of three questions commonly asked in national polls: the president's job approval rating, the direction of the country, and the generic congressional ballot. A positive VCI is good for the president's party; a negative one is bad. Currently, the VCI shows Obama and the Democratic Party in negative territory, with a -38 VCI average for the month of September. That’s eight points worse than where President Clinton and the Democrats stood in 1994, when Democrats lost 54 seats in the House and eight in the Senate.

• A new Pew poll finds "For the third national election in a row, independent voters may be poised to vote out the party in power. The Republican Party holds a significant edge in preferences for the upcoming congressional election among likely voters, in large part because political independents now favor Republican candidates by about as large a margin as they backed Barack Obama in 2008 and congressional Democratic candidates four years ago.The survey finds that 50% of likely voters say they will vote for the Republican in their district, while 43% favor the Democratic candidate. The GOP’s advantage comes as a result of their 49% to 36% lead among independent and other non-partisan voters.

• In a new poll, GOP pollster Glen Bolger finds Republicans leading the generic congressional ballot, 44% to 39%.  "We looked at the sample in the 66 Democratic INCUMBENT districts that Charlie Cook lists as either toss-up or leaning Democratic at the time of the survey. In that key crosstab of Swing Democratic Incumbent Seats, the Republican lead grows to 49%-31% on the generic ballot. That is a very powerful crosstab that says the wave is coming... Regionally, the Republican wins 47%-39% in the South, 47%-35% in the Midwest, and 46%-36% in the West, while trailing 36%-47% in the Northeast. The Midwest is going to be a killing field for Democrats this year — from western PA through to the Plains, Republicans are going to sweep a LOT of Democrats right out of office."

So collectively,  Democrats are in worse shape on the VCI than in 1994, Independents have shifted to the GOP with the same intensity that they shifted to Democrats in 2006 and 2008, and the GOP enjoys a tremendous lead in the 66 most vulnerable Democratic districts - AND, contrary to claims that the GOP is becoming a regional party the Glen Bolger poll finds the GOP leading everywhere except the Northeast.

For Democrats, A Year of Warning Signs Ignored

I have been arguing for many months that the 2010 midterms would be a devastating election for Democrats - not the typical midterm rout for the president's party but rather a political earthquake. The first real rumbles of the earthquake began in the Summer of 2009 when town hall protests over health reform became front page news. At the time, many in the traditional press and within the Democratic party leadership dismissed the protests and the protesters as the rantings of a vocal, uninformed, angry minority with little national significance.

Then came the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia.

New Jersey is a reliably Democratic state that voted overwhelmingly for President Obama, the President and Vice President nearly took up residence in the state to help incumbent John Corzine, but he lost to Chris Christie. No matter, the press and party officials declared - it was a local race and Corzine was a bad candidate - no national significance.

Virginia was once a reliably Republican state and hadn't voted for a Democrat for President since Johnson in 1964. Barack Obama won it by a comfortable margin in 2008 and suddenly Virginia was declared a swing state. In 2009 Creigh Deeds won the Democratic nomination for governor against Republican Bob McDonnell. Deeds was an experienced state senator and he ran a tough campaign for the nomination, defeating Terryy McAuliffe, former chair of the Democratic National Committee and Virginia congressman Brian Moran. Deeds won nearly 50% of the vote in that three way race - an impressive feat. In the general election, Deeds ran as a moderate and sought to portray McDonnell as an extremist, 1950s throwback, based entirely on a graduate thesis that McDonnell had written in college.  McDonnell won 59% to 41%.  No matter, the press and party officials declared - it was a local race and Deeds was a bad candidate - no national significance.

The health care debate continued into the fall and on Christmas Eve the US Senate passed a health reform bill in a strict party line vote. At the time, Pollster.com showed that the public opposed the bill by a 50% to 40% margin.  No problem, thought Democratic party leadership, people will eventually support the bill.

Then came Massachusetts... seemingly out of nowhere a little known Republican state senator by the name of Scott Brown defeated the Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakely to fill the U.S. Senate vacated by the late Ted Kennedy.  Coakley was an experience Massachusetts politician. She was the District Attorney of Middlesex County and in her 2006 campaign to become Attorney General she carried 73% of the vote. In the 2009 primary for the Democratic Senatorial nomination she topped a four person race receiving 47% of the vote. As the general election race tightened, President Obama came to the state to campaign for Coakley, but she lost to Brown 52% to 47%. No matter, the press and party officials declared - it was a local race and Coakley was a bad candidate, prone to gaffes - no national significance.

In late March, the Senate passed the House version of health reform - using the reconciliation process to circumvent an expected Republican filibuster. At the time, the public opposed the bill by a margin of 50% to 42%. No problem, thought Democratic party leadership, people will eventually support the bill.

During all of  this time - from Summer 2009 to late Spring 2010 - there were increasing indications that things were getting bad for Democrats. Charlie Cook's Political Report and Stuart Rothenberg's  Rothenberg Report were regularly updating House and Senate race rankings and an ominous trend was evident. With each new update, more Democratic House seats were in play and Republican seats seemed safer and safer. Then Democratic Senate seats were moving to the danger column. At the same time, and in no way unrelated, President Obama's approval rating was falling. In the Summer of 2009 the President's approval rating was hovering around 52% and his disapproval was about 40-42%. By the late Spring of 2010 he was even-up at 47%.
 
In April 2010, I wrote about a new Pew Poll that suggested a major shake-up was coming in November. I wrote then "2010 has the potential to be a wave election that will surpass 2006 and 2008 and rival 1958, 1974, and 1994." The Rothenberg Report listed 79 House seats in play and 68 were held by Democrats. It was in April that I first suggested that a GOP Senate was a real possibility. In May, I warned that low Democratic turn-out in primary elections was an ominous sign of things to come. In late June, after Republicans gained a rare, but now common, lead on the so-called generic ballot I wrote that an "Electoral Bloodbath" was coming. I noted that "Senate races that should be safe bets for Democrats in Washington, California, Oregon, and Illinois are all competitive or tied." Just this month I predicted that a GOP wave was coming and argued that a gain of 70 House seats and a Senate majority are both distinct possibilities. At that time, the Rothenberg Report listed 88 competitive Seats and 76 were held by Democrats. Rothenberg was also predicting GOP Senate gains of 5-8 seats.
 
Today, Al Hunt has declared the Democrat's Senate majority "In Danger." Charlie Cook has officially put the number of possible GOP House gains in a range that would mean reclaiming the House and recently offered this tidbit "there are a whopping 32 Democratic incumbents who have trailed GOP challengers in at least one public or private poll. At this point in 2006, there were only 11 Republican incumbents who trailed in at least one public or private poll, yet 22 went on to lose." And Mark Halperin, the Senior Political Analyst for Time magazine, Time.com, and MSNBC, recently predicted "Republicans are in a position to pick up as many as 60 seats." Meanwhile, the President's approval rating is in negative territory, the GOP continues to lead the generic ballot, and Pollster.com shows that opposition to health reform is at roughly the same level it was in December 2009 and March 2010.

For nearly a year, Democrats ignored the significant signs of a restless and unhappy electorate. Warnings in VA, NJ, and MA were dismissed. Legislation that was overwhelmingly opposed was passed  under less than admirable circumstances. The party now stands less than 70 days from the 2010 midterms and they are poised to pay a political price most closely aligned with the dramatic elections of 1974, 1994, and 2006. Don't be surprised if in January 2011 Republicans find themselves in control of the House, the Senate,  a majority of the Governorships, and the State Legislatures - a complete reversal from today and from what many were predicting the day after the election in 2008.

Democrats, and many analysts, made a significant error after the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. They became convinced that Americans were gravitating to the Democratic party and they assumed that the new allegiances were secure and not fleeting. It was an assumption based on an outdated understanding of mass based party attachment. A growing number of Americans no longer align themselves with party long term. They are perfectly comfortable voting Democrat in 2008 and Republican in 2010. (Republicans made a similar error after 2002 and 2004 - and may well again after 2010).

Even now, there is little indication that Democrats fully appreciate what is happening. Much as they thought to make excuses for the losses in NJ, VA, and MA they have sought to explain opposition to health reform, the President, and the party's overall agenda by looking outward rather than inward. As such, many defenders of the faith have taken to declaring that opposition to the party's agenda is driven by fear, hatred, and racism. The flaw in this argument being that Democrats are in dire straits because they have lost folks who previously voted for them - so for Democrats to be correct then these voters must have overcome their intolerant and racist tendencies in 2006 and 2008 but now Republicans or Tea Partiers have managed to fan the smoldering flames. It's hard to imagine how the Democrats hope to win over voters after spending months defaming them. Worse, if Democrats create a caricature of their opposition they will never take seriously the lessons of any electoral defeat and learn no lessons from the loss. Gallup reports today that Republicans have taken an historic 10 point lead on the generic ballot - bigotry and nativism are simply insufficient explanations of such significant developments.

Democrats thought that they had a foundation of popular support on which to build their policy priorities - they were wrong. They are now convinced that opposition to their agenda is based on economic anxiety and intolerance. Those who are desperately trying to paint this election as being driven by the economy are simply looking for convenient excuses and failing to recognize the substantial changes in the American political system and the growing disconnect between the electorate and the elected in recent decades.  These are crucial miscalculations. And at this late date, there is really nothing they can do to correct their errors or stop the coming wave.

Newsweek Poll Creates more Questions than it Answers

Please see my latest post, regarding the New Newsweek poll.

Update: According to Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com Princeton Survey Research provided him with the data on the missing cases that were not included in the offical release. With that data in hand, Blumenthal was able to replicate the survey results and the 45% to 45% tie. My original post was intended to criticize Newsweek for releasing data that did not allow for replication of its reported results. I stand by the criticism. I would add as well that given the impact that the inclusion of the 5% of unaffiliated voters had on the final results they should have been included in the final release. That 5% overwhelmingly favored Democrats - a fact that should have been addressed - or given the small size of the sub sample discarded.

Original Post:
In a front page story on their website Newsweek proclaims "NEWSWEEK Poll: Democrats May Not Be Headed for Midterm Bloodbath." According to Newsweek, the poll's results suggest  "the party is better off this year than Republicans were in 2006, when the GOP lost 30 House seats, and than the Democrats were in 1994, when they lost 52 House seats."

What did the poll find?  That President Obama's approval rating is at 47% and Democrats and Republicans are tied at 45% on the generic ballot. Compared to other recent polls the Newsweek survey does show the Democrats to be in far better shape - problem is, the Newsweek poll actually confirms what other polls have found and should give Democrats great cause for concern.

Newsweek reports that Republicans and Democrats are tied at 45%. The folks at Newsweek were kind enough to break down that support by party - see Table One.

 
 
According to Table One, Democrats are winning 90% of the Democratic vote and Republicans are winning 94% of the Republican vote - Independents favor Republicans by a 45% to 33% margin - resulting a 45% to 45% tie...
 
Something seem fishy? It should. Consider the breakdown by party - 284 Republicans, 280 Democrats and 247 Independents - that's 33% Republican, 33% Democrat and 29% Independent (a few folks must have reported no party).  It is mathematically impossible for Democrats and Republicans to be tied at 45% if each party is receiving similar shares of their own party vote, but Independents prefer Republicans by 12 points.  If Democrats are winning a few less of their own votes as compared to the GOP, and they are losing Independents - they simply cannot be tied.
 
If you apply the actual sample size to the reported results then you end up with what is shown in Table Two.
   

The two right columns show the actual share of the respondents who supported each party - if one looks at the actual sample then Republicans are leading the generic ballot by a margin of 46% to 40%. Contrary to the headline and tenor of the story, a 6 point lead for the GOP among registered voters would signal a coming bloodbath. It would also be consistent with most recent polls.

Newsweek includes a disclaimer that reads: Data are weighted so that sample demographics match Census Current Population Survey parameters for gender, age, education, race, region, and population density.

 
Notice that no mention is made of party identification - but the only way to arrive at a 45% to 45% split is by significantly altering the party identification of the survey respondents. I do this in Table Three.
 
 

                                *** See Update

In order to get to a 45% to 45% race, one must change the sample such that 37% are Democrats, 30% are Republicans and 33% are Independents. There are few other combinations that get you to 45% but all involve a significant increase in Democrats and considerable decrease in Republicans. Newsweek offers no explanation for such a dramatic change to its own sample, but there is no reasonable argument for such a party breakdown (According to data provided to Mark Blumenthal by Princeton Survey Research the 5% of unaffiliated respondents supported Democrats by a 40% to 29% margin - this data was not included in the official release).
 
In the 2008 election Democrats were 39% of the electorate, Republicans 32% and Independents 29% - no one believes that Democrats will hold a similar advantage in 2010. In 2004, the last good Republican year, Democrats and Republicans were 37% of the electorate and Independents were 26% - roughly equal to the actual Newsweek sample.

If you want to become truly confused, look to the last page of the survey where Princeton Survey Research (Newsweek's pollster of choice) reports the results of the following question "In politics TODAY, do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or Independent?" They report that respondents were 32% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 27% Independent - so the last page provides a partisan breakdown that does not match the breakdown reported on the first page. Worse - if you plug the reported breakdown into Table Two or Table Three Republicans still lead by 47.4% to 42.6% - the poll is pure nonsense.

Now it's possible that after weighting for gender, age, education, race, region, and population density the partisan ID of the sample would change - but if one reasonably assumes that the party ID shown on the final page of the survey is the weighted breakdown then the poll's results still cannot be explained. Newsweek should release fully the effects of it's weighting so that a true assessment of its poll can be made.
 
So Newsweek may be reporting that all is well and that 2010 will not be a bloodbath, but they had to do some serious data weighting to arrive at that conclusion. Something that Newsweek has done before and that I wrote about in National Review Online in 2008. When I "corrected" Newsweek's data back in 2008 I showed that their poll reporting an 11 point lead for Barack Obama over John McCain was more like a 4 point lead - guess who was closer to the actual election result (hint: It wasn't Newsweek then and I do not think that it's Newsweek now).