Dissection of one poll: 'throw all the bums out!'

Statistikhengst

Diamond Member
Nov 21, 2013
45,564
11,756
2,070
deep within the statistical brain!!
This poll:

SurveyUSA Election Poll #21269 ,


conducted by SurveyUSA (SUSA), of Kentucky, shows some interesting stuff.

First, SUSA projected a Mitch McConnell win over challenger Matt Bevin, 55 to 35, +20.

Actual result:

News from The Associated Press

McConnell 60 / Bevin 35, +25.

So, SUSA pretty much nailed it.

But there is more in the poll:

In the poll, Rand Paul beats Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical matchup in his home-state, 48-44, +4, which is right in line with the last PPP (D) poll of the Commonwealth, from March 2014.

But here is the question that really caught my attention:

"19. If you could vote to throw out every member of the US House of Representatives and the Senate and start over?"

Here are the results:

CFV0524_12431323989.png


62% of Kentuckians would throw EVERYONE out.


But even more telling about this data are the data subsets (also known as "internals").

That 62% stands for 62% of those who took the survey. But the breakdown for the 'throw all the bums out' vote is amazing:

Gender:
Male: 66%
Female: 58%

Age:
18-34: 61%
35-49: 63%
50-64: 63%
65 & up: 59%

Race:
White: 63%
Black: 52%

Type of interview:
Cellphone interviewee: 65%
Landline interviewee: 61%

Party Affliation:
Republican: 58%
Democratic: 64%
Independent: 66%

Ideology:
Conservative: 59%
Moderate: 67%
Liberal: 56%

Education:
H.S. 64%
Some College: 66%
4-year: 56%

Income:
Under 40K: 64%
40K - 80K: 64%
Over 80K: 61%


We see that pretty much across party, ideological, racial and financial lines, the "throw all the bums" out sentiment is uniform. Especially disconcerting for both parties should be that the peak value is under Moderates and Independents.


I usually don't go into so much detail about poll internals, but this one really stuck out.

Now, this is just one poll and just one state, but nonetheless, the information here is quite telling.

----------------------------------------------


How good is SUSA?

Pretty damned good, and considered pretty damned neutral, too.



SUSA:​

Survey USA (SUSA) was much quieter in 2012 than it was in 2008, where it put out 2 complete 50-state polling tables. This time around, SUSA really limited its polling and gave no reason as to why. That being said, SUSA did put out 11 end-polls and the mathematical bias is outstanding:

$SUSA 2012.png

We see that SUSA nailed the results in Georgia and that it's overall bias is only R +0.67%. With a figure like that, we could claim that SUSA was the best pollster of all, but SUSA only polled 4 of the 12 battlegrounds (Ohio received the most polling from SUSA over the year) and where there was bias, it was inconsistent: it was the only pollster to have a real Liberal bias in Minnesota and one of the few to show a liberal bias in Missouri. However, its polling in New York, following hurricane Sandy, was exceptional. SUSA claims to be totally neutral, and based on the wording of it's questions and its willingness to take on contracts from all sides of the political spectrum, I take SUSA at it's word. What a shame: I wish SUSA would have polled all of the states 2 times at least, as it did in 2008.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The last time we saw this much voter dissatisfaction in all corners, not just on the Right, not just on the Left?


1994.


So, I may be starting a series on the 'throw all the bums out' polling question, for I suspect it is going to be asked more often in this year.
 
Last edited:
I've saying this for many years, no one listens, they always will vote the incumbent because they feel their incumbent isn't the problem. It will never change.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
A friendly shout out to some folks who may really enjoy the information in the OP:
[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION] [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION] [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION] [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION] [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION] [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION] [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION] [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION] [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION] [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION] [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION] [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION] [MENTION=45320]Nyvin[/MENTION] [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION] [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION] [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION] [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION] [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION] [MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION] [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION] [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION] [MENTION=47936]AntiParty[/MENTION] [MENTION=34688]Grandma[/MENTION] [MENTION=48060]guno[/MENTION] [MENTION=42946]Howey[/MENTION] [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]


Anyone who doesn't want to be on this occasional mention list: just let me know, I will drop the name immediately.

Thanks,

-Stat

Again, consider the OP a helpful resource, looking at 2014 and beyond.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
I've saying this for many years, no one listens, they always will vote the incumbent because they feel their incumbent isn't the problem. It will never change.

There is some validity to that statement, but it really depends on the year, imo.

People love to say that 80-90% of incuments retain their seats.

That's hard to gauge in the US Senate, since not all 100 seats are all up for grabs at one.

If 33 seats are up and 6 seats flip, then indeed it would mean that 82% of the Senate seats stayed as they were.

In 2010, the GOP picked up 63 seats.

63 / 435 = 14.5%.

So, 85% of House seats indeed stayed as they were.

Essentially, the saying is pretty correct.

There was once a time when more then 100 seats flipped in the US HOR and more than 15 flipped in the US Senate, but it's been a while since that last happened.
 
If we threw them all out, we would vote replacements for them that would be very similar to the ones we threw out. It's the people that need to change their views.
 
Stat, this seems way early.

Obamacare has yet to flush any state down the financial toilet.

The redoubling of per capita GDP growth of red states vs. blue states has not hit, still stuck at three times greater last I read.

The insourcing of jobs from China due to automation hasn't even really begun yet.

The rent seeking of employers away from blue states continues but it has not yet really become a deluge of red state jobs.

What is your degree of certainty?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
Stat, this seems way early.

Obamacare has yet to flush any state down the financial toilet.

The redoubling of per capita GDP growth of red states vs. blue states has not hit, still stuck at three times greater last I read.

The insourcing of jobs from China due to automation hasn't even really begun yet.

The rent seeking of employers away from blue states continues but it has not yet really become a deluge of red state jobs.

What is your degree of certainty?


I give no degree of certainty. I don't need to, either. I quote one poll that shows a very strong data point on sentiment of voters.

If you mean the MoE of the poll, click on the link and see for yourself. It's that simple.
 
My take is that those calling to throw out everyone want to keep their own incumbents.

Also, we saw what happened when the shiny new guys went to DC and created the least productive Congress in the country's history, ultimately shutting it down.

I don't think too many incumbents need to worry.
 
I've saying this for many years, no one listens, they always will vote the incumbent because they feel their incumbent isn't the problem. It will never change.

Or their shitty incumbent is still better than allowing the other party to have the seat.
 
The redoubling of per capita GDP growth of red states vs. blue states has not hit, still stuck at three times greater last I read.

China will not be a problem.

ACA will not destroy state economies.

The rebound of the GDP is the fact that the lower 50% of the Red States, far more than the blue states were so badly injured in the great depression, are rebounding, demonstrating the growth of the economy nationally.
 
A great analysis, and interesting information.

The "throw all the bums out" question and Papageorgio's comment on it remind me of a question from Public Policy Polling a while back. They were polling voters on an upcoming Senate race and asked them if the incumbent was too conservative, too liberal, or about right; nearly 80% of people said he was about right. Then they asked who people would vote for if that same incumbent was facing a more conservative challenger in the primary; again, nearly 80% of the people said they'd favor the more conservative challenger.

People don't know what they want. Although over 60% of people surveyed in this SUSA poll say they'd throw all the incumbents out, Papageorgio is right: They won't do it to their incumbent.

If I had to guess, I'd say a contributing factor to this is the same old faces--Boehner, Paul, Reid, Cruz, Pelosi, etc.--being featured on the news week after week, with Republicans disgusting Democratic voters and Democrats disgusting Republican voters. They take out their disgust on polls like SUSA's, saying they'd definitely want to get rid of all of them, no exceptions. But when it comes to their own members of Congress, who are not being watched as carefully as the select few, they can't find the will to maintain their outrage in the voting booth. They likely receive a few mailers from the incumbent saying, "I've fought for jobs/teacher pay/etc., vote for me like you did two years ago!" and decide that they might as well put their Senator/Representative back in, given that they don't seem like they're part of "that awful mess in Washington."
 
The same people that advocate fantasies like throwing all the bums out somehow don't seem to be willing to work within the system to make things better. Join the Tea Party if you want to make republicans more responsive to the voters or latch on to OWS or CUSA if you want to force the democrat party to drift further left.
 
The same people that advocate fantasies like throwing all the bums out somehow don't seem to be willing to work within the system to make things better. Join the Tea Party if you want to make republicans more responsive to the voters or latch on to OWS or CUSA if you want to force the democrat party to drift further left.
True. Talking a good game means nothing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top