One really shocking thing about Eric Cantor's loss is just how badly the campaign's internal polls were at predicting the outcome. The polling firm the Cantor campaign used, McLaughlin & Associates, really fucked up. Apparently, this wasn't the first time. I wonder if any of these politicians are rethinking their relationship with McLaughlin. I know I would if I were them.
ADDING: John McLaughlin blamed his shockingly shitty performance on democrats who allegedly showed up a the polls to vote for the more radical republican candidate. But McLaughlin's pre-primary poll had Cantor up by 34 points and Cantor ended up losing by 11. That's a 45 point spread! Which means that he did not account for almost half of the people who turned out to vote. If there really was such a mass mobilization of democrats, why isn't there any other sign of it? I mean, when Rush Limbaugh used his clout to try to do something like that to the democrats in the 2008 primary, it got national attention and still didn't work. How could the democrats in Virginia's 7th district pull a similar feat off without any pre-election press and without leaving any traces for reporters to see the day after? The McLaughlin-sucks thesis just seems a lot more plausible. Seriously, if your pollster is off by 45%, you might as well just go with a monkey throwing darts.
UPDATE: Scott Clement pretty much buries the idea that crossover democrats are responsible for Cantor's loss. But Clement's argument is based on data. Why would a pollster like McLaughlin pay any attention to that?
ADDING: John McLaughlin blamed his shockingly shitty performance on democrats who allegedly showed up a the polls to vote for the more radical republican candidate. But McLaughlin's pre-primary poll had Cantor up by 34 points and Cantor ended up losing by 11. That's a 45 point spread! Which means that he did not account for almost half of the people who turned out to vote. If there really was such a mass mobilization of democrats, why isn't there any other sign of it? I mean, when Rush Limbaugh used his clout to try to do something like that to the democrats in the 2008 primary, it got national attention and still didn't work. How could the democrats in Virginia's 7th district pull a similar feat off without any pre-election press and without leaving any traces for reporters to see the day after? The McLaughlin-sucks thesis just seems a lot more plausible. Seriously, if your pollster is off by 45%, you might as well just go with a monkey throwing darts.
UPDATE: Scott Clement pretty much buries the idea that crossover democrats are responsible for Cantor's loss. But Clement's argument is based on data. Why would a pollster like McLaughlin pay any attention to that?
