Per pollster: "Statistically speaking, when dealing with any population above 50,000 the margin of error remains the same based on the number of interviews. Whether you dealing with a population of 50,000 or 5 million, 300 interviews will always yield the same margin of error (+/- 5.65%).  Of course, if you increase the sample size, say to 500, you reduce the margin of error. But only by about 1%. Most professional pollsters feel very comfortable using a universe of 300 when dealing with a universe of primary voters. 

"In Nebraska, we took a proportionate representation of voter turnout in the actual primary election from the day before by county,  grouped the counties into Media markets and set a gender quota of 50/50 by media market and large counties, then dialed off a list of those voters who voted in at least one Republican primary election over the past few years.  In a survey where we are required to speak to those who actually voted, we needed closer to 50 numbers (v. usual 25-30) per complete.

"We only weight if a number (e.g. gender) is way off. In these numbers no weighting was needed."

One is tempted, given the continuing, perhaps perpetual, cynical and insulting implication of your inquiry, to question why anyone would possibly want to waste $15,000 on polling and even bother with 300 actual voters when we could pocket the money ourselves and over a few beers with some dice have a few laughs just making up the data?

But as I largely gave up sarcasm when I turned 14, and since I know that had you not hit "post" so quickly, with a little reflection and so as not to seem boorish you would have instead phrased it along the lines of "I don't know much about polling but am curious: why is it ok to use only 300 people and how do you make sure you get a fair sample?", I shall confirm with the pollster what I believe to be the case and post it when I hear back.

Re. Stenberg signing: he did not sign until about 4pm on Monday afternoon. At that point all the calls had gone out, ditto web advertising which had been going on since Friday. We immediately amended the website to reflect that there were now two signers, and ask people to thank him, and sent out an alert. But it was way too late. I do not have the cross tabs with me, but as I recall none of his voters listed ObamaCare as a main concern. I hypothesize that if you were a voter who didn't want Bruning, and you cared about ObamaCare, then Fischer signing the pledge was part of the margin that led her to be the non-establishment choice.

Cylon, I've been described as many things, but wanna-be power broker has not been one of them. Maybe you don't think ObamaCare is a problem; I do. Maybe you think repealing it either doesn't matter or will just happen on its own; I believe both assumptions would be in serious error.That you have not heard of the Repeal Pledge is not surprising; you probably don't live in a state where we have deployed our small but hard-earned resources. In Indiana, we not only messaged to all likely voters, but our message was picked up by outside groups like Freedom Works and American Majority, and particularly, we were told, by the campaign itself that understood this to be a hugely telling contrast point, so they included it in every speech, press releases and GOTV call.We did the same think in Nebraska. Some folks are happy to hold the coat of others whom they let fight for them; this may not be your issue, but until you come up with a better approach and can demonstrate greater impact, you might want to attempt, if not gratitude, at least a little less cynicism

Quite the reverse. Politicians know that you care if you bother to call, and we see real results coming of that, not least, for example, Chris Christie last week vetoing the proposed exchange in NJ. There are countless examples where pledges work if they are well crafted, and if anything they help the voter know how sincerely a candidate means what they say.The average citizen doesn't have time to monitor every latest political machination, but the further advantage for those who do want to be engaged is that we alert them (after they signify their interest by signing the citizen corollary of the pledge) about the times and places where their input will make a real difference.

Natalie, you have all our prayers & sympathy. I hope you'll write letters to your local paper this week and next, as we are in for a barrage of coordinated spin from the WH and 100+ left-wing groups singing the praises of ObamaCare. Your voice of experience should be heard loud and clear above it all.

Thank you RB!!!!!!

thank you!

cont'd..

But Newt also did cut perks (Dole referenced Newt once, in 1996, showing up at the Dole campaign office with an empty bucket, which Newt did to make the point that Newt had ended the daily delivery of a bucket of ice to each House office as part of his perk-cutting modernization efforts -- the point of which Dole seems to have missed).

Those changes included  upending the seniority system to install his choices for committee chairs (eg Bob Livingston jumped over four more senior members of Appropriations) and passing the Shays Act (applying laws to Congress). 

There was a group of conservative congressmen who opposed Newt as insufficiently conservative, and didn't understand why conservatives couldn’t get what they wanted.  My hazy memory is that they were more interested in the purity of their position than in accomplishing what they could, and seemed to be uninterested in three facts which led other conservatives to different strategies:

.l. We had a GOP but not conservative majority in the house.

2. The senate was less conservative and Dems could filibuster.

3. The president had the veto and was from the other party.

Newt's record on earmarks isn't pretty, but as I recall, it wasn't his idea -- it was then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay's idea. (You'll recall, DeLay was not Newt's choice for that post -- he wanted Bob Walker, but refused to campaign openly for Walker, saying he wanted the House GOP Conference to "work its will.") But DeLay won that contest over Walker and Bill McCollum, and went on to turn earmarks into a major operation, geared to redirect pork to GOP crony capitalists. In those days, House conservatives wanted both Dick Armey and DeLay in top Leadership posts, to keep an eye on Newt. Little did we know how DeLay would turn out (Medicare Part D etc.)

It is not evidence, it is reasonable inference.  

1) We know Romney has a team working on overdrive doing oppo research. We also know, per the effort gone to to track down the special order and find the quotations, that they were unbelievably obscure and would have required untold hours to unearth, even beyond the hours entailed if one knew exactly where to look.  

2) We also know that campaigns as a matter of course are very busy trying to get third parties to say and write useful things, and try to make it easier to secure their doing so by producing first drafts and other forms of facilitation.  

3) We know that Elliot is a very busy man, who would be incredibly unlikely to be spending hours of his time doing this level of research, so almost certainly had it given to him.  

Could he have done so himself?  Sure.  At all likely? Nope.  

Yes, Newt's more likely to repeal, as he has already changed his mind on the mandate and other features, and he gets that you can't get real reform by building off of what is an inherently broken model.  

BTW, Newt has taken the Repeal Pledge, as has Santorum, but Romney despite repeated requests has not.

Does that mean that every alternative idea will be a good one? No.  But are you more likely with Newt to get the scale of change to the system that's required? I think so, because - as a great generality - Newt starts with an idea of what something ought to look like, then tries to work out how to get there, while Romney is not animated by ideas, but seems to look backwards at the data  and wants to make it work within that existing framework.

Moreover, Newt for one doesn't care much about adhering to "the way it's done" - much of the complaint from his contemporaries in the House was very valid, but a lot of it was driven by his running roughshod over their self-indulgent perks and entitlements, which earned him great enmity.

Continued... -

If Romney doesn't think them worth mentioning, even if Ann does, then I think we have to assume they were merely academic, not an indicator of core conviction.  

That he doesn't want to create any distance between himself and what passed, and that he doesn't apparently understand that laws by definition will be implemented by the other team at some point and so had better be crafted to withstand perverse incentives, is another discouraging reflection.

Like you, though I hear him say he will repeal ObamaCare, I am both dubious that it would be full repeal, and leary of what he might deem an acceptable substitute, as Romney strikes me as a man driven by data and problem solving, while oblivious to any underlying philosophical principles.

And yes, I was in the WSJ editorial page's camp then, and disagreed with Heritage, though fortunately they have since come around on both the mandate question and on exchanges (which would be wonderful if they actually were free markets, but seem in practice to be about collusion between large insurance companies and bureaucrats.)

Leslie, I haven't had a chance to listen to the podcast, but my understanding of the history is that indeed what Mitt offered was far better than what passed.  What seems odd, and deeply disturbing, to me is that key provisions that he argued for that would have mitigated Romneycare he now ignores and does not mention.  

If Rick Perry wanted these to work for him, he needed to find someone else to throw the punch.  First rule of a multi-candidate race is that if you go negative on one of your opponents, both of you will suffer -- and a third candidate will benefit.  In this case DrewInWisconsin is correct: Herman Cain should send a thank you note to Rick Perry.

Phooey, wrong weekend for me. Rob, come back over the long Columbus Day weekend - taking the boys and Delany down to hunt and restock the freezer :)