Toast

I’ve checked my email, and I have over a hundred new messages. And I can’t get to anything resorting to ‘Sean Malstrom’ due to real life situations. Luckily I changed my career gears long ago. But my old profession of political analysis is going to be absolutely destroyed. I still think McCain will win the election and do so by a larger margin than Bush did in 2004. When this happens, a hurricane of outrage will be unleashed at the political analysis business, mostly the pollsters. People will demand to know how they could be so off. In other words, the future of the political analysis business will be destroyed as their reputation will become destroyed in the upcoming days.

People in this business, like any other business, do not attack one another due to the need to uphold the reputation of the whole. For example, you won’t find Dick Morris or Karl Rove attacking the polls since that would be the same as attacking their own industry. Jay Cost, a person I respect and worked with for the 2004 election results (I was assigned on his team to PA) had this to say about the polls:

None of this is consistent with what we would expect from random statistical variation. These considerations reinforce the point I made on Friday. In all likelihood, something else is going on here. The pollsters have different “visions” of what the electorate is, and these visions are inducing such divergent results.

With game reviews, many people believed that game reviews were to be as accurate as possible since the magazine is the product. In reality, the reader is the product and is delivered to the game company by the reviewer. The review was to shape and hype the reader into purchasing the product. Everyone knows this about game reviews now which is why there is healthy cynicism. In my first post about the election, I told you to keep an eye on Pennslyvania because McCain will win it, and it will stun everyone. A week later, pundits began to wonder why McCain Campaign kept coming to Pennslyvania. They did a little research and were surprised to find that Kerry and Gore carried the state on razor thin margins. How could pundits ignore Pennslyvania so much? The reason why is because the pundits are located in New York, and the belief there is that Pennslyvania is a New England state. It isn’t. It is a mid-atlantic state. PA has more in common with Ohio who, politically, Ohio runs about five points to the right of Pennslyvania.

With polling, the collective delusion is the belief that the product of polling is the data. Remember, polls are a product that is sold like any other product. That stupid little chart that appears in the corner of every USA Today was not made for the purpose of ‘research’ and ‘data’. It was made just to show a stupid little graph on the paper because USA Today knows that little graphs and charts ’sell’ the paper more. Just because information is displayed in a chart or a graph does not make it ’scientific’ or a real ‘analysis’. But the product was to make the reader FEEL like it was and to sell more papers. The product of polls can and often are the readers. This became much more popular ever since polls became ‘news items’ themselves (before, polls were only supplements to news stories).

In my second post about the election, I told you to keep an eye on Iowa for if Obama comes back here, a state he should have locked at this time, he is toast. Well, Obama is back in Iowa which means he is toast. If it is competitive in Iowa (it was very competitive in 2004), that means that McCain is running as well as Bush or better and has FL, CO, IN, NC, OH, NH, and VA all comfortable. McCain going to Maine suggests Obama is performing worse than Kerry or, rather, Obama’s support is ’soft’ among Democrats.

The point of these election posts is to reveal the reality on the ground is very different than the reality in the ‘political analysis’. Imagine McCain winning and consider the ramifications of the business of political analysis and public polling. The ramifications is sheer destruction and humiliation as occurred in the Truman vs. Dewey.

I’ve been reading much about Truman lately. The pollsters were wrong about Truman mostly because of the off year election that occurred beforehand which created a Republican congress (which they suspected spelled doomed for the Democrat nominee, Truman). But the pollsters honestly got it wrong; there was no intentional misleading as there is in this situation (more on that below). When Truman won, the newsrooms and ‘political analysts’, once getting over their shock, laughed at themselves. They even offered to have a special dinner with President Truman where he would eat turkey and they would all, literally, eat crow (Truman decline on it because “I want everyone to eat turkey whenever to his delight”). Much of the political analysts lack the maturity to laugh at themselves these days. It won’t be because they are wrong but because of some extenuating circumstance that they just happened to ‘overlook’. It will be fun to see what excuses they come up with.

I am not running for President. You, the gentle reader, are not running for President. The only two people who are running for President, Obama and McCain, are going to states and sending advertising money to other states that don’t even match the public polls. For example, Pennslyvania is colored a ‘dark blue’, yet both Obama and McCain are visiting the state. ‘Dark blue’ or ‘light blue’ is the color of Iowa, yet both Obama and McCain are there. Many polls say that Georgia is a ‘toss-up’, yet neither Obama or McCain are visiting that state. Since the only two people running for President are performing actions entirely differently than the public polling, one can either say that the presidential candidates are just running around states randomly and are dumb, or it is the possibility that the public polling is not accurate.

From my perspective, it has been sheer comedy watching pundits and observers attempt to ‘rationalize’ the candidates’ visits to states the public polls say are not in play. When McCain and Palin hip hop across Pennslyvania, is it because the public polls are wrong? NO! It is because McCain is doing a ‘hail mary’ strategy to launch all efforts on Pennslyvania in order to win it as a last ditch effort to save his campaign. What about Obama visiting Pennslyvania, is it a suggestion the public polls are wrong?

NO! It is because Obama is only going there to respond to McCain and clean up whatever mess he makes. What about when McCain went to New Hampshire? Could it be the polls were not the reality on the ground? NO! It is because McCain is senile. So how does this explain Palin going to Iowa which is considered a ‘lock’ to Obama by polling? Could the polls be wrong and that it may be more competitive than we thought? NO! The only possible answer is that Palin had gone completly rouge and is going to Iowa to jumpstart here 2012 presidential campaign (this ‘rationale’ was so hysterical I actually spit coffee on my monitor. The idea of the VP candidate deciding to run off to Iowa to start his/her own presidential campaign is hilarious in itself).

But why is Obama going to Iowa then? Could it, possibly, be the polls in that state are more competitive than we think? NOOOO. The reason why Obama is going to Iowa is to make up for his trip to grandma, and as a pitstop before he goes trick-or-treating with his kid (I kid you not! People actually think this). When McCain goes off to Maine, they are going to run out of excuses as they have already used the ‘insane candidate’ one.

One thing that is very different about this election is the omnipresence of polls and how polls are the axis around all political analysis is conducted. This has never been the case in previous elections. Real political analysts (meaning not hacks or unprofessional pundits), use historical trends, demagraphical data, and other ‘truths’ of past elections. Much of this cannot be translated into a chart or graph. It is a myth that analysis is done via math or graphs or computer models.

The original economists, for example, used only words and essays. Political analysis is not about math. Political analysis is about people. To analyze politics, you must be able to analyze people. In other words, the poet and novelist becomes the political analyst, not the mathematician and software engineer. Politics is all about people.

It seems no one is interested in studying ‘people’ anymore. Look at the political analysis currently. There is very little analysis of the current ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, for example, or the person from Pennslyvania or person from Iowa. In fact, there are no people. There are only numbers. Stark, lifeless, numbers. The problem with leveling political analysis to nothing more than a soup of numbers is that it cannot measure intensity. What does intensity have to do with politics? Well, everything. Intense people are those who vote.

In previous elections, polling data was used as a supplement and never taken as the Thing That Can Never Be Questioned as it is for this election. Why are people turning themselves into pretzels to choose every possible answer, including the crazy ones, to NOT question the polls? Let’s find out…

One of the reasons why the Kerry Campaign failed is because they were hell-bent on ‘winning every news-cycle’. To win an election, you need to win votes on the ground. The news is not where the campaign battle is. Yet, Kerry Campaign thought it was.

Obama Campaign is making the same mistake but doing it with a very different twist. The push to win every news-cycle is no longer there. What has been replaced is the tactic, often used in other countries, to create neutral media entities (which are, of course, not neutral at all) and have them carry the narrative. People would be unwilling to question the narrative because it comes from, supposed, neutral entities. For example, in 2004, only the choir listened to Moveon.org or Michael Moore as the public saw them as Democrat entities (i.e. non-neutral). But with neutral entities, the narrative will be seen as ‘reality’ itself. Of course, the narrative can’t come across as liberal or conservative or the other side will reject it. After all, neutral entities do not really talk about issues since issues are relatively divisive (which is why they are ‘issues’).

Interestingly, Obama’s campaign narrative is not about an issues based campaign as is standard. The narrative is more of ‘Obama’s win is inevitable’, ‘Obama is doing well in states no one ever thought possible’, ‘Obama’s opponent has conceded X state’, ‘Obama’s opponent’s campaign is falling apart’, ‘Obama’s opponent has become desperate, now saying ridiculous things’ etc etc etc. This technique can, obviously, be seen in the general election but was also deployed during the primary against Hillary Clinton.

During the primary, it kept being reported that Clinton was ‘pulling out of a state’ or ‘falling apart internally’ and ’state polls show double digit Obama lead’ and so on. The reality was that Clinton did not pull out of those states, wasn’t falling apart internally, and state polls that showed double digit Obama leads ended up either becoming small Obama wins (such as Virginia) or comfortabel Clinton wins (New Hampshire, California, Pennslyvania, etc. etc). Hillary Clinton was tied with Obama for much of the primary. As she won in many later states such as Ohio and Texas, it became ridiculous for calls for her to ‘pull out’ when she was winning in the moment. Nevertheless, it is no coincidence that the same exact things are being said of the two campaigns. It is obvious this is orchestrated, i.e. it appears as a classic Astroturf Campaign clothing itself in ‘neutral’ entities.

Obama’s Campaign’s obsession with media reveals itself with Obama himself. At one point, he said, “Fox News is costing me a point or two in the polls.” I thought this was odd since he was up double digits in the polls. Look folks, when you are a presidential candidate, media folks are *below* you. There was one time, around 1996 I suspect, when President Clinton kept talking about Rush Limbaugh. James Carville told Clinton to shush as “Limbaugh isn’t running for anything.” This was good advice. When Obama makes remarks about Sean Hannity, I scratch my head and I’m going, “WHY does he keep mention someone who he is not running for any office?” The swift breaking of access for the local news sites that asked difficult (or unfair, whatever your view) questions to Biden to moving out certain reporters from the campaign plane points to an obsession with the media. I am not saying the Obama Campaign is being ‘bad’ or ‘good’, I’m just highlighting a curious sensitivity to media concerns. After all, the Obama Campaign did spend a lavish amount to make a slick half hour ‘Obama-show’ which is not the norm of presidential campaigns.

McCain Campaign is more of the traditional issues based campaign (though they seemed to keep changing what they wanted to focus on). Only in the latter days, did the McCain Campaign settle on focusing on the economy with the ’socialism’ message. Since this election is more of a referendum on Obama than anything else, it is hard to focus on the McCain Campaign. If people trust Obama, he wins. If they don’t, McCain wins. The election is based more on Obama than McCain.

For examples of ‘neutral’ media entities that channel the narrative (which is ‘inevitable’ Obama victory and ‘inevitable’ McCain Campaign collapse), the Politico is one such entity. It was created right when Obama began his presidential campaign, went anti-Hillary during the primaries and never says anything good about McCain (Politico has responsed to this charge by saying ‘don’t blame us, the McCain Campaign sucks’. Then how did McCain get Obama to campaign in blue states in these final days?). Much of the legacy media (already fast falling in subscribers and viewers) easily participated. The ones that didn’t, such as Fox, was strategically blunted (e.g. give O’Reilly access to Obama and promise more to keep O’Reilly’s criticisms ’soft’ on Obama).

Pollsters willingly went along as there is little money in the polling business anyway. 2006 was a depressed turn-out year for Republican voters, but not even 2006 numbers are used. The spread used is an irrational 7 points or so. Other ways to cook the poll would be to take a majority of your samples from urban areas with little from rural areas (this practice hasn’t been caught on yet by the poll critics yet). When pollsters say that McCain’s chances of winning is the same as a meteorite plunging into the Earth or that the pollster will become a sacker at a grocery store, is this the language of analysts and scientists? No. It is the language of the demagogue. They were likely paid, or in a contract, to put on such a front. This is typical Chicago Machine type stuff.

And, for another ‘neutral’ media entity that is actually a player in the Obama campaign strategy of ‘inevitable victory narrative’, is Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.

I was first made aware of FiveThirtyEight when, after explaining to a friend why the probability of Obama losing Pennslyvania is very high, he laughed and said McCain’s chances of winning the election was 5%. I went, “What!? Whoever told you that?” “This website…” I went to the website and, instantly, I could tell it was a hack. Political campaigns are a very uncertain business which can change overnight for one candidate or another. No political scientist would seriously say a candidate has 5% chance to win the election. Maybe if the candidate was a social conservative running in San Francisco or a communist running in Kansas, this might be true. But for a presidential election? No. Not even Mondale was given that percentage. The ‘interviews’ with Dan Rather are raised flags because after 2004, Dan Rather lost all ‘neutral’ status after the forged memo scenario (in 2004, the retiring Dan Rather put up memos from early seventies whose fonts count only have been done in a modern word processor, an obvious forgery). I’ve met Dan Rather personally as he was raised in my area. He is a nice guy. But no network will hire him for news now for the reason of partisanship.

-Nate Silver’s ‘news stories’ carefully follow Obama Campaign’s strategy, used both in the primary and now in the general campaign, of inevitable Obama victory (which no political analyst, worth their salt, believes as no election is inevitable), showing pictures of a closed McCain Campaign office and declare “It is all falling apart”, etc. etc.

-Nate Silver says he is busy with real life job and life but when the Zogby poll, that had McCain +1, came out, he responded to it ASAP (and on Halloween night of all times!). Now, I don’t trust Zogby because he was off in 2004. I also know, for a fact, Zogby is contractually obligated to weight more Democrats in his polling (and weeks ago, when the AP showed a close poll, Zogby got ‘angry’ at them). However, Zogby also publicly declared Obama’s declaration of ‘inevitable victory’ ismore about strategy. Nate Silver doesn’t bother to tell his readers why Zogby became famous in the first place. It was because Zogby was the only pollster who picked up on the Gore surge in the 2000 election. This, alone, is why people are listening to Zogby closely now. (I still don’t trust him as he has been all over the place. However, that might had been intentional). The ‘rapidity’ to deconstruct a positive McCain poll obviously should be a flag raiser. Real political scientists never rush to deconstruct or denounce anything.

-There is absolutely no questioning as to why the candidates are going to solid blue areas. In fact, there is strangely no questioning to the polls at all.

-Nate Silver, on his FAQ page, says he incorporates 2000, 2004, and 2006 election returns. What about 2002? In 2002, in a historical upset (President’s party loses seats in the off year election), Republicans performed well and made gains in both the House and Senate. In fact, exit polls were seen as ‘unreliable’ and thrown out that year with only ‘votes’ counted (which is how it should be done anyway). Only after the election did we realize the exit polls were thrown out because the analysts/media couldn’t believe the results.

-Nate Silver bans all internal polling by the reason that internal polls are used to manipulate opinion while public polls are ’scientific’. He has it totally backwards. Public polls are made to manipulate opinion (i.e. the public is the product, not the poll’s data). Internal polls have to be ’scientific’ because the presidential candidates are interested in winning which cannot be done if the internal polls are not as accurate as possible. What a doofus.

-In assigning ‘undecided’ voters, he bizarrely puts them to third parties (what!?) and then breaks them 50-50 between the candidates. This isn’t how it works in presidential elections and even students know that. The undecideds proportionally break toward the establishment candidate. In 2000, it was Gore. In 2004, it was Bush. In 2008, it is McCain. 2008 is a referendum on Obama. The undecideds are ‘unsold’ on Obama. As the election comes, most of them will break for McCain. Any model would have whatever undecideds left to ‘break’ mostly toward the establishment candidate in the waning days of the election. Nate doesn’t seem interested in this. In fact, he doesn’t seem interested in any of the standard ways.

MUST READ

Pennslyvania has been grossly misreported on this election cycle. During the Democrat primary, union bosses approached Hillary Clinton and said, “Promise us you will not put Obama as your Veep and you will have our support.” The moment Obama become the nominee was when he lost Pennslyvania. Obama has been spending money like a drunken sailor in the state, blasting the state full of advertising, but it isn’t working. The famous Philly machine won’t be at Obama’s disposal as the governor, Rendell, is a Clinton supporter , and he has been hinting at Pennslyvania going red by the mysterious leak of the Obama internal campaign poll of PA being +2 a couple of weeks ago and publicly asking Obama to come back to the state as well as saying that things are ‘tightening’ there. The evidence that PA is going red should be with how the safe Democrat seats are becoming suddenly competitive. Rendell is a Democrat and doesn’t want to lose house seats which is another reason to ask Obama to come back.

As I have said, we are a Nation founded by Entrepreneurs not by softies with their hands out. In fact, many who were sent to the Georgia colony came directly out of debtor’s prisons. It wasn’t that they were shiftless, they couldn’t find jobs that paid enough to pay their taxes and provide for their families. So when they hit Georgia, they hit it running and began their own little Cottage Industries.

And Cottage Industries grew into Major Manufacturing Corporations as a matter of course. Why have ten men each making one item a week when ten men doing specialized jobs could make twenty or thirty or more items in a week?

Unfortunately, FDR created an entire “classification” of persons known as “The Welfare Class.” This gave the elitists someone to look down on and in their turn, anyone with a dollar looked down on anyone who didn’t have a dollar (but did have a hand out looking for a handout).

But it was not always so. And THAT Spirit of America is what Sarah Palin brings to the table. You start small and you gradually build up and with hard work you’ve gone from hockey mom to Governor ‘the hard way.’

I’m a Dixiecrat or Blue Dog Democrat. I want my party back from these Socialists or else I want them to add the word “Socialist” to the Democrat Party and the rest of us Democrats need to start a “third” Party. Pelosi and Reid and Murtha and Dodd and Franks and Rangel are NOT Democrats. Just because someone calls himself a certain word doesn’t mean he has the attributes of that word. Pelosi can call herself a virgin all she wants, but we all know she’s been rode hard and put away wet by the looks of her.

My sincerest sympathy to you on your party being so far left, socialist/Marxist/communist hijacked I cry for this country.And all who fight for the right to vote daily!

As I type this I am hearing local radio reports of a college voting place having McCain voters 'roughed up'. Republicans are on the way to end it. I pray this is not true.

The point of these election posts is to reveal the reality on the ground is very different than the reality in the ‘political analysis’

Boy, this makes me feel better.

I sure needed to read this today...perfect timing (and I hope this runs true!)

GO McPALIN!!

glad the posting police have let this one slip by

BTTT

Absolutely the best election article I have read so far. It covers everything....its a long read, but I stayed with it to the end.

I recommend this for all FReepers

Copy it an post it to your desktop so you can send it to anyone who wants to understand what happend on this day in history, Nov 4, 2008..

Yes I second that... it is a LONG read, but worth every minute. I have been saying a lot of what he says in this article, especially in reference to the "who and where" people are getting polled and what they are... better yet, what they are NOT saying to the pollsters. I WILL NOT watch the pundits on TV this evening b/c I cannot wait to wake up tomorrow morning to see the bewilderment, confusion and exasperation on their faces.

In my second post about the election, I told you to keep an eye on Iowa for if Obama comes back here, a state he should have locked at this time, he is toast. Well, Obama is back in Iowa which means he is toast. If it is competitive in Iowa (it was very competitive in 2004), that means that McCain is running as well as Bush or better and has FL, CO, IN, NC, OH, NH, and VA all comfortable. McCain going to Maine suggests Obama is performing worse than Kerry

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.