Nate Silver, a baseball statistician, accurately predicted the 2008 election. He was correct in 49 out of 50 states. The one state where he was wrong was Indiana, which was the first time that state voted for a democratic President since 1964. So, it is fair to excuse him for that, but it is also important to remember that 2008 was the easiest election to project since 1984. This is a clear example of how polluted the analysis pool is in political punditry.
Nate has made a prediction for 2012: Obama will take 300 electoral votes and that there is a 79% chance of him winning (NOTE: this measure on his site is active and may change). Nate is a very, very bright man, however, would you want Bobby Fischer to perform your bypass? The point here is that some skills do not apply across the board. Politico posted a good article about how Nate may be a one term celebrity, and even though Nate is going to be wrong in 2012, they probably will be too. The main stream media loves this guy, because he says what they want to hear. Thus, they will continue to promote him as the sage of their beliefs that he is.
This is a premium example of an uninformed opinion. Has Nick ever ran a campaign? No. Has he ever conducted a poll? No. Does he understand statistical models, proper weighting, or trends? Probably not. So what does he bring to the table? He is well known in baseball for using Sabermetrics. Basically this is the practice of using "objective statistics" to measure the performance of baseball players, and now he is using similar methods in analyzing politics. Part of his system is feeding his database every poll possible. That system in and of itself is flawed. Bad numbers never help yield a more accurate number. Sabermetrics by its function assumes the law of averages over the season of a player. These principles are not applicable to an election that is essentially a one game season. Then there is the keyword "objective statistics." Objective is the rarest thing in politics. A batting average is objective, over a certain amount of attempts, a batter will hit the ball a certain number of times. In a game a batter may face a pitcher four or five times. In politics there is only one election day.
The problem is not the tool being used (Nate Silver), it is the machine (main stream media) promoting the tool that is polluting what little scientific method there is in the field. Out of emotional self interest, the machine continues to promote the product validating its emotion, instead of producing the best product. This is something important and fun to watch, during the current election cycle, so that accurate assessments can be made in the next election cycle. Unless of course the goal is to be a one term accurate prognosticator in tandem with a one term President.
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Polls And The Election
One poll done by two very respectable sources this week showed a margin of error that was "3.27%". That's pretty funny. Polls are a lot like movies. There is comedy, action, love, and continuing drama.
Everybody is talking about polls, and many are even offering their opinions on them. The problem there is, everybody knows exactly what an opinion is like... and everybody has one.
With only a few exceptions, the people with an opinion have motives. This is where things get murky. When emotions and personal desire comes into play, scientific method can and usually does get forgotten. People bend results to what they want them to be, which taints the whole pool. Being a public pollster is tough. You're essentially a public opinion odds maker. In the case of the presidential race, you're creating a line on how a 100,000,000 or more people will react. For a professional football game, Las Vegas odds makers have less than 250 people and odds to calculate, yet the Vegas casinos can be different in their offerings. They also enjoy the added benefit of seeing where the gambling public is placing their money. Someone placing their money where their mouth is, is way better than a partisan opinion. Still, the odds makers can be WAY off, in fact it happens all the time. Odds makers get seasons of time to re-calibrate their accuracy, pollsters get two opportunities to see how right they are: primaries and general elections They also have to contend with what they see other pollsters doing, and this plays into some houses methodology. It can very much be a "keeping up with the Jones'" scenario.
The methodology difference is starkly apparent in the discrepancies of the results. Many houses get very different numbers from each other, and the numbers fluctuate non stop. Ask yourself this question, "how many times have I seen someone REALLY change their opinion on a topic like this?" The reality is that this kind of fluctuation is terribly wrong. Cataclysm aside, both Romney and Obama will end up with 43% of the vote each due strictly to party turn out. This leaves a top possibility of 14% of slack. Of that 14% of voters, it is reasonable to assume that a min of 4% (2%+2%} is committed both ways, getting to 45% each. Now what? Now the goal of Romney's campaign is to get 48.9% (4.89% of the total) of the remaining voters., totaling 49.89%. But that's less than 50% of the vote!!! He'll lose!!! Wrong. Populous states like NY, CA, and IL will contribute to large overages in the popular vote but are of no consequence in the electoral college. About the voter change, it does happen, but not so spastically. For any voter that is undecided at this point, the change is coming glacially, or instantly. The glacial change won't be done till November, and the instant change can happen at any time. Currently, president Obama is losing the instant change to foreign policy fiascos and people who originally disregarded him as a redistributionist. Romney isn't losing ANY votes over his 47% comment. While there are factual errors, the general tone is correct, and it most likely is not offending anyone already voting for him. He could have said it much better, and if the campaign defines the intent, it will turn into a positive. Conversely, there is no positive outcome in any regard for a tortured and murdered ambassador.
The polls say a lot, but the communication is not one way. They don't think, feel, and breathe, but voters do. To communicate with the polls these pundits should step out of "the story of the day" and assume a more long term view.
Besides, if the polls did all the work, and they were clinically precise, strategists would have to find new jobs, and you would not be reading this.
With only a few exceptions, the people with an opinion have motives. This is where things get murky. When emotions and personal desire comes into play, scientific method can and usually does get forgotten. People bend results to what they want them to be, which taints the whole pool. Being a public pollster is tough. You're essentially a public opinion odds maker. In the case of the presidential race, you're creating a line on how a 100,000,000 or more people will react. For a professional football game, Las Vegas odds makers have less than 250 people and odds to calculate, yet the Vegas casinos can be different in their offerings. They also enjoy the added benefit of seeing where the gambling public is placing their money. Someone placing their money where their mouth is, is way better than a partisan opinion. Still, the odds makers can be WAY off, in fact it happens all the time. Odds makers get seasons of time to re-calibrate their accuracy, pollsters get two opportunities to see how right they are: primaries and general elections They also have to contend with what they see other pollsters doing, and this plays into some houses methodology. It can very much be a "keeping up with the Jones'" scenario.
The methodology difference is starkly apparent in the discrepancies of the results. Many houses get very different numbers from each other, and the numbers fluctuate non stop. Ask yourself this question, "how many times have I seen someone REALLY change their opinion on a topic like this?" The reality is that this kind of fluctuation is terribly wrong. Cataclysm aside, both Romney and Obama will end up with 43% of the vote each due strictly to party turn out. This leaves a top possibility of 14% of slack. Of that 14% of voters, it is reasonable to assume that a min of 4% (2%+2%} is committed both ways, getting to 45% each. Now what? Now the goal of Romney's campaign is to get 48.9% (4.89% of the total) of the remaining voters., totaling 49.89%. But that's less than 50% of the vote!!! He'll lose!!! Wrong. Populous states like NY, CA, and IL will contribute to large overages in the popular vote but are of no consequence in the electoral college. About the voter change, it does happen, but not so spastically. For any voter that is undecided at this point, the change is coming glacially, or instantly. The glacial change won't be done till November, and the instant change can happen at any time. Currently, president Obama is losing the instant change to foreign policy fiascos and people who originally disregarded him as a redistributionist. Romney isn't losing ANY votes over his 47% comment. While there are factual errors, the general tone is correct, and it most likely is not offending anyone already voting for him. He could have said it much better, and if the campaign defines the intent, it will turn into a positive. Conversely, there is no positive outcome in any regard for a tortured and murdered ambassador.
The polls say a lot, but the communication is not one way. They don't think, feel, and breathe, but voters do. To communicate with the polls these pundits should step out of "the story of the day" and assume a more long term view.
Besides, if the polls did all the work, and they were clinically precise, strategists would have to find new jobs, and you would not be reading this.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
"How" Romney Can Win
In my last post I covered Obama's Big Advantage, today I am going to break down what the Romney campaign must do to overcome it.
With 75 days left until the election there is a lot of noise, but one very quiet area - policy specifics. President Obama's policies are a known quantity. Some people know the details, some people know enough to understand them, and others are still forming their opinions. Point being, they are public domain. The same cannot be said for Mitt Romney. Sure, ads are out there about what he wants to do, but there is very little "How" or "What". This is a huge issue. You can go to the campaign site where there are a few videos or to his YouTube channel where there are almost 200 videos. We are hearing about "Mitt Romney's Plan" but we aren't hearing the plan. It is impossible to underscore the importance of this distinction.
Initially, it is paramount that they pull back on the negative ads. Currently the majority of commercials are attacks. We as voters have been exposed to negative ads for so long now that they no longer have the impact they once did. The voter is more intelligent and discerning than many in politics believe. Furthermore, it frees up money and ad space for more important communications. Sure there are some effective negative ads such as Our Time and A Clear Choice, but they are effective because they end on a positive note and set the stage for further ads by the Romney campaign. The shift in message needs to move to commercials like Believe In Our Future and The Right Kind of Leadership. These highlight the difference between the two candidates, and they begin to offer an idea of what he plans to do, and how he plans to do it. New ads underscoring the "How" must follow on the heels of these.
"How" Governor Romney plans do "What" he plans to do must start to be part of the dialogue, sooner than later. Right now, Medicare and personal attacks dominate the discussion, but this will change. Recent Gallup Polls of Swing State Voters and U.S. Economic confidence show a likely approaching electoral tidal wave. The economic confidence is "stable at a low level", meaning that it's low, has been low and is likely to stay low. Exacerbating the situation is the opinion in the swing states; more voters are blaming President Obama than President Bush (43), and of course a sizable portion blame both. Now guess who they don't blame - Mitt Romney. It is imperative that he start to put his plan out there to develop the substance that so many are expecting after picking a policy and budget guy like Paul Ryan.
Mitt's original plan included 59 Policy Proposals in a 160 page document. Clearly not many people read that. Recently they have moved to a more visually attractive and reader friendly Big 5 style plan. For message purposes, this is enough. Unemployment has been on the rise in 44 States, Gallup shows Romney leading 47 - 44 and Rasmussen has Romney leading 45-44. A quick note on why these polls matter - two words, "historical accuracy." Over time both have been shown to be consistently accurate, and in 2008 Rasmussen was the most accurate of all public data. What is most telling about both of these is President Obama's inability to get over 50% in the past three months. Additionally, the President's campaign has been on a big spending streak since mid April, yet they have seen no positive upturn. Still, Romney must start into the substance as soon as he can. Yes, what Romney is doing is working for now, but the shift is necessary to solidify, and enlarge his lead. Without this substance, the support will begin to wane.
On August the 31st, Governor Romney can start to spend the treasure trove of cash that his campaign and the RNC have amassed. Going forward, Mitt should start to sound like a broken record: "middle class, jobs, job training programs, small business tax cuts" and then to back it up, tell America "How."
Questions or comments? Feel free to post here or email me at edwardsanalysis@gmail.com
With 75 days left until the election there is a lot of noise, but one very quiet area - policy specifics. President Obama's policies are a known quantity. Some people know the details, some people know enough to understand them, and others are still forming their opinions. Point being, they are public domain. The same cannot be said for Mitt Romney. Sure, ads are out there about what he wants to do, but there is very little "How" or "What". This is a huge issue. You can go to the campaign site where there are a few videos or to his YouTube channel where there are almost 200 videos. We are hearing about "Mitt Romney's Plan" but we aren't hearing the plan. It is impossible to underscore the importance of this distinction.
Initially, it is paramount that they pull back on the negative ads. Currently the majority of commercials are attacks. We as voters have been exposed to negative ads for so long now that they no longer have the impact they once did. The voter is more intelligent and discerning than many in politics believe. Furthermore, it frees up money and ad space for more important communications. Sure there are some effective negative ads such as Our Time and A Clear Choice, but they are effective because they end on a positive note and set the stage for further ads by the Romney campaign. The shift in message needs to move to commercials like Believe In Our Future and The Right Kind of Leadership. These highlight the difference between the two candidates, and they begin to offer an idea of what he plans to do, and how he plans to do it. New ads underscoring the "How" must follow on the heels of these.
"How" Governor Romney plans do "What" he plans to do must start to be part of the dialogue, sooner than later. Right now, Medicare and personal attacks dominate the discussion, but this will change. Recent Gallup Polls of Swing State Voters and U.S. Economic confidence show a likely approaching electoral tidal wave. The economic confidence is "stable at a low level", meaning that it's low, has been low and is likely to stay low. Exacerbating the situation is the opinion in the swing states; more voters are blaming President Obama than President Bush (43), and of course a sizable portion blame both. Now guess who they don't blame - Mitt Romney. It is imperative that he start to put his plan out there to develop the substance that so many are expecting after picking a policy and budget guy like Paul Ryan.
Mitt's original plan included 59 Policy Proposals in a 160 page document. Clearly not many people read that. Recently they have moved to a more visually attractive and reader friendly Big 5 style plan. For message purposes, this is enough. Unemployment has been on the rise in 44 States, Gallup shows Romney leading 47 - 44 and Rasmussen has Romney leading 45-44. A quick note on why these polls matter - two words, "historical accuracy." Over time both have been shown to be consistently accurate, and in 2008 Rasmussen was the most accurate of all public data. What is most telling about both of these is President Obama's inability to get over 50% in the past three months. Additionally, the President's campaign has been on a big spending streak since mid April, yet they have seen no positive upturn. Still, Romney must start into the substance as soon as he can. Yes, what Romney is doing is working for now, but the shift is necessary to solidify, and enlarge his lead. Without this substance, the support will begin to wane.
On August the 31st, Governor Romney can start to spend the treasure trove of cash that his campaign and the RNC have amassed. Going forward, Mitt should start to sound like a broken record: "middle class, jobs, job training programs, small business tax cuts" and then to back it up, tell America "How."
Questions or comments? Feel free to post here or email me at edwardsanalysis@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)