Oliver Willis

15 Responses to “New Math?”

1. 1 El Cid
   Jul 1st, 2008 at 4:36 pm

   If it’s close enough for Republicans to steal the election, it’s a dead heat.

2. 2 Chris G.
   Jul 1st, 2008 at 6:10 pm

   The MOE applies to each candidate’s reported result, so it’s possible that the real number is something like Obama 46.5%/McCain 48.5% — if Obama’s result is as high as it can be given the MOE, and if McCain’s is as low as it can be given the MOE. But that’s not terribly likely, and calling it a “dead heat” is certainly a stretch.

3. 3 Enlightened Liberal
   Jul 1st, 2008 at 6:16 pm

   I saw that CNN report also. As with everything else on CNN, it was spun as Good News For John McCain.

4. 4 Jay Tea
   Jul 2nd, 2008 at 4:54 am

   Someone needs to teach Oliver basic math. The margin of error applies to EACH CANDIDATE’S number, not the cumulative error. So, as Chris points out, Obama scores 50%, plus or minus 3.5%, and McCain scores 45%, plus or minus 3.5%. So the actual numbers could be precisely what Chris pointed out — McCain could be up by 2%.

   I find myself wondering if this survey, like so many others, are “weighted” and “adjusted” to include about 10% more Democrats than Republicans…

   But I tend to agree with what someone said the other day — “Who won the day? Who won the week? Of all the stupid things related to political coverage that I hate, this is at the top of the list. It is the simplification of politics to the point of a WWE match. Except it doesn’t work that way. The only real win-loss moments are election days, everything else is conjecture by jackasses.”

   J.

5. 5 Oliver Willis
   Jul 2nd, 2008 at 5:00 am

   I find myself wondering if this survey, like so many others, are “weighted” and “adjusted” to include about 10% more Democrats than Republicans…
   If you’ve followed politics for more than 5 seconds you would know that Dems self-identify at a higher rate than Republicans. Of course, its better to think all the pollsters are out to get you and pretend that Bush really is a popular man.

6. 6 Duros62
   Jul 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 am

   you would know that Dems self-identify at a higher rate than Republicans.

   Because they’re not ashamed. Whereas Republicans should be.

7. 7 Jay Tea
   Jul 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 am

   I follow politics quite thoroughly, Oliver. I just don’t live and die by polling. Indeed, I quite proudly don’t give a rat’s ass about polls.

   But I am curious how well those “self-identifying” factors translate into actual elections. Can we get some input from Presidents Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry?

   I’ll repeat the quote I found so compelling, because it really contrasts with what you’re saying here:

   “Who won the day? Who won the week? Of all the stupid things related to political coverage… this is at the top of the list. It is the simplification of politics to the point of a WWE match. Except it doesn’t work that way. The only real win-loss moments are election days, everything else is conjecture by jackasses.”

   I’d watch out for the guy who said that, Oliver. I bet he could kick your ass in a political debate.

   J.

8. 8 Chris G.
   Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 am

   Jay,

   Note that I also say the McCain-up-by-two scenario is an unlikely one — yes, that’s within the MOE, but each candidate’s reported results would have to be skewed in opposite directions from their actual level of support, and in Obama’s case, the reported result would have to be at the upper limit of the MOE.

   Also, check out Pollster.com’s general election poll roundup. Since Obama became the presumptive nominee, there’s only been one poll that even shows McCain tied with Obama. If McCain had a slight lead obscured by this poll’s MOE, you’d expect to find lots of polls with McCain slightly ahead as well as lots of polls with Obama slightly ahead as the results bounced around within each poll’s MOE. But that’s not what we’re seeing here — every poll but one that Pollster.com’s tracking has had Obama in the lead since early June.

9. 9 Jay Tea
   Jul 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm

   I’m sure it’s fascinating to some folks, Chris, but I really, honestly, do NOT give a rat’s asshole about polling. I decided a long, long time ago that when it came to politics, I would never pay the least attention to them.

   Some people live and die by the polls (for example, see the president who immediately preceded the current one), and the danger there is that people will begin to substitute the polls for their own judgment. That is something I consider to be A Bad Thing.

   If I believe something, then I believe it. If 95% of the people disagree with me, I might re-evaluate it, but I will never subsume my own opinion for those of the masses.

   I don’t care if the polls say it’s 90-10 between Obama and McCain, either way. I will still say what I think and vote for the way I believe. If I end up on the losing end of an election (the only poll that really matters), then so be it. I’d rather be true to myself than part of a majority I deem to be wrong.

   It’s similar to the reasons I don’t get into theological arguments. As an agnostic, I don’t have any stake in the outcome there, either.

   J.

10. 10 Lee Coles
    Jul 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Some dead heat- five percentage points lead = 75 to 100 electoral vote margin.

11. 11 Oliver Willis
    Jul 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    I don’t look to polls as manna to heaven (and if you believe that the Bush administration doesn’t follow the polls as closely as the Clinton administration, I have a bridge to sell you) but they’re a good temperature check of the mood and it would do well for the press to not call them closer than they are.

    Of course, the polls were in favor of the Iraq war, and cons cited them back then when those of us who were in the majority didn’t do the fashionable thing.

12. 12 Jay Tea
    Jul 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    “Following” the polls? As in, paying attention to them? Extremely likely.

    “Following” the polls, as in letting them dictate policy and decisions? I think not. Otherwise, the Bush administration’s approval ratings wouldn’t be at -847% or whatever you say they are.

    As far as conservatives citing polls for their support of the war… some did, Oliver. I’ll grant you that.

    I didn’t. I cited the 1998 Iraq Regime Change Act, the terms of the end of the 1991 war, and the long string of government elected officials (Democrat and Republican) who touted Saddam’s repeated violations of those terms, and his repeated provocations and threats.

    I’m still waiting for those politicians who I quoted to explain whether they were lying or fooled — especially those conned by Karl Rove and the Bush administration several years before they were elected.

    All poking aside, Oliver, I don’t know why you don’t stand by your words of just a couple days ago mocking polls, and those who put stock in them — especially at this stage of the election cycle. You were right then, and now you seem to want to pretend you never said it now that you have a point to make.

    J.

13. 13 Duros62
    Jul 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    I look at polls the way I watch the World Series; I check in to get the score periodically, but I don’t pay any attention til the bottom of the ninth.

14. 14 Oliver Willis
    Jul 3rd, 2008 at 12:44 am

    I wasn’t talking about polls, I was talking about features who say “X Won Today”. A poll is not a definite. It’s a guidepost. And yes, the Bush administration uses polling the same way Clinton did. All politicians do. “Some” cited polls? Try most.

    I thought Saddam was a bad guy too, but I had the common sense to think an American invasion and occupation of a middle east country was probably a bad idea. Pols of both parties were not smart enough to get this. But the few who did were mostly Democratic.

15. 15 C.S.Strowbridge
    Jul 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 am

    “Someone needs to teach Oliver basic math.”

    Someone needs to teach you a lot of things.

    ncpp.org/node/4/#12

    “Certainly, if the gap between the two candidates is less than the sampling error margin, you should not say that one candidate is ahead of the other. You can say the race is “close,” the race is “roughly even,” or there is “little difference between the candidates.” But it should not be called a “dead heat” unless the candidates are tied with the same percentages. And it certainly is not a “statistical tie” unless both candidates have the same exact percentages.

    And just as certainly, when the gap between the two candidates is equal to or more than twice the error margin – 6 percentage points in our example – and if there are only two candidates and no undecided voters, you can say with confidence that the poll says Candidate A is clearly leading Candidate B.

    When the gap between the two candidates is more than the error margin but less than twice the error margin, you should say that Candidate A “is ahead,” “has an advantage” or “holds an edge.” The story should mention that there is a small possibility that Candidate B is ahead of Candidate A.”

    Two key points…

    1.) You are only supposed to review to the results as a dead heat when the two sides are tied.

    2.) A gap that is greater than the margin of error but less than twice the margin of error is significant enough to claim one side has the advantage.

    So you are clearly wrong.

    No surprise there.

Leave a Reply