Kerry Comeback Alert

[markalot]

Washington Post
Media Notes
by Howard Kurtz
Friday, Sep 17, 2004; 8:25 AM

Is he the comeback kid?

Is the race suddenly close?

Is Bush blowing the lead?

Are Lockhart and McCurry working their magic already?

I have no idea, but check this out: "In the latest national survey of 1,972 registered voters by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted in two waves over a seven-day period Sept. 8-14, finds that the president's 52%-40% advantage in the initial period dissipated in the polling conducted Sept. 11-14. The second wave of interviewing shows the race even among registered voters, at 46%-46%. When the sample is narrowed to likely voters, Bush holds a statistically insignificant lead of 47%-46% in the second wave, down from the huge 54%-39% advantage he held in the first wave of interviews."

I now look forward to reading a wave of stories about how all the previous media criticism of the Kerry campaign as too timid, disorganized and unfocused was wrong.

Or not.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/

[akip]

i did hear last night that bush is still ahead in some significant swing states like florida.

kerry campaign has started looking a little more alive.

[Bronzetree]

Kerry's ads have finally shifted away from the 'Nam shit. Saw a few over the last few days that were rather swaying. He should've been doing this along.

[stpdgirl]

Polls show Kerry ahead on electoral vote (http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040423-050230-3304r.htm)

[tobedawg]

FINALLY..

I hope that John Kerry has finally realized that he was in real danger of losing the Presidency..

Hopefully, John Kerry will show a more down-to-earth image within the next couple of weeks.. The "Down to Earth" image is what George W Bush is using to win over the South, the whole "Cowboy from Texas" image, and that image also worked well for Bill Clinton for both his terms..

Kerry appears too stiff. He also should try to reach out to younger voters. Getting interviewed on MTV is a start, but he needs to work on his image OR at least bring Edwards out more to help him out with it.. (Where's Howard Dean when you need him?)

[motorcitysonics]

They have to keep Howard Dean away from the campaign right now. They have the Howard Dean voters, what they need to do is court the soft chewy center.

See, Bill Clinton was so good at grabbing the center that the Republicans went extreme right and we would up with Bush instead of McCain (they only Repubican I would have ever even though of voting for).

I still think Bush is going to win because the Republicans are better at electioneering than the Democrats. The Dems want to talk of substance and issues, the Repubs give us things like "Boots or Flip Flops" or "You are ecomonic girlymen". Guess which works better?

They've also managed to demoize Kerry, and from everything I have really heard about the guy, he is a decent person. The Republicans would demonize Jesus if he was a Democrat


Kerry has got to beat Bush soundly in the debates if he wants a chance to win. I wish it was John Edwards vs. Bush in the debates because Edwards would wipe the floor with him.

I wish Clinton was running again, and I don't even like him all that much.

[matt]

Don't worry, Clinton will run in 2012.;)

[vivalamusica]

Originally posted by motorcitysonics
The Republicans would demonize Jesus if he was a Democrat

[Robert Goodman]

Originally posted by stpdgirl
Polls show Kerry ahead on electoral vote (http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040423-050230-3304r.htm)

not sure where "the hotline" (the reference in the wp article) is, here different data from http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[davepurcell]

The larger problem is the tendency by people, especially those in the media, to call elections like horse races or football games. Right now, reporters are talking about Kerry closing the gap -- while that might make for sexy copy, it's simply not true: the initial post-RNC lead was based on faulty, biased polls.

There are so many complex factors, beginning with the fact that so few reporters really understand the polls. If Bush leads by three but it's within the margin of error, it doesn't mean a freakin' thing. But reporters are too stupid to know that -- they'd rather talk about someone opening or closing the gap.

Another issue is when reporters try to claim that one candidate has momentum. While I think that can matter in primaries -- Kerry's clearly gained some momentum coming out of Iowa -- I don't think it happens in national campaigns. Momentum may appear to happen if a candidate alters his message and begins to reach more undecided voters, but that's different than the perception of a Bush or Kerry fervor sweeping the country. "My neighbor's voting for him and so am I!"

dp

[Marlowe]

Dave, I don't mean to sound harsh, but your post reads very much like wishful thinking rather than analysis.

Of course things like bounce and momentum happen and matter. It'll be a tight race and Kerry could certainly win yet, but if you look at the same poll with the same techniques done over time, it's clear that Bush has pulled ahead.

And let's not over-dramatize the complexity of polling. Reporters make a lot of dumb errors all the time, but you don't need to have a market research master's degree to understand the basics of polling.

[Slar]

There were some conflicting polls out today. The one from Pew showed Kerry and Bush neck in neck, while the other showed Bush with a 13% lead. Shows how much polls are worth IMO.

I saw something interesting that showed Bush ahead of Gore at about this time in 2000, yet Gore was still able to defeat him (popular vote) come election time.

[davepurcell]

Originally posted by Marlowe
Dave, I don't mean to sound harsh, but your post reads very much like wishful thinking rather than analysis.

It's not wishful thinking, it's reality. (Are Bush fans capable of seeing things in anything other than partisan terms? "Of course you like puppies, you're a Kerry backer.") Serious political pundits and operatives on both sides of the fence -- folks who know a hell of a lot more about political races than I do -- say the exact same thing: political races are volatile, complex beasts and can't be called like the Kentucky Derby.

It'll be a tight race and Kerry could certainly win yet, but if you look at the same poll with the same techniques done over time, it's clear that Bush has pulled ahead.

How is it clear? After the erroneous Time & Newsweek polls, the majority of the polls show them no more than five points apart nationally and with the leaders lead generally w/in the margin of error. Two of the last three polls I saw (Gallup, Pew, Harris) call it a dead heat, the Gallup poll is the outlier giving Bush a 12-point lead.

And let's not over-dramatize the complexity of polling. Reporters make a lot of dumb errors all the time, but you don't need to have a market research master's degree to understand the basics of polling.

Really? So you think most reporters understand issues of sample selection/size/bias, margin of error, confidence intervals, clustering effects, etc.? You're pretty sure that reporters understand the methodological issues behind polling registered vs. likely vs. "unlikely" voters?

If so, why did no reporter notice the sample bias inherent in the Time and Newsweek polls that came out right after the RNC? Why aren't reporters saying anything in depth about the wildly divergent poll results -- the fact that polls are either showing a dead heat or a sizable Bush lead -- other than, "gosh, Bush has pullled away" or "Kerry has caught up?"

Bloggers are on the ones picking apart the polls because they understand what's going on (and if they don't, they have contributors who do). The average reporter doesn't know dick about polls and just repeats the same crap over and over again.

Here's
one guy at the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB109536730469420041,00.html?mod=todays%5Ffree% 5Ffeature) who does get it.

dp

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by davepurcell
Originally posted by Marlowe
[B]
It's not wishful thinking, it's reality. (Are Bush fans capable of seeing things in anything other than partisan terms? "Of course you like puppies, you're a Kerry backer.") Serious political pundits and operatives on both sides of the fence -- folks who know a hell of a lot more about political races than I do -- say the exact same thing: political races are volatile, complex beasts and can't be called like the Kentucky Derby.

Beltway Democrats have been all atitter about Kerry's need to make changes and fast, to his campaign. Kery himself re-tooled his campaign staff leadership by bringing a bunch of old hands. Bill Clinton told Kerry he needed to change the focus of his campaign from VIETNAM VIETNAM VIETNAM to other issues. Have they all been hoodwinked by these erroneous polls too?

Arguing that polls aren't completely accurate is like arguing the sky is blue. But saying that they're useless and shouldn't be reported upon doesn't make any sense. Should I stop wearing a watch because it gains a minute per month or so? You're welcome to believe Kerry's not really behind if you want; but, that doesn't make it so.

Edited to add: here's (http://slate.msn.com/id/2106527/) another pretty interesting analysis of the race from Slate showing Kerry well behind.

[davepurcell]

Originally posted by Marlowe
Beltway Democrats have been all atitter about Kerry's need to make changes and fast, to his campaign. Kery himself re-tooled his campaign staff leadership by bringing a bunch of old hands. Bill Clinton told Kerry he needed to change the focus of his campaign from VIETNAM VIETNAM VIETNAM to other issues. Have they all been hoodwinked by these erroneous polls too?

Classic. Funny how I commented on the validity of polls per markalot's post, and you respond with some usual partisan bs. Enjoy the KoolAid.

[b]Arguing that polls aren't completely accurate is like arguing the sky is blue. But saying that they're useless and shouldn't be reported upon doesn't make any sense.

Show me again where I said they're useless and shouldn't be reported on....?

I said most political reporters don't know how to interpret and appropriately comment on polls, and I'll stand by that.

I read the Slate article this morning. If you're so convinced that Bush is pulling away, check the trend columns. Where the polls get really interesting is examining trends and internals in the battlegrounds states. The guys who really know what they're doing say it's far, far from over. It's certainly your perogative if you'd prefer to believe otherwise.

It'll be interesting to see where the polls go over the next seven weeks. If they begin to merge into agreement, they we can probably see what will happen on Nov 2. If they remain volatile, it's going to be a long night.

dp

[markalot]

Dean wins Iowa!


You guys be nice to each other. ;)

[Marlowe]

Dave,

* I said Bush has pulled ahead, not that he's increasing his lead. I'm not sure where you get that I said anything contrary.

* Bush is ahead. You can take any poll you like and give insight into methodology or potential bias, and you may very well be right in any of your given points. But look at both the meta-data from the Slate article and any of these polls longitudinally and it's pretty clear: Bush is ahead. Or, you can look at where people put cold, hard cash on the line like tradesports.com or the u of iowa online market, and Bush is well ahead there toor. (I made $500 last year by buying futures in Dean just before he served, and can attest to the the fact that people are out to make money and not to sway results). But, you're welcome to believe otherwise.

* You seem to enjoy little rhetorical flourishes saying I can't see anything except in partisan terms or implying I'm brainwashed. I have thick skin, Dave, so please by all means keep the insults coming if they help you feel better about yourself. It's okay.

Oh and even the New York Times Poll (http://www.iht.com/articles/539428.html) shows President Bush considerably ahead. Of course, they make you read several graphs into the story for them to 'fess up to it, but Bush is ahead.

[davepurcell]

I'm not insulting you, Marlowe, I'm calling it like it is (and lord knows I don't need to insult you to feel better about myself...my self-esteem is fine, thanks).

Go back and read my initial post. You called my analysis of the variance in polls "wishful thinking" rather than analysis -- I wasn't at all commenting for partisan reasons, but rather criticizing reporters' general lack of understanding of how polls and surveys work. You showed your lack of knowledge on the topic when you said, "And let's not over-dramatize the complexity of polling." Ok then.

Bush may very well be ahead at the moment -- I never claimed he isn't -- but the fact that there's incredible variance between the various polls shows that they're very likely to be less accurate this year than ever before.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I said polls are useless and shouldn't be reported upon...

dp

[Marlowe]

Polling is a science, but an inexact one. Any intelligent person (such as a political reporter for a national news outlet) can understand the limitations of polling without being an expert. Just like I can understand that there are limitations to weather forcasts without knowing how to operate a doppler radar or having good enough hair to be a weather reporter.

Dave, I worked for one year as a marketing research manager and two more as the senior analyst for a mutual fund. Plus, I am a Chartered Financial Analyst, which requires one to demonstrate more than a working knowledge of quantitative methodology. Forgive me if I find your characterization of my 'lack of knowledge' in this subject to be a red herring.

[akip]

i'm still pessimistic about kerry. perhaps only events beyond the control of rove (as in iraq) would reverse bush's momentum. maybe the debates, but kerry has a tin political ear and a lot of people seem to prefer that simplistic bush prattle.

[davepurcell]

Originally posted by Marlowe
Forgive me if I find your characterization of my 'lack of knowledge' in this subject to be a red herring.

I wasn't trying to insult your ablilities, but I have a hard time believing that anyone who understands quantitative survey methodology would say what you did -- that it's not a complex thing, or at least not more complex than the average newspaper reporter makes it out to be. Let's not forget that the media's understanding of polling (and of the variation we're seeng in the polls) was my original point. You keep turning it into something else.

Everyone I know who does quantitative research is somewhere between "interested in" and "troubled by" the methods being used (and no, they're not all Kerry supporters). If you know your stuff and you don't find it to be an issue, I suspect that you're in the minority. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

On a related note, how does being a senior financial analyst relate to conducting national political opinion surveys? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm curious.)

dp

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by davepurcell

On a related note, how does being a senior financial analyst relate to conducting national political opinion surveys? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm curious.)

dp
A rigorous understanding and daily use of of quantitative methodology and statistical programs like SPSS are a common prerequisite among financial analytics, marketing research and pollsters. Sample error, multicolinearity, question-bias, etc., are all issues that one working with statistics needs to be aware.

I'm no longer directly in any of these fields (although Marketing research falls under me), but I would humbly submit I know enough about them to speak on a message board, regardless of your appraisal of my skills or realm of knowledge.

Moreover, there are a lot of things in the world I'm "troubled by", but the question of whether Gallup or any of these other recent polling organizations like the New York Times are unwitting tools of the vast right wing conspiracy is not one of them. Any one poll may have issues with it, but if you do a meta-analysis similar to what Slate does, look at longitudinal trending, as well as look at markets like tradesports.com, you can usually divine where things stand in political races.

[davepurcell]

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation, I was just curious.

Originally posted by Marlowe
I'm no longer directly in any of these fields (although Marketing research falls under me), but I would humbly submit I know enough about them to speak on a message board, regardless of your appraisal of my skills or realm of knowledge.

As I said before, I'm not trying to insult your skills. It just puts you in the minority (well, of one) of people I've discussed this with. Such is life.

Moreover, there are a lot of things in the world I'm "troubled by", but the question of whether Gallup or any of these other recent polling organizations like the New York Times are unwitting tools of the vast right wing conspiracy is not one of them.

This is the second time you've put words in my mouth. Show me where I said these polling issues are part of a larger right-wing conspiracy. You can't, because you're lying. I tried to make it clear I found this interesting from a methodological pov and not a partisan one, but you're too thick or stubborn to believe it.

And with that, I don't see the point of continuing a conversation with someone who twists what I write and apparently can't get past the partisan bs.

dp

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by davepurcell

This is the second time you've put words in my mouth. Show me where I said these polling issues are part of a larger right-wing conspiracy. You can't, because you're lying. I tried to make it clear I found this interesting from a methodological pov and not a partisan one, but you're too thick or stubborn to believe it.

Show me where I said you said polling issues are part of a larger right wing conspiracy. Read what I wrote. But like I said -- feel free to continue calling me names like thick, not well informed, stubborn, a liar, etc. You enjoy calling people's credentials into question and putting yourself up as a self-proclaimed expert and arbiteur, for reasons I can't quite make out. Is it arrogance or insecurity? Not sure, but I hope that works out for you. You know, the ad hominems in place of debate.

Later.

[Rafe]

Bloody facist.

I just remembered, I don't know anything about US politics. I take that back. sorry!

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by Rafe
Bloody facist.
Hard to argue with that, especially the bloody part. When you've spent a long day eating babies and clubbing seals for sport, the blood is one of the unsavory but inevitable side-effects.

Speaking of which, is it true that I will soon not be able to go fox hunting when I'm in England??? Say it ain't so! (Just kidding -- I love cute little foxes, especially the urban foxes that dumpster-dive behind the curry houses near Hampstead Heath.)

[the happy prole]

Hey guys, knock it off and quit fighting okay?

Marlowe, davepurcell never said there was a conspiracy to stack the polls. The article he linked to implied there was but dp himself said he didn't like that aspect of it.

davepurcell, Marlowe is a smart guy who knows what he's talking about. I've studied both marketing and Public Policy and have worked in both fields and I can assure you that its the same in both fields. Marketing research is based on statistical analysis and survey techniques just like political polls. Actually the advertising side of it is also the same for politics and products, which is a bit disturbing.

I've agreed with both of you on issues before. I've also disagreed vehemently with both of you before, and likely will again. And I've probably crossed the line a time or so with both of you. But I enjoy discussing stuff with both of you guys.

If two intelligent, generally well-mannered people with splits of opinion can't get discuss stuff on this board then things will surely fall to shit in a hurry.

[Rafe]

Originally posted by Marlowe
(Just kidding -- I love cute little foxes, especially the urban foxes that dumpster-dive behind the curry houses near Hampstead Heath.) Are you talking about Mr. Maphutali's famous Whale rogan josh? you need about 4 miles of naan bread to cope with the blubber, I hear.

Hampstead Heath - very posh!

Anyway, I'll let you people get on with it.

[Marlowe]

lol -- no I've never been to Mr. Maphutal but it sounds brilliant. I'm talking about this one place near Hampstead station where I went with the fetching young Anja one night for a late night curry and we saw a fox out back and she recounted the legend of the urban fox, which melted my heart. Or maybe it was the 5-alarm curry that melted my heart, but it was still pretty cool...
---------

Happy Prole, I appreciate your efforts. You're a gentleman. (when you want to be . ;) )

[davepurcell]

I'm not going to get drawn into an endless argument with Marlowe, but I'm also not going to let someone accuse me of substituting ad hominem attacks for real debate and get away with. So...

Originally posted by Marlowe
Show me where I said you said polling issues are part of a larger right wing conspiracy.

Looks like it to me here -- ...but the question of whether Gallup or any of these other recent polling organizations like the New York Times are unwitting tools of the vast right wing conspiracy is not one of them.

You were responding to me. Who else was this directed at?

But like I said -- feel free to continue calling me names like thick, not well informed, stubborn, a liar, etc.

"Not well informed" -- I said you "showed your lack of knowledge on the subject" and then backed off of that and said I was surprised that someone with your experience and skills wouldn't be concerned with the various polling issues.

Liar? Well yeah, you've deliberately miscontrued my words more than once in this thread, and not explained or substantiated what you said when challenged. I stand by that one.

Stubborn or thick? You keep ignoring and/or not believing me when I say I'm criticizing the polls from a methodological, not a partisan, pov. I don't understand why that is. Stubborn or thick were my two best off-the-cuff guesses. Care to explain? Or is it because building strawmen is preferred over responding to what someone actually writes?

You enjoy calling people's credentials into question and putting yourself up as a self-proclaimed expert and arbiteur, for reasons I can't quite make out. Is it arrogance or insecurity?

I'll admit there are times when I question people's credentials out here, and here's why. One of the frustrations of being a sociologist is dealing with the many myths and stereotypes that exist with no basis in reality. It's not usual to be in a conversation and have someone tell me, for example, that welfare accounts for 25% of the federal budget or that racial discrimination no longer exists. I don't claim to be an expert on any of these things but because I spent 60-70 hours a week on social issues, I do know more about much of this than most people do. So when I hear something wrong -- factually wrong, not a difference in opinion -- I call people out.

On rare occasions, I'll run into people who do know what they're talking about and their take on the facts is just very different from mine. That's fine and I always apologize when that's the case. (When I have more time, I always ask why people think what they think. In a hurry, on a message board, I don't generally take the time.) I made the mistake of assuming you had little quantitative experience based on what you were saying, and I backed off when you stated what you know (and I apologize for that). That's the rare instance, though -- most of the time, people are just spewing and genuinely don't care to hear the larger reality because they don't like to have their beliefs challenged. As an educator, I consider that part of my job.

Most folks don't deal with this because their domain of knowledge doesn't come up in general conversation. I wouldn't guess that you run into too many general conversations centered on financial analysis. It just so happens that everyone is an expert on what I do and it can get frustrating at times. I'm neither arrogant nor insecure, and there are plenty of folks on these boards who know me in person who will vouch for that. (Even BigSugar.)

Not sure, but I hope that works out for you. You know, the ad hominems in place of debate.

Nice try. See your first post in this thread.

HP -- I, too, appreciate your post. Marlowe is clearly a bright guy and I don't question that. I just don't appreciate his debating tactics. Note how the thread has been steered away from being about my criticism of the polls and the media's understanding of it.

Have a good Sunday, all.

dp

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by davepurcell
You enjoy calling people's credentials into question and putting yourself up as a self-proclaimed expert and arbiteur, for reasons I can't quite make out. Is it arrogance or insecurity?

I'll admit there are times when I question people's credentials out here, and here's whyi'll tell u why, ...

credentials r dubious. I don't care if u wrote the book on racism, or hav 3 PhDs in grooveology, bein an xpert doesn't mean u kno it all & can't be challengd. See, that's the trip, when ppl start sayin "I kno all there is to kno about X" then they'll run into the situation where their learnin stoppd, they conform to tradition, & don't xplore new possibilities. That's what happens. So credentials? Wahtever, they'r only good to xplain ur POV, but even the best ones r vulnerabl.

heck, even when someone says that u rn't acting like urself... u might b the unquestiond authority on that subject, but this 3rd person might actually b tellin u somethin new to u!

So when someone says: "U must never hav loved someone who died" or "What authority do u hav to speak about the economy?" or "He's got a PhD in astronomy"... doesn't meant they kno everythin. They might speak from higher authority, but it could still b wrong.

The only things that can't b doubtd is when someone says "I'm the authority on these stats" b/c those r conceptual anyway.

So, when someone asks, on this board, to prove themselvs by supplyin creds (or supplies creds themselvs), ur just openin urself up for ppl to say "I don't believin in ur creds b/c of this or that"

[markalot]

This is a discussion board, period. If we all had to discuss credentials we wouldn't be here.

If someone knows better then the polite thing to do is to relate what they think is fact and why without calling someone else out to be "unqualified" to discuss.

If you read this thread, both sides got a little touchy IMO. I think Dave and Marlowe both have good points.