Prairie Weather

Accusations of "bias" in polling

In 2004, Democratic Web sites were convinced that the polls were biased toward George W. Bush, asserting that they showed an implausible gain in the number of voters identifying as Republicans. But in fact, the polls were very near the actual result. Mr. Bush defeated John Kerry by 2.5 percentage points, close to (in fact just slightly better than) the 1- or 2-point lead that he had on average in the final polls. Exit polls that year found an equal number of voters describing themselves as Democrats and Republicans, also close to what the polls had predicted. ...538

Nate Silver searches for "biased" poll results.  Republicans, lately, seem to be sure the latest polls, showing a healthy lead for Obama, are biased.  Democrats had the same feeling back in 2004. But the bias turns out to be only perception, not actuality.

Silver, after a close look the possibility for bias, has this to say:

... It is reasonably impressive how unbiased the polls have been. In both presidential and Senate races, the bias has been less than a full percentage point over the long run, and it has run in opposite directions.

That does not mean the pollsters will necessarily get this particular election right. Years like 1980 suggest that there are sometimes errors in the polls that are much larger than can be explained through sampling error alone. The probability estimates you see attached to the FiveThirtyEight forecasts are based on how the polls have performed historically in practice, and not how well they claim to do in theory.

But if there is such an error, the historical evidence suggests that it is about equally likely to run in either direction.

Nor is there any suggestion that polls have become more biased toward Democratic candidates over time. Out of the past seven election cycles, the polls had a very slight Republican bias in 2010, and a more noticeable Republican bias in 1998, 2000 and 2006.

They had a Democratic bias only in 2004, and it was very modest.

Still, 2004 went to show that accusations of skewed polling are often rooted in wishful thinking. ...538

Polls can't be expected to come up with fail-safe results.  But "less than a full percentage point over the long run" is pretty damn good.  And whenever you have doubts, check FiveThirtyEight

Does early voting take power away from the debates?

A lot of us -- probably most of us -- know about the possibility of walking into our election day polling place and encountering delays due to interference from "True The Vote."  We may have our ID's and voter registrations in hand, but just the idea of standing around, shifting from one foot to the other, while a puppet show plays out thanks to some zealot challenging someone who "looks Mexican," is enough to make us decide to vote early.  Thereby avoiding any impact from debates.  I just don't see myself, whatever the debates produce, thinking "Wow, that Romney guy is brilliant!  Just what we need!"

Amy Davidson points out the realities of voting in 2012.

Voter suppression may not turn the Presidential race, but how many congressional or local ones might be affected by a long line or an aggressive poll watcher? One also wonders what sort of party the G.O.P. is going to end up with if it is training the activists of tomorrow to be glad about getting people turned away—one whose hopes become identical with the frustrations of others?

The Republican Party has plenty of its own frustrations at the moment. Time is getting short; Romney is behind in the polls—the surveys now, but soon, possibly, the real polls. Voting began in Iowa yesterday; there are thirty-two states now with early voting, more if one counts states with absentee and other arrangements. You can’t save your campaign by being brilliant in a debate, or hoping that your opponent will look at his watch or say something mad in his, if people have voted already. And, given the prospect of lines and nagging on Election Day, early voting may be more and more tempting. ...Davidson, New Yorker

Zeroing in on October and the very possible "October surprise"

Nate Silver was being interviewed about his new book -- "The Signal and The Noise:  Why So Many Predictions Fail But Some Don't" -- and he let drop a prediction that may give Democrats the chills.

You write in the book about the failure to predict 9/11, and you, echoing the 9/11 Commission, write that a lack of imagination was one of the most important factors. Is there anything that you, or the political class as a whole, might be failing to imagine as you attempt to predict the outcome of the presidential race?

There's always that risk, right? There's always the risk that there are unknown unknowns ... But between the fact that there are very few undecided voters, and that [Obama] seems to lead in all or almost all of the swing states, if you had the election today, we think he'd have a 97 or 98 percent chance of winning it. There's not too much doubt. But yeah, there can absolutely be October surprises, and there have been in the past. I mean Europe, for example, is something where investors are becoming more nervous again. What happens in the Middle East, what happens in Europe — those kind of things are known unknowns, and there are also economic and foreign policy risks that can occur. But I think the question now — and I think we're close to it — is: Are we at the point where you have to have something like that occur for Romney to win?

So, are we?

I think we're pretty close to it. Most of his 15 or 20 percent chance, or whatever we're giving him ... does reflect at this point the kind of October surprise scenario.

So, basically, barring an October surprise, Romney's chances are more like nil? Not nil, but slim ...Daily Intel

Akin

There was, of course, the "legitimate rape" remark.  But Missouri's Senate hopeful, Scott Akin, persisted, trudging onward (he hopes) to the US Senate -- pointing his finger at his opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill, and accusing her of failing to be "ladylike."  And now remark number three, as noted by Think Progress.

When a man asked him why he voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Akin said he didn’t support the idea that “government should be telling people what you pay and what you don’t pay.”

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Why do you think it is okay for a woman to be paid less for doing the same work as a man?

AKIN: Well, first of all, the premise of your question is that I’m making that particular distinction. I believe in free enterprise. I don’t think the government should be telling people what you pay and what you don’t pay. I think it’s about freedom. If someone what’s to hire somebody and they agree on a salary, that’s fine, however it wants to work. So, the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble. ...Think Progress

That works really well if you're someone who has no problem with a hierarchy giving men dominance over everything else on the planet -- as we can see with our unladylike naked eyes. 

And finally, why a businessman doesn't make for a great president

Do you get it yet?  Or does some part of you still think a woman -- or a man -- with a successful steel mill or travel agency would be a better president than, say, some mayor who's also a lawyer?

He’s a profoundly clumsy campaigner. A Politico article on Friday about Romney’s problems contained this damning quote:

“Lousy candidate; highly qualified to be president,” said a top Romney official. “The candidate suit fits him unnaturally. He is naturally an executive.”...NYT

"Highly qualified"?   No candidate who is so utterly oblivious of others comes anywhere near having the qualifications needed for the presidency. 

What the election looks like ... seen from here ... at the end of September

Mr. Romney is at best holding ground in the polls, and quite possibly losing some, at a time when he needs to be gaining it instead. Further, it’s increasingly implausible for Mr. Romney to attribute the numbers to temporary effects from the Democratic convention. Mr. Obama’s probability of winning the Electoral College advanced to 83.9 percent in the Nov. 6 forecast, up from 81.9 percent on Wednesday. ...Nate Silver, 538

Obama up two points in two days.  That can't continue. 

Can it?