Why Pollsters Miss the Boat

In my previous column, I talked about the limitations (and they are many) of the polls. In the Iowa primary, pollsters dramatically underestimated the number of young voters (those under 30), who voted heavily for Barack Obama. In New Hampshire, the pollsters over-compensated and overestimated the number of young voters.

If you watched CNN (and other networks) last Tuesday, you saw that they kept waiting for the Obama votes to come in from Hanover (Dartmouth College), Durham (the University of New Hampshire), and other college locations (including tiny Franklin Pierce College). Presumably, they're still waiting. Mrs. Clinton held a good lead throughout the night, college students voted in disappointing (for Obama) numbers, and female students who did vote often went for the female candidate.

One reason the polls messed up lies with the concept of "likely voters," a concept invented by Gallup many years ago. Generally, likely voters are those who've voted with some regularity in past elections. If you've voted before, you're "likely" to vote this time -- right? Well, not exactly.

The pollsters have had a terrible time this year with young voters, especially those who may -- or may not -- vote for the first time. If a pollster has no evidence of past voting practices, it's impossible to tell if a voter is actually going to show up at the polling place. In New Hampshire, the pollsters apparently guessed what might happen, and they guessed wrong.

The media, which has significant influence on pollsters, assumed Obama's victory in Iowa would give him a big "bounce" in New Hampshire. It didn't. Poll evidence (?) suggests Mrs. Clinton generated some votes, not a whole lot, from her tearing up episode. Overall, there was a very high turnout in the Democratic Primary (280,000 voters various 220,000 for Republicans), and that apparently helped Mrs. Clinton, something the pollsters should have picked up before the vote.

In a typical election, voters identified as "likely" tend to vote at a percentage between 70% and 75%. In other words, as many as 30% of likely voters end up not voting. They're sick, or they're out of town, or it snows heavily -- or perhaps they're just not turned on by the current election.

Registered Democrats are more likely to vote than the much-heralded "Independents." Registered Republicans are more likely to vote than either Indies or Democrats. Many of the much-discussed "Independents" are not the dispassionate, reflective souls we sometimes visualize. In fact, many of them have little interest in voting. If they see a snowflake, they're likely to stay home.

Gallup is the gold-standard of polls. It skews its likely voter’s concept slightly toward the Republicans. It does so for reasons stated above -- that Republicans are more likely to vote. Apparently, the Harris Poll does something similar. Traditionally, that approach has made Gallup and Harris the most accurate polls.

However, in 2004 Gallup's Polls through the autumn consistently showed George W. Bush doing well, perhaps winning nationally by millions of votes. Many Democrats and many in the media (generally Democrats) didn't like that and suggested Gallup was shilling for the GOP.

Gallup got nervous. It changed its likely-voter template to include more Democrats. Soon, it showed Bush running neck-and-neck with John Kerry. Also, Gallup indicated Kerry probably would win key states like Ohio and Florida. On the other hand, it also suggested Bush had a good chance of winning Pennsylvania.

On Election Night, Gallup (and many in the media) had a huge quantity of egg on their face. Bush won Ohio and Florida by fairly substantial margins. He lost in Pennsylvania, as most Pennsylvanians -- including this one -- had predicted he would.

What about the pollsters' legendary margin-of-error? As both Iowa and New Hampshire exist, the term is largely mythical. If pollsters really knew with precision what inaccuracy there may be in their polls, they'd presumably correct it. The margin-of-error is mainly a way for them to explain why their polls failed to predict an election accurately. They can always say, "Well, I was within the margin of error." I presume Fortune Tellers could make a similar claim.

Actually, I like pollsters, much as I like, say, polar bears. But I don't want to get overly close to either.

May the best man -- or best woman -- win.

_________________________

A taste of tomorrow . . .

This is a big chunk of tomorrow's column. I'll add to it early tomorrow (Wednesday)
In future weeks, I'll be writing some about three controversial topics: (1) Immigration Reform and the need for a comprehensive version of it; (2) Campaign Finance Reform; (3) gun laws, particularly as they apply to urban areas.

On immigration, the key to secure our borders without losing for generations the critical Hispanic vote. Hispanics are the largest minority group (and I'm not talking about "illegals") in the U.S., larger than the number of African-Americans in the U.S. If we lose the Hispanic vote, as earlier we lost the Black vote in the 1960s, we can make all the idological points we want -- and nobody will be listening. Recently, Democrats in Congress undercut the financing for the "double-wide" security fence. Are they going to pay a penalty for that in future elections? Right now, it doesn't look as if they will.

On Campaign Finance Reform: Republicans face a big problem here. The Democrats are raising money at a much more rapid pace than Republicans. The Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee (DCCC) have raised TWICE as much money as the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). What that means is that it's going to be impossible (and I don't mean "nearly impossible") to regain control of Congress. In the presidential race, Obama and Clinton have been raising much more money than their Republican counterparts.

On gun laws: I was recently on Eric Dondero's MainstreamLibertarian program on BlogTalkRadio. Debating against three libertarians (including Eric), I made the point that there are too many murders in our cities, including Philadelphia. I pointed out that Giuliani's (and Police Chief Bratton's) approach to crime has produced dramatic results. Pre-Giuliani, New York was America's murder capital, with nearly 2,500 murders. Giuliani cut the murder rate in half, and Mayor Bloomberg has done the same. The 2007 murder rate in New York was below 500, about the same number as occurred in the much-smaller city of Philadelphia. My point was that when people are rightly fearful to go outside their homes, they essentially have no liberty. In that sense, Rudy, an advocate of gun laws, is one of America's greatest libertarians.

_________

I'm a member of several Yahoo Groups, which is one of those cases of "sin in haste, repent at leisure. Too many members of at least one group seem to be driven mainly by hatred of others, usually starting with Senator Clinton and including perhaps 150 million other Americans.

One of the Yahoos sent out several e-mails blaming homosexuals for most (all?) of the world's ills. I sent him (and others) the following:'

Anti-gay screeds are un-American, un-Christian, and politically unwise. Other than that, I guess they're fine.

As we Republicans decide which people we don't want supporting us, starting of course with gays and lesbians (who don't get MRSA), Blacks, Hispanics, young people, and professional women (journalists, teachers, doctors, nurses, and lawyers), we soon find ourselves consisting of one group: angry white males who spend most of their time denouncing people who aren't like us.

There are some conservatives, thankfully small in number, who want to turn us into The Stupid Party. I pray that they don't succeed.

Any group, on Yahoo or elsewhere, should not be mainly a vehicle for people to demonstrate their mental disorders.

Sarah Palin, Not Just Another Aging White Guy :-)

The Political Tipster evaluates 10 possible candidates for the Republican vice-presidential nod. Here's what it says: "So the frontrunners for the second spot [on the ticket] seem to be Joseph Lieberman and Sarah Palin (with the latter being a possible future Presidential candidate)." Note: Since Joe Lieberman fails my test that the V-P can't be yet another grumpy old white guy, Sarah rises to the top.

And another Alaska blogger has climbed aboard what's becoming the world's most crowded bandwagon: the one led by Sarah Palin. Ash writes a piece titled: Guv Goddess 4 Prez 2012! He notes that: "Not only can she clean the clocks of corrupt lawmakers, but as a life long member of the NRA she cleans the A-K’s fish and game faster than Billary cleaning up evidence." You can find Ash's rollicking piece of Pro-Palin material at: http://ash1973.wordpress.com/2007/08/18/guv-goddess-4-prez-2012/

You meet some wonderful people on the Internet. One person worth knowing is Ron-Paul-fan and political intellectual
Laura Ebke. You can find her at the following. Let me just say that if you disagree with Laura, it might be a good idea to wear body armor. :-) She's tough.
laura@redstateeclectic.com
http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com
http://redstateeclectic.com


A big salute for Eric Dondero, a libertarian Republican who worked in the past as a staffer for Congressman Ron Paul, for writing a strong endorsement of Sarah Palin for V-P. His piece appeared on 8/26/07 on: http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/. I urge you to visit Eric's site and perhaps join in on the interesting debates that are taking place in the libertarian community. Eric supports Rudolph Giuliani for the presidential nomination.

You'll note that one libetarian commenter (and enemy of taxes) criticizes Sarah for Alaska's $6.6 billion budget. In fact, 90% of the revenues for that budget come from oil taxes, and each state citizen gets $1500-plus annually from the oil fund. Also, keep in mind that Sarah vetoed a billion-plus of the capital expenditures voted by the legislature. She said the expenditures proposed were "not a state function." Sarah, we've got your back!

Oops, we missed a fine pro-Sarah piece by earnestexpostulations, who expostulated without our eagle eyes picking it up. Earnest, welcome to the Sarah Club. We will teach you the secret handshake when there is little or no moonlight. EE's piece is at: http://earnestexpostulations.blogspot.com/2007/07/perfect-republican-vp-no-matter-who.html

Couldn't have said it better. "Perfect" no matter whom she runs with, and it begins to look more and more likely that Run She Will. (Since Sarah has run a marathon, she would have no problem out-running me.)

If you missed the following from race42008.com when it came out, it's worth reading.
http://race42008.com/2007/05/30/veep-watch-gov-sarah-palin-sports-90-approval-rating/

Thanks to all those who are visting over Labor Day weekend. I'm communicating with several groups about building support for Gov. Sarah Heath Palin. As you'll note, there are a number (to say the least!) of articles about Sarah and the role she could play on the Republican ticket. I've also written recently about "Cobb" and Black conservative activists, as well as about Sen. Larry Craig and the apparent raw deal he got in Minneapolis. Regular columns will be starting no later than Tuesday. Adam has some great material about Sarah on his site: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/. Also, see the fine new blog columns by Kazoo and David that endorse Sarah.

What I'd like to write about this week:

• 1) On the September 5 FOX debate: I'm especially interested on how the candidates answer questions about the sanctity of life issue. Much of the talk recently has centered around a constitutional amendment that would overturn Roe v. Wade. However, the chance of such an amendment getting 67 votes in the Senate, and 38 votes by states is probably zero. (The last time the Human Life Amendment -- Hatch/Eagleton -- got a serious vote in the Senate was 1983, and it fell 18 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for passage.)
• 2)On Giuliani's plans about how to win the nomination: It's an approach that differs greatly from that of the other candidates -- and has little in common with the strategy pursued by any Republican presidential canidate since the "Southern Strategy" days of the 1960s. I have a strong hunch that Giuliani believes that if he can win either New Hampshire OR Iowa, as well as Nevada and Florida, where he's well ahead, Super Tuesday (Feb. 5) would be icing on the cake. Apparently, Giuliani believes the "singe-issue" (anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-illegals, anti-gay-marriage) voters are essentially the same individuals. His campaign is one that emphasizes winning the center (and center-right) Republicans and basically cedes most of the right-wing (generally misnamed "The Base") to other candidates, including Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee. Giuliani apparently expects the other candidates (ones relying on "The Base") to cut each other to pieces.
  
  The following is my quote of the week, reflecting a common them in my political writings:
  
  If we become the Party of the "angry, old white guys," Heaven help us. We're headed in that direction, and we need to change course in a hurry. (As an occasionally cantankerous older white guy, I believe I can say that.)

Congratulations to Mike Huckabee -- Ames Straw Poll

The paragraph below is one I wrote Saturday night, after the results from the Ames Straw Poll were in. You should also look at the material following it, because it says a lot about the American media.

Congratulations to Mike Huckabee for his very strong showing (second place to MoneyBags Mitt) in the Ames (Iowa) Straw Poll. He now needs to reach out to new contributors -- and new supporters. Gov. Romney is trying to erect political firewalls in Iowa and New Hampshire and, for Mike to get the nomination, he needs to break through and win at least one of those states (Iowa?). He also needs to win, or at least come very close, in South Carolina's primary (presumably held on January 19, 2008). Ten days later, he would also have to do well in Florida, perhaps by concentrating his resources on carrying the "Little Dixie" segment in the Florida Panhandle. He should also reach out to Cuban-Americans. This is a truly tall order! He's running against some fine men, a couple of whom have a lot of campaign cash. The key to winning in politics is to look like a winner and act like one. Mike is doing those things. Overall, he might have a hard time winning the traditional "suburban Republicans," so he needs to cultivate groups that other candidates might undervalue. He should continue differentiating himself on the issues of poverty (heck, quote the Gospel of Matthew!), the environment, and education.

Much of the media covered the results of the Ames Straw Poll as a win for Romney (which it was), as well as a strong showing by Mike Huckabee. However, here's the lead paragraph from an Associated Press reporter in a story headlined "Mitt's Iowa Push Pays Early Dividend": "Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won an easy and expected victory in a high-profile Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll on Saturday, claiming nearly twice as many votes as his nearest rival."

Romney's votes added up to 31.5%, while Huckabee got 18.1%. I don't know how the AP does math, but 31.5 is NOT nearly twice as many votes as 18.1. In the story, Huckabee gets one brief mention in the first 12 paragraphs, whereas Tommy Thompson -- who performed very poorly -- got two paragraphs out of the first six.

Some of Mike Huckabee's backers will see what I've just described as the same old media manipulation. In fact, it may be more a reflection of media laziness, or sloppiness.

In Iowa, Romney spent between $2 million and $4 million. In contrast, Mike Huckabee spent at most $150,000. Perhaps that's the real story from Iowa: how few votes Romney got for so much money spent.

The media may not especially like Mitt Romney, but they probably identify with him because he looks and talks like "one of them." On the other hand, Mike Huckabee is an Arkansan in manner and accent, as well as a man who's served as a Southern Baptist preacher. Frankly, the media probably doesn't know what to make of Mike -- and probably remembers him best as the guy who raised his hand to signify that he didn't believe in evolution.

What does Mitt Romney think about evolution? Throughout most of its history, the Mormon Church was very hostile to the theory of evolution. (A family member of mine majored in zoology at BYU in the 1970s, so I happen to know a lot about this issue.) Nowadays, the Mormon Church seems to resolve the evolution issue by remaining silent about it.

The media doesn't have to undergo a conversion to conservatism. However, it does have to provide reporting that reflects reality. The truth is that Mike Huckabee did well in Iowa, and that portends well for his political future.

Note: On CNN, Joe Johns (a welcome substitute for the mindless Wolf Blitzer) asked: "Who's getting out of the race?" The Three Republican guests (David Dreier, Jim Tallent, and Buddy Roemer) wouldn't answer. I'll answer by saying who should get out of the race: Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, and Ron Paul. Most of them will not depart soon (aside from Thompson), and Ron Paul will not leave until Super Tuesday (Feb. 5). Hunter, Tancredo, and Brownback will go through the motions until after Labor Day, but you can safely stick in a form in them. They're done. Now, the race is between Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee.