After the final turn of the crank Mitt Romney popped out of the Republican jack-in-the-box to accept the nomination he's been six years in seeking. The Republican convention went off, to my eye, very well--to be sure, not perfectly (Team Obama managed to buy time on several electronic billboards around the Tampa convention center--and there was the Ron Paul thing) but despite a national emergency dropping in ... it wasn't a disaster.
The smoke hasn't cleared yet (Read: we don't have post-convention polling numbers yet and even those won't matter much until the Democrats have had their shot and the race has settled from that) but let's look at what we do know.
Paul Rayn--speech of the convention. Guy for 2016 or 2020.
Rand Paul--Has a bright future. Not as isolated as dad.
Losers:
Christie--used "I" and "me" 40 times while only mentioning Romney in the latter half of his address.
Clint Eastwood--It is safe to say that the actor/director will not be joining Romney on the road this fall. His "unexpected" speech allegedly had Romney staffers wincing as he addressed an empty chair representing President Obama. Obama tweets back:
Most Tweeted Image of the ENTIRE Convention ... Woah
Ron Paul supporters--effectively shut down
Senate Republicans--Akin hangs on.
Mixed
Mitt Romney--solid speech--but not electrifying.
Nate Silver calls Romney's speech "prudent" which is likely not what he was aiming for--but getting the job done is getting the job done even if you don't look amazing doing it. He shows the word analysis: IMO? Not bad.
Better America(ns) President is not bad for the top score
Former RNC chair (and ever-thorn in side of RNC) Michael Steele felt that the speeches were too self-centered:
“One of the distractions, quite frankly, in this whole narrative week was everyone talking about themselves and not Mitt Romney,” said Steele on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “The campaign signing off on this in speeches that had, the first 20 minutes in some cases, and Mitt Romney’s name is not mentioned.”
Well, Michael, that 2016 Chris Christie run won't kick itself off ...
On the other hand, while Romney may have gotten some "average" reviews, there were plenty of raves. Politico says Mitt 2.0 succeeds and notes his joke:
And Romney is hoping the rest of America feels the same way. He is now so comfortable with the whole Mormon thing, he even made a joke about it, saying that his early days at Bain Capital were rough.
“I thought of asking my church’s pension fund to invest, but I didn’t,” Romney said. “I thought it would be bad enough if they lost money, but I didn’t want to go to hell, too.”
The Bump
As I said, the big question is the bump--with Isaac sucking the air (and a day) out of the convention, limited media coverage, and a workman-like if not stellar set of speeches (nothing compared to Sarah Palin's 2008 speech--although Ryan's maybe came close) the big question is "will Romney get a bounce?"
PredictWise, the real-time election-analysis using Internet prediction markets shows "no bump:"
Give It Some Time?
And Nate Silver posits that while this may be a "base election" the Base-Turnout Strategy may not be enough for Romney:
[S]uppose that the turnout demographics this year look like 2004, when 77 percent of the electorate was white. Furthermore, suppose that Mr. Romney receives the same proportion of the white vote that George W. Bush did in 2004.
However, we’ll assume that Mr. Obama does retain one advantage from 2008. Although fewer minorities turn out, those that do vote for him in the same proportions as 2008, meaning that he gets about 95 percent of the African-American vote, and about two-thirds of the vote from Hispanics, Asians and other racial minorities.
These assumptions yield a very close election — but Mr. Obama wins the popular vote. Specifically, he wins it by about 1.7 percentage points.
Still, Pollster.com and RCP show the race as close as it's been in weeks--virtually neck and neck with key swing-states looking more swingy-all the time. So we'll have to wait and see--probably until after the Democratic convention.
What Do I Think?
I'm curious to see how the PoliticIT score and the Twindex both track with poll changes. PEC's analysis puts Obama at about 88% likely to win but note their prediction model is only good for 40-days-out. The Twindex shows Romney passing up Obama by an 18pt margin today. So there's "movement"--but will it play out ... and is it meaningful?
I think that Romney did as good a job here as he really could've: He is faced with a paradox. A "generic Republican" will win the middle this election--and thus, the presidency. A seriously conservative Republican may lose the middle--but is necessary to win the base ... and thus ... the election. So Romney has to straddle both as well as he can--while appearing human and natural doing it. That's no simple task.
Most of the ads coming out of these heavily funded Super PACs have been yawners (or, in one case, degenerate--I'm looking at you, Obama Super PAC) but there's a suggestion that a recent one from right wing Americans For Prosperity (as opposed to, you know, the anti-prosperity liberals, I presume) could be the 2012 "Red Telephone" ad that changed Obama's direction against Hillary ... until it didn't--but hey!
The Ad
At 1:02 in length HPOEYV is a "message" piece--longer than the 30-second saturation-bombing time-slot (maybe it has a 30-second version). It features three speakers talking about how they voted for Obama in 2008 but won't do so again: he hasn't earned it!
Richard, a white haired grandfather voted for Obama with "no reluctance."
Soulful and Serious. Is that shirt collar ... blue?
Robin, who gets the next introduction, says he presented himself as "something different."
She's Jewish. Just Like You. If You Are Jewish.
Maria had hoped that the president would bring "New jobs, not major layoffs, not people going through major foreclosures on their homes."
People going through minor layoffs or minor foreclosures would be OK!
Robin says he got his healthcare through ... but at what cost? Richard says Obama was gonna cut the defect in his first term--but he's seen zero interest in reducing spending (but Obama was interested in 'raising taxes' by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire--he did seem pretty interested in that ...). Richard does note that "he inherited a bad situation--" --BUT-- "--but he made it worse."
Maria, the darkest skinned of our trio, thinks "that he's a great person" but "not the right leader for our country." Robin still believes in hope and change--but she doesn't think Obama's "the right way to go for that." Maria comes back to emphatically tell us that in her opinion "the president has not earned re-election in 2012."
Richard, "having seen his definition of hope and change" concludes "it's not the hope and change I want. It's not the hope and change I thought I was going to get."
He says, slightly sadly, "I don't think I helped my grandchildren by voting for president Obama ... and I regret that." AFP approves the message.
What Does It Mean?
The problem when going up against Obama is that when you attack him, you have to dig two graves: your likability score matches his ... and his is higher. McCain knew that--whether that calculus or his innate wish to run a clean campaign caused him to avoid the worst of the attacks--he knew that a frontal assault would sink him faster than it sank Obama.
The guys who were going to unleash Rev. Wright in a controversial, never-filmed attack ad, stated this explicitly: people like him (They put 'like' in quotes)--and even if they think he did a bad job, they still ... like him. So they wanted to give people "permission" to vote against him.
This ad, distilled of the Rev. Wright stuff, does exactly that. It's about "permission." The structure is simple:
Act 1: The Promise
The opening parts of the ad, with music that is just barely jaunty, gives us the 2008 perspective. These people were thoughtful, upright, patriotic citizens who voted for Obama because of his best qualities--he presented himself as something different. People thought he would bring "new jobs." He was, you know, an easy sell.
This part of the piece gives you permission to forgive yourself if you feel disappointed.
Act 2: The Turn
Then we get into the core of the message. We hit layoffs, foreclosures, Obamacare, and the deficit. Note that the lady doesn't disparage ObamaCare because she's an Obama voter. She wasn't a McCain or Palin voter who would shoot it on sight. Like a moose. So she calls it "his healthcare" with mild disdain in her voice.
This part of the piece hopes to hit your pain point: to give a voice and name to your pain.
Act 3: The Prestige
We go for the big finish: Not Voting For Obama. That's important: these people might all like Romney--maybe--but they're not suggesting they (you) will (should) vote for him (just stay home?). They are saying they won't vote for him and leaving it at that. This is important because it manipulates the same way that those Sprite commercials do when they make fun of the commercial process by having rapper characters break out in Shakespearean English when the "cameras stop"--it manipulates by 'avoiding being manipulative.' Of course it is being manipulative--but, like Leonardo DiCaprio invading your dreams, it wants its conclusions to sound like your ideas!
Will It Work?
The reason to think this might be a giant-killer is that Republican Psy-Ops Wizard Frank Luntz deems it "the most effective ad in influencing undecideds." Frank Luntz is the messaging super-star who got the term "estate tax" changed to "death tax." (He also claims he changed Global Warming to Climate Change--which seems to me like an own goal, if you ask me: anything can be Climate Change. He also has an amateur-hour web page--but he may well know his stuff).
He's the guy who, in conspiracy theory land, at any rate, came up with the term "Divisive" to hang around Obama's neck since it polled worse than other derogatory terms:
The hallmark of Republicans in the Frank Luntz era has been to find words that test well and embrace them, and find words that test badly and tar the opposition with them. Not concepts, not ideas, and certainly not policies. Words. So Republicans say they are all for “patient-centered” health care, but they’re against the “divisive” Barack Obama.
Note: no actual evidence that Luntz or anyone else tested attack phrases.
On the other hand, Luntz does take credit for testing ads and finds HPOEYV to be the most effective! Luntz takes a group of the most air-headed people he can get his hands on (undecideds) and gives them a dial to turn to say when they like or dislike something through the whole ad:
[T]he most effective ad overall is the AFP spot featuring testimonials from disappointed Obama voters. As it airs, Luntz enters the press room and starts narrating the modulating “DEM” and “GOP” lines we see superimposed on our monitors. “If you’re Romney, you need numbers over 70 for GOP leaners and numbers over 50 for Democrat leaners.” The lines spike past that benchmark for GOP leaners, and hover in the neighborhood of 50 for the Democrat-ish.
Read the article for the the hilarious take on swing-voters too:
The sum total revealed a bizarre truth about swing voters. It’s not that they’re divided on any given issue, with half taking one side and half the other. Rather, everybody seemed to agree with everybody else about everything — and to disagree with them, too. Transitory coalitions formed and dissolved in what seemed a matter of milliseconds, like exotic particles in a supercollider. One minute, Latino Nose Spectacles was in complete agreement with Senior in Blazer. The next, they were at each other’s throats, and Young Yellow Dress had to team with Hair Gel to step in as the voice of reason. Working majorities seemingly assented to some premise, only to split a thousand ways on the most straightforward logical conclusion from said premise.
Everybody hates Congress, but most of these people either voted for their current congressmen or can’t name them. Everybody blames both parties for gridlock, but everyone also wants politicians brave enough to stand for their principles and against business as usual. Most call themselves moderates. One — one — describes himself as a liberal, and he voted for McCain and plans to vote for Romney. There were even those among them, reader, who liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan equally. Such people aren’t so much swing voters as they are schizophrenic. It’s Schrödinger’s electorate.
Can an ad have that much impact? Well, it's arguable--but look at this:
It is significant that the Clinton campaign used its telephone ad in Texas, where a Fox poll conducted Feb. 26 to 28 showed that whites favored Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton 47 percent to 44 percent, and not in Ohio, where she held a comfortable 16-point lead among whites. Exit polls on March 4 showed the ad’s effect in Texas: a 12-point swing to 56 percent of white votes toward Mrs. Clinton. It is striking, too, that during the same weekend the ad was broadcast, Mrs. Clinton refused to state unambiguously that Mr. Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim.
What Do I Think?
I'm most interested in Maria. The ad doesn't waste time with disaffected blacks--even though black people having born the brunt of the economy is a key Republican talking point. She also doesn't open with much "permission"--she is the transition to the failure segment of the ad. I will also note that the only wedding ring we see in the entire piece is on Obama's hands in the end. It is unclear if any of these people are married (and we do, for vanishing moments, see the hands of Richard and Robin--but I could not tell if there was a ring on).
I think this is important: the ad has its demographic preferences made very clear:
Older white males. Already Romney-centric--but he needs white men in there.
Jewish voters
Latina voters--especially young women. Maria's demographic is left somewhat uncertain but I don't think there's much room for doubt.
AFP isn't going after young college voters who are out of work and they aren't going after black voters who feel betrayed. I suspect this is the result of demographic testing or, at very least, gut intuition on the part of the ad makers. These people are real, so claims AFP, but they are not "random" or "genuine" in the sense that if you asked a set of previous Obama-voters what they thought you would get exactly this. There's nothing left to chance about their appearance or mannerism.
What I like about the ad is that it is self-confident and supremely focused. It doesn't need harsh musical cues to tell us what we're supposed to be thinking. It doesn't rely on text overlays other than bare introductions. It is spare and efficient without being dry or cold. If these are real people they certainly seem to believe what they are saying. It does not play with words. It doesn't misrepresent any facts. It doesn't imply Obama killed a guy (even Bin Laden) when he did not.
Will this have the same impact the Red Telephone ad did? It might--but I think my link probably overstates even that. Nevertheless, it's an effective ad with a lot of money behind it (7MM, apparently). It's targeting swing-states and it might just win over some of those critical (if, we are told, air-headed) un-decideds.
The word is that the convention-floor fight to shut down Ron Paul may be a "shooting war:"
I just got off the phone with a concerned Florida activist, Laura Noble, who informed me that both of Florida's Rules Committee members, Peter Feaman and Kathleen King, have been removed from the Rules committee and replaced with Romney-appointed delegates.
Clearly anticipating a grassroots backlash against the "compromise" on Rule 15 and the changes on Rule 12 has caused the Romney camp to preemptively replace delegates to ensure they have support on the Rules Committee.
After word of a truce last night, it appears that Team Romney is really scared that something might block his coronation nomination and they're bringing all forces to bear. You can read a good history here. Notably? Sarah Palin has endorsed the fight.
That’s why the controversial rule change being debated at the RNC convention right now is so very disappointing. It’s a direct attack on grassroots activists by the GOP establishment, and it must be rejected.
It's time to round out our coverage of election prediction sites with FiveThirtyEight.com. If you are looking at just one site to understand the current state of the race and electoral math, this, probably, is the one. Why is that?
It isn't because Nate Silver, the guy who runs it, is, necessarily, "the most accurate." Everyone claims extreme accuracy and, by the end of the race, everyone pretty much has been. The 3 weeks before election seem to really "tighten up" the polling. But, even though this isn't "the primary reason" to go to FiveThirtyEight, it's a very good reason: He's very accurate.His track record is good.
It also isn't because Silver's model is "so much better than anyone else's." I suspect it is better than most everyone else's--but I'm biased: I've been a 538 fan for a long time and, to be frank, I lack the skill to determine if the results forecast is better at PEC or 538 or whatever. You can read their track records and decide for yourself.
No, the reason I'm recommending 538 if you "just read one" is because of the quality of the blog--not because I'm willing to bet the farm on Silver's 70-30 Obama-Romney split for Nov 6th. In short: the quality of Silver's writing about electoral politics is at the top of the blogo-pyramid. There are other people who are, in my opinion, kind of in his space--but almost no others who are, frankly, in his class. Jay Cost is, to my mind, insightful--but thoroughly partisan. Sean Trende makes a lot of sense but doesn't publish as often (or, if he is, I'm missing the feed).
Silver's articles (and his co-blogger's) are deep-dives into numerical realities. He doesn't say things that the numbers don't say and the whole concept of "big data" is that "the math" is too hard for humans to do in their heads. There are counter-intuitive realities that are at play all around us and using moderately advanced statistical methods as the lens through which to view them brings reality into stark focus.
Does this mean he's always right? No. No one is always right--and it doesn't mean he's not partisan (Mr. Silver leans Democrat)--but many, many voices on both the left and the right respect his analysis and that ... that is almost if not entirely unheard of. The right's general willingness to give 538 the time of day is, in this hyper-partisan environment, not the gold standard. It's platinum ... or iridium ... or something.
I'll say that again: Nate Silver's credibility (and to be sure, it's not 100%--Sean Trende asserts Silver is taking the data and "making the best case for Obama that's possible"--but that's a LOT better than, say, what CNN generally gets credit for) on the right is more convincing to me than anything he does with numbers. That is because while I lack the depth of statistical insight to know if what I'm reading is the best-practice or not, I do trust the blogosphere in general to poke holes in everything they can.
Silver's analysis currently has very few holes.
Let's Look
When you go to 538, down the right is the "state of the race." Here's a snap-shot:
Those Trend Lines Spell Out BORING RACE in Sanskrit
This shows where his model--which includes economic forecasts, state fundamentals, and polling--thinks the race is right now projected out to Nov 6th.You can click the Now-Cast to see where he thinks it is today. So far as I know, he is the only guy really doing this (PEC does something like it--but not in the same way).
Then we get his next view:
Mt. Blue is over there at around 330 ... But Look: Florida is RED!
This shows where each state stands, what his probabilities of electoral vote look like, and for the bottom map, which states are likely to "make the difference." It's Ohio. Yeah? Didn't we know that?
And then you get to the articles. His articles are, as I said, a wealth of insight into electoral science. He discusses poll biasing, the political geography of individual states, and many, many other things that are almost always fascinating and always well written.
This white-paper from PredictWise compares the 538 analysis with the InTrade polling predictions. InTrade was, in fact, very very accurate for the 2008 election. Their conclusion was that taking the raw numbers for both polling (which 538 uses) and betting markets (InTrade) and "debiasing"--that is "removing bias" gives the edge to InTrade--however, the de-biased polling (538) is better than the raw InTrade. Considering that 2008 was the best we've ever seen for betting markets one would conclude that, if nothing else, 538's analysis is not adding "more noise" (a real concern for prediction modeling).
It'd Be Prettier And More Convincing In Color
In any event, no matter how convincing you find FiveThirtyEight's election-porn math and charts, like Playboy, you should read it for the articles.
Although slightly rain-soaked and missing a day on the front end, the Republican National Convention is underway in Tampa. A great deal has been written about it--and there are plenty of places to go to get the story--but what's interesting about it?
What IS Interesting About It?
Here are the things I believe we should be watching for:
Ron Paul ReLOVEUTION: Ron Paul's historic last gasp was squashed when they nixed his five-states necessary to bring a resolution to nominate him on the floor. Several groups are floating an idea that the delegates can do whatever they damn well feel like it--but no one expects much. Ron was asked to give a speech if they could control every word that came out of his mouth. He said "no" and he went on the record saying he didn't "fully" endorse Romney for President. He DID give an address Monday to a big crowd--but the (mostly missing) delegates were in front and his true believers were in the rafters. Can the Ron Paul army take this humiliation lying down? We'll see.
Global Warming: Isaac did some damage. They had to re-arrange the deck chairs (change the schedule) but assure everyone the ship is fine. Lynyrd Skynyrd canceled. Will there be further fallout? They may lose Jindal who will, perhaps, stay home and manage his state that might get hit again. How much damage will this really do?
Say You Love Me: Romney is rolling out his 2.0 version and has promised to make himself lovable (he is running the MS Lovable 2.0 software, in fact) and have a message EVERYONE can agree on (childhood should be innocent, cookies should be warm and tasty, and if there were any unicorns left we would all enjoy DELICIOUS unicorn burgers). Will this work? That's something to look for.
Huckabee Overboard: After backing Akin--and backing him hard--Huckabee ... and none of the GOP also-rans got a speaking slot at the convention. Everyone else was sent to the Unity Conference ... outside the convention center (note to organizers: Google 'Unity'). Will there be any fallout from this Akin thing?
The Message--SHE HAS ESCAPED: Twitter, YouTube, camera phones ... the message is out of control. Will there be any gaffes or off-message events at the convention? If there are, the odds are good we'll know about them before the spin-doctors can get the patient on the table.
The Big Question
The big question, though is this: what kind of bounce will Romney get from this. The general numbers suggest he ought to get something--and it should be enough to break his 1-3pt deficit. In other words, even if only transiently, this should put him in front. The Democrats should then have a shot at taking it back--and whatever events persist around 2wks out? That's the prognosis.
So that's what we get to watch for. Will the hurricane and limited coverage hurt the roll-out? Will they pull off a picture-perfect political-drama on the big stage? Will Ryan rip his shirt off and body-surf the adoring crowds? Can't wait.
Insiders vs. Outsiders: Obama's campaign is still mostly composed of the 2008 team that was there when he wasn't clearly a winner. There's tension between the old-guard and the young guns.
Washington vs. Chicago. Team Obama is run out of Chicago. That's remote and there are some problems with coordination.
Obama vs. Joe. Joe is ambitious and does his own thing. Sometimes really his own thing. Sure, he's a "team player"--but is he really a team player?
Obama vs. Other Democrats: Obama has distanced himself from other Democrats.
Obama 08 vs 12: Obama has gone more negative and he's under a lot of stress ... Maybe that's bad?
Family vs. Politics: A Santorum dig at Obama's daughter got him riled up. A weak point?
Analyzing these it breaks down into:
Internal divisions (and coordination issues). This is, of course, standard for all campaigns. If Team Romney is not having some inside discussions about Fenstrom I'd be shocked. Numbers 1, 2, and 4 count here. In short, yeah: this could kill the campaign but exactly the same issues could kill any campaign.
Joe Biden: Number 3 is iffy. I think on the balance Biden is a net small positive: a lot of people in the key swing-state of Ohio really, really like him. I do think he represents a larger opportunity cost if, indeed, he's preventing a Hillary run (which is totally unclear). And he is a loose cannon. But really? Campaign killer? Fault line? No--the bottom of the ticket rarely matters much and Biden is the poster boy for "not mattering much."
Politics ain't bean-bag: Number's 5 and 6 are here--and, yeah. It's tough. But I don't think that a Republican assault on the kids is going to get Romney anywhere and he knows it. If Obama is losing it, it's not because of anything Romney is doing. If Mr. No-Drama can't hang anymore, yes: he's done--but that seems unlikely to be the key issue. Every president has been super-stressed and there's no evidence Obama handles it worse than others.
The Real Fault Lines
So if I didn't think much of Politico, what do I think?
Team Obama Real Fault Lines
Here are the things Team Obama actually needs to worry about ...
Base Enthusiasm: This is going to be a "base election" and the Democrats do have an enthusiasm gap of some sort (how bad you think it is varies). They need to really, really motivate their base to make up for the damage the, uh, flagging economy is doing. Obama does not have a lot of time nor a lot of tools to really excite people.
The Glass Jaw (The Economy): If Ryan/Romney (and I'm putting them that way for a reason) can manage to seize the narrative initiative from Obama and make the discussion for the next 75 days about the economy that's going to leave a mark. So far Obama has been deft in keeping Team Romney back on its heels but that may not be the case as we move past labor day.
Voter ID Laws: Both Ohio and Florida were very close in the last few elections (not '08, but they were "close" there--just not razor-thin/recount-thin). Voter ID laws could conceivably cost Team Obama some vote there and that means that Team O will have to spend valuable resources coordinating early voting, fighting legal battles, and so on.
Black Swans: Almost anything unexpected that could happen will hurt Obama more than help him. Team Romney just needs to get lucky. I will note that an Israeli strike on Iran (possible) might actually help Obama with the "rally 'round the flag" effect that such international actions tend to produce ... but I think that's more of a 60/40 thing against Obama than for him.
Team Romney's Real Fault Lines
Where are the weak-points in Romney's battle plans?
Oh My Akin Jaw ...: The last thing Romney needed was Akin's meteoric ( ... as in "leave a crater") 'reentry' into national politics. The issue is actually not the stupid stuff Akin said it's (a) that Akin refused to step down after being "told to" by Romney and Ryan--which is not the kind of PR you want and (b) that everyone has spent the week leading up to the convention talking about abortion instead of the economy. Akin is "not the Republican party" but he is the conversation every conservative blog is having ... and may continue to have. Good job, dude. As he will continue to be news while he stays in (not too much longer, I suspect) this fault line stays open every day that he doesn't drop out. If he passes the Sept 25th last-call date? Earthquake.
David Copperfield Made The Swing-Voters Vanish: Romney is going to have a saturation-level ad blitz from Labor Day to November. The problem is that swing voters are as hard to reach as bigfoot and ... maybe believe in him. If the electorate is as calcified as the data shows Obama, who is ahead in the Electoral Vote, may have a floor. There may be only so much Romney's messaging can move the dial. If that turns out to be true, it'll be a dice-roll in each swing state and the odds are presently against Team Romney.
Voucher-Collapse: The Ryan plan has a lot of support from fiscal hawks. It has been proposed so as not to impact over 55 voters. It claims to make Medicare solvent. These are all good. It, I think, still uses vouchers which are not popular. This has the potential to cost some key votes (each old white guy vote is like 2:1 expensive since that's a demographic the Republicans usually own) across a lot of states. Can Team Obama make this line of attack stick? I don't know--Team Ryan is hitting back pretty hard--but I'd be worried about this.
They Don't Like Me! They Really Don't Like Me! Romney did himself a big favor with Ryan: Ryan has actual charisma. Romney does not (don't ask me--I'm just reporting what seems to be the facts). Team Romney has spent 2.5 million designing a stage to see if they can make him likable. While that is good maneuvering, it is not a good sign. I suspect that Romney has already suffered almost maximal damage from his likability deficit but you never know. And if hurricane Isaac cancels the convention Owwww....
In This Anything Goes Election Obama Using the HAARP Weather Control Station To Interfere With The Convention Was Not Unexpected. But Deploying Joe Biden To Tampa Was Just Dirty
What Do I Think?
I think that Obama won the summer and the bell is about to ring on the fall round which will be Romney's to win. He will have the cash advantage, a news-making, photogenic VP, and a message that he'd better have honed to a razor's edge. He does have substantial weaknesses but he also has strengths and we'll see how he does coming out into the ring starting Monday.
Rarely do we get political drama like this--and when we do it is ... TASTY-LICIOUS!! I'm tempted to type 'ZOMG'--oh, crap, I did! So what happened*?
After Akins flies in the face of good taste and, uhm, biology declaring that women who were "legitimately raped" could not get pregnant because their body shuts it down he was decried by everyone to get the hell out of the race. It was too stupid ... to damaging ... to ... too ... whatever: just go, already--don't hand one of the few key senate states to Dem Clair McCatskill and please don't let this whole thing come after Paul Ryan who has had some pretty far right views on abortion from time to time.
In the dead of night ... like a thief ... (who, instead of stealing, breaks into your house and leaves a plate of poisoned cookies) Public Policy Polling, known as Piss Poor Polling by conservatives everywhere for their oversampling of Democrats to prop up lefty-candidates, comes out with a poll that suddenly OVERSAMPLES republicans. Okay, not hard to do in MO, but still. It shows a TIE.
Akins releases an "apology video" called Forgiveness wherein he claims he used the wrong words and his heart is in the right place. Republican blog notes: "I didn't think I'd live long enough to see an ad worse than "I'm not a witch" but I was wrong. I regret the error."
It is considered a sure thing that Akins will drop as the RNC and American Crossroads pulls funding. He goes on Huckabee ... to declare he's dropping out ...
PRESUMABLY: But he does NOT. He's (ZOMG) In It To Win It. He cites the PPP Poll and claims he misspoke one word (which word? Doesn't say).
The date for independent filing has passed so no love there. For him to bail after close of business today will require a court order--from a court packed with ACTIVIST DEMOCRAT JUDGES. ZOMGWTFBBQ!
As you can see ... I'm pretty excited. I mean: how often does this sort of thing happen. Fortunately, for my heart, not too often.
What's Going On?
It's pretty hard to tell what's in Akin's head (other than "Hey, I won the primary!") but it's clear that he is a subset of people who believe that, well, women can't get pregnant from rape (or if they can, it's very difficult). For example: Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association says:
"There's a very delicate and complex mix of hormones that take place -- that are released -- in a woman's body, and if that gets interfered with, it may make it impossible for her or difficult in that particular circumstance to conceive a child," Fischer said during his show Monday.
King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.
“Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way,” King told KMEG-TV Monday, “and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.”
He says he's just never been told about it personally. Listening to the video: that's possibly how he meant it--but if your response to "what about young victims of incest" is "I've never had that brought to me" meaning 'Yeah--uh--I have strong moral views on abortion but I've never thought about that' ... Is that really believable?
North Carolina Republican state legislator Henry Aldridge made similar remarks in 1995. In cases of rape, he said, “the juices don’t flow.” To get pregnant requires “a little cooperation.”
What Do I Think?
As I've said, I think it's a dodge. Holding that a raped woman--or victim of incest--should carry the baby of her victimizer is bold position. It's a tough one--and if you are going to hold it? Own it. It's quite possible to be against abortion in almost all instances but that and that's still logically consistent. The "It doesn't come up" fake-science loophole is an attempt to hold the position and either appear compassionate to the (non-existent) victims or, perhaps, sleep at night. Courageous.
I also think that people who are going (and I know one) "Well, Akins just got his science mixed up--after all ... uh ... there are some new advances that show that mental states can [Wharrgarble--guard-sperm--Wharrgarble]--so you see, he was an idiot to say it and was (ahem) wrong about it--" are also either lying to themselves or (more likely) others. Especially if the letters P and C cropped up on their mental screen. This isn't a "mistake" like getting a math problem wrong ("Oh, gosh, golly-gee, I forgot to divide before adding ... that means Susie can't get pregnant!")--there's a reason why Akins got it wrong exactly--specifically--the way he did.
And if you're defending him and saying "Well, of course he shouldn't say that--" there's a reason covering for him too. And you know what? They line up!!
I also think that there's a pretty good chance Akins bails before 5:00 PM today. He's got like a few hours.
* More or less what happened with colorful color commentary. In HD!!
In science fiction there is often a big red button marked Self Destruct and you think: Why would anyone put that there!? And then: And why would anyone push it?
“Well you know, people always want to make it as one of those things where how do you slice this particularly tough, sort of ethical question,” he replied. “It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors — that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But, let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
How bad is it? We don't know: Akins was up in the polls but this is a particularly toxic comment and Nate Silver checks the stats and determines that in cases where gaffes hurt ... they hurt by a 5point margin. That's 10 points in a 1:1 Senate race ... which this is (you lose 5%, your opponent gains 5%). That's enough to sink him ... if it sticks.
While Sean Trende has several tweets of similarly toxic-seeming gaffes and their results, the fact is that if this does stick, it's gonna leave a mark (in that tweet I linked to, the guy did lose ... just came close. Is that going to be reassuring for Akins?)
David Frum looks under the covers and concludes that it isn't raw stupidity: it's philosophy. If you believe life begins at conception you can never justify taking it.
What Do I Think?
As I write this in real-time, I'm sure Frum is getting a deluge of posts and tweets telling him he's gotten it wrong because the stupidity isn't in the philosophy around where life begins but on the "women don't get pregnant from rape." It's true--rape is pretty good at getting women pregnant and that comment is scientifically stupid. If you are going to look for where to place the word Moron, that's where you start.
But the problem isn't the 'stupid.' The problem that Akins' belief is a specific defensive mental technique to allow him to ignore the problem of forcing a rape victim to bear her assailant's child: he goes "Oh, it wasn't really rape" and suddenly the atrocity of 9 months--and then a life-time--of aggravated mental abuse and (presumably) state-mandated cruelty evaporates in a puff of 'logic.'
And that's the problem: if we focus on the question of when life begins we're only seeing half the equation. Yes, killing a baby--a fetus--even a clump of quickly dividing cells--is a huge problem for those of us who believe it is a person. That's a solid philosophy no matter what side you take: it might be, it depends on where you define it and how--and attempts to "prove" that fetus is not a person will convince only those who were already convinced you were right in the first place.
HOWEVER: that is not, by itself, an excuse for the atrocity that would be the state forcing a woman to bear that child after the traumatic events that created it. If you want to have that discussion, you're welcome to--just be real clear where you stand on it. Be clear that you have some conception of the compounded trauma you are weighing against that life you're trying to protect. It's a hard, stark call and if you are going to try to make it you should be ready for that battle. Trying to avoid that stance--one that as a man Akins will never have to live up to--isn't just dishonest. It's cowardly.
I can never tell with these things--I assumed "You didn't build that" wasn't a game-changer and I assumed that various Romney gaffes were also going to fizzle--and it looks like maybe I was right about these--but this one? My guess is it's going to hurt.
This one? I think it should.
Updated To Add: I saw a few responses that I think bear some discussion of.
Legal Insurrection: Professor Jacobson is upset and dismayed that Republicans are piling on. He expected this from Democrats ... but really? Guys? He apologized.
The Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri , Todd Akin, made a stupid statement on a talk show today regarding abortion in cases of rape. I’m not going to defend the statement. It was similar to Whoppi Goldberg’s rape-rape comment. He now has apologized.
Yet the reaction not only from the left but also Republicans on Twitter was swift that he should be forced step down, be thrown overboard, summarily executed, etc.
Erick Erickson of Red State isn't all that interested in Akin's remarks and would rather talk about Obama supporting infanticide--with a swipe at fact-checking organizations for good measure since they disagree with his take on things:
Todd Akin was inarticulate. Some are now accusing him of being pro-rape. The people horrid by Todd Akin’s remarks are, I’m sure, thrilled to have a President who defended infanticide. I’ll take Todd Akin’s inarticulate remarks over an infanticide supporter any day of the week.
Republicans might be surprised to learn that I now upgrade the advisability of supporting Akin. Why? Donations make the greatest difference in races that are on the edge. Akin was ahead. Things just got closer.
This last bit is the sane one: if Republicans care about the (entirely vital) control of the Senate then both Erickson and Jacobson should be doing what Hot Air is: asking if they can remove Akins before he throws the seat away instead of lamenting fairness or lack thereof. And while I find both these guys generally cogent, I think they're blowing it badly here. Akins wasn't just inarticulate and GOP voices are right to be horrified--whether it be morally (which it should be) or strategically (which it should also be).
I'm terrible at predictions--and I'm certainly no political insider--but I'm going to tell you a story and you can decide for yourself what you think.
The Omnivore blog uses the term "narrative" to talk about stories "about stories." The "narrative" in the terms we mean it here, is the sort of textual capsule around a set of unfolding events--it's the set of framing that various actors give you--evolving in real-time--to make sense of events.
In this case, here's what I think is happening:
What Could Be Happening
Right now Team Romney has some initiative: they have successfully launched Ryan--and while various indicators show little bounce (and there is some consultant-class hand-wringing) it is clear that the GOP has scored big with the base and that the story has been pretty diluted in Romney's favor (not everyone is talking all tax-returns all the time).
Going into the conventions, Team Romney (as discussed yesterday) is expecting a bigger bounce than Obama. In order to do that, they need to both spotlight the charismatic, telegenic Ryan and maneuver around Obama's potential follow-up moves.
So in order to do that, they are positioning the narrative to "block" the one thing that Obama could do to certainly reclaim the narrative initiative: replace Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton.
Disclaimer: I would love to see it happen. It would be exciting and this campaign season is lacking excitement. Ryan is an exciting pick--but Ryan-style announcements have been few and far between. Nasty ads are not exciting. Gaffes and supposed gaffes are not exciting. People upset in London or thrilled in Poland are not especially exciting. Flat polls are not exciting and a 1-2% shift is not exciting.
For that matter, despite what the fans say, soccer games that score 1-1 and go to sudden death ... with some consistency ... are not exciting. You heard it here first. (watch: this is what I will get the email about).
Defensive Positioning
For the recent past no one on the Democratic side of the equation has been talking about a potential Hillary pick. That would make sense: either they are planning it and do not want to give the game away or they are not planning it and it would make no sense to talk about it. However, if you were the Republicans and wanted to maximize the upcoming convention cycle you have a card to play: make it look like dumping Joe Biden would be a desperate move--the move of a loser. Make it look like your idea ... because they are losing.
Here is a PowerLine blog excerpt after the Ryan pick (blog is from Aug 12th) ... but before the Biden "chains" comment:
7. We have longed for a leader who would articulate our case — the case for the restoration of limited government — and stand by it. Ryan will help Romney on this score. We look forward to the night when he goes toe to toe with Clueless Joe. Or will it be Ms. Hillary?
What if it was Hillary? That's a thought, eh? So it's in the water. Then Joe Biden makes the "chains" comment and we see John McCain:
John McCain said Wednesday he thinks “it might be wise” for President Barack Obama to replace Vice President Joe Biden on the ticket with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“I think it might be wise to do that,” Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) said on Fox News, responding to a suggestion that Sarah Palin made on Tuesday night. “But it’s not going to happen…If I were Hillary Clinton, I’m not sure I’d want to be on that team.”
Sarah Palin, in fact, questioned Biden's 'mental capacity:'
Sarah Palin has said that Joe Biden’s controversial ‘put y’all back in chains’ comment should be the ‘nail in the coffin’ for his career and suggested Barack Obama replace him on the 2012 ticket with Hillary Clinton.
If that's not enough to make potential Democratic strategists back away from the edge, I don't know what would be. The Free Republic expounds on this theory:
What the hell is Sarah Palin doing?!
Obama-Biden can be beaten. Obama-Clinton actually has a chance of changing things. And the Democrats have over 3 weeks left to make that change - why is Sarah trying to help Team Obama??
The response is:
I don’t think Sarah Palin is saying anything that the DNC and Obama don’t already know. Remember, if they follow through, it will seem that Obama is taking Sarah Palin’s advice. Now, how would that fly among liberals?
What Do I Think?
I'm not a betting man--so I don't have to put my money where my mouth is (and to be clear: the conventional wisdom says it ain't gonna happen)--but what do I think? I think if Obama wants to win this thing there would be no better way to reclaim the narrative and the momentum. As the DNC convention comes after the RNC convention it gives them all the maneuver space they need to determine where they stand. With several key battleground states going against them recently in a new set of polling ... and some polling that suggests disaffected non-voters break for Obama ... this would be an attempt to get some excitement.
Plus? Hillary is an exciting politician. She has credibility to burn and has had a pretty damn good last-four years. She's vetted and experienced. And if she wants 2016--and Team Obama wins ... there's no better set up. Has it ever happened before? Answer yes:
Is dumping an incumbent vice president unprecedented? As the Standard notes, it hasn’t happened since 1944, when FDR dropped Henry Wallace at the convention in favor of Harry Truman, which turned out, of course, to have huge historical consequences. Even if Obama was tempted to join forces with Hillary Clinton, imagine how disorganized and desperate such a last-minute move would look.
Those consequences? #32 ... I'm not entirely sure how that last line clocks in there ... But the last sentence is key: after rampant media speculation about dumping Biden any switch would be tainted--and not because "the white house took Sarah Palin's advice." It would look disorganized because there was tons of amateur and unfriendly speculation about motive and then the act would play into that narrative.
That's "what does the damage." Like Reagan hitting Carter in the debate with There You Go Again (which was playing counter-narrative, but is the same idea) the fact that the groundwork has already been laid in our brains (which is what framing and creating the story--the narrative--does) makes it "fertile ground" for the active ingredient to take hold.
No matter how much sense a Hillary-Biden swap might make, if it happens now, it will be tainted (at least somewhat). Is that enough to stop a determined Obama administration from doing it? No. If the DNC wants not 4-more-years, but 12, the best way to do that is probably to have Hillary serve as the VP ... if Obama wins. But her on the ticket would, very likely, contribute to a win. So would it prevent Team Obama from doing this if they decided to? No.
Reverse Psychology?
This ad from Republican American Crossroads urges Joe Biden to stay on the job! It mocks Joe Biden but suggests (tongue in cheek) that he be there when "we" need him most! Is this part of the narrative? YES! By suggesting he stay in such an obviously sarcastic manner they are, clearly, suggesting he be dropped!
Today we'll take a look at a electoral analysis site that actually makes predictions: The Princeton Election Consortium! I wasn't sure what made it a "Consortium" so I looked it up: it's two or more people pooling their resources for a common goal. As the PEC contains two people it counts! I'm thinking that after going over fifty+ possible names it was suddenly 11:30 PM and Professor Sam Wang and Andrew Furgeson were out of beer and went "Well, the initials PEC are kind of nice."
But whatever the origin of the name, they have quite a site. Here is the key result:
If Romney Were Ahead Would The Obama Line Be Down At The Bottom? Or Would It Be The Romney Line?
This shows, to "95% accuracy" where the election will line up in November--the far right is the finish line. It's somewhere between 280-something and 350. I think. Maybe the yellow is 95% accuracy which would mean it could be anything from a slim Obama-loss to a total Obama-blow-out. They report: you decide.
The Algorithm
The algorithm goes something like this (if I've understood it correctly) Take All The Polls (state polls, well the three most recent anyway) and then take the median of them ... plus ... um, some other stuff, and then multiply EV value of state by %-chance of winning it. The "other stuff" looks like taking the most-current of recent polls and using their numbers get a distribution of chances of winning. Take the median of that and multiply by EV count--do this for all states and you get a number (with a chance of error, I presume).
Apparently you can do stuff to throw out outliers or take distributions other than the "standard bell curve." In any event, he does not add in economic indicators (believing they are already "priced in" to the poll) betting odds, or anything else. This is polls + math weighted by EV.
How Accurate Is It?
Like all of these? Very accurate: 2008 prediction was Obama 365, McCain 173. Real outcome? Obama 364, McCain 174. They take a victory lap over Electoral-Vote.com and FiveThirtyEight.com. They don't list Election Projection but I can do the math and they were better than them too (he missed two states and therefore a BUNCH of electoral votes).
Am I impressed? Well, yes ... and no. I am impressed: I am a believer in math and numbers and these are very good. I'm not really an expert on his method (my eyes glazed over at: "DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION-PREFERRED EMBODIMENT") but you can't argue with results (their results for 2004 were pretty good too--although there is some kind of story around monkeying with results that you can read for yourself). Clearly these guys know what they are talking about math wise.
On the other hand, keep in mind that by the end of the 2008 cycle everyone was pretty much saying / showing the same things. It's one thing to say "Obama seems to have a good 314 EV right now." It's another thing to say "that equates to an 89% chance of victory in November based on ..." [how other candidates with a 314 EV total in mid August did? Is that right?].
In other words, while I think his math is great, I'm not sure what goes into the future projection analysis other than just extending the line straight to November.
So we know he was one EV point off by Judgment Day (Nov 2008). How was his estimation in August of 2008? It's not that easy to navigate the site for a closer look but here's the picture I found:
Okay ... Mid August ... Looks Like Obama Was Around 300 EV ... He's Doing Better NOW!?
Well, there you go ... (he was around 65 EV off. We don't get a red-line of likeliness)
The Site Itself
The site itself is functional but could use some prettying up. The charts, again, are functional, but not especially attractive. On the other hand Prof Wang is responsive and accessible: send an email, you'll probably get a response (if a short one) and you can message-board chat with the Professor too.
Rather than linking to "today's news," instead he writes fairly regular blog posts which illuminate his thinking on the current state of the election and are, usually, informative reads.
Conclusion
I am not a mathematician but I would be inclined to refer to this analysis as sort of ... hmm ... what's a non-mathematical term I can use ... 'De-Bullshitting' the state polls. Clearly we see that most of these sites don't care about national polls: wanting to know "who will win" explains that--EV math makes individual state polls far more important (far more of a known quality). There are clearly different methods of de-bullshitting the current state view: this appears to be a very, very good one.
Is Obama really like 90% likely to win? That seems ... high. I'd like to know what determines the range of his red prediction bar and I haven't been able to discern it from the site itself (the FAQ doesn't address it). If it's just the middle of where the EV count is right now then it seems that in 2008 the red-bar of likeliness would've fallen well below the "win" area giving Obama like a 50% chance of losing on August 16th. Is that right?
Let's see what their entry for the 2012 election shows in 2013 (probably: "And I would have gotten away with it too, if not for that damn Mayan apocalypse!").
A black-swan event* is some major unexpected event that has a substantial impact on the election (or market, etc.). During the 2008 election there were two major events that were in play: the first was the invasion of Georgia and the second was the financial meltdown and Lehman Brothers collapse.
Right now Team Romney is looking for a game-changer. Although only down a percent or two in the polls, he is losing the swing-states. When we look at Pollster.com we see, today, Obama clocking in at a winning 275 EV if he only wins his "Strong" and "Leans."
Wisconsin Is That One Right Down The Middle. Are You Listening Ryan!?
Keep in mind that he also has a 50-50 chance (or slightly better) to win a yellow state (according to this) so that could improve his odds further.
That all sounds bad for Romney--But--
Things Could Change
Trends tend to change. Here are a few things to keep in mind when looking at this:
1. It's important to note that not EVERYONE matches Pollster.com's analysis. NPR puts far more in the toss-up column, for example (Obama 237, Romney 206).
Still Handing Over PA, Though ...
2. There will necessarily be new economic developments, foreign policy developments, and so on. I want to note though, that I would not count on those to change the race. No less conservative voice than Victor Davis Hanson has noted that the economy sucks, will continue to suck, and will suck on election day--but Obama is not suffering for it (at least not the way past presidents did):
What could change the pulse of the election in the next three months? Strangely enough, it may not be the economy, which is now boringly predictable: flat and not likely either to rebound or to plunge much further before the November election. The new normal is 42 consecutive months of 8 percent–plus unemployment.
He thinks maybe a middle east war could make Obama look like a foreign policy idiot--but are the odds of that all that high?
[W]eighing against an attack is the fact that there is a lack of support for such a move from three influential groups. First is the Israeli public, whichopposes a unilateral Israeli strike by 46% to 32%, and which has increasingly rated Netanyahu's job performance as unsatisfactory over the past three months as he has ratcheted the war talk back up.
In any event, neither of these would really be a "black swan" since we are all looking for them (and 6-dollar-per-gallon gas prices haven't panned out either).
So let's focus on what we know is going to happen.
What WILL Happen
There are five events that we know will happen that will influence polling: The two conventions and the three debates. Let's look.
The Conventions
The conventions usually produce a "convention bounce." The Republicans aren't just "counting" on one--they're planning for it:
So they expect to be at +4 by the end of the convention since they are the challenger. Is this true? While the historical answer is "maybe" the facts are that it really depends on the convention and the circumstances. While everyone has pounced on Ryan as 'not producing a solid VP bounce' the fact remains that he's a charismatic even inspiring candidate. His exposure at the convention will be bigger than anything he's gotten so far. That can't hurt.
Note, however, that the math (FiveThirtyEight) suggests that the amount of bounce conventions produce is based on how volatile the polls were previously. In this case? Glass-flat, really.
The Debates
The debates, on the other hand, are far more of a snooze-fest. Gallup (from 2008) writes:
In two election years, the presidential debates may have had a meaningful impact on the structure of the presidential races; in most others, they probably have not. The debates were less likely to be catalyst events in years when one candidate was a strong front-runner, including 1984, 1988, and 1996. However, in highly competitive election years, any movement in voter preferences can be race altering, and the debates seem to have the potential to produce such movement. The probable examples of this are 1960 and 2000.
If the debates swing voters, almost certainly those votes will move to Romney, for several different reasons. As Herman Cain recently noted, Romney is much more experienced that Obama. Romney has participated in more televised political debates over a longer period of time, through a wider spectrum of races, than Obama. Romney's life experiences are broader than the leftist academic and Chicago machine politics of Obama. Romney, viewed fairly by conservatives who did not want him as their nominee, should be a much more effective debater against Obama than McCain was in 2008.
What Do I Think?
I think for a debate to make a difference there has to be some significant narrative that the debate plays into. Despite what the American Thinker article says, Obama did not have or need a teleprompter during the McCain debates (nor in his meeting with Congress where he "debated them") and whether you think he won or not he did not self destruct. Conversely, it was not Romney who pounced like a leopard on the media--it was Gingrich. Certainly Romney can play that card--but it is not his shown strength.
I think that, similarly, the conventions are going to be more of a known quality and unless Obama announces Hillary as the VP, I don't see much room for a real surprise. Both teams will do their best to make themselves look good and will do it well--but I think there is a possibility for a Ryan breakaway there. Consider the TwinDex for Swing States
That Romney "updraft" is on the day he announced Ryan. In the swing states (what this graph shows), Romney is above Obama. In the national TwinDex, it's the other way around. Granted: this measures something more like "excitement" rather than "actual votes" but it does seem to be correlated.
Ryan has the capability, I think, to change the underlying dynamics of the election and his convention debut will be a big part of that reboot. If Team Romney pulls it off, I think Ryan has bankable charisma and it moves the needle in the direction of the conversation Romney wants to have (or does he?).
* Third criteria is that it is rationalized after the event when recorded to note that it "could have been expected." I'm less concerned with that here.
As we move through the electoral analysis space I want to take you to Election Projection.com--the only (that I know of) conservative electoral projection site!
You Know It's Conservative 'Cause It's Red, White, and Blue!
Election Projection is another election prediction site that takes a selection of polls and then applies a formula. If Electoral-Vote.com was pretty bare-bones in this regard, Election Projection is one click up. Here's their formula!
I. Presidential Job ApprovalJob Approval is the one statistic that most closely correlates to actual vote totals for an incumbent president. As such, it is an integral part of my formula. Up to twelve job approval polls are used, and only polls conducted less than two weeks prior to the most recent poll will be used.
II. Adjusted National Polling DataUp to twelve national polls are used to compute an average national margin between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Only polls two weeks old or less will be used. The average national margin is then subtracted from the national 2008 result to arrive at the national polling data adjustment. This adjustment is then added to the 2008 margin in each state, yielding the national polling factor for the state.
III. State Polling Data
The aggregate average of polling data is used in the following manner:
At most, six polls from a state are used.
In the interest of currency, only polls conducted within thirty days of the date of the present projection will be used. Non-competitive states may be exempted from this time limit. (Note: Closer to the election, this 30-day limit will be reduced to two weeks.).
They also get rid of "outlier" polls through a process discussed on the linked page.
What are their results? You can read them here. They were off (in the 2008 election) by about 30 EV (two states) and about .40% popular vote. They had two states for McCain (Indiana, North Carolina) that didn't pan out.
Another nice thing Election Projection does is give a summary of the last round of polling with who it helped:
Here is their current state map:
It has the ever-present clickable map that zooms in on the individual states and it shows us the current projected EV-count, who's ahead and by what, and their change from the last election. This is all pretty standard--but it's a study in how an algorithm can impact things (right now Pollster.com puts Obama at 275 EV and Electoral-Vote.com clocks Obama at 317).
What Does It Mean?
Election Projection doesn't really give a %-chance of victory in November--just a snapshot of where we are now but it's telling anyway: if Obama is really "walking around" with something like 332 EV from the perspective of a guy who is a hard-core conservative then I think it's pretty clear that he's ahead--regardless of what Rasmussen says.
I have seen suggestions that throwing out outliers is exactly the wrong thing to do--and suggestions that adding in other factors (favorability, for example) also muddies the waters by adding noise and increasing the "value" of things (such as: "I don't like the job Obama is doing") that are already "priced in" to the original poll result. Could be.
Statistically speaking Election Projection was really close to the real results--but as I've said, everyone was pretty close by the last few days. The real questions for these sites is:
How subject to change are the current numbers (i.e. who is still undecided--how much money is "still on the table"?)
What markets, areas, and demographics are likely to make up a shift between now and November?
What "magnitude" of black-swan event would it take for a reversal? Would it take another Lehman Brothers collapse to change things around or will a few strategic mistakes swing things?
My gut feeling is that this election has been remarkably stable, we are told "almost everyone" has made up their minds already, and despite the press throwing various fits the aggregate effect of gaffes hasn't moved things much.
Election Projection (and Electoral Vote) don't really tell us that--there are some sites that do--and we'll look at them shortly!
What Do I Think?
I think it's great to have an openly conservative site doing this math: Nate Silver skews left (says I--but it's not anywhere explicitly on his site unless you count the New York Times banner at the top) and so does Electoral-Vote.com (and by "skews left" I mean the people who run them are more democrat in their personal politics--NOT that they are skewing their numbers). Having a conservative analyst whose numbers are roughly in line with what everyone else is showing gives me confidence that, for example, the polling system is not broken or that election analysis has been totally devoured by the MainStream Media (weird caps because it is abbreviated MSM).
I was going to do FiveThirtyEight today--as it is one of the most frequently cited electoral analysis sites--but it isn't the only one and there are several that do some things better! This is one of them: Let's look at Electoral-Vote.com!
Electoral analysis in general takes "the polls" and then usually adds "an algorithm" or other information (often economic data) and tries to see how the current state will play out. Electoral-Vote.com is one of these--although his "method" is more just a sample of state polls, averaged if they come out the same day, and weighted by the state's electoral college vote. He originally did it three ways:
All polls averaged and published.
Only polls with non-partisan affiliation (and only when the polling firm itself copped to having a partisan affiliation) and averaged over three days.
Polling with an algorithm to determine undecided voters.
In 2004, #2 performed the best. I think that's what he uses now (so it's not so much an algorithm as throwing out national polls and looking only at state polling. NOTE: state polling can be spotty for a lot of states so I'm not sure how that factors).
His current state of play looks like this (NOTE: this is anothercool thing he does--provide "icons for bloggers" so the image you see below is real-time and updated). This, so far as I know, is an almost unique feature!
Of course this is just a current-state snapshots of the campaign--so how do we know what that means for this campaign? Well, let's take a couple of examples: 2004 and 2008!
The 2004 Campaign
So we're going to start with Electoral-Vote.com's best feature: their polling trend-lines with commentary.This is brilliant: it shows the "poll of polls" (both with electoral-state ties and without--we'll look a 'with') to show how the compiled list of polls (which is more accurate over time than any single poll) trended during the 2004 Kerry-v-Bush campaign. It looks like this:
Right Now We're in August. See How Kerry Was Ahead?
Now, a few things: firstly, those "event lines" do NOT imply that the event (swift-boat ads) caused the polling shifts (if any). It's possible they did--but there is no good way to tell (although the Twitter Twindex might, eventually, shed some light on this).
However, this is an excellent view of the election and it's an important one--and another thing almost unique to Electoral-Vote.com. Lots of sites show you the poll-of-polls graph. EV.com gives you an extra value-ad.
In the case of Bush-v-Kerry we can see it was pretty give-and-take from September on (late Aug, really) and, at the end, there was big shift right at the finish line. Reagan-vs-Carter did the same thing.
The 2008 Campaign
On the other hand, 2008 shows a break-away in late September and it never comes back close.
A Lot of Blogs Claimed McCain Was Winning In The End ...
These are the combined elements of polls--how did it match up to the election? Pretty close to right. Wikipedia sums it up here:
The site's electoral vote prediction for the 2008 election was very close to the actual outcome, correctly projecting the winner of every state except for Indiana, and showing Missouri (won by John McCain by only 0.13% of the vote) as a pure tossup.[6] The Senate projection was also close to the actual outcome, predicting 34 of the 35 decided states correctly, including correctly showing a Democratic pickup in Alaska and incorrectly showing the Republican Senator Norm Coleman holding his seat in Minnesota.[7] The Senate results of the Minnesota election was so close that it was contested until the state supreme court ruled in favor of Al Franken on June 30, 2009.
The 2012 Campaign
So where are we now? Here:
Lot of Sites Claim Romney Is Ahead In Polling
So what does this tell us? Well, two things. Firstly it shows that as Romney became more likely the nominee his polling went up. Related? Maybe. We don't know for sure, but it's interesting. Seeing a decline BEFORE Romney went abroad is interesting too. Could it be his "London Gaffes" didn't hurt him that much? Again, we don't know--but the chart is cool.
The Net-Net
It's important to remember that the guy who runs the site, Andrew Tanenbaum, is a member of Democrats Abroad and apparently leans a bit libertarian. However, he makes sure to show his work (you can download all the numbers and check it yourself) and he's not adding any "secret sauce" that I can see anyway. The only question would be about percentages that a given state will break for one side or the other and that's probably not subject to bias either (I assume it's a margin of error calculation).
A Few More Things
Electoral-Vote.com is pretty "bare bones" when it comes to methodology. It's accurate because polling aggregates seem to be accurate and it's value added because his site keeps current and produces enhanced output like the events and the blogger icons (which is not all that valuable to most readers--but is great for me as a blogger!). In other words, it's a class act. He also provides good commentary and links to interesting topical articles.
But what really sways me is those event lines. I've often looked at polling trends and tried to go back and figure out "What was going on then!? What was going on just before then? What was the polling cycle that displayed that change?" His graphs really help with that and they bring up another major development in electoral science. This is taken from the TwinDex: Twitter's big-data election play.
Full-Frontal Election Porn
This shows a graph of how twitter traffic spiked as the Ryan pick leaked / broke. This is just a view of the traffic but Twitter has much deeper pockets than they're showing here (they can break down, roughly, by positive or negative traffic and so on).
While there is simply no way a site like Electoral-Vote.com can do this (they don't have access to Twitter's "fire-hose") when this kind of material is combined with a state-by-state polling analysis like EV.com's we might be able to peek inside the black-box and actually see not just correlation but, maybe, causation for the fluctuations in polling.
