It is one of those remarkable examples of American innumeracy and general intellectual apathy that the term "margin of error" is tossed about so consistently improperly as it is on political shows discussing polls. A typical conversation will go like this:
"Obama leads McCain 47% to 45% with a 3% margin of error, so this race is a statistical dead heat"
Gar-bage. The margin of error describes the range about the mean within which we can be certain, with some arbitrarily chosen level of confidence (usually 95%), that includes the actual figure being estimated. Using the example above, a 3% margin of error means that there is a 95% chance that Obama's actual figure will be between 50% (47+3)and 44% (47-3), and a 95% chance that McCain's actual figure will be between 48% and 42%.
Knowing that, what are we to make of this term "statistically tied"? For that matter, what about those prognosticators that act like being "within the margin of error" has some special meaning? In both cases, the speaker is simply ignorant. Having a difference between the estimated means that is smaller than the margin of error means nothing in and of itself. McCain's chances of winning are not dramatically higher being 2.9% behind vs 3.1%.
The relevance of the margin of error comes in calculating exactly what the probability of victory is, which is beyond the interest of most poll followers. About the only value it has for them is in comparing polls. A candidate with a 2% lead in a poll with a 3% margin of victory is more likely to win than one with a 2% lead with a 5% margin of victory. That's it.
So pay no mind to the pundits who obsess over whether a poll is "within the margin of error". It's meaningless.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
No, the Polls Weren't Like This Before
For those who keep saying the polls were for Kerry and Gore at this time in 2004 and 2000, no they weren't:
Poll denial is just another method of reality denial. Sure, they are not perfect predictors, but they are way better than polling your friends and ideologically aligned websites, which seem to be the favored techniques of poll deniers.
Poll denial is just another method of reality denial. Sure, they are not perfect predictors, but they are way better than polling your friends and ideologically aligned websites, which seem to be the favored techniques of poll deniers.
Hagan Sues Dole, Cuz She Ain't No Steenking Atheist!
Kay Hagan is suing Liddy Dole over this ad, where it is implied that Hagan is friendly to atheists, perhaps even is an atheist. What is noteworthy here is what Hagan doesn't say in her response:
"Each airing of the advertisement further injures (Hagan's) good name and reputation in the community," Hagan's attorneys wrote in the complaint...
Hagan is a Presbyterian church elder who teaches Sunday school. She responded with an ad Thursday in which she forcefully declares her belief in God and cites the Bible's 9th Commandment in decrying Dole for "bearing false witness against fellow Christians."
See what's missing? Imagine the same scenario, except with Hagan being accused of being gay, or black. Such would be outright bigotry, amounting to "I ain't no stinking nigger!". But with atheists, we're still fair game. People can still get on the national stage and imply that being an atheist means one is evil, immoral, and a poor citizen. This is yet another example to keep in mind the next time you hear someone whining about anti-Christian bigotry in this country. They don't know the meaning of the word.
Let's hear Kay Hagan, or anyone in the press, ask what's wrong with being an atheist. Let's hear a discussion of the bigotry against atheists in both Hagan's and Dole's comments. Spare us the news coverage implying there is something wrong with being an atheist, discussing and slandering people they don't have the guts to allow there to defend themselves. Can you imagine a televised discussion about blacks, women, gays or Catholics that did not include a representative of the group in question? It is preposterous on its face. Get with it America, it is just as preposterous to do to atheists.
"Each airing of the advertisement further injures (Hagan's) good name and reputation in the community," Hagan's attorneys wrote in the complaint...
Hagan is a Presbyterian church elder who teaches Sunday school. She responded with an ad Thursday in which she forcefully declares her belief in God and cites the Bible's 9th Commandment in decrying Dole for "bearing false witness against fellow Christians."
See what's missing? Imagine the same scenario, except with Hagan being accused of being gay, or black. Such would be outright bigotry, amounting to "I ain't no stinking nigger!". But with atheists, we're still fair game. People can still get on the national stage and imply that being an atheist means one is evil, immoral, and a poor citizen. This is yet another example to keep in mind the next time you hear someone whining about anti-Christian bigotry in this country. They don't know the meaning of the word.
Let's hear Kay Hagan, or anyone in the press, ask what's wrong with being an atheist. Let's hear a discussion of the bigotry against atheists in both Hagan's and Dole's comments. Spare us the news coverage implying there is something wrong with being an atheist, discussing and slandering people they don't have the guts to allow there to defend themselves. Can you imagine a televised discussion about blacks, women, gays or Catholics that did not include a representative of the group in question? It is preposterous on its face. Get with it America, it is just as preposterous to do to atheists.
The Obama/Maddow interview: on the GOP
Here is Barack Obama on the GOP, and why he criticizes individuals, but not the party as a whole:
"Well, I do think there's a difference between the parties, but here's my belief. That I'm talking to voters. And I think they're a lot of Republican voters out there, self-identified, who actually think that what the Bush administration has done, has been damaging to the country.
And, what I'm interested in, is how do we build a working majority for change? And if I start off with the premise that it's only self-identified Democrats who I'm speaking to, then I'm not going to get to where we need to go. If I can describe it as not a blanket indictment of the Republican Party, but instead describe it as the Republican Party having been kidnapped by an incompetent, highly ideological subset of the Republican Party, then that means I can still reach out to a whole bunch of Republican moderates who I think are hungry for change, as well...
Now, there is no doubt that there is a set of premises in the reigning Republican ideology that I just think are wrong. This whole notion, and then it's been captured by this back and forth about whether I'm a redistributor, I think is a great example. The notion that the progressive income tax, which was instituted by Teddy Roosevelt, supposedly John McCain's hero, is somehow un-American, I think is an example of how people have gone way off track.
The Republican Party has gone so right when it comes to how we think about our obligations to each other, how we pay for things. And as a consequence, because most people think it's pretty important to pay for roads and bridges, schools. What we've ended up doing is tax cuts, no spending cuts, huge national debt. There's a core hypocrisy to how they have governed over the last several years, that I think has to be reversed.
And so we're going to challenge those things. The important thing though is, I just want to make sure that I'm leaving the door open to people who say to themselves, well, you know, I'm a member of the Republican Party and I remember people like Chuck Percy in Illinois, or Abraham Lincoln, a pretty good Republican. That there's some core values that historically have been important to the Republican Party, but just have not been observed over the last several years."
For starters, try to imagine Sarah Palin, or John McCain for that matter, saying anything that intelligent and coherent. I doubt Palin even knows what "subset" means. Compared to this they sound like commercial jingles. To any objective mind, something like this (and the rest of the interview) would put entirely to rest the notion that Obama is an empty suit, and yet the GOParrots keep chanting that mantra anyway.
Second, let's see, "an incompetent, highly ideological subset". In other words, "kooks", as Barry Goldwater warned us decades ago. This brief comment by Obama exemplifies what I've been saying about why so many of us have left the GOP, or rather recognized that the GOP has left us. As Bill Maher used to put it, "I'd be a Republican if they would be". They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. They talk fiscal responsibility, and then run up deficits. They talk about getting government out of our lives, then want to listen to our phone conversations, confiscate our cash without due process, and force women (in Palin's case) to carry to term the seeds of incestuous rapists. They dishonestly pretend aspects of our government that have existed for decades, such as the progressive income tax, are somehow examples of socialism, which is comical to the Keynesians, and hilarious to actual socialists.
Obama has appealed successfully to those of us who think all of that is nuts, which is why he is going to win so big on Tuesday. The Lie Machine can't work when the information is out there easy to get for anyone who wants it.
"Well, I do think there's a difference between the parties, but here's my belief. That I'm talking to voters. And I think they're a lot of Republican voters out there, self-identified, who actually think that what the Bush administration has done, has been damaging to the country.
And, what I'm interested in, is how do we build a working majority for change? And if I start off with the premise that it's only self-identified Democrats who I'm speaking to, then I'm not going to get to where we need to go. If I can describe it as not a blanket indictment of the Republican Party, but instead describe it as the Republican Party having been kidnapped by an incompetent, highly ideological subset of the Republican Party, then that means I can still reach out to a whole bunch of Republican moderates who I think are hungry for change, as well...
Now, there is no doubt that there is a set of premises in the reigning Republican ideology that I just think are wrong. This whole notion, and then it's been captured by this back and forth about whether I'm a redistributor, I think is a great example. The notion that the progressive income tax, which was instituted by Teddy Roosevelt, supposedly John McCain's hero, is somehow un-American, I think is an example of how people have gone way off track.
The Republican Party has gone so right when it comes to how we think about our obligations to each other, how we pay for things. And as a consequence, because most people think it's pretty important to pay for roads and bridges, schools. What we've ended up doing is tax cuts, no spending cuts, huge national debt. There's a core hypocrisy to how they have governed over the last several years, that I think has to be reversed.
And so we're going to challenge those things. The important thing though is, I just want to make sure that I'm leaving the door open to people who say to themselves, well, you know, I'm a member of the Republican Party and I remember people like Chuck Percy in Illinois, or Abraham Lincoln, a pretty good Republican. That there's some core values that historically have been important to the Republican Party, but just have not been observed over the last several years."
For starters, try to imagine Sarah Palin, or John McCain for that matter, saying anything that intelligent and coherent. I doubt Palin even knows what "subset" means. Compared to this they sound like commercial jingles. To any objective mind, something like this (and the rest of the interview) would put entirely to rest the notion that Obama is an empty suit, and yet the GOParrots keep chanting that mantra anyway.
Second, let's see, "an incompetent, highly ideological subset". In other words, "kooks", as Barry Goldwater warned us decades ago. This brief comment by Obama exemplifies what I've been saying about why so many of us have left the GOP, or rather recognized that the GOP has left us. As Bill Maher used to put it, "I'd be a Republican if they would be". They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. They talk fiscal responsibility, and then run up deficits. They talk about getting government out of our lives, then want to listen to our phone conversations, confiscate our cash without due process, and force women (in Palin's case) to carry to term the seeds of incestuous rapists. They dishonestly pretend aspects of our government that have existed for decades, such as the progressive income tax, are somehow examples of socialism, which is comical to the Keynesians, and hilarious to actual socialists.
Obama has appealed successfully to those of us who think all of that is nuts, which is why he is going to win so big on Tuesday. The Lie Machine can't work when the information is out there easy to get for anyone who wants it.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Why Fewer Voters Might be Better
In all the discussions of voter suppression and fraud, there is a fundamental question that never gets asked: are we really better off with more voters? Or more pertinently, are we really better off with indiscriminately more voters? I think not. Consider that almost a quarter of Texans think Obama is a Muslim. From the left, listen to these idiots who are obviously going to support Obama no matter what, and don't understand anything about what is going on. Can anyone say with a straight face that we are better off with these people in the voting booth instead of home on their couch?
To see the point another way, do we not all agree that an informed electorate is essential to democracy? Jefferson thought so. Surely it goes without saying that the more information voters have, the better results we will get? That's what Obama's Google for Government program is all about. Well, it is simply logically impossible to say we're better off with more informed voters and yet not better off with fewer ignorant voters.
Let's be clear here and head off all the knee-jerk assumptions and reactions to my position. This is not about excluding anyone based on race, age, creed, or any other arbitrary criteria. I'm not suggesting poll taxes, tests for eligibility, or anything at all like that. Let's also dismiss the notion that limiting who can vote is somehow anti-American. We already limit who can vote: 17 year olds and felons to name just two groups.
I'm simply saying that once we acknowledge that a higher quality voter makes for a higher quality election, it leads to the inescapable conclusion that all this "get out the vote" effort isn't going to produce much in the way of improved results if it is indiscriminate, or worse yet, disproportionately gets people who don't know what's going on into the system.
In addition, there seems to be a growing mentality in America to vote for the candidate that promises you personally the most advantageous financial or life situation, independent of more country-centered, moral issues. Note all the tax talk - there is very little substance to the arguments against raising taxes. It is simply presented as something that is bad for individuals: He's going to take some of your money, vote for me! Indeed, this was anticipated, I believe by DeTocqueville:
"Democracy can last only so long as it takes the electorate to realize their vote contains the key to the treasury"
In other words, once people realize they can just sit back and vote themselves everyone else's money, the system collapses. This is a real threat with regard to social security, which, with the retirement of the baby boomers, continues to swallow up more and more of our GDP. Yet curtailing this program significantly is political suicide because of groups like AARP, who seem intent on taking as much of everyone else's money as they can. And again to anticipate objections, I have no problem with the social security program in concept. As welfare programs go, there aren't many better places to start than the elderly. But it should be clear that having the recipients of said program having such a huge say in what those benefits are, while producing none of them, is not an optimal situation.
All of this has led me to two conclusions. First, Florida in 2000 got it right by accident. Make the ballots as complicated as is feasible, and toss out those filled out incorrectly. Voting is serious business, and people should treat it that way. If you can't be bothered to pay rapt attention for a few minutes when you are choosing who to give government power in our society, we're all better off without you. If you can't grasp the directions, you can't grasp the issues either, so no great loss. This has the advantage of being completely race, age, and in every other important way, blind.
Second, there should be some financial restriction on voting eligibility tied to receipt of government transfer payments relative to one's taxes. Here I am appealing to basic fairness:
if one didn't contribute to the pie, why should one have a say in how it is divided up? If one is to live by the labor of others, it seems it should be those others who make that decision. And with a nod to Heinlein, I'd make an exception to this rule for those honorably discharged from military or perhaps some other government service.
The details can wait. What I think is important is that we get a more realistic attitude towards voting, who is doing it, who we want doing more of it, and what the consequences of those circumstances are. There is no disputing that we'd all be better off if people who thought Obama was a Muslim, or who would be happy if Obama/Palin won, stayed home on November 4.
To see the point another way, do we not all agree that an informed electorate is essential to democracy? Jefferson thought so. Surely it goes without saying that the more information voters have, the better results we will get? That's what Obama's Google for Government program is all about. Well, it is simply logically impossible to say we're better off with more informed voters and yet not better off with fewer ignorant voters.
Let's be clear here and head off all the knee-jerk assumptions and reactions to my position. This is not about excluding anyone based on race, age, creed, or any other arbitrary criteria. I'm not suggesting poll taxes, tests for eligibility, or anything at all like that. Let's also dismiss the notion that limiting who can vote is somehow anti-American. We already limit who can vote: 17 year olds and felons to name just two groups.
I'm simply saying that once we acknowledge that a higher quality voter makes for a higher quality election, it leads to the inescapable conclusion that all this "get out the vote" effort isn't going to produce much in the way of improved results if it is indiscriminate, or worse yet, disproportionately gets people who don't know what's going on into the system.
In addition, there seems to be a growing mentality in America to vote for the candidate that promises you personally the most advantageous financial or life situation, independent of more country-centered, moral issues. Note all the tax talk - there is very little substance to the arguments against raising taxes. It is simply presented as something that is bad for individuals: He's going to take some of your money, vote for me! Indeed, this was anticipated, I believe by DeTocqueville:
"Democracy can last only so long as it takes the electorate to realize their vote contains the key to the treasury"
In other words, once people realize they can just sit back and vote themselves everyone else's money, the system collapses. This is a real threat with regard to social security, which, with the retirement of the baby boomers, continues to swallow up more and more of our GDP. Yet curtailing this program significantly is political suicide because of groups like AARP, who seem intent on taking as much of everyone else's money as they can. And again to anticipate objections, I have no problem with the social security program in concept. As welfare programs go, there aren't many better places to start than the elderly. But it should be clear that having the recipients of said program having such a huge say in what those benefits are, while producing none of them, is not an optimal situation.
All of this has led me to two conclusions. First, Florida in 2000 got it right by accident. Make the ballots as complicated as is feasible, and toss out those filled out incorrectly. Voting is serious business, and people should treat it that way. If you can't be bothered to pay rapt attention for a few minutes when you are choosing who to give government power in our society, we're all better off without you. If you can't grasp the directions, you can't grasp the issues either, so no great loss. This has the advantage of being completely race, age, and in every other important way, blind.
Second, there should be some financial restriction on voting eligibility tied to receipt of government transfer payments relative to one's taxes. Here I am appealing to basic fairness:
if one didn't contribute to the pie, why should one have a say in how it is divided up? If one is to live by the labor of others, it seems it should be those others who make that decision. And with a nod to Heinlein, I'd make an exception to this rule for those honorably discharged from military or perhaps some other government service.
The details can wait. What I think is important is that we get a more realistic attitude towards voting, who is doing it, who we want doing more of it, and what the consequences of those circumstances are. There is no disputing that we'd all be better off if people who thought Obama was a Muslim, or who would be happy if Obama/Palin won, stayed home on November 4.
McCain Buses them in, Likely Turns them Off.
John McCain had about 4,000 students bused in from the Defiance school system in Ohio yesterday, to add to the 2,000 McCain supporters that showed up of their own volition to his rally in the town of the same name. This is also the rally where McCain was stood up by Joe the Plumber. The wheels are coming off the Straight Talk Express folks, but now McCain is potentially doing damage to the GOP for years to come.
A friend related a story to me from years ago. It was sometime in the early 80's, and there was to be a Good Times/Jeffersons marathon that night. She and her siblings looked forward to this event for days (which is forever in kid time), and got good and comfy in front of the TV with blankets and popcorn. But when the time for the marathon came, what they got instead was the presidential seal, and a speech from President Ronald Reagan. This quickly put the kiddos to sleep, and when they awoke, it was morning, and their beloved marathon had passed. It was all Ronald Reagan's fault, and she said she hated him, and his party, for years.
I attended a few political events as a child, and suffered through many on TV. To a child they are boring, boring, boring. McCain made no new fans among those 4,000 kids. They'll probably avoid politics like the plague now, and continue the tradition of low youth voter turnout.
A friend related a story to me from years ago. It was sometime in the early 80's, and there was to be a Good Times/Jeffersons marathon that night. She and her siblings looked forward to this event for days (which is forever in kid time), and got good and comfy in front of the TV with blankets and popcorn. But when the time for the marathon came, what they got instead was the presidential seal, and a speech from President Ronald Reagan. This quickly put the kiddos to sleep, and when they awoke, it was morning, and their beloved marathon had passed. It was all Ronald Reagan's fault, and she said she hated him, and his party, for years.
I attended a few political events as a child, and suffered through many on TV. To a child they are boring, boring, boring. McCain made no new fans among those 4,000 kids. They'll probably avoid politics like the plague now, and continue the tradition of low youth voter turnout.
There's Bias, and then there's Bias
Check out this article on bias, which goes through some very good arguments about why most of the whining about bias in the media is, well, biased:
"OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.
And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.
So what?
Before answering the question, indulge us in noting that the subject of ideological bias in the news media is a drag. The people who care about it typically come at the issue with scalding biases of their own. Any statement journalists make on the subject can and will be used against them. So the incentive is to make bland and guarded statements. Even honest ones, meanwhile, will tend to strike partisans as evasive or self-delusional.
Indeed, partisan politicos will consistently accuse any news source of being biased which does not agree with them, it is really that simple. They have their own expectations of what the results should be, and when those don't appear, they assume there is an unfair bias, usually with no other evidence at all, and with no considerations of the realities of the situation, like this:
"There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.
As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own."
This is the point those who scream bias all the time never get. It's the exact same mentality that thinks it's biased to give evolution all the time in science class instead of splitting it with creationism. There may be two sides to every story, but that doesn't mean the truth is always midway between them. Sometimes the truth is far to one side, such as the fact that Sarah Palin gets picked on more than Joe Biden for her gaffes because her errors are more more egregious, and reveal far more ignorance of, well, everything, than his do. It is not a bias that Texas will get far more players on the Big-12 All Conference football team than will Baylor. That's the reality.
As for real bias, take the one Ron Paul mentioned on the news the other night: the bias the major parties give themselves in the way of major roadblocks for third parties. In a system where we are supposed to be able to have the freedom to challenge the status quo by running against it, third parties often have to spend much of their time and resources getting things that the two major parties get by default: a place on the ballot, and a seat at the debates. Oh, and then there is that little matter of plurality voting by state, and the all-or-nothing electoral system. Now THAT is a bias, making it virtually impossible for a third party candidate to win. Now I wonder why Republican and Democratic pundits never complain about that? There's your bias.
"OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.
And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.
So what?
Before answering the question, indulge us in noting that the subject of ideological bias in the news media is a drag. The people who care about it typically come at the issue with scalding biases of their own. Any statement journalists make on the subject can and will be used against them. So the incentive is to make bland and guarded statements. Even honest ones, meanwhile, will tend to strike partisans as evasive or self-delusional.
Indeed, partisan politicos will consistently accuse any news source of being biased which does not agree with them, it is really that simple. They have their own expectations of what the results should be, and when those don't appear, they assume there is an unfair bias, usually with no other evidence at all, and with no considerations of the realities of the situation, like this:
"There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.
As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own."
This is the point those who scream bias all the time never get. It's the exact same mentality that thinks it's biased to give evolution all the time in science class instead of splitting it with creationism. There may be two sides to every story, but that doesn't mean the truth is always midway between them. Sometimes the truth is far to one side, such as the fact that Sarah Palin gets picked on more than Joe Biden for her gaffes because her errors are more more egregious, and reveal far more ignorance of, well, everything, than his do. It is not a bias that Texas will get far more players on the Big-12 All Conference football team than will Baylor. That's the reality.
As for real bias, take the one Ron Paul mentioned on the news the other night: the bias the major parties give themselves in the way of major roadblocks for third parties. In a system where we are supposed to be able to have the freedom to challenge the status quo by running against it, third parties often have to spend much of their time and resources getting things that the two major parties get by default: a place on the ballot, and a seat at the debates. Oh, and then there is that little matter of plurality voting by state, and the all-or-nothing electoral system. Now THAT is a bias, making it virtually impossible for a third party candidate to win. Now I wonder why Republican and Democratic pundits never complain about that? There's your bias.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
