Let's Talk Sense...
------------------------------------------
Thursday, November 7, 2002 Volume XXVII, No. 4
Roswell, New Mexico
LTS... Gets it Right. Again!
34 for 34 (with one recount pending)
(Reading time: 7 minutes)
In this issue:
1. LTS...Gets it Right. Again! (Reading time: 60 seconds)
2. Voting for dumb reasons (Reading time: 2:30)
3. The Expectation Game (Reading time: 60 seconds)
4. GOP Problems, Polls, Jitteriness (Reading time: 2:30)
--------------------------------------
LTS...Gets it Right. Again!
(Reading time: 60 seconds)
In our issues of September 13 and November 4 we predicted a GOP
takeover of the US Senate. Acknowledging the pending recount in
South Dakota, we are 34 of 34 at this point in calling Tuesday night's
outcome.
As we stated two years ago in our issue of November 18, 2000:
"Our pre-election issues...were far closer to the actual outcome
than any other known projection, forecast, or guess, by any other
published site....be it poll, political website, newspaper, pundit
or any other known entity. If anyone has any contrary information,
please forward it to this address."
The same goes for this election. Everywhere you read, watched, or
listened, the comments from talking heads, columnists and the "most
respected" pundits were: "status quo ante," or "Democrats
net one," or "Democrats gain two"
We know of no one who made an outright prediction of a GOP majority,
much less told you why, race-by-race---whether it was the weekend
before the election, or 7½ weeks prior to it as we did. Let
us know if there is any evidence to the contrary.
Counting Jeffords as a Democrat (because he caucuses with them)
our projection was a 52-47 outcome on Tuesday, with Louisiana still
to be determined. It is currently 51-47 with Louisiana TBD and a
recount scheduled for South Dakota. I suspect massive fraud in South
Dakota.
My calculations (which are based on vote trends over the last two
presidential-and last three off-year cycles, along with voter turnout
models derived from the same data) showed a 4,000-vote likely margin
in favor of John Thune. He is said to be 527 votes behind at this
point. We shall see.
-----------------------------------
Voting for Dumb Reasons
(Reading time: 2:30)
Apologies to South Dakotans---we have several among our readers----
who may or may not have been tempted to vote based on arguments
we are about to discuss. For the purposes of this discussion we
are going to assume that Democrat incumbent Tim Johnson goes ahead
and holds his lead and wins in the recount.
We have read that in South Dakota over the last ten days of the
campaign the Democrats made the strongest pitch in their media buys
to "vote for Tim Johnson so that Tom Daschle can remain Majority
Leader." The theme of "maintaining the 'great power' South
Dakota has" by not letting the Senate go to the Republicans
literally inundated the airwaves, pounding home the message to voters.
Vote for Johnson so Daschle can be Leader.
So, never mind which candidate, John Thune or Tim Johnson, is closer
to your philosophy, or which one is smarter, more in tune with the
state, or all-round better qualified. Never mind what you, the voter,
actually believe in. Just vote for Tim Johnson for Tom Daschle's
sake.
Right. That is dumb. It also is another example of the great challenges
we face as a nation: the steady erosion of critical thinking skills
among Americans.
Why weren't voters thinking the following: Let's see now, the Senate
is currently organized 50-49 with one (very recent) vacancy as we
go to the polls-----that one very simple fact alone could have told
thinking voters that there were very high risks in pursuing a "what's-best-for-Daschle"
vote-casting rationale. Duh. You don't have to be a statistician
to see the risks of assuming an outcome when you are starting with
a situation of 50-49.
It should have occurred to them: You know we just might not end
up with a Democrat majority at all, even if Tim Johnson wins. So,
why don't I vote for the person I actually believe is best for America,
the one who is closest to my actual philosophy?
Well whadda ya know? In the end, a minimum of 20,000 South Dakotans
voted for someone they really didn't want to----just because they
lacked critical thinking skills. And guess what? They got a double
whammy. They not only betrayed themselves and their own beliefs,
they also ended up with 1) the candidate they did not really want,
and 2) they end up with not one, but two senators in the minority
party. How's that for helping Tom Daschle keep the great South Dakota
clout in Washington!
Know what? Do the right thing first time, every time, and risk the
consequences. You will feel better about yourself, and you won't
be ashamed the next day for having blown every single play, at every
base, all around the horn. Playing it cute, they blew it.
Of course the media had a role in this. (After all, not everyone
has access to Let's Talk Sense...) So most people had no information
other than the unanimous belief, based solely on polls (see below)
that Democrat control was inevitable. This was what they thought,
even though statistically they should have known there was a huge
risk, even before the analysis of races begins. But then again,
innumeracy (total ignorance of numbers and probability) is much
more common than illiteracy. And it is downright pandemic among
the media.
To some extent the Republican Party has to share some blame. They
did not counter the Democrat arguments by pointing out what I have
said here---that the people of South Dakota were better off voting
for the candidate who really represents their values. They could
even have fallen back on the less respectable, but at least pragmatic,
argument of needing to hedge their bets---that the Democrats could
very well lose the Senate, South Dakota could lose it's "Leader,"
and they could end up stuck with a senator they don't really want
AND no one in the majority party.
Bottom line: vote for the one who represents you and your values.
For most South Dakotans that would have been Thune.
------------------------------
The Expectation Game
(Reading time: 60 seconds)
Of course Republicans were stuck in a difficult predicament. If
they pushed the idea that the GOP had a great chance of capturing
the Senate----and therefore South Dakotans should not be voting
for the dumb reason of saving Daschle's job as leader (since he
would not have the job of Leader if the GOP won the Senate)----
they would also be doing something no one wants to do in electoral
politics: RAISING EXPECTATIONS.
One great thing they had going for them during the entire campaign
was the constant drumbeat of the expectation game: Democrats had
the upper hand in the Senate. Republicans were much more vulnerable.
"Everybody knew this." They knew it because that is what
all the pundits said. And they all talk back and forth to each other.
And so it goes. It worked well for the GOP.
Now, there is much to be said for playing the expectation game.
It would have been only with great, great reluctance and trepidation
that they would have parted with that. Why? There is hardly anyway
one can lose if one's expectation is to lose. Conversely, the Democrats'
defeat is now greatly, if not enormously, exaggerated. Republicans
on the other hand could have ended election night still in the minority,
or even lost seats, and no one would have blinked an eye. President
Bush would not have been seen as a big loser in the process.
Republicans liked that. I don't blame them----it is difficult not
to like a situation in which it is all but impossible to be seen
as the big loser of the night. And that is what they had going for
them.
But failing to be able to talk about reality probably cost them
(we won't know for awhile) one more senate seat. That's a point
to remember in future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOP Problems, Polls, Jitteriness
(Reading time: 2:30)
Another reason of course that the Republicans would probably not
have raised expectations about their impending success is that,
well, they simply did not know that such success was likely, much
less imminent. There is certainly no evidence they did. (And any
claims now, are, well, like all claims made after the fact: everyone
knows what is likely to happen AFTER it has already happened.)
Why did they not know what was about to happen? Why did the Democrats
and the media not know? One of the problems Republicans, Democrats,
the media, and everyone else in politics share alike is their exclusive
reliance on polls and polling to gauge what is likely to happen
in elections. It can lead to the ridiculous.
Polls are important. We do not dispute that. But what we have now
in America are both major parties, and every single news organization,
relying exclusively on polls to determine every single move, comment,
prediction, projection, countermove, et cetera. This is not only
both unreliable and inaccurate, it can be downright embarrassing.
More important than polls, and the starting point for electoral
analysis, is psephology: the systematic study of elections, especially
the detailed analysis of election returns, over time.
Polls are snapshots of an electorate at a given moment. That is
all they are. Used correctly they are one of the most important
tools of politics and campaigns. Used exclusively, without historical
perspective, and with little or no psephological or demographic
trend analysis, they can lead to conclusions that simply bear no
resemblance to reality.
I will give a number of examples in the next issue when we go through
the post mortem, region by region. But three quick examples will
suffice for now.
One: There was a steady drumbeat of talk about polls showing the
Texas Senatorial race "suddenly closing up." What did
we say:
"Lot's of TV chatter about nothing in this one."
Why? It was simply not in the cards. The historical data, the psephological
pattern, the demographic trend lines, simply would not allow it.
You could have produced a poll showing that Ron Kirk was 10 points
ahead of John Cornyn and we simply would have ignored it. It was
not psephologically believable that the race was tied, or that it
was within five points. But people who rely exclusively on polls
have no ability to sort through such information.
Two: Erskine Bowles was on the verge of a major upset of Elizabeth
Dole in North Carolina. People from both parties and the media were
all over the news like chickens with their heads cut off. What did
we say?
"Much late noise by media on this without any substance."
Why? It simply could not be done. The electorate in question could
not produce such a result----for many of the same reasons listed
in the Texas example.
Three: Mondale becomes candidate. Poll: Mondale leads by 9.
Next day: Mondale leads by 6, but Coleman also leads by 6.
Next day: Coleman and Mondale are tied. Mondale leads by 2.
Chickens with heads cut off. RNC and DNC running around wild on
the talk shows. Media in a frenzy. What did we say?
Well you know what we said. The reality is that there was much historical
data to draw on. There was much of a year-long campaign model to
look at. And there was the cold reality of already-banked votes.
What on earth are the Democrat and Republican strategists thinking?
What are the media thinking? We don't know. But we do know it doesn't
have to be this big of a mystery.
Question: Are you saying that the candidates and the campaigns don't
matter?
Answer: No. Of course they matter. But psephology analyzes the candidate
and the campaign and places them both into a known turnout model
and the known data from at least four previous election cycles.
If the candidates commit crimes or somehow "meltdown"
in the course of the campaign of course they can lose in an otherwise
"safe" modeled electorate. But failing that, by September
of each election year, one can project outcomes of elections with
reasonable accuracy in all but a mere handful of states.