Arrgghhh, I screamed in my head (actually, what I thought was much worse, but I know my parents read MyDD and they are embarrassed when I swear on the computer screens of tens of thousands of readers). How can MSGOP let something so blatantly false on the air? Apart from the state polls, which still show Kerry winning the Electoral College, fifteen polling firms have conducted national polls entirely since the end of the last debate, and thirteen of them show Bush under 50. For an incumbent, that is very dangerous. It struck me as an intentional attempt to depress Democratic turnout on Election Day by lying and/ or fishing for polls that provide a dramatic narrative.
I turned it back to the baseball game and gradually calmed down. I started to wonder if a narrative of Bush being ahead was actually good for Democrats. Many people always say you need to work like you are ten points down, but imagining you are ten points down when you know it isn't true is a lot harder than being told you are ten points down.
Further, I remember how on Election Day in 2000, among everyone I knew only an obsessive poll watcher like myself was predicting a Gore victory (I actually passed out a copy of the most recent poll I could find from every state to both classes I taught that day and to both seminars I was taking that day. I was right about every state except Iowa and Florida--or rather I was only wrong in Iowa. It cheered up quite a few people). However, before they saw all of the polls at once, every single person I talked to bought into the "Bush is going to win" media narrative, no matter who they wanted to win. Democratic turnout was not depressed in any way as a result of that narrative, as it actually slightly exceeded Democratic turnout in 1992. Maybe thinking we are in trouble is good for us.
However, no matter whether or not the "Bush is winning" narrative is good or bad for us, it is blatantly false. On at least an intellectual level, it needs to be thoroughly debunked.
To understand how perilous Bush's situation is, it is first necessary to understand and accept the Incumbent Rule. I am only posting about the Incumbent Rule again because the of the resistance I have had to it both here and at dkos today. Of course, you do not have to believe me. You can believe Nick Panakagis, the head of the National Council on Public Polls.
But our analysis of 155 polls reveals that, in races that include an incumbent, the traditional answers are wrong. Over 80% of the time, most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger.(...)
In 41 cases, or 32% of the 127, the incumbent ended with less than his stated poll percentage. This means that about one in four of all 155 polls actually overstated the incumbent's percentage.
Of the 127 challengers who gained more undecideds than did incumbents on election day, 78 gained 10 or more points over their stated poll percentage.
Making allowances for factors stated above, most polls appear to estimate support for the incumbent. All or most undecideds end up with the challenger regardless of the size of the undecideds.
Year Incumbent Final Poll % Actual Vote % 1996 Clinton 51 49 1992 Bush 37 37 1984 Reagan 58 59 1980 Carter 42 41The numbers for challengers look quite different. In every case, the challenger(s) -- I include Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 -- exceed their final poll result by at least 2 points, and the average gain is 4 points. In 1980, Ronald Reagan received 51 percent, fully 6 percentage points above his final poll results.
None of this implies that the current standings will determine the final outcome. Where the race ends up a month from now could obviously be different. However, the incumbent rule tells us that, at any given moment, the President's percentage of the vote relative to 50% is a better indicator of where the race stands than the margin separating Bush and Kerry. It also suggests the appropriate way to read the final polls just before the election (and these are my ranges - others may differ): If the average result of all the final polls (including undecided) puts Bush's percentage at 50% or higher, the President will likely win. If Bush's percentage is 48%-49%, the race is headed for a photo finish. At 47% or lower, the President will likely lose (add 1% to these ranges in any state where Ralph Nader is not on the ballot)
Year Polls Und. Inc. Chal. President 28 2.4 14% 86% 1976-88 155 11.8 20% 80% 1994 101 11.2 35% 65% 1998 76 10.1 27% 73% 2000 31 8.6 40% 60% 2002-4 60 7.5 42% 58% 1992-04 283 8.9 34% 66% Total 451 9.7 28% 72%
This is not a random, coincidental phenomenon. It is very real, and there are piles more research where this came from it back it up. Incumbents almost always receive a smaller percentage of the final undecideds than challengers, and incumbent Presidents always receive a smaller percentage of the final undecideds than challengers. The reason the Incumbent Rule is firmer in Presidential Elections is because the basic premise of the Incumbent Rule is magnified in such elections. As Panagakis wrote in his original groundbreaking essay on the subject:
The exceptions we found to the Incumbent Rule help support the theory on why this happens.
Many challengers who did not get a majority of undecideds were recent or current holders of an office equal to the one they were seeking. Voters were equally or more familiar with the challenger's past performance in a similar office, so the challenger assumed incumbent characteristics. Other exceptions include well-known challengers or short-term incumbents.
Some examples of where more undecideds voted for incumbents or split evenly:
Last year in Minnesota, where Hubert Humphrey III challenged Sen. David Durenberger; and in Nebraska, where Bob Kerrey, the former governor, challenged David Karnes, who had been appointed to his Senate seat. In 1986 in Florida, when incumbent Sen. Paula Hawkins faced ex-Gov. Bob Graham. And in Chicago in 1979, where two-year incumbent Mayor Michael Bilandic split undecided voters with challenger Jane Byrne.
These examples and similar ones account for 17 of the 28 exceptions to the Incumbent Rule that we uncovered. In some of the remaining cases, the incumbent simply turned the race around in the final days. A good example of this is the 1982 Missouri Senate race pitting incumbent John Danforth against Harriet Woods. Other exceptions can be explained by sampling error.
This is very real folks, and "terrorism" isn't going to just explain it away. 9/11 did not change everything, and one of the things it did not change is the Incumbent Rule. For crying out loud, the constant threat of nuclear war during the Cold War didn't dampen the Incumbent Rule, and our "new environment" won't either. Any analsyis of polls in this election that does not account for the Incumbent Rule is, at best, either misguided or simply wishful thinking on the part of Bush supporters. At worst, it is either ignorant or intentionally misleading.
Where the Race Stands--National Polls
Now with that out of the way, let's go looking at some polls. Here are the most recent polls from the fifteen polling firms that have completed polls that were conducted entirely after last week's debate (source):
Kerry Bush AP 49 46 Econ 48 46 TIPP* 44 44 Pew* 45 45 Time* 46 46 Marist* 47 47 NBC 48 48 Zogby 45 46 CBS 46 47 Harris 46 48 News* 46 48 Rass 47 49 Fox 42 49 Gallup* 46 50 ABC/WP* 44 51 * = Registered VotersNow, let's do some averaging:
Bush Kerry Simple Mean: 47.3 45.9 Median: 47 46 Central Mean: 47.3 46.0 Mode: 46 46Every single one of these scenarios shows Kerry has the edge, since undecideds historically break overwhelmingly for the challenger, and especially so in Presidential elections. In Bush's best-case scenario, the simple mean, he would still need 37% of undecideds in order to win the popular vote. That would be a shockingly, if not impossibly, high percentage for an incumbent President. Only Reagan, when he was running against a former Vice-President, has even managed 20% of the final undecideds.
Once again, don't just believe me. Real Clear Politics, which always uses likely voters, Gallup, leaners and Nader where possible, currently puts the race at 48.5% Bush, 45.7% Kerry, 1.5% Nader, and 4.3% undecided / other. In this scenario, even with Nader somehow holding on for 1.5%, Bush still requires 17.8% of undecideds in order to win the nationally popular vote. Thus, with two-way RV match-ups without leaners, I have the national polls slightly lean Kerry, and they have the national polls on an absolute knife's edge. With "fishing" on both sides, you are free to choose which scenrio you feel is the most accurate.
Where the race stands--state polls
Once again, using Real Clear Politics, which always uses LV's and leaners, here are how the final results would look if the election were tomorrow and 80% of the final undecideds went to Kerry (80% is really the minimum):
Bush Kerry AZ 52.1 47.9 AR 49.3 48.7 CO 50.5 46.8 FL 49.0 50.0 IA 49.5 49.2 ME 43.5 52.5 MI 47.0 52.0 MN 45.7 52.3 MO 51.1 48.9 NV 52.9 47.1 NH 47.1 51.9 NJ 44.2 54.3 NM 48.6 50.4 NC 51.4 48.6 OH 48.1 51.9 OR 46.0 52.5 PA 47.0 53.0 VA 50.8 49.2 WA 45.2 54.8 WV 50.0 49.0 WI 48.3 49.7Kerry leads in this scenario 304-234, taking FL, NH and OH from Bush, but losing IA.. Remember, this is with poll fishing for Bush, a conservative estimate of the Incumbent Rule, and the assumption that Nader actually receives what he polls.
*****
There is simply no way that Bush is winning right now. In my national polls, Kerry is slightly ahead. In RCP's national polls, it's tied. In RCP's state polls, Kerry is slightly ahead. Poll after poll shows Kerry leading in the battleground. For now at least, I don't care whether the "Bush is winning" narrative helps us or hurts us. It is just fucking wrong, and considering that we were recently led into a war over lies--a war that cost tens of thousands of lives and has all but destroyed our reputation throughout the world--I can no longer tolerate lies concerning something of this importance.
Tell your friends, or don't, depending on what you feel motivates them more.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 30 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
