Monday, September 7, 2008.
Errr. I meant Monday, September 8, 2008, of course. Sorry!
Open Thread (9/8/2008)
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 03:33 AM by IlliniPundit
in
heh
I was thinking the other day about why Obama wasn't higher in the polls than he is. Then it was brought to my attention that when conducting phone polls, the pollsters only call people with landline phones. This is from a CNN article about how they conduct their polls.
And of course everyone who does not have a telephone is missed. That's about 6 percent of the population, more often poor, Southern and African-American than the population as a whole.
I don't know when this article was written, but I would argue that it's higher than 6 percent of the population now because there are a lot of people that use strictly cell phones. I would also argue that people who don't have phones or use only cell phones would be more likely to vote for Obama over McCain.
Now I'll wait for IP, Run, or RSW to tell me how my logic is flawed...
"Now I'll wait for IP, Run, or RSW to tell me how my logic is flawed..."
Not at all. My family, for example, has no landline. The beautiful part of that is that I never get telemarketing calls, but we are never polled/surveyed either.
My response to your post is that my gut instinct tells me that households with no landlines tend to be younger, but not necessarily poorer, more Southern or more African-American than the general population. I also know that pollsters are aware of the "no landline" problem and try to account for it, because I ask every pollster I consider hiring how they do so. Gallup, for example, is now surveying cell-only households, and I suspect most other major pollsters are doing likewise, given the competitive nature of the business.
I also don't know if the margin of Obama supporters in "no landline" homes is plus-five or plus-fifty, so it's hard to say whether it's large enough to make a difference. I think he definitely has a margin, but I don't know if anyone knows how much, and I don't know how much adjusting needs to be done. There are also problems with geography, tying cell phone numbers to registered voters, etc.
Could someone that knows, please give us a brief outline on Ms. Wright,,,,,GOP candidate for county board in Dist 3, Thanks
I don't know much about polling. What I wonder is how do pollsters decide how many Dems and Republicans to include in a sample? It seems to me any poll must determine that voter turnout % - and that can't be easy. Am I wrong there?
As to the point in question, I guess it would only matter if cell phone independents tend to be more Dem than land line independents. But again, I don't know much about polling.
"...my Muslim faith..."
"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come."
*************
Granted (I'll be the first to admit it), I've said a lot of dumb things in my life, but nothing like that.
Let the attacks on *me* begin, for mentioning this.
The Ron Paulians attempted to claim that a significant portion of their supporters were passed over by the polls due to not having land lines... in all the primaries though (not caucuses where organization is a big wild card factor) they seemed to match the polling in pretty much every state within a point or two. I don't think the factor is all that big yet, but it's good to see that polling agencies are working on it for when it does.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Bruce, here is her web page www.wrightforchampaign.com This ought to provide the information that you are seeking.
Pattsi Petrie
Thanks Pattsi,,,,,,,I thought she was GOP , shows how much I have been paying attention. :)
"What I wonder is how do pollsters decide how many Dems and Republicans to include in a sample? It seems to me any poll must determine that voter turnout % - and that can't be easy. Am I wrong there?"
Some pollsters weigh their samples for party ID, and some let their random sampling do the work for them. Some also screen for registered voters or "likely" voters according to varying methodologies, introducing all sorts of apples-to-oranges problems when trying to compare polls. Those differences are why I like to refer to aggregators and comparing two polls by the same pollster.
One easy rule to remember: Zogby sucks.
Zogby: The Most Reliable Name in Flukes
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Zogby: less accurate than a stopped clock.
Of course, the Obama remark about Muslim faith is not punctuated when spoken aloud. If it were, it would have read like this:
"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my "Muslim faith". And you're absolutely right that that has not come."
What Obama appeared to be doing was clarifying that he has not accused John McCain personally of using the term "Muslim faith" when commenting about Obama.
But with all the other serious policy differences is this what the campaign will be about? Are you willing to accept that it was poorly phrased, or do you believe Obama accidently let out the "secret"?
He let out the secret. He is an Indoneisan National, no longer an American, he forfeited his American citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian and had Obama change his name and nationality. I heard this on Sean Hannity last night, someone is suing Obama about this.
Seeing as the Obama-is-a-foreigner/Muslim/terrorist crowd is about as rational as the 911 Truthers, I will just quote one of the better responses to this kind of inanity. From Submitted to a Candid World:
I heard this on Sean Hannity last night, someone is suing Obama about this.
Now there's a beacon of truth and sanity...
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Nobody’s going to be convinced by this slip. Anyone “persuaded” by it was already a moron.
Brilliant!
Narc, I think the entire quote is hilarious. Plus, it looks to overcome PD™!
The validity of the polling depends on the randomness of the selection of poll respondents. If we want to predict the result of an election, one would prefer an unbiased sample of voters who intend to vote in the election. To get a decent result for the nation as a whole, one needs about 1,000 responses. This is basic statistics. Unfortunately, statistics is a mathematical subject that tends to be poorly understood by the general populace. I would include journalists and politicians in this set. :-) I say this as a scientist. It is also true that errors and bias will always be present in any real poll.
There is a wikipedia article on opinion polling. It's decent.
Science Friday addressed the science of polling back in February.
I don't know if Obama even knows what religion he is. His stepfather had enrolled him, declaring him to be a Muslim, at a Christian school and later a non-secular public school in Indonesia. You can't pin the father's actions on a young boy.This part of the argument is a non-starter.
However, his 20 year association with Jeremiah Wright deserves some serious examination. I'm not the arbiter, but I certainly wouldn't label what "Pastor" Wright teaches Christianity by any stretch of the imagination.
However, his 20 year association with Jeremiah Wright deserves some serious examination. I'm not the arbiter, but I certainly wouldn't label what "Pastor" Wright teaches Christianity by any stretch of the imagination.
But you would label what Pat Robertson teaches as Christianity?
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Nope, and you can also rule out many many sects of other "churches" as well.
"The validity of the polling depends on the randomness of the selection of poll respondents. If we want to predict the result of an election, one would prefer an unbiased sample of voters who intend to vote in the election. To get a decent result for the nation as a whole, one needs about 1,000 responses. This is basic statistics. Unfortunately, statistics is a mathematical subject that tends to be poorly understood by the general populace. I would include journalists and politicians in this set. :-) I say this as a scientist. It is also true that errors and bias will always be present in any real poll.
There is a wikipedia article on opinion polling. It's decent.
Science Friday addressed the science of polling back in February."
There are also a pair of blogs - pollster.com and fivethirtyeight.com - which do a great job of analyzing polling, discussing the nuts and bolts, etc. for those interested in knowing more. Both sites are run by Democrats, IIRC, and they are both excellent.
I was thinking the other day about why Obama wasn't higher in the polls than he is. Then it was brought to my attention that when conducting phone polls, the pollsters only call people with landline phones.
Don't settle for this answer. My suggestion would be to take a look at several polls that occur at or around the same time and then compare the findings. Most likely that will get you in the ballpark.
The reason I say you shouldn't "settle" for the cell phone angle is because many Kerry supporters said the same thing and that didn't turn out so great. I know it is baffling to believe that a candidate like McCain could possibly even be close at this point. And, honestly, I don't think McCain realistically has much of a chance long term. But if you want to make sure I would suggest donating to the Obama campaign and signing up to work for the Obama campaign. Put your worry to work.
And never underestimate the levels to which the national GOP will sink to maintain power. You can make a difference, and the difference you make might be really, really important. Or at least that's what my secret-Muslim-communist-terrorist-sympathizer-with-no-experience-or-accomplisments-doing-anything has led me to believe.
However, his 20 year association with Jeremiah Wright deserves some serious examination.
Why? How is his personal relationship with his church relevant to the way he will lead as president? To be more specific, what exactly do you think the nonsense about Wright should lead us to assume about Obama?
I am again struck by the outrage directed a liberals and the press for daring to discuss Palin's parenting choices (it is apparently "none of our business"), and the intense scrutiny we are supposed to give to Obama's church life. If one isn't relevant, why is the other?
Perhaps you could tell us who the True Scotsmen are, as well? On the other hand, since candidate's religous affiliations are now fair game, I look forward to the publicization of Palin's life-long association with an anti-gay, anti-Semitic, Dominionist-affiliated church.
many Kerry supporters said the same thing and that didn't turn out so great
True, Boon, but that was also 4 years ago. According to this graph, the number of adults living with only wireless has tripled from 4.4% to 14.5% between June 2004 and December 2007 (so even that number's nearly a year old).
I'd think (just my experience, I'm too busy to look up any supporting facts for this) the 18-25 demographic would be disproportionately represented in that group, so I'd think that unpolled group would express additional Obama support.
I'm also curious about the effect of VoIP users on telephone polls.
I'd think (just my experience, I'm too busy to look up any supporting facts for this) the 18-25 demographic would be disproportionately represented in that group, so I'd think that unpolled group would express additional Obama support.
They may support Obama, but will they vote?
"I'd think (just my experience, I'm too busy to look up any supporting facts for this) the 18-25 demographic would be disproportionately represented in that group, so I'd think that unpolled group would express additional Obama support."
Well, you're assuming they're unpolled, which they may no longer be. As I posted above, Gallup has announced that it is surveying cell phones in 2008, and I suspect that other pollsters aren't far behind. Are they underpolled? Perhaps. But they're not unpolled any longer.
They may support Obama, but will they vote?
Well, based on this graph of 2000 vs. 2008 primary votes, they'll probably turn out in record numbers.
Are they underpolled? Perhaps. But they're not unpolled any longer.
True - but there's no question that they're underpolled if only Gallup surveys cell phones. I'd also expect the answering rates of cell phone users (especially in this demographic) are the lowest, so there's extra bias thrown into the poll - with caller ID on every cell phone, most people would ignore a "Restricted" or unknown call. Especially in the 18-25 demographic, where they'd assume the call is from an ex or someone else they don't want to talk to.
But I can't think of a better way to accurately poll this demographic. And I don't think we should discount or discredit polls entirely - they're certainly useful in measuring the relative effects of events (e.g., McCain's numbers went up after the convention). It's tough enough to poll a "random" sample without encountering substantial bias.
"True - but there's no question that they're underpolled if only Gallup surveys cell phones."
But we don't know that. What we do know is that Gallup has figured out how survey cell phones, and has announced it. I think it's logical to conclude that given the cutthroat nature of political polling, there is no way that Gallup is the only pollster surveying cell phones. Again, we know they're underpolled, but we can't even really logically infer how badly underpolled they are with the paucity of information we have.
This is the most recent study I could find. It's already two months old, but I don't think too much has changed since then. Sure, there's probably more cellphone polling now than two months ago. But the Pew study does look at the differences in voter preferences between the groups, so it's a somewhat interesting read.
That's interesting. I'll note that Pew polled cell phones for this survey, which indicates that both they and Gallup have figured out how to do so, and which further leads me to conclude that other major pollsters probably are as well.
I'll also note that Pew says the government estimates about 14.5 percent of households are "cell phone only", and 22.3 percent are "cell only" or "cell mostly." Pew devoted 25 percent of the sample of this survey to cell-only and cell mostly households, though they didn't explain why they included the extra few percentage points. Maybe they're guessing at the two groups combined? Maybe they needed that many to have a large enough sub-sample (n=500)?
That said, the McCain/Obama margins among "cell phone only" and "cell phone mostly" voters is small than I would have guessed.
Perhaps this is why:
Those demographics, if isolated, seem to break both ways in terms of partisanship.
Which way they break depends on their cell phone. If you are a "push-to-talk" user, you almost certainly cling to guns and religion, and drink beer. If you are an iPhone user, you are almost certainly an arugula salad eating Chardonnay drinking elitist.
"Which way they break depends on their cell phone. If you are a "push-to-talk" user, you almost certainly cling to guns and religion, and drink beer. If you are an iPhone user, you are almost certainly an arugula salad eating Chardonnay drinking elitist."
Have I told you how much I love my iPhone? :-)
Have I told you how much I love my iPhone? :-)
I can't stand iPhones - I cling to my BlackBerry!
Even with my PowerBook running Leopard...I love Apple, but they can't beat RIM (in my opinion).
I think we'll have to co-opt Boon's Partisan Dissonance™ idea for wireless handhelds...
My comment about which phone one uses makes about as much sense as any other "demographic".
Here is the demographic analysis that matters, and the only one that matters: who gets the most (electoral) votes. The rest of the hand-wringing micro-analyses aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. Parse their successes and failures all you want, it doesn't do anything but kill electrons.
The blogosphere: a collection of large and small hollow rooms where people love to hear their own echoes.
You might not want to characterize cell phone users so quickly. My 92 year old father switched to "cell phone only" over a year ago as did many of his peers. He tells me it works much better for his lifestyle, (pre-family-business-meddling, manhatten drinking, small government, Republican). He laughs at my clinging to a land line.
Those demographics, if isolated, seem to break both ways in terms of partisanship.
Interestingly, the CDC study finds some different demographic splits. Most notably:
However, his 20 year association with Jeremiah Wright deserves some serious examination.
Grow up, people.
Obama belongs to the Church of Christ. He does NOT belong to nor ever has belonged to the Church of Jeremiah Wright.
Presbyterians in Champaign belong to the Presbyterian Church. They do not belong to the Church of the Rev. Rick Snyder. Or any other minister. Presbyterians are Presbyterians because they believe what the Presbyterian Church espouses. Not what one minister does.
Church of Christ members belong to the Church of Christ because they adhere to what the entire Church of Christ esposes. Not what one minister does. You remain a member of a certain church because you enjoy the fellowship of fellow church members and grow spiritually with those fellow members. You belong to small groups with those members. You go to Bible studies with those members. A church consists of its members, not of its minister.
Sometimes as a church member you march in lockstep with what a particular minister preaches. Sometimes you take from a preacher's messsage only what appeals to you as a Christian. And the rest is discounted and discarded.
In my entire church-going life, I have NEVER totally supported one minister. I was able, with God's help, to winnow through a minister's message for what touched my heart. God speaks to everyone differently, giving to that soul the spiritual nourishment that person needs at that moment.
Jeremiah Wright was simply a loose cannon within the church. Should the entire church and all its members be bombed out of existance because of a few things he said? No, but it sure makes it convenient for people prone to sling mud and slander candidates to take things way out of context for their own personal and political gain.
A minister is not the church. The church is more than one man. Unless that man is Jesus Christ.
they adhere to what the entire Church of Christ esposes. Not what one minister does.
Cosign.
Some Catholic priests were pedophiles - this in NO WAY means that a) Catholics are pedophiles, b) Catholics support pedophilia, or c) all Catholic priests are pedophiles.
If someone were to abandon their faith because of the actions of one man, I'd question the legitimacy of their "faith." Had Obama walked away, I'm sure people would attack him for a) abandoning his faith, b) abandoning his community, c) not working for "change", d) being intolerant, e) not being an effective "community organizer."
Sure, you could argue that Obama and Wright had a close relationship. But that doesn't mean that Obama believed everything Wright said. And sure, Wright might believe some crazy stuff, but that doesn't prevent him from preaching anything positive. I'm sure Obama and the rest of the congregation can filter out what they disagree with and embrace the overall message of his sermons. Hell, "The Audacity of Hope" was inspired by one of them.
Oh, and I don't support Obama, I'm an atheist, and I think Wright's a hatemonger, so don't dismiss my comments as overly-biased. I just think the analysis of this situation is ridiculous.
Some Catholic priests were pedophiles - this in NO WAY means that a) Catholics are pedophiles, b) Catholics support pedophilia, or c) all Catholic priests are pedophiles.
but if the priest was preaching from the pulpit that pedophilia is a good thing, the priest should be removed or you should leave that parish
I'm still waiting to hear why his relationship with his church is relevant to the way he will lead the country as president. Anyone?
Completely off-topic, but I like the back-story on the CDC study I mentioned earlier.
When I first saw that, of all government departments, the CDC had the numbers, I was a little shocked. First, why wouldn't the FTC, FCC, Census Bureau, or ANY OTHER government agency not produce this report? It seemed a little out of their jurisdiction. Also, I figured the study would involve some sort of pseudoscience on sterility, brain tumors, or some other cellphone-related medical nonsense. Instead, apparently the CDC wanted this information so they could figure out the best methods for alerting the population of disease outbreaks or other incidents.
CONGRATULATIONS IlliniPundit.com:
On a completely different topic, this site was recently ranked #4 among the top ten political blogs in Illinois by MidwestBusiness.com:
"Pros: Content on this blog is fairly evenly split between state and federal political commentary. It initiates some interesting conversations about tax hikes, state funding and Barack Obama’s perceived “cool” factor. The blog also includes some very entertaining cartoons. These are a nice relief to often text-heavy blogs.
Cons: While the site is strong as is, some multimedia offerings would push it to the next level."
Nice going!
Well done! Now, get to work on those flash files...
Obama's relationship with Wright is relevant because you don't spend 20 years with a hate-mongering charlatan without at least some of that rubbing off on you. If Obama had disbelieved or disapproved of Wright's message he would have left long before it became a political issue. Since he did not leave we must assume that he approved or agreed with the message.
No Flashing Kevin
Obama's relationship with Wright is relevant because you don't spend 20 years with a hate-mongering charlatan without at least some of that rubbing off on you. If Obama had disbelieved or disapproved of Wright's message he would have left long before it became a political issue. Since he did not leave we must assume that he approved or agreed with the message.
Since you were caught in a time warp, I'll link you to the post which responded to your posts many posts before:
illinipundit.com/2008/09/08/open-thread-982008#comment-98104
"CONGRATULATIONS IlliniPundit.com:
On a completely different topic, this site was recently ranked #4 among the top ten political blogs in Illinois by MidwestBusiness.com:"
Sweet. I had no idea.
Their rankings are a bit odd, though, and seemingly focus on design as much as content..
CapFax is clearly the top political blog in Illinois, with unmatched content.
There is no way DKos-Illinois should even be listed as an Illinois blog.
All of the rest are excellent, so I'm just glad we made the list at all.
Or the Reverend Sun Myung Moon.
The absurd notion that Obama's relationship with Wright was little different than the average joe's relationship to his pastor is an amazing fairy tale that requires rewriting the record of Obama's own statements and the media depictions that quoted him, that Obama never felt the need to correct, about his mentor, uncle, advisor, and friend of twenty years who he made a part of his political campaign. Someone he relied on personally for spiritual and political advise by his own statements... and who suddenly he doesn't know and all of his supporters are willing to accept was just some fluke odd ball pastor that didn't represent the general message of this particular church... which until Wright became a political liability was generally accepted as a very unique and controversial member of an a larger organization of churches that is viewed as far more moderate and mainstream.
While I don't believe there is any proof that Obama shares Wright's more extremist views, I sure as hell don't consider the Obama supporters' depiction these days as anything close to accurate either. They were more than willing to push the idea that Hagee's endorsement meant far more diabolical sharing of extremist views. The usual partisan hypocrisy hasn't died down a bit for this election.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
The comparison I've seen with Hagee is not that the relationships were equivalent, which they were not in any way (as you say Glock).
It is in the likelihood that the candidate will integrate the person's ideological stances into policy once in the White House. This is the key question right?
I would argue that the chance of Obama integrating Wright's views into his presidency are exactly zero. The likelihood that McCain will integrate the extreme religious right's views is non-zero.
All of the other guilt by association is background noise. I don't care who my presidential candidate talks to--Obama is not going to set policy to blow up public areas (Ayers) and he's not going to call a commission to investigate how the government engineered the AIDS virus. It's just not going to happen.
This is similar to the abortion debate. Obviously, if you belief abortion is murder, then you are going to want to consider which candidate is going to take steps to reduce abortion.
Banning abortion is unlikely to stop abortion. To suggest so is an epic failure of understanding how legality interacts with personal choices. What's more likely is that it will re-create a large black market of abortions that is unregulated and spreads misinformation about abortion and adoptive possibilities.
What will really reduce abortion is the creation of systems that educate about sexuality, fight poverty, and improve adoption options. These also have the added benefit of improving the lives of the fetuses once they are born--a stage of life that's too often forgotten in this debate.
You know--the kind of stuff that community organizers do.
"While I don't believe there is any proof that Obama shares Wright's more extremist views, I sure as hell don't consider the Obama supporters' depiction these days as anything close to accurate either."
WORD CHANGES TO DEPICT HOW I VIEW MCCAIN'S FLIRT OVER THE YEARS WITH LEAVING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
"While I don't believe there is any proof that McCain shares Democrat's more extremist views, I sure as hell don't consider the McCain supporters' depiction these days as anything close to accurate either."
Since he did not leave we must assume that he approved or agreed with the message.
There are several problems here. First and foremost is the idea that Rev. Wright's entire ministry can be summarized by those two or three sentences placed on auto-repeat during the primary. Is it possible that Obama didn't agree with Wright's take on American history but still respected the man because of the 99% of his message that was about the salvation of Jesus, social justice and black empowerment?
Second, are you saying that you think Obama believes in Wright's most extreme views and will be putting those views into practice if he becomes president? If you don't believe that, why are we bothering with this discussion?
Let's remember that Sarah Palin's choice to return to work three days after giving birth to a baby with a tons of special needs is a personal decision that is none of our business. Why not? Because it apparently has nothing to do with the way she will act as VP. Ok, fair enough. If Obama's choice in churches doesn't have anything to with the way he will act as president, why is it all of our business?
Make a choice. Either we can dig into the personal decisions of these people or we can't. This desire to have the mudcake but never eat it is getting pretty old.
These associations have to be probed more. We can't assume too much. So Mr. Duke, did you go to those Klan meetings because you don't like blacks? Or was it just to talk about those LSU Tigers and complain about the hot summers. Maybe it was because Jim Bob just makes a great creole salsa for after meeting snack time. There are just so many reasons to hang out with bigots, you shouldn't assume too much.
Audacity indeed.
"Second, are you saying that you think Obama believes in Wright's most extreme views and will be putting those views into practice if he becomes president? If you don't believe that, why are we bothering with this discussion?"
You're not considering the possibility that people think Obama's associations are important because the quality of the people with whom he surrounds himself and associates himself will directly impact his administration and the Federal government.
For even more on Obama, how about some great editorials from Investors Business Daily? They have a whole series of them. To be fair, they have a number on McCain and Palin as well.