|
October 28, 2008
The PUMA Question
In the comments on my post A Funny Thing Happened In The Voting Booth commenter Dr. Nobel Dynamite made the following point. "Not to mention the PUMA factor." [that was me - ed.] No Bell, In science/engineering we look at unusual results and outliers for undiscovered phenomenon. It is more than possible that I may have discovered some interesting effects. BTW the reports on the PUMA effect started in the high 30s. Dipped to the low 20s and then started rising again to the mid 30s. (that would be % of Hillary voters going for McCain). Since the last reports of that rise there has been no news of the PUMA effect. Did it just disappear? Or was it a case of "did not fit the narrative"? A defection rate as a % of the total vote of 3.75% (roughly 20% [defectioon rate] of 1/2 [Hillary voters] of 37%[Dems in the electorate]) can be overcome. It will be offset by a 13% or so R defection rate (about 5% of the vote). If the defection rate is 40% of Hillary voters that is a 7.5% loss. Killer. The question is: is that defection rate being measured accurately? Since the announcements of the PUMA factor have stopped, I'd have to say no. If it had dropped it would have been announced. If it rose above 40% it would be buried. How about what DJ Drummond has to say on the subject of polls. Gallup has noted the strength of early voting this year. The most significant points from that article are these; early voting is stronger than expected this year, and so far republicans have been just as eager to vote early as democrats. The third point is the most important signal of all. Says Gallup; "Early voting ranges from 14% of voters 55 and older (in aggregated data from Friday through Wednesday) to 5% of those under age 35. Plus, another 22% of voters aged 55 and up say they plan to vote early, meaning that by Election Day, over a third of voters in this older age group may already have cast their ballots."Then we have this wonderful explanation of polling by Charlie Colorado at Just One Minute. What we're hoping for the polls to tell us is how people will vote in the future. In order to figure that out, we start by asking some number of people how they would vote today.There is an interesting addition to this question from Iowahawk who shows his math. Works pretty well if you're interested in hypothetical colored balls in hypothetical giant urns, or growth of plants in a controlled experiment, or defects in a batch of factory products. It may even work well if you're interested in blind cola taste tests. But what if the thing you are studying doesn't quite fit the balls & urns template?That can be fun. More fun is when you have the right kind of help. So today I want to ask for your help. As to the fondling balls question. I'm looking for volunteers of the female persuasion. Urn fondling in return. Then maybe a cigarette afterwards. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 10.28.08 at 04:15 PM
Comments
I'm much less mathematical about it, and so much less precise, but I feel pretty good looking at the big picture and contrary to the assumptions of some, I tend to look for things that disprove rather than prove my preferences. First, to get his leads, Obama had to outspend his opponents by a factor of 3-1 against Hillary and about 6-1 against McCain. That tells me a lot about the "enthusiasm" of Obama's support. Right now, the RCP average has Obama leading by 7%, but if you just look at the best polls (Gallup traditional, IBP, GWU, etc.) his lead is almost exactly the margin of error. Next, in the primaries, Obama tended to do about 5% worse then the polls said he would and Obama's biggest support comes from those least likely to show up on election day. Take all of that and throw in a PUMA factor of even just a couple percent and you have a McCain landslide. I think a landslide is unlikely and you have to factor in that polls traditionally tighten up as the election approaches, but I see no reason to back off the position I've always held which is the Democrats lost this race the day Hillary withdrew. tim maguire · October 28, 2008 05:39 PM Obama's biggest support comes from those least likely to show up on election day That's why they're pushing early voting so hard. The odds are better that any given supporter will be willing and able and remember to go to a polling location on one day out of ten or thirty (depends on the state) are greater than that they'll be willing and able and remember on one specific day. (Plus, the Chicago Machine can take buses from Illinois to other states besides Indiana and Wisconsin if they have a two-week window.) Heather · October 28, 2008 05:52 PM Tim "I see no reason to back off the position I've always held which is the Democrats lost this race the day Hillary withdrew." Um, Hillary didn't withdraw, she was beaten. "Take all of that and throw in a PUMA factor of even just a couple percent and you have a McCain landslide." First of all, there is simply no chance of a McCain electoral landslide. None. The only remotely realistic McCain victory scenario is razor thin, and rests on best case scenarios stacked on top of best case scenarios repeated in almost a dozen states with no margin for error whatsoever. Right now, even if all the tossup states go for McCain, he won't win, and do you really think all the tossup states are *all* going to break for McCain? Take a look at this map and tell me if you can come up with a plausible scenario for McCain to win, much less to win by a landslide: http://pollster.com/ Dr. Nobel Dynamite · October 28, 2008 06:03 PM I spent the weekend doing phone banking and precinct walking near Reno. We used a database that was supposedly created to select sometimes voters who were neither strongly McCain nor strongly Obama. During the 20+ hours I was contacting people, of those I talked with 80% or more told me that they had already voted for McCain or would do so before 11/4. Very few contactees supported Obama. Another datapoint. At the Palin event in Carson, CA (near LA), she was introduced and endorsed by the the head of the LA County chapter of NOW. Polls are not to be trusted beyond +/- 10% this year so get out there and VOTE! Whitehall · October 28, 2008 06:37 PM Then again, by all means, keep using terms like "cigarette hags" to describe female Hillary supporters. That should get them to the polls for (young, tall, male, Harvard educated with good hair) Obama in droves. Phelps · October 29, 2008 01:11 AM "Um, Hillary didn't withdraw, she was beaten." Um, Hillary got more primary votes than BO. She was beaten for the nomination because BO (not BO really but his campaign manager) worked the caucus system which skewed the process towards activists and ideological extremists, i. e. leftists in the Democratic party. The same thing could have happened to the Republicans - loopy Ron Paul got 10-15% of the votes in caucus states, enough to put him up with the frontrunners in the fractured Republican field. But in states with primaries he only got his lunatic fringe 2-3%. Fortunately Republicans are smart enough not to let the caucus system, which gave us the Jimmy Carter disaster, unduly influence their nomination. Anonymous · October 29, 2008 01:43 AM Phelps "Then again, by all means, keep using terms like 'cigarette hags' to describe female Hillary supporters." Phelps, you are a treasure. I am not suggesting that Hillary supporters are "cigarette hags" in any proportion greater than the public at large. If you know of a more apt descriptor for Harriet Christian, however (who has been trotted out on Fox numerous times), I would welcome suggestions.
"Um, Hillary got more primary votes than BO." Really? Are you sure about that? "She was beaten for the nomination because BO (not BO really but his campaign manager) worked the caucus system..." In other words, Obama designed his campaign around the rules of the primary election system. That's why he won. It's certainly not Obama's fault that Mark Penn (literally) didn't understand the basics of how delegates are apportioned in the primary. Dr. Nobel Dynamite · October 29, 2008 08:59 AM I wonder why virulent misogynists *heart* Obama so much (and vice versa). Heather · October 29, 2008 11:21 AM I wonder why virulent misogynists *heart* Obama so much (and vice versa). They have so many shared values. Phelps · October 29, 2008 11:30 AM Heather & Phelps Could you be a little more specific about all those "virulent mysogynists" who *heart* Obama (and vice versa)? Thanks! Dr. Nobel Dynamite · October 29, 2008 11:56 AM mysogynists = misogynists Dr. Nobel Dynamite · October 29, 2008 11:58 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2008
September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Ideological heirs
Another Anecdote HillBuzz Needs Your Help McCain Has A Poll The PUMA Question More on the respectable Mr. Ayers It Is Not About Race In chilling detail "We are not amused!" Dean Barnett, R.I.P.
Links
Site Credits
|
|
M.Simon
Could you please share any data you're aware of that suggests 40% "defection rate" of Clinton supporters?
I believe this week's Pew poll indicated that Obama has a roughly 91 to 5 advantage over McCain among self-identified Democrats, so I would be curious to see if there is some actual data* that suggests PUMAs might be having some actual effect on the election.
*as opposed to you and Cavuto's wish journal