The Election

Sonofagun, to put it in its mildest form. It appears Romney was right about the 47%. In the clearest electoral choice in almost two generations, the citizens chose an entitlement society - even in the face of the economic malaise and fiscal disaster it (always) produces. I thought 47% was way too high a percentage; needless to say, I was wrong.

But right as he was about that, Romney and his team were wrong on just about everything else: messaging, campaign themes, and tactics. The constant harping on the economy to the exclusion of national defense and cultural issues proved devastating for the one thing Romney had under his control: getting out his base. Coupled with a pitiful GOTV effort, Romney failed to get as many votes as John McCain (!!) If he had, he would have won, because Obama lost nearly 10 million votes since 2008. (Update: It appears Romney did slightly exceed McCain's totals, and Obama lost only 7 million votes. But the analysis is still the same - in this red-hot election year, Romney should have exceeded McCain's totals by a good margin. If he had done so, the President's failure to turn out his own voters would have given Romney the win).

But Romney didn't win, and neither did we. And neither, I fear, did America.

But keep in mind that things looked dire for the Republic before, after the electoral victories of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. And our principles endured. So keep the faith, especially now when faith in things unseen is all we seem to have.

Re: Goosing the Polls

Conspiracy, Ezra? No, not as such. There is certainly a cultural bias going on, deeply rooted enough that many pollsters aren't even aware of their prejudice.

But even that is too strong. The science of polling is just like any other science - there is an art to the practice which, if done correctly, will sift the data into wise conclusions, and if done incorrectly, will produce drivel. In general, the art involves the selection of appropriate methodological assumptions.

Most on our side have noticed, for instance, how the pollsters weight their data in accordance with their assumption about the electoral mix on November 6. If you poll 1,000 citizens, you might find that your sample contains 70% Republicans and 30% Democrats. Clearly, this raw data will not reflect the actual electorate on voting day, so if this sample is to yield any meaningful results, it must be re-weighted to approximate reasonable expectations. 

The key is the term "reasonable." Good scientists can differ, and each can make a good case for his position.  Many pollsters have assumed the race in 2012 will reflect the electoral weighting seen in 2008, others have chosen 2004 as the model, and some (mainly the outliers) have assumed an electorate that appeared in the 2010 bi-elections. I myself prefer something closer to the 2010 elections, but recognize that such a choice would be a bit dicey for any reputable pollster. It was not a Presidential election and historically the correlation is not that close between bi-elections and those involving the President.

And there are myriad different electorate assumptions in any sub-group polled, e.g. women v. men voters, black v. white, hispanic turnout, and etc. Good pollsters will have models that deal with all these demographic groups and more, and each model will tend to push the results in one direction or the other.

But given all of this, there is still a problem: given the number of polls (and this election has seen an extraordinary amount of polling information) you would think that the average would cancel everything out and give us a fairly representative forecast. But they don't; the averages, as you note, uniformly and consistently show a tight race, at best a toss-up for Romney. Why should this be if he will win as decisively as I predict?

The answer is David Axlerod. All politicians and campaigns spin the news media to support their candidate. But Axlerod has introduced something new into Presidential politics: he has been assiduously spinning the pollsters to insure their results will mesh with a story of an overwhelming tide of support for Obama that will swamp Romney. He has been so effective at this that even those pollsters he has not contacted have tended to follow the herd and adopt assumptions favorable to Obama. In one reported case, it seems he even invoked the heavy hand of the Justice Department to get Gallup to change its methodology - which it did, suddenly tilting its polls towards Obama after previous polls had shown Romney surging ahead.

Why this man has such credibility, I don't know, but he does. Fortunately, not even his Justice Department can intrude into the privacy of the voting booth, so November 6 should finally give us an accurate poll, and a Romney/Ryan win.

Re: Goosing the Polls

Okay, Chase, you're officially out on a limb. But what is the reason that all the polls have the race so tight? Is it possible that all the pollsters are in the tank for Obama? Is the conspiracy really that big?

Goosing the Polls

First, a touch of humility. No one can predict what will happen in a Presidential election year with any precision, because it is by definition that which defines an electorate. Only through this four year process can we know where an electorate is, demographically, politically, and emotionally at a given point in time. The best we can do is to look through a glass, darkly, and correlate the dynamis of the electorates from past election cycles with the various tea leaves and witch doctor bones of the modern era, polls and bi-elections. And place a guess.

But it's still fun to do, so enough with the humility and herewith some hubris.

Watching the Democrats watching polls is like watching domestic geese try to fly. They fluff and pump their wings, trying vainly to capture enough air to lift their heavy torsos up, up, into the sky. Faster and faster they flap, effort doubles exertion as they push all into a hop-hop run, but nothing happens; they continue earthbound, failing to clear even a two foot fence.

The air the pollsters seek to capture are positive poll numbers for the President, and any puff of good news makes them honk and hiss into print with analyses of Presidential inevitability. At the beginning of this year, they seized on national polls showing Obama leading. Then as the air went out of those polls, they focused on polls of the Battleground States. Then as those polls tightened, they turned their critical talents in praise of early voting and the President's so-called ground game.Ground game is right; the Democrat professionals are game, but still firmly stuck in the mud and dirt of the earth.

The principal problem they face is that the President has never, ever been above 50% in any of the polls. I don't mean to get too technical here, but my understanding of our system is that you need 50.1% to win. And it is clear after a year of polling that 50.1% and more of the electorate are not going to be voting for this President. When election day comes, there is only one other candidate to vote for, and that is where these voters will turn.

The penultimate problem the Dem's face was ably pointed out by my compatriot: President Obama's approval ratings among independent voters have been tanking all year. My math indicates that Republicans + Independents = electoral victory.

The third problem is historical and traditional patterns going back over 30 years: Republicans always win the vote on election day. When Democrats win, it is because of early voting advantages gained before election day, such as occurred in 2008.  Mitt Romney has put a severe crimp in the argument that Obama will amass an overwhelming lead in early voting due to his much vaunted ground game. As befits a man trained to be a thorough, detail oriented executive, the Romney campaign has organized an early voter turnout of his forces unprecedented in Republican annals. As a result, the Democrats are only maintaining a modest lead in early voting, leaving election day, a Republican strength, to decide the matter. 

Finally, it is a well known fact that polls always underestimate Republican strength. Take all of the polls of the last year and add 2 to 4 points to Romney's totals, and you will see that this election has been baked against the President for some time now.

The Democrat ganders can flail away all they like, but there is simply no wind beneath their wings. It will be Romney/Ryan with at least 55% of the vote, and a massive, embarrassing loss for the Democrats come November 6th.