The Spectacle Blog
Granted, polls are just a snapshot in time, subject to change, don’t forget the margin of error and all the usual caveats. But McCain can’t be surging to a tie nationally while also falling further behind in the battleground states. Mathematically, it just doesn’t work. Somebody is wrong about which way the race is trending.
UPDATE: Nate Silver has some interesting analysis of this morning’s battleground state polls that may help explain the discrepancy.
View all comments (10) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2008/10/23/these-polls-cant-all-be-right
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Glenn| 10.23.08 @ 1:43PM
We may be witnessing the marginalization of polls. Too many organizations taking too many polls with too many results for too long will result in the de-legitimizing of the already dubious science of opinion dynamics.
Poll results released last night were either very, very encouraging to McCain or Very, very discouraging. The resulting confusion caused by these conflicting reports will lead many to quit paying attention to them altogether.
Shawn Macomber | 10.23.08 @ 1:43PM
Jim,
Don't you know? In a situation like this, you just pick whichever best suits your own personal election narrative. Learn to make this more about you and you'll be able to avoid asking most questions!
Your pal,
Shawn
reagan21 | 10.23.08 @ 1:52PM
The logic you base this post on...is baseless. You are using polls in battleground states to show that national polls are inaccurate, or are using national polls to show that battleground state polls are inaccurate. Furthermore, the theme of your post is that polls are not reliable in the first place. This circular logic needs a little more work. You should use the two contradicting polls to show that polls, in general, are unreliable and we should not pay attention to them. This premise and conclusion actually have a true basis.
Glenn| 10.23.08 @ 2:02PM
Conservatives pointing to McCain’s surging poll numbers feel like a heart-broken spouse at the bedside of a brain dead loved one, insisting to the doctor that you saw the patient blink or they squeezed your hand in response to a question.
The doctor, with a combination of pity and condescension assures the spouse that their eyes and mind have deceived them.
“Sometimes we see what we want to see, sometimes our desperation gets the better of us…but make no mistake…he’s never going to wake up…the sooner you accept that the better off you will be…now sign the paper so we can pull the plug.”
But what if he really did blink?
Shawn Macomber | 10.23.08 @ 2:15PM
Glenn,
Is that really what this is like? Because that is kind of creepy....
W. James Antle III | 10.23.08 @ 2:23PM
You are using polls in battleground states to show that national polls are inaccurate, or are using national polls to show that battleground state polls are inaccurate. Furthermore, the theme of your post is that polls are not reliable in the first place.
Actually, I'm saying none of these things. I am saying that state elections, particularly in the battleground states, are not entirely independent events impervious to national trends. It is very difficult to gain nationally while losing ground in most of the battleground states unless there is some kind of gigantic surge in the red states that I'm missing here. The battleground states should generally be where most of the shifting one way or the other is occurring.
M. Tobias| 10.23.08 @ 3:57PM
"But McCain can't be surging to a tie nationally while also falling further behind in the battleground states. Mathematically, it just doesn't work."
Just goes to show that modern political polling is on a par with the reading of entrails and the casting of runes. You just do not know how accurately they predict the future until it is in the past.
Sam Arpen| 10.23.08 @ 4:22PM
Actually those polls *aren't* right - at least the one showing McCain "surging to a tie." If you read the entire poll you'll see that the 1% discrepancy is based on "likely voters" - an adjustment within the usual adjustments of polls, speculating on voting trends of the individual and the group to which that individual belongs. A white, elderly voter who voted in the past? "Likely." A black, young voter who is registered for the first time? "UNlikely."
They basically threw out a ton of their own data based on blunt guesswork. The difference among "registered voters," however, is 10%, much closer to most of the other national polls.
So for it to *really* be a 1% difference, EVERY SINGLE ONE of the "unlikely voters" would have to NOT VOTE. Which is actually pretty unlikely when you think about it...