Asymmetrical Information

Given their apparent lack of success in converting swing voters, maybe they've switched tactics to mobilizing the base. If the sense is that your candidate is about to get crushed there's not much motivation to get out and vote, let alone help the campaign in more concrete ways. I would assume this is meant to forestall any feelings of hopelessness in Kerry supporters due to poor poll results. "Who cares what Gallup says, they're biased towards Bush, we can win this thing, etc."

Jane, their point isn't to whine about "faaaaiiiiirrrr-ness" but to make what seems to be a valid point about the Gallup polling methodology and the responsibility of pollsters, given their influence on campaigns, to correct flaws in their methods. Why not address that rather than slamming Move.on for "losing their minds?"

Mark,
But in that case wouldn't they be able to make that point at their own site? Unless this is their way of saying "Woe is us! Nobody comes to our site anymore!" o_O

*Snicker* ^~^

Given that they had no problems with methodologies when the polls were in their favor their tale of woe does not touch my heart! ^_~

Sincerely yours,
S.P.M.

I am beginning to think that most D efforts are now concerted on reducing the mandate rather than winning -- I don't know many people (who I work with) who are going to vote for Bush, but I don't know any who seem very *enthusiastic* about Kerry. The gloom has deepened in the last two weeks, and I think Move.On is indeed trying to galvanize the base into at LEAST voting.

Just think what the public discourse of illegitimacy and stolen elections will sound like if George Bush wins an actual majority of votes cast?

*Ponders and rethinks*

OTOH, the fact is that a lot the people who read the New York Times are pretty much the sort of people who would waste their time at MoveOn...Perhaps this should be considered MoveOn's subtle attempt to troll for new readers among the newbies? In which case it's not quite as silly a use of the money George Soros gave them as would first appear. >_>

Very well then, Mark, rather than saying the ad is structurally a bad idea (what Jane is arguing AFAICT), let's actually consider its content. It seems to break down into four 'outline' points:

1. The Gallup poll showed a 14-point lead the same week that "seven other polls of likely voters" showed a three-point average. Okay; what seven other polls? Are they relevant to the comparison, or cherry-picked by MoveOn? Is a footnote disclosure so difficult, thus allowing readers to independently analyze the evidence and reach their own conclusions if they so choose?

2. Gallup's methodology suggests Republican turnout will exceed Democratic turnout by 6-8 points. MoveOn's refutation: In two previous presidential elections per exit-polling, Democratic turnout exceeded Republican turnout by 4-5 points. Sorry, but how is that relevant to the current election, in which voter turnout will presumably be most influenced by near-term perceptions? And rather that waving away Gallup's methodology like that, maybe they could actually explain what Gallup's reasoning is for assessing using that 6-8 point Republican turn-out lead?

3. CNN and USA Today pay for many Gallup surveys in exchange for right of first access to the results. Yippee skippee -- that doesn't automatically justify the aspersions MoveOn then casts.

4. The ad then makes an ad hominem on George Gallup Jr. based on his beliefs and some related quotes that, even at a casual glance, seem to be taken badly out of context. I'm not impressed.

Summarily, there may be serious problems in Gallup's methodology and results; or there may not. One simply cannot tell from this ad, because it is not informative; it is a poorly-disguised partisan hatchet job that relies on vaguely-defined arguments and ad hominem, and consequently, I'm going to speculate that it was never intended to be anything BUT a poorly-disguised partisan hatchet job.

I'm too lazy to look it up; does anyone know off-hand what Gallup's final poll versus actual results have been in the last 4 Presidential cycles?

O.K., I looked it up. Gallup low-balled the Democratic percentage by 2% in 2000, but overestimated the Democratic percentage in 1992 and 1996 by a greater amount, while underestimating Dukakis' results in 1988.

Actually if you go over to donkey rising and read Ruy Texiera's analysis you will see that Move-On is right. Ruy knows how polls are done and how they shold be done. Gallup's results aren't valid.
Bush is ahead--by three, four or five points.

Teixeira, of course, has his own very substantial axe to grind. This is not to say he's necessarily wrong, but he has a strong incentive to believe polls "should be done" in a way that produces favorable results for the Democrats, and his opinions should be weighted (small joke) accordingly.

"Mystery Pollster" has a discussion/dissection of Teixeira's party-weighting argument here.

He also has a piece on the MoveOn ad on his main page, where he largely agrees with Jane.

The Dems learned from the Repubs. It doesn't matter whether Gallup is actually biased. All that matters is that you cry foul enough to 1) create doubt in people's minds and, if you do it long enough, 2) intimidate Gallup and others into being more equivocal when reporting their findings. Ever hear the phrase "the liberal media?"

Comments are Closed.