Elections

I’ve spent most of my life along the north/south axis that David von Drehle describes as “The Red Sea” in The Washington Post. (Thanks to Instapundit & before him, Tim Blair.) Not surprisingly, his take on life lived across that swath of America roughly from Waco, Nebraska to Waco, Texas is a bit condescending. He implies that, knowing little of Kerry because he didn’t campaign there, these people were timid. He sums up his impressions rather early:

The decision to vote for Bush instead seemed wrapped up in the age-old city vs. rural dichotomy, change vs. tradition, theory vs. horse sense, new vs. familiar.

Open-minded vs. closed-minded, offered Pam Sackschewsky from behind the bar at Hunters. She’s a Kerry voter.

This ignores the fact that, as Tim Blair points out, the author comes from an area that voted 10 to 1 for Kerry, while the “red sea” went pro-Bush 4 to 1, implying more independent thinking. (Anyone who has spent much time among those aggressively independent entrepreneurs of the plains knows they don’t hold conformity in high regard – certainly not as in the news rooms of the east.)

I was struck both by von Drehle’s rather narrow perspective and by the tone of the people he met.

Read more

It’s no secret that the exit polls the networks were setting such stock in were deeply, deeply flawed. Megan says it better than I can.

A number of people have emailed to point out that the samples in individual precincts are small. That’s true, but the overall sample is large, and it went awry on every level: in each state and in the national vote. Sure, it was a close race, but as far as I can tell, the errors all ran one way: towards Kerry. Rumour has it that the reason the networks were so slow to call the Carolinas is that the exit polls showed them going for Kerry, a nonsense result in light of the result, and even in light of previous polling.

I’ve been tilting against biased media for a few years now, but I’d like to point out that this is hardly anything new. We had the exact same problem last election, and even the mid-term elections of 2002. Just in case you think this is a case of American news media falling down on their face, I would like to point out that they have the same problem with exit polls conducted in foreign countries.

So the news organizations should just save some time and money and not bother. But I doubt they’ll listen to me.

This item from the Washington Post mentions that the blogs were experiencing heavy traffic mainly because they were able to post leaked exit poll data in real time.

This troubles me, because it appears that Big Media has figured out how to turn the blogs to their own ends. Simply use them as a faster news outlet. That way they can spin the story they want and still have plausible deniability. (“It wasn’t us. We’re a respected news organization. It was those pajama guys who blabbed crappy data without bothering to verify.”)

This is self correcting, for the most part, since blogs allow instant feedback from readers. But if the source of the data is protected in some way, and we’re operating from a leak, then our credibility can be knocked into the toilet. Just like the blogs managed to do to Big Media’s rep.

So everyone should make sure that they mention when data is not 100% credible. Or else it might (gasp!) bring your readership down.

I’m a political blogger that happens to live in Ohio, a battleground state during this week’s election. So when I heard that European observers were going to be over here, keeping an eye on things, I wanted to interview them.

I tracked down the name Soeren Soendergaard, one of the top guys that was going to be here in Ohio. I sent him an Email, politely and with all respect, requesting that he and members of his team allow me to briefly interview them for my blog. I made sure to mention that anything I wrote was going to be positive, respectful, supportive. And it was a perfect example for him to make his case to the people of Ohio. (What the hell, maybe I could sell something to, I dunno, NRO or something.)

I received a very curt reply, saying that I would be contacted when the team was settled and had time for the press. Don’t call us, we’ll call you.

So I heard squat. Repeated queries got bumpkiss. There goes my dream of getting paid for blogging. (And let me tell you, I could really use some of that sweet media cash.)

Then I see this news item. My ol’ buddy Soeren is royally pissed because he was refused entry to some polling places here in my home town.

He said he had been personally refused admission at three out of four polling stations in Columbus, Ohio. “It’s the limit of arrogance,” complained the left-wing deputy, representing the 55-nation OSCE, a pan-European body of which the US is a member and whose duties include monitoring elections to ensure fair play.

Heh. I love that. Soeren is refused entry to US voting areas and “It’s the limit of arrogance.”

You know, I’m having trouble working up any sympathy for these guys.

PS I see that Soeren is a Socialist. He must have read all those posts I wrote here where I mock Canadian health care.

It could be we haven’t been hit hard enough – or it could be we don’t have sufficient spunk. But, well, I think (hope) we do; the Aussies and the Afghanis, in this case, they lead and we follow.

Read more

The survival … of the two party system … is not a universally shared objective, particularly in this season. Its virtues rather than its imperfections gain for the two party system its most implacable enemies. The moderate coalition, the sensible accomodation, the muted ideology, the politicians who strive to borrow each other’s protective coloration and who jostle one another in the center — all this, the price of broadly based government, of general acquiescence, and of stability, is paid in frustration. The choice in a general election between two candidates either of whom can satisfy most people, or at least radically dissatisfy very few, always leaves some of us with no choice at all.

Alexander M. Bickel, Reform and Continuity: The Electoral College, the Convention, and the Party System (1968)