Elections

Call it Like You See It

by

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.

Cry Me a River

by

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.

Quote of the Day

by

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)

Manipulated Markets?

by

I’m becoming less confident about the accuracy of the online futures markets in predicting the outcome of the presidential race. Intrade’s Bush re-election market sold off into the debate, rallied during and sold off after. This behavior seems odd, and is similar to what the same market did during the previous presidential debate and the vice-presidential debate. (I didn’t follow the first presidential debate.)

It’s occurred to me that partisans might be trying to manipulate the markets (Glenn Reynolds and Tom Smith have similar ideas, as I suspect do other observers). While I have no evidence for this possibility, consider it on a cost/benefit basis. Political futures markets aren’t so deep that a trader, or consortium of traders, willing to spend a few hundred grand couldn’t bias them against Bush for days or weeks at a time. Given the increasing credibility of these markets, and given the high cost of conventional advertising, selling a big lot of Bush re-election futures might be a relatively inexpensive way to help Kerry. (Of course the bill would come due eventually, if Bush won, but in that case the inevitable market pop might not occur until shortly before the election, in which case money invested in holding down Bush’s numbers would have been well spent.)

I think that these markets are a great tool, and that they will eventually equal or surpass conventional opinion-polling in the degree to which they become accepted by the media and public for political prediction. But markets aren’t perfect. Someone told me that James Cramer on CNBC suggested that Democratic hedge-fund managers are buying oil futures in an attempt to boost oil prices and hurt Bush politically. I am skeptical about Cramer’s idea: oil has been rallying for a variety of reasons, it’s a huge market and manipulation of huge markets tends to be prohibitively costly for prospective manipulators. But if Cramer is saying it, it means other traders are thinking it. And if they think it about oil, what about the relatively illiquid elections markets? It seems likely that politically engaged traders have considered, if not actually attempted, trying to push those markets their way. I don’t know whether they have succeeded. Perhaps this would be a fruitful area for systematic research.

OTOH, it could be that the election really will be as close as the online markets suggest it will be. We’ll know soon enough.

(Previous related posts: here and here)

UPDATE: Lex reminds me that the election odds shown by online bookmakers have roughly paralleled the odds shown by Intrade and the Iowa Markets. His observation supports the close-election hypothesis.

UPDATE2: Don Luskin suspects manipulation.