August 8, 2008
Olympic "Outliers"
Kathy Frankovic reminds us that despite "record levels of participation and interest...voters may be doing other things in July and August."
Mark Mellman sees the din of poll analysis drowning out an opportunity to educate.
Lydia Saad explains why the election is not just about Obama and why McCain is keeping it close.
John Sides reminds us that the forecasting models predict a close election.
Nate Silver examines whether Barack Obama has been "underachieving."
Jennifer Agiesta compares low-wage workers interviewed in cell-phone-only households with those from land-line telephone households.
Frank Newport says religious affiliation remains an important predictor of vote choice
Todd Domke reviews the factors that will make for unpredictable polls in 2008.
Andrew Gellman shows that from 1948 to 1992, the popular vote showed little "bias" in it relationship with electoral votes (and links to a paper finding much the same in 2000 and 2004).
Tom Jensen identifies the "tipping point" for Obama in North Carolina African American turnout.
Craig Garthwaite and Tim Moore [pdf] say Oprah Winfrey was responsible for "an additional 1,000,000 votes" for Barack Obama (via John Sides).
David Hill chides GOP consultants for second guessing the McCain campaign.
Jay Cost dives deep into the Pennsylvania numbers.
Josh Goodman has a polling wish list.The New Yorker's Bruce McCall has the latest from the all-important New Orleans Times-Picayune/Bravo/Popular Mechanics poll..and more!
And from our regular contributors...
Charles Franklin compares polling trends in 2000, 2004 and 2008
Margie Omero finds Barack Obama's support from women anything but "lackluster."
Steve Lombardo says the race is closer than you think.
Kristen Soltis makes a case for weighting by party.
David Moore and guest contributor Nick Panagakis continue to debate how to best measure "undecided."
By Mark Blumenthal on August 8, 2008 5:33 PM | Permalink
I saw Nate Silver on Olbermann. Impressive. I particularly appreciated his view that a VP receives a more significant favorite son bump in a small state. That's a point I've tried to make on DU and elsewhere for years. There are other factors involved also, such as whether the state has been represented on a national ticket recently. For example, Gore in 2000 would have fared much better in Tennessee if had never served as VP and been on the ticket in '92 and '96. A blase attitude sets in.
However, I got a big chuckle out of Silver's assertion that sites like his are driving the political gambling, influencing the action. LOL. I've been a part of a 16 man political wagering pool since '96. I guarantee if I asked the other 15 guys, maybe 1 or 2 have visited his site. I went there for the first time today after seeing the show.
Newsflash: Gamblers do their own thing. Only the pathetic ones rely on tout sheets or paid picks or outside sources. It's an atypical pursuit and by nature that requires stubbornness and self-reliance. One of the truisms of sportsbooks is you hear everyone else's opinion then default to your own.
Believe it or not, 10 years ago wasn't the dark ages. I've wagered on politics since '96 and some of my friends for decades longer. You get a handle on trends and angles and foundational measures that don't rely on the latest polls. That's why Bush was always favored in '04 even when Kerry led the polling.
Frankly, my friends and I always joke that we root for obviously flawed polls, ones that might skew the odds to favorable position. That was much more prevalent circa '96 to '00. The problem these days is too many damn polls. The averaging and so much focus means everyone knows essentially the same thing. And when you know what everyone else knows, you basically know nothing.
Posted on August 9, 2008 6:09 AM