Read Polling Data Like a Pro

If you want a snapshot of how our President’s approval rating is doing, you might ask Gallup. Gallup will tell you that just now the President is down 2%, 45% – 47%. Yet if you ask Rasmussen, they will say he is down 6%. The Economist puts him down 9 points, Fox News says -10, and Reuters/Ipsos claims he is down a full eleven percentage points. Meanwhile, Quinnipiac’s most recent poll agrees with Gallup at -2. So which pollster should you trust?

Step One: Look at Polling Averages

The first step towards not looking like a complete fool when you are shocked to discover that the candidate of your choice lost an election you swore he was winning by five million votes (Harrumph… Karl Rove…) is to make some effort to consider more than one polling source. A number of reputable web sites compile blind polling averages that are far more accurate than most individual polls. I personally like RealClearPolitics.

Step Two: Ignore All Internal Polling

Internal campaign polling is always biased. A campaign usually has two objectives in conducting polling: to create favorable numbers which can then be released to the media, and to create accurate numbers that can spur the campaign to fix whatever is holding them back. It is obvious why intentionally biased polling should be biased, but intentionally accurate polling is also usually biased. Nate Silver wrote an article that examines internal Romney campaign polls that were never released to the public and finds that every single one of them was biased towards Mitt Romney. The average bias was 4.7%.

Step Three: Adjust Numbers from Rasmussen

If you just look at polling averages, you will probably be fine. However, in the off-season (right now) or in races where polling data is scarce, these polling averages can still lead you wrong. So I am going to share a few tips that I have used to make my interpretations of polling data more accurate.

First, some pollsters have a lot more noise than other pollsters. Numbers from small, local pollsters that only conduct one poll, that have no national reputation, and that you haven’t heard of before are great as a part of a large sample of polls, but individually should be taken with a grain of salt. Pollsters that do not fit in this category include Quinnipiac, Rasmussen, Gallup, and PPP. These pollsters generally take a relatively larger sample size and conduct polling constantly, so their numbers tend to accurately reflect the ups and downs of the political world relative to previous surveys. Some people may claim that various pollsters are biased in one direction or the other, but I have found Quinnipiac and PPP to be fairly stable and reliable.

Rasmussen and Gallup are also consistent pollsters, but both showed methodological flaws in the last election cycle that systematically favored Republican candidates by several points. Gallup has revamped its methodology and has seen its polling numbers move back towards the center of the pack. Rasmussen, however, has yet to admit that its polling numbers are inaccurate. Nate Silver has written articles for the New York Times on his famously accurate page, Five Thirty Eight, criticizing Rasmussen’s polls for favoring Republican candidates by a stunning average of 4% in all of the 2010 and 2012 elections. Electoral-vote.com now offers its analysis with two separate pages, so viewers can choose whether they want Rasmussen data included. Considering the consistency of this R+4 result, however, I would not simply exclude Rasmussen from any data set, as has electoral-vote.com. Rather, I would simply adjust the numbers D+4, check to see that it is consistent with the other major pollsters, and consider it accurate. Considering our example of Obama’s approval rating, adjusting Rasmussen’s numbers D+4 yields exact agreement between the three major pollsters who have polled the issue in the past month. Certainly, it is possible that Obama’s true approval rating is worse than -2%, but my money says that that estimate is a good bit more reliable than Fox News’ -10%.

Case Study: Generic Congressional Vote

Let’s flip over to RCP’s polling average for the generic congressional ballot. Just now we are looking at D +1%. Dig in a little deeper, and we find that this number is generated by averaging three weighted polls from Rasmussen (tie), Quinnipiac (D+4), and Democracy Corps (R+1). My first question is, who is this democracy corps? I glance at their polling sample size: 841. It seems a bit small. When I look at Quinnipiac, I am greeted with almost double at 1468, and Rasmussen takes the crown with 3500.

My first adjustment is to adjust the Rasmussen number to D+4 and compare it to the other major pollster with a reputation for accuracy, Quinnipiac. What do you know? A perfect fit. At this point, I am dismissive of the unknown entity with the tiny sample size. However, I am now basing my knowledge on only two polls.

But RCP provides additional information. If you scroll down, you notice that Rasmussen has actually been conducting surveys every single week. If we expand our time window to 6/28 – 8/26, and consider every poll conducted in that time, we have a grand total of six Rasmussen surveys and two Quinnipiac surveys. Adjusting each Rasmussen survey D+4 yields the following numbers: D+4, D+4, D+1, D+5, D+6, D+3, for an average of D+3.83, which is similar to our average of D+4.5 from Quinnipiac, and our shorter term average of D+4 from above. We now have a fairly high degree of confidence that the actual preference of the American people is around D+4. Which makes sense, considering that Democrats in congress have a higher approval rating that Republicans in congress according to every poll conducted this year.

Inverted Policies and the Failed Recovery

It’s time for me to stand on a soapbox. I think this one can be attributed to democracy, in and of itself. Majority rule inevitably leads to certain inefficiencies. Just in the past decade, for example, we have subjected ourselves to both an economic collapse and a stunted recovery, both of which could have been averted if only we had had a benevolent, omniscient dictator, preferably with an Ivy League education.

How could this be, you ask? How exactly would an omnipotent, omniscient being have handled the ups and downs of our economy better than we? It is simple. An omniscient, omnipotent being would have stimulated the economy during recession, and imposed regulations during the boom. We did the opposite. As our economy booms, we slash regulations left and right allowing bubbles to form and grow. When the bubbles finally pop, we are devastated and in our determination to prevent a repeat of history, we lock our economy into place with crippling regulations. These regulations can do nothing to prevent a future crisis, because they only exist in the aftermath of a crisis, when they are actually doing harm. During the boom, when they are actually needed, they are inevitably dismantled, paving the way for the next economic crisis.

An intelligent being with a long lifespan would need only observe this cycle once in order to understand. But in majority-rule of the uneducated, emotional masses, such rational thought is inevitably subsumed by either waves of good feeling, or the travesty of economic demise.

Robert Samuelson penned an article for RealClearPolitics.com today that explains the failure of Federal Reserve interest rates in terms of the lending industry’s continual fear spurred in part by federal policy. The sheer unavailability of credit is holding back our economy more than people realize. Now that they are out of power, Republicans are finally right. Obama’s economic policies are crippling the recovery, just as much as Republican economic policies laid the groundwork for the recession in decades past.

The End of the Era of Scandal

An Era of Scandal

Who can remember the last time the Obama administration was not beset by scandals? First, the Obama administration refused to bow to the carnal desires of the tea party for blood, or at least an appropriate label in the wake of the Benghazi embassy bombings. Then, for the next six months, the Obama administration was busy covering up their “secret Benghazi agenda” in which they somehow allowed the deaths of American citizens to be a pawn in some horrible conspiracy. But the Obama administration’s scandalous lack of decorum for basic human rights didn’t seem to be visible to many people outside of his opposition until the triple bombshell dropped: The IRS had delayed tax exempt status to the tea party, the justice department had covertly perused the phone records of journalists in their efforts to censor the Associated Press, and it turned out that in the aftermath of 9/11, when we turned our government into a police state, the NSA took it to heart. But, for various reasons, all of these scandals are falling apart, and the focus is returning to jobs, the budget, and the economy once more. The end result is a much stronger position for the Obama administration moving forward, and for democrats in general as they prepare for the upcoming midterms.

Benghazi Revisited

If you could look back on your life and pick a moment that led to disaster, and change your actions, what would you do differently? The Obama administration, it seems, would have evacuated Benghazi at the drop of a pin. Never mind the extant reputation for being one of the most cautious administrations in history, more caution is the answer. Yet, the American people seem to agree, or at least the news media is having a difficult time faulting him for it.

Justice Returned

The Justice Department took about a week to propose broad new protections for journalists. Nuff said.

IRS in Motion

It turns out that the IRS also targeted some liberal groups, such as those with the word “progressive” in their title. It also turns out that there was, in fact, no massive uprising of liberal groups clamoring for tax exempt status from 2009 to 2011. Thus, it has become impossible to distinguish between the IRS targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny because they were conservative, or because they were pouring in through the rafters.

NSA Reform

Obama wants to hire a lawyer to advocate on behalf of the Ron Paul crowd in front of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, just as a kindof permanent thing. He also wants a panel of Paulites and former CIA agents to get together to propose changes to the Patriot Act by the end of the year. In general, he just wants everyone to stop blaming him for everything that goes wrong in the world. It’s a perfectly normal human desire, albeit one whose gratification might be delayed for a few years.

Scandal-less: The Question of what Remains

With each scandal successfully blunted such that time will heal the remaining wounds prior to the next election, we wonder where that leaves the two parties as they prepare for upcoming policy battles and elections.

Blue Budget Battles

The economy may not be raging at full throttle, but 200,000 jobs a month is fairly solid and stable growth. Add to that the fading impact of scandal, and Democrats are looking pretty good going into the budget battles. Compare that to a fractured GOP that just failed spectacularly to implement some of the spending cuts from the Ryan budget they voted for this Spring, as they suffered defections from both the moderate AND conservative wings of the party. If they can’t count on the votes of the conservative wing of their caucus, the House GOP leadership will be forced to court the votes of moderates. If a moderate budget blueprint comes out of the House, democrats will have a strong hand indeed.

A Red Map of Status Quo

In case you missed it, Republicans are looking at a pretty friendly map for the 2014 midterms. Republican gerrymandered House districts in swing states make a simple democratic majority impossible in anything short of a wave election. Due to continuing demographic shifts, steady, if not raging, economic recovery, and the fading nature of the currents scandals, I suspect 2014 will be a democrat friendly year despite the general conservative tilt of midterms. Senate maps often look favorable to Republicans. However, democrats have a great track record with moderate candidates in rural republican states, while republicans have this irritatingly auto-defenestrative habit of occasionally electing candidates who don’t know how to keep their mouths closed about rape. It looks like democrats will lose a few seats in the Senate, but six might be a tall order. In the end, the margins will likely shrink in both Houses, but neither looks particularly close to switching partisan control.

The Return of Hillary

I read an article the other day titled, “16 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Win 2016,” written by Myra Adams, a conservative Republican. I expected the ordinary Republican lines of “biased media” and elitist conspiracies. What I read was actually a fairly substantial and comprehensive piece that actually made a good case for a biased media this go-around. Adams considers the idea of groupthink, such that the prediction of an event actually leads to that event. She considers the power of an appeal to elect the first Madame President. She considers the power of the message that it is Hillary’s “turn” to be President. Add to that changing demographics, superior fundraising and ground organization, and her secret weapon named Bill, and Madame President starts to sound pretty inevitable.

Of course, Madame President sounded pretty inevitable back in 2007, and we all know how that turned out. But Adams points out several differences between then and now. 1) Hillary’s resume has grown. 2) In 2007, the nation had a little bit of Clinton exhaustion. Today, it has turned to nostalgia. And, 3) nobody really remembers any of the bad stuff from the Clinton years. All that really sticks with us is the booming economy. And that really, really sticks.

Hillary has one other asset. She can run for Obama’s third term in office if he is still popular, but she doesn’t have to. She can always just run for Bill’s. Everybody likes Bill.