Astronomer Neil Tyson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times today applying statistical methods common in astrophysics to the Presidential campaign. The method, recently published by other astrophysicists and which uses median results from polls, indicates something surprising: were the election held today, McCain would beat Obama, but Clinton would beat McCain.
This goes to show you something: polls can be meaningless.
Seriously, this is interesting, but I don’t think it has much real-world application at this point in time. For one thing, polls need to be examined carefully, as they can be misleading in their questions and techniques. In this case, it may have been as simple as asking "Which candidate would you vote for were the elections held today?" However even that is somewhat meaningless. If, in late October, gas prices jump, or there is a a big jump in deaths in Iraq, or the media actually report truthfully about McCain’s ties to lobbyists, then the results could swing dramatically. Poll results depend on the latest media-frenzy, which have a finite decay time. But once they have died off, the next one comes up, influencing polls once again.
So Neil’s analysis is interesting and tells us quite a bit about what we’re thinking now, but I don’t think it applies just yet to the upcoming election; it’s too far off in terms of media cycles. As Neil himself says in the article,
This analysis does not predict what will happen in November. But it describes the present better than any other known method does.
That’s where its power lies, I suspect. But even then, I think that, like other statistical indicators, it can only be used after the fact to see how things were going in the past, but as a useful indicator of the present — giving specifics on policy, for example — it may still come up short. I don’t see how it can be used to influence people’s opinions based on any particular campaign issues (though I may have missed something, of course).
But then, there is a meta-issue: the technique itself can be used as a stumping point. Ms. Clinton has used everything except for reality to stay in this race, and it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that she will use this as a reason to continue to stay relevant in the minds of the voters — whatever her reasons might be for that at this point, long past when she has any reasonable shot at achieving the nod.
Rumor has it that even as I write this she is preparing to concede, but given the past few weeks of her campaign it’s hard to imagine her completely bowing out. I wonder if this opinion piece will be mentioned by her campaign?
June 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Yesterday there were interviews (reported on NPR) with Clinton supporters who stated that they would vote for McCain rather than Obama. Their reason? That McCain had more experience and would be able to get things done.
… Whaaaaa? [/Jon Stewart]
Regardless of one’s political persuasion, one would think that a Clinton supporter would consider an effective McCain Presidency to be far more objectionable than an ineffective Obama administration… right?
I just don’t understand the way some people think.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
My main problem with the conclusion that Obama would loose to McCain today while Clinton would win is that states without polling data or with a tie are being given to the candidate of the party that won in 2004. Why not go by most recent senate race, as that would at least be only 2 year out of date for some states. You could also use the last three presidential elections as a best of 3 contest.
Whatever you use for the tie breakers, you’ve abandoned the system for a number of states. The biggest problem here comes from a state being a toss up for one match up and not for the other. It just seems like a way to obscure the methods real results.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Actually until quite recently (a week or so ago), http://www.electoral-vote.com/ also had Clinton beating McCain, but Obama losing… currently they have the race at: Obama 287 McCain 227 Ties 24
You can’t see the comparison anymore because of Obama becoming the presumptive winner…
Eric
June 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Let me see if I’ve got this straight.
Obama beats Clinton – Clinton beats McCain – McCain beats Obama – Obama beats Clinton – etc. etc. etc.
Three words:
Rock, scissors, paper.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Meh. Polls are all over the place. I’m sure Tyson’s methodology is cool, like the man himself, but I’ll wait until November 4 to start polling people. I hear that’s the day it counts.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Note that a method similar to this was used four years ago by Andrew Tanenbaum (responsible for the http://www.electoral-vote.com site) to incorrectly predict Kerry as the winner of the 2004 election. We’ll see whether he does any better this time around, apparently…
June 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
This is a great example of why people like Tyson should stick to things that are easy to figure out, like how many atoms are in the entire universe.
Political science is an oxymoron.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Three candidates, none of which have any direct experience in the executive branch of government, are running against each other. Sometimes citing their opponents’ inexperience, sometimes accusing their opponents of being part of the political elite (elite left or elite right–same difference).
I’m not convinced that Gott and Colley’s statistical analysis is the right way to go.
Maybe its time for something powered by the Infinite Improbability Drive.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
After listening to Obama’s remarks at the AIPAC conference yesterday, I think that he will follow the exact same policies as MacCain would follow if elected.
“John McCain stubbornly insists on continuing a dangerous and failed foreign policy that has clearly made the United States and Israel less secure.”
— B. Obama quoted on Real Clear Politics, April 2002.
But :
“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
— Senator Obama Remarks before AIPAC Conference, quoted on Community Blogs, 4 June 2008.
And :
“Back in January of 2006, I made my first trip to the Holy Land. It is a
place unlike any other on this earth […] Most will travel to the holy sites: the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the
Dome of the Rock or the Western Wall. They make a journey to be humbled
before God.”
— Obama’s AIPAC Obama Speech quoted on Lynn Sweet, March 2007.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
The only problem with deferring to the 2004 elections is that there has been a massive swell in registered Democrats in response to the current situation – some 20% or so, if I remember correctly. Just look at a few days ago – McCain’s speech drew hundreds; Obama’s speech drew tens of thousands. Not that any of this contradicts the claims made in the article, but in my mind, it sheds some doubt. We will see what happens. In a few election cycles, if this model becomes highly predictive, politics might change in the face of it.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I’m actually scared that McCain might win. He’s a veteran, and that counts for a lot of people. He’s got more experience at debates too. He seems to know his data better as well. He might actually cream Obama into a corner quite easily. He’s good at making pretty speeches but he stinks when it comes to debating. I’m pretty sure McCain would’ve been more nervous if Clinton won, just because she has more assets in her hands on that side (though she might start bawling in his face or something. Snort. YOU DON’T CRY IN POLITICS!)
I’m really really scared and I hope you folks will do the right choice. I like NO politicians, and that goes for that Obama dude too (I liked none of your candidates) but I know it’s always a matter of the lesser of two evil.
What makes me fear the most is… You guys elected that Bush dude twice. Sigh.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I don’t want McCain to win either, but I do believe he’s better than Bush. Although his recent compromises (torture, for example) to reach the hardcore Republican base make me wonder about that.
Michelle, as for electing Bush twice… fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…. uh… can’t get fooled again.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
It is sad, but the Obama administration will still face the U.S. Congress. The Democrats in the Senate trashed the Lieberman-Warner bill that would have begun the process of brining in the U.S.A. into the fight to save the earth. Of course, Bush would have vetoed it but still what a bunch of cowards. Worried that more increases in the price of gas (that’s the POINT) would be bad for them in the fall. We will all look back and wonder how this happened!
June 6th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Feh. We can analyze polls until we have numbers running out of our ears. If most Hillary supporters would vote for McCain, then either they were put-out over the primaries or they see in McCain some of what attracted them to Hillary.
All this doesn’t mean diddly right now. It’s about 157 days or so until the election. An Obama slip of the tongue – such as his 57 states comment and his Memorial Day speech flub – in a live debate could change things. Ditto if McCain comes across as a doddering old-timer.
I will comment, as someone who’s not enamored by any of the candidates, that party loyalists are overlooking flaws in both campaigns. The Obama faithful underestimate how the DNC’s half-a-vote rigmarole for Florida and Michigan has soured voters on the party (here’s a clue for any DNC officials who might be reading: If you just have to go out of your way to alienate voters, don’t pick a state with 27 or 17 electoral votes). In the same way, the McCain faithful discount how he doesn’t really appeal to conservatives.
Heh. What if Hillary agrees to run as VP – on McCain’s ticket?
June 6th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
the media actually report truthfully about McCain’s ties to lobbyists
I hear you, brother. They don’t focus on that, and they don’t focus on Obama’s close ties to anti-American anarcho-communist terrorists, anti-American racist preachers, or convicted Chicago-way political moneymen/real estate fairies nearly as much as they should.
Yeah, it’s way too early to tell. I think and hope McCain will win, he’s the true bi-partisan moderate in the race, but Obama is a talented politician with the media firmly in the tank and scads of money. Will be an interesting and nerve-wracking 5 months.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Heh. What if Hillary agrees to run as VP – on McCain’s ticket?
You know, KC, I had the exact same thought. What a mind-job that would be!
June 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I’m not trying to diss Neil’s article at all. I’m saying he has brought up an interesting point, but the usefulness of this method is debatable.
FWIW he is a very smart guy and I’m sure was careful in his analysis. He didn’t say anything wrong! All I question is how useful this method is except as a political tactic by a candidate to say, “See! I’ll win in November!”
June 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
McCain wants to put man on Mars:
from: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7d5NED1ohbl3X-N5ksIdx3kejOQ
“Presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday he would like to see a manned mission to Mars as part of a “better set of priorities” for NASA that would better engage the public.
At a townhall event in Florida, the Arizona senator was asked about funding for the US space agency’s shuttle program, which is due to end in 2010.
He said he “would be willing to spend more taxpayers’ dollars” to continue the program but argued that NASA must do a better job of inspiring the American public, as when it sent a man to the moon in 1969.”
Hmm, McCain seems like your man Phil.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
“They don’t focus on that, and they don’t focus on Obama’s close ties to anti-American anarcho-communist terrorists, anti-American racist preachers, or convicted Chicago-way political moneymen/real estate fairies nearly as much as they should.”
That’s because, in the case of the first and third items in your list, it’s exaggerated FUD spread by disreputable right-wing rags, for the sake of sensationalism. As for the middle one, the one with merit, the media had a field day with it. Are you sure you should be reading a skeptic blog?
June 6th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Interesting, but I have a problem with the intellectual concept of pre-election opinion polls. Polls appear to assume, operationally, that they exist in a vacuum. Here’s my concern: assume that one has a perfect poll with perfect results; it is truly one-hundred percent accurate and representative of the whole. The instant the results are released:
1) people read it
2) some people change their minds based on it
3) the perfect poll isn’t perfect anymore.
Polls have become part of the debating logic in the Western world, and that’s why I don’t particularly like them.
“Vote for me! Look at this poll! It says you’re gonna vote for me?”
“I am?”
“Of course you will! This is how you think, isn’t it? Besides, I’m ahead. You don’t want to waste your vote, do you?”
It’s the same reason why the big-electoral-count states on the West Coast pretty much just rubberstamp in whoever’s won the rest of the country. Combine with the fact that on election day news organizations start calling the results with less than 10% of the vote results reported… but that’s a different rant for a different time.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
The ultimate poll should be the actual election, but with super-delegates and ordinary deligates throwing votes one way or another we do not get exactly what we want – or at least seldom do. Using direct vote (one person, one vote) is much more egalitarian than having representives cast a vote in an all-or-nothing system.
I, for one don’t want anyone fooling with my vote. It’s like expecting a preacher, priest, rabbi, or other holy man to intercede for my salvation. If I need salvation (maybe , no, probably) I go direct. That’s accepting that there is a supreme diety. I guss I find out when I get “there.”
June 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Polls. Smolls.
I know who I’m going to vote against and my vote is not determined by whom any body else is voting for/against!
June 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Well………..no. The first time he stole it, thanks to his brother-and-Florida-governor Jeb’s interfering in the state’s vote recount – the infamous “hanging chad” fiasco.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
One of the Editor’s Choice comments on the article (#185) is absolutely disgusting in the anti-science mindset it displays, never mind the ad hominem attack on the distinguished Dr. Tyson. I am appaled to find that I can find no easy way to express my displeasure with the explicit highlighting of this trash on the website. Anybody know where it would be most constructive to send an angry email?
(As to the substance of the article, it’s an interesting approach but, of course, it’s a simplified model and there’s a lot of dynamics not taken into account- notably the fact that lots of HRC’s backers can be expected to move into the Obama camp between now and November)
June 6th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
McCain was a very bipartisan moderate candidate in 2000. He even had my support back then. 8 years have changed the man and his bipartisan days are well behind him. He needs to be analysed for what he is now and not the last time we saw him.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Johan: I am, in general, against a manned Mars mission at this time. We need an achievable goal first, like permanent manned space stations or a Moon colony. We simply are not ready to start putting money into Mars at that level. IMO.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Andrew, yeah, that pick for a comment was odd. Neil is black; is that a racist comment they chose? Normally I wouldn’t think so, but the word “dark” is used twice by the commenter in quotation marks. Wow.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Dr. Plait, I think I have a solution to both our problems.
We should invest in a Mars mission, and crew it with people we wish to… relocate. You know, politicians who refuse to concede gracefully, biology teachers who teach creationism in science classrooms, screwballs who aim to ruin science standards in schools, conspiracy theorists, suicide bombers, ideological demogogues… et al. It would be something like the Soviet Union did with the Jewish Autonomous Oblast (or what the Golgafrinchans did) except it wouldn’t be anti-Semetic and we would be getting rid of people who are truly useless rather than just disparaged.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
p.s. I think exit polls and “projections based on early reports” have far too much influence on the outcome of an election. They should be banned, and no results should be reported until the last poll has closed.
Better yet, there should be a single 24-hour voting period for the entire country – for instance, 12am PST Tuesday until 12am PST Wednesday. And of course, no reporting of results until after that. Let the folks out west make up their own minds without the possibility of being influenced by what the rest of the country has already done.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I like Neil Degrasse Tyson. Of course I’m sure he knows when applying statistical methods in astrophysics to a political race, certain elements that change over time will be completely missing, and anything positive to a candidate will be used by them, (as Phil pointed out.) Among the missing elements will be the voter’s emotions. In science, the data of what is observed can be wrong or right but the stars themselves aren’t lying or trying to deceive with false signals, (like George Bush or some of the posters here.)
Two things I predict though –
1. It’s going to be a wild ride from here to Election Day.
2. If Obama is elected – the Republicans and NeoCons will publicly offer support as the “loyal opposition” but they will privately try every trick (including treason) to undermine and destroy his presidency. I hope he’s elected and I think he’s smart enough to outfox them.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
BA:
I disagree about a Mars mission because it’s exactly what we need to revive public interest. Without that we can’t do the relatively easier goals. Baring that, we need a real space race with China, complete with unabashed nationalism.
A permanent manned space-station isn’t going to capture public interest because, in most people’s mind, it’s already been done. A lunar colony might – and I’d like to see one, maybe at Shackleton instead of a space station – but a manned mission to Mars surely will. Plus, it can be leveraged into all sorts of things:
“Yay! We’re going to land people on Mars!”
“Great! How are we going to handle the cosmic ray issue?”
“Well, uh . . .”
“Say! Why don’t we try it at L5 first? It’s close to home, and we could launch a Mars mission from there.”
“Neat!”
June 6th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
@themadlolscientist: If he stole it you guys still gave it clean to him on the 2nd time after the horrible job he had begun. Therefore it doesn’t count.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
the stars themselves aren’t lying
Which means they are RIGHT! IA! IA! CTHULHU FT’AGN!
Sorry. I’ve no real love for statistics, and while I agree that this poll of polls is a pretty mathematical toy I remain to be convinced that it is a legitimate, much less an accurate, tool. I do, however, disagree that the Republicans will en-masse resort to treason in order to kneecap Obama. If history tells us anything, it’s very rare that one side is good and the other bad; trying to establish that polarity in our own country is not really conducive to constructive debate.
I predict the Republicans will be no more or less “treasonous” under a Democratic president than Democrats under a Republican president. The variation between the two is so small as to be negligible, and “treason” is more or less a meaningless word in this country anyway (John Walker Lindh, anyone?).
June 6th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
BA:
Geez, I hadn’t even considered it in a racist sense. Thanks for making my afternoon even WORSE. ;P
June 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
The Centipede:
“The only difference, after all their rout, is that one is in, the other, out.”
- Charles Churchill
June 6th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Disclaimer:
I live in the US, Texas to be specific. I voted against Bush twice in the presidential contests. I was too young to vote against him becoming our governor, but I would have. Because even when I was a teenager I realized he was a complete idiot.
So to the rest of the world, I humbly apologize and beg forgiveness on behalf of 51% of my fellow voting citizens, many of whom now have a severe case of “buyer’s remorse”.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
>>>“I predict the Republicans will be no more or less “treasonous” under a Democratic president than Democrats under a Republican president. The variation between the two is so small as to be negligible, and “treason” is more or less a meaningless word in this country anyway (John Walker Lindh, anyone?).”<<<
Strawman: – John Walker Lindh was not an elected Democrat. I predict some Democrats in the House and Senate will be obstinate, much like politicians have been in ages past, (odd for so-called “progressives”) but nowhere near as sinister as the Neo-Conservatives.
The “Republicans and no better or worse than Democrats” was a central item in Karl Rove’s old playbook, (used early-on to disillusion college age potential voters back in the 2000 election,) and now a favorite of Libertarians, (the folks who offer one of the finest political models for a nation – of the 12th century.) Certainly the Democrats are capable of as much corruption as Republicans and there are indeed bad Democrats out there, as well as some good Republicans – however one wishes to define the terms “good” and “bad”.
However, the present NeoCon administration is by far the most corrupt and treasonous. A few of their highlights include: ignoring the looming threat of 911 and the evidence of a plot, leveraging 911 after it takes place for political gain, flying the Ben Laden family out of the country just after the attack, outing a CIA agent as political revenge (and also risking the lives of those with whom she had contact,) lying about WMDs in order to go to war with a country that did not even plot against us or attack us, electronic voter fraud in the 2004 election, placing many more inexperienced political hacks in administrative positions the Democrats ever did – i.e. “You’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie”, undermining and distorting scientific findings on climate change as it might effect oil investments, causing through inaction, arrogance and incompetence much higher casualties from Katrina. That’s just the tip of the (melting) iceberg.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
KC:
Exactly. It’s not like we have a Communist Party or a Social Green Party or an American Nationalist Party or a real Total Crazed Whackjob Boarding The Station WOO! WOO! Party like one finds in Europe, whose political representation spectrum has elements scarily left of us and even scarily right of us. Our mainstream choices are:
A morally conservative, ideologically entrenched in the past, spendy party in the pockets of corporate interests, and
A morally progressive, ideologically entrenched in the past*, spendy party in the pockets of slightly different corporate interests.
You can have it in any color you want, so long as that color is black.
–Henry Ford
* Yes, I assert the Democratic Party’s ideology is entrenched in the past. It’s just a somewhat newer past than the Republican Party’s. The Democrats big wedge issues (race, sexuality, abortion, environment) are the same ones that have been around since the 1970s. They’re adapting to exploit a global warming issue, yes, but that’s a natural evolution of an environmental concern and it’s generally looked at in 1970s terms (back to the trees or armageddon, if one wants to be cynical). None of these problems are looked at in a particularly new light, instead, their aims are to ‘fix’ things to how they would have been ‘right’ in 1975.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
BA: “For one thing, polls need to be examined carefully, as they can be misleading in their questions and techniques.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
I am also very skeptical about polling sample sizes for national polls being about 1000 people. In a country with 300 million people and a huge number of differing experiences, races, ethnicities, traditions, geographies, etc. is the margin of error really only 5% on a poll that size? That would be an interesting statistical study.
I may be totally wrong and the sample size is fine and it’s other polling methods which lead to inaccuracies.
Neil Tyson: “And what does it say of the Democratic delegate selection system when its winner would lose the presidency if an election were held today, yet its loser would win it?”
The Democratic delegate selection system is stupid on its face. No investigation or thought is necessary to see that.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
“Strawman: – John Walker Lindh was not an elected Democrat.”
He has nothing to do with being a Democrat. He has to do with being a traitor. In this country, you can get dinged harder for selling dope on the street. This is actually fair, though, as you unintentionally pointed out: “treason” is what Friend Computer says it is. Being a bumbling moron isn’t being a bumbling moron, it’s a corrupt conspiracy of Lex Luthorian complexity and brilliance and treason.
There’s scientific evidence which suggests that even as individuals, much less a species, we are much less rational than we would like to believe ourselves to be. For example, high oil prices nowadays are not entirely in part due to some sort of massive corrupt conspiracy. Are the oil companies playing it for all it was worth? Undoubtedly. But those oil companies are run by stupid monkeys; the supply is controlled by stupid monkeys; the value of the commodity is traded on by stupid monkeys; and the ultimate driver of what the market will bear, i.e. the consumer, is a stupid monkey. This stupidity is like tolerances in engineering; they add up. While on paper everything fits together fine and runs smoothly, in reality there’s gaps between everything and it rattles around like a cheap Afghani pressed-metal AK-47.
Also, remember this: even if there’s a conspiracy of corruption, there’s more than enough information available for people to find out and do things about it. Speer said he didn’t know, Hitler’s secretary said she didn’t know, your average ‘good German’ on the street in 1948 said they didn’t know, but they all generally admitted that they could’ve found out most easily. As much as we like to blame the regime in charge for everything, the world is more complex than that and, in the end, the responsibility for things going poorly lies on every single one of us.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
BA: “Andrew, yeah, that pick for a comment was odd. Neil is black; is that a racist comment they chose? Normally I wouldn’t think so, but the word “dark” is used twice by the commenter in quotation marks. Wow.”
Phil you totally misled me here. He said “dark matter” and “dark energy” in the comment, which I found out after I got curious and checked. I think it was more to indicate his disbelief in those 2 concepts.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Argh, sorry to spam the place up, but back on topic:
Comment #7 sorted by Readers’ Recommended:
Black folks are already talking about the fact that now there is a chance for their children to have aspirations in politics and in life in general, well, those weak Delegates, wrongly, took away the aspirations of women and young girls to have their model first woman President — perhaps next time girls. Going forward, my Party, the Democratic Party, will not unite me with such an injustice.
- – -
Welcome to the Democratic Party. You are either racist or sexist. This is why negative self-definition (”against this, that, and the other”) is bad. It leads to pretending that politics is a zero-sum game when it need not be.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Comment #7 sorted by Readers’ Recommended: “Black folks are already talking about the fact that now there is a chance for their children to have aspirations in politics and in life in general, well, those weak Delegates, wrongly, took away the aspirations of women and young girls to have their model first woman President — perhaps next time girls.”
If this is how people live their lives then a black president or a woman president isn’t going to help them. They are just floating in limbo through life until they get it or die.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Robbie:
Jinx! Punchbuggy blue no punchbacks!
June 6th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Oh wait, quoting me quoting… nvm.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Yes. I am very speedy when refreshing the page over and over while bored at work.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
If were the election held today, McCain would beat Obama, but Clinton would beat McCain
Seems entirely obvious to me. When it comes down to it, people would select Clinton over McCain and McCain over Obama. I agree with Obama on most issues but candidates who become press darlings early and appear to attract the youth market have never made the final push historically, so why would it happen this time? If/when the Dems run Obama, he’ll lose to McCain. If they run Clinton, she’d beat McCain. There are states with near-entire populace who will not vote for Obama, regardless of the press fervor or issues. The opposite is true of Clinton – the press has ridiculed her every step since day 1, but this doesn’t represent the final decision of individuals. One only need to a)travel the bible belt b)look at past election years and compare the run-ups to the final week. Obama’s a flashy candidate but he can’t get elected to this position, just as a great Libertarian candidate, regardless of qualifications and press backing can not. The choice was Clinton or McCain. I’d say it’s a sad reflection but truth is, this is what happens in a free democracy where people are allowed to vote with no knowledge of current events, or issues. Primaries aren’t accurate reflections of the people and the Karl Roves of the world do get their way.
I disagree with McCain on so many issues that I have a hard time believing we’ve shared a country for the last 8 years.
Google this: “presidential candidate issues quiz”
and see who you actually support. The issues that concern me the most are Climate Change, Universal Health Care, Iraq Policy, the Deficit Economy, maintaining separation of church/state. Who should I support? Once Richardson left (and the Libertarians went with a complete goof), there’s just one match on issues for me. In daily life, I swear to noodles, you meet loud people who claim allegiance to a candidate but haven’t a clue how candidates actually stand stand on issues. People vote for stupid reasons, as if it weren’t a job interview or as if their actually going to room with/date the candidate. People vote on looks, mannerisms, and impressions they gather from reality bites and apocryphal sources.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I’ve got an idea on how to decide this all — pick a day, later this year, and let all the registered voters come and choose their favorite candidate. Then tally up the results, and the winner gets to be president.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I’m not sure how Obama is a “media darling”. He gets beat over the head for every loose association in his past and any slip of the tongue while McCain gets a free pass not knowing anything about economics or who we’re supposed to be fighting in the Middle East. It’s true that Obama gets more press, but it’s largely negative.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I tend to ignore political polls, as they are all intended to be biased on one way or another in accordance to the wishes and desires of the organization who wrote the poll, especially if it’s some media group, for attempt the veil of objectivity while holding some pointed bias, which is just dishonest.
I never base my voting decisions on them, what kind of person would?
I have also already decided whom I will vote for in this presidential election anyway.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Wow — how the heck did you come to that conclusion? First, until February this year, Clinton’s primary campaign was more coronation than a battle, and the press was entirely in the tank for a Clinton cakewalk. Second, even in deepest Appalachia, Obama will get the majority of Democratic votes (and Kerry only got around 67% in those areas last time around). He won’t win there, but your assertion is just silly.
The outcome of the election is not a foregone conclusion, nor would it have been if Clinton — who’s negatives are far higher than Obamas –had been the nominee. How quickly you forget the rabid hatred the right has for the Clintons. They would crawl 100 miles over broken glass to vote against her. They eased up on her in the past few months because they wanted her as the Democratic nominee because they’re worried about the lukewarm reception the rabid right has given McCain.
Obama has just as much chance of beating McCain as Clinton would have. The simple fact that Obama won the nomination against probably the biggest upset in the past 40 years should be enough to keep McCain awake at night, and given McCain’s daily flubs over the past week perhaps it has.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Mean politics
I saw what you did there.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
It’s not even close. The policies espoused by Obama and Clinton are pretty much the same when you compare them with McCain. McCain pays lip service to Global Warming, but his policies are pretty much in line with Bush. Universal Health Care? McCain’s a non-starter on that one, and I’m betting that Obama will concede ground to Hillary Clinton on their differences. Iraq? Same again. The deficit economy may be slightly closer, but McCain’s flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts and now wants to extend them — how is that supposed to help reduce the deficit? As for church/state and other judicial issues, well, McCain has vowed on numerous occasions to nominate “strict constructionist” (code words for “very conservative”) judges to the Supreme Court. The next two judges to die/retire will likely be Stephens and Ginsberg. So voting for McCain is a vote to complete the hard-right swing of the supreme court and it will remain that way for at least a decade or two.
If that’s what you want, vote for McCain, but don’t pretend that voting for him is to vote for a centrist moderate. His promise about the Supreme Court alone should be enough dissuade you of that notion.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Tacitus:
I disagree with this analysis because McCain isn’t exactly the darling of the Right. Before McCain had a lock on the GOP nomination, Romney and Huckabee were essentially the “none of the above” candidates. Huckabee for those who felt that Romney was too much of a flip-flopper, and Romney for those who saw Huckabee as Nehemiah Scudder. Aside from a handful of loyalists (particularly in the Ron Paul camp), no one on the GOP side grabbed the Right’s attention. Frank Thompson came the closest. And the Right was *not* a fan of the Feingold-McCain campaign “reform” bill, interpreting it as infringing on the 1st Amendment.
Once McCain had a lock on the GOP nomination, the Right looked at Hillary, Obama, and McCain and concluded *there wasn’t much political difference.* And I heard some say that they would rather vote for Hillary than McCain. Their reasoning was that at least Hillary had experience and was a known factor, and they still had a distaste for McCain.
Something that’s surprised me is that some staunch Democrats, who assumed Obama would get the nomination, had already said they intended to vote for McCain. Apparently they didn’t see much political difference, either. Whether this same sentiment is nation-wide is another issue.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Phil,
While I agree with you that importance and accuracy of Polls tend to be overstated. Your assumption that The US’s political preferences have to be transitive is flawed. Assume There are three voters.
One prefers (Obama>Clinton>McCain).Another prefers( McCain>Clinton>Obama), and the last prefers (Clinton>McCain>Obama). This is known as Arrow’s theorem and shows that democracies can be collectively irrational.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
If you mean “the right” as in Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Delay, Free Republic, Kristol, et al. then I agree with you. To the “far right” (which is what they are) McCain being squishy on a few right-wing issues is tantamount to him being a socialist.
But by any reasonable scale, McCain is a solid Republican conservative on just about all the issues. Sure he’s not a neo-con, but that does not make him a moderate. His campaign platform is solid conservatism — even when it comes to environmental issues — the market rules supreme. And don’t forget, he voted with Bush 95% of the time last year. Not exactly a maverick record.
I simply don’t buy that Clinton suddenly became the darling of the right. Sure she might have won some converts from the moderate right of the Republican party with her populist message, but any change in attitude towards Clinton from those on the hard right during the primary season was merely an appreciation of how disruptive a Democratic Convention floor fight over the nomination would be to the Democrats’ chances.
As for those Clinton supporters who prefer McCain, then either they are blue-dog/Reagan Democrats anyway or they’re still being irrational over Clinton’s loss (I understand, I was gutted when Bush won in 2004, even though I can’t vote in the USA and wasn’t a huge fan of Kerry either!). If Clinton holds to her promise of being Obama’s number one surrogate between now and the election, I expect many of her supporters to come around.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Actually, if I was talking to a Clinton supporter who vowed to vote for McCain, I would boil the issues down to two things:
>> Health care and judicial nominees.
The first is supposedly the one issue nearest and dearest to Hillary Clinton’s heart, and the second is probably the issue that most affects women’s rights for the forseeable future. If they really believed in what Clinton was fighting for (instead of just being overawed by her cult of personality) then voting for McCain should not even be an option.
Disappointment and resentment are powerful emotions, but I doubt they will last all the way through November if Clinton enthusiastically makes her case for Obama.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
The day I hear a politician say “As Neil deGrasse Tyson says…” will be the day I walk into my local pub and see Jesus, Buddha, Quetzalcoatl, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and Elvis talking about Sex and the City over a round of fuzzy navels.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Tacitus:
I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read this:
“If you mean “the right” as in Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Delay, Free Republic, Kristol, et al. then I agree with you. To the “far right” (which is what they are) McCain being squishy on a few right-wing issues is tantamount to him being a socialist.”
If you want to see the Far Right, look into the John Burch Society.
Also, don’t mistake right-wing support for Hillary as her suddenly becoming a darling of the right. It’s more of a function of the right disliking Hillary less than disliking McCain. It’s like a guy taking his date to the multiplex and finding the only movies are “Sex and the City,” “Baby Mama,” and a special showing of “Steel Magnolias.” She asks him to pick one. He must make a choice from these three when what he really was wanting to see was “Iron Man.”
June 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
“there are 3 class of lies: ‘Lies, damn lies… and statistics’”!!!!!
- Benjamin Disraeli – British prime minister XIX -
by the way Dr.Tyson if a superb scientific and a better human being.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
It depresses me that an astronomer’s blog would attract people who do not think carefully as a matter of habit – apparently preferring to revert to casual media when away from work. Some of you clearly do not research voting records, the Constitution or a raft of other source documentation about varied issues; and as a result, you are as easy to lead by the nose as James Randi has pointed out.
The cited analysis had its caveats, which were promptly ignored. Any scientific body should recognize that uncertainty exists in any measurement. This group should not have to be reminded that polls are a measure of the penetration of an idea into the surveyed demographic, and nothing more. Perhaps it has not occurred to you that life itself is a continuing process which we observe at its current level of completion; that the paths to get here and those to leave are non-denumerable. So we presume to say what is likely. I’m OK with that, so long as the observation method is explained. That was done.
Please feel free to be offended if I have impugned the perfect logic and pure source information with which you have constructed your current position on any issue. I am not speaking of you, of course, and I really wish there were more like you.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Seldon’s Second Law of Psychohistory anyone?
June 7th, 2008 at 12:22 am
There’s was a classic case here in California from years ago. They did two polls on a state ballot proposition, and the error bars of the two results did not even overlap. I wish I could recall which one because it might google-able.
June 7th, 2008 at 12:39 am
That McCain had more experience and would be able to get things done.
Eh… but he’s so old. When poorly lit, he looks like he’s melting. And this is from a 42 year old white guy. He’s just… meh…
And Obama… meh… too Messianic for me. He just another of the “let government solve your problems for you!” type. I just want to be left alone. I have a good career, I invest in real estate, I can retire early if the various governments don’t rape me too hard. Just leave me alone.
He *does* support nuke power, though. That alone could win me if he follows though on it. There’s so many nifty new ideas to try in that arena, and we’re still sitting around with fraking COAL plants.
June 7th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Perhaps being British and watching British politics for 20+ years gives me a slightly different perspective, but just because the John Birch society is to the right those people I listed, doesn’t mean that they are not to the far right as well (except when looking at it from a Bircher’s position, perhaps).
John McCain’s platform is not centrist. He isn’t a neo-con but that does not automatically make him a moderate unless you’re willing to accept the neo-con definition of the word. The mainstream parties in countries all over Europe are way to the left of where John McCain is today on a whole host of issues.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, of course. He has the right to run on whatever platform he wants to, but I find it amazing that so many people believe that because he’s some sort of congenial maverick on a few things, that he’s really a moderate. He only looks moderate when reflected in the mirror of the last eight years. It’s not a true image. If McCain wins, there is no doubt he will run a full-throated conservative presidency, from the economy, through foreign policy, to the judiciary.
If that’s what you want, vote for McCain. But change he ain’t.
June 7th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Ugh! I left out an important couple of words:
“The mainstream RIGHT WING parties in countries all over Europe are way to the left of where John McCain is today on a whole host of issues.”
June 7th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Radwaste:
*Gasp* The common folk here, at a popular astronomy blog? Sorry I missed the rest of your statement, I had to call Jeeves over to clean up the shards of glass from my broken monocle. It’s sooo hard to find good help these days, you know…
It’s funny to see you come in here and bash people for their lack or careful thinking, because you’re making a number of unjustified assertions yourself:
- That you know another person’s thought processes, and that their post here is representative of them, in their entirety,
- That they ‘revert’ to ‘casual media’, (hey I’m all for promiscuous media)
- That they don’t research voting records,
- That they’re constitutional illiterates,
- That they believe everything they read, especially polls and statistics.
I hope you feel at least a twinge hypocritical — or is sloppy thinking fine as long as it’s about other people’s thinking and motives?
I was enjoying the political discussion (oh my, what a vulgar topic – a person of good breeding never discusses politics) when you barged in, waving your e-peen around, and repeatedly smacked it against the wall right in front of us. All of this with your avatar in plain sight – have you no shame?
Since this is the BA’s site and I fear I may have already pushed the limits of his “don’t be a jerk” rule, I’ll forgo the suggestion I had for you and the horse you rode in on, and simply suggest that you try a little harder to not be so antisocial next time.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:22 am
I’d like to understand the method a bit better, and why it’s thought to be so good (the theoretical basis, not just ‘we got it right for Kerry’). The NYT gives no reference.
So, thee polls of two politicians, those old war-horses ‘A’ and ‘B’:
Poll1: A, 60%; B, 40%.
Poll 2: A, 60%; B, 40%.
Poll 3: A 15%; B, 85%.
What’s the median? Is it A, who won 2 out of 3 polls, or B, who got 55% of the total people polled (assuming all polls are equal size; once this question is settled we can worry about polls with unequal samples
)?
June 7th, 2008 at 3:33 am
Anyone know Murphy’s Law of Google? It states that you spend ages hunting around the web for something, and then when you whine publicly about its non-availability, the next thing you try gets you the answer.
Method here.
June 7th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
See, this is the problem:
http://messagesfromearth.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/cylons-for-mccain1.jpg
June 7th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Cylon Centurions for McCain?
Well, I don’t really want to be massacred in cold blood by robots with machine gun hands, so I’m all for electing Admiral Saul Tigh as President. I for one greet our cybernetic overlords with open arms and a request to be made into one of them with spring-loaded legs and multispectrum eyes.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Centipede:
So long as we all get our own personal Six, I’m fine with that. In fact, I really don’t care what my Cylon overlords to to me, then.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Centipede:
I can just see Brother Cavill preaching, and saying, “Every head bowed. Every eye closed. if you would like to accept “Six” as your personal Cylon Overlord, please raise your hand… Yes, i see that hand… Bro. Centipede, I said hand…”