Comments on: Psephological Concussion

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 14:41:00 +0000

“…they only define a lower bound for it at 50%.” An upper bound, of course.

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 14:36:51 +0000

I think everyone is missing the point here by trying to project forward to 2004-11-02. If the numbers tell us anything, it’s that this administration’s future poll numbers are less predictable than those of recent ex-presidents. Why? Because, as Nasi Lemak observes above, the data do not probe GWB’s stable “baseline” support at all; they only define a lower bound for it at 50%. What they show is that (1) running away on 9/11, starting the wrong war, and shaving the Iraqi butcher are each worth a discontinuous boost, and (2) the Shrub has been losing support at 2% a month (comparable to his father’s slide, and, barring Watergate, about as fast as polls can fall) for all the months he’s been in office except the initial honeymoon and the rally-round-the-flag spikes. What these numbers must be telling Karl Rove (who is surely reading them without hazy Tuftean digression) is that his man has only one proven way to win public approval. In other words, that the crucial election-day number can be swayed only by one more national wake-up, and that the November extrapolation without one is in the unplumbed upper 30s. This is emphatically not a line of reasoning I want haunting the corridors of power through a long hot foreign-policy summer.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 05:33:56 +0000

Sorry, dialup problem. But really, I’d like to reiterate how pointless I think that the statistical projections are. MY blog partner Dave Johnson looked at the spikes in the graph (all military-oriennted) and pointed out that Bush needs an event in late October or early November. He may guess wrong as to the right kind of event, but he certainly will make sure that there is an event. Comparable events/non-events probably decided the 1980 and possibly the 1968 elections. Carter couldn’t get the hostages home, Johnson couldn’t get anything done in Vietnam. In both cases, I believe that the Republicans cut deals (with Khomeini and Diem).

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 05:25:03 +0000

I think that this election will be decided by events occuring between now and the election. Both campaign events and events in Iraq and elsewhere. Trying to figure things out by measuring trends is delusory. (Yes, I mean you!) However, this graph does show me that Bush is vulnerable. A friend of mine thinks that Osama will be captured at the appropriate time before the election. If Bush manipulates events successfully, he will probably win. If things swing out of his control, he won’t. My feeling is that Bush-Rove look at excess approval ratings as uninvested capital. If Bush popped above 60% he’d probably do something unpopular on his agenda to bring things down to 52%, which is where he wants to be. This thread does exemplify CT comments’ two worst traits: troll-driven threads, and second-order methodological wonk discussions. Let’s give a round of applause to statboi for her sterling red herring.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 05:23:43 +0000

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 05:23:06 +0000

By: Pedro Sans Pedro

Pedro Sans Pedro — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 05:01:17 +0000

belaborer: A war deflects the populations ire away from the president towards The Enemy…?

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Thu, 01 Apr 2004 14:39:17 +0000

Archpundit – That’s a fair question. Briefly, I am skeptical about the thinking behind the models, because they appear to have been constructed by experimenting to see which measures give the best fit. Unfortunately, that will, if you fiddle enough and have small data sets, always appear to fit the data well. As for making my own argument more mathematical, I could do that but don’t think it worthwhile, given the poor measures of some of the important variables and small number of cases. I have done longer critiques of those models in the past and will probably do one again at my site before the election. For those who want a hint, just ask yourself how many elections the models are tested against, 10 maybe?

By: ArchPundit

ArchPundit — Thu, 01 Apr 2004 08:22:44 +0000

Jim, if you are going to claim your prediction is based on political science, why not base it on the many political science models out there that have actually operationalized the variables you mention? I mean, you could start with Lewis-Beck and Rice from 1992 given they have summaries of many models and then pick up the modifications over the years.

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:03:21 +0000

If you are interested in what I would call a “fundamentals” approach to the question, rather than arguing about graphs, take a look at this post which uses standard political science arguments to predict that—if the American economy grows as most economists predict—Bush will defeat Kerry by 59-41 in the two party vote. I’ll be updating these predictions at least once a month, by the way. Note that I made the prediction early in March, before Bush retook the lead. I glanced at “Nasi Lemak”’s chart and the discussion accompanying it, but saw no insights from political science. But then I’ve been out of the field for many years, so perhaps I missed something. Those interested in my previous predictions can look in my November 2002 archives.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:58:41 +0000

I’ll presumptuously say some stuff about Harry’s question: Clinton’s results show that in a three-way race a candidate can poll considerably lower than his approval ratings. GHWB was polling between 40% and 50% approval in 1992, and didn’t clear 40; in ‘96, Clinton looks to have been polling around 58 on election day and didn’t make 50. This is more or less what you’d expect, I’d guess, when you have two choices in the approval poll and three choices in the vote. I think the 50% mark is still a natural place to look for the baseline for approval; Nat Whilk is right about reading the future, although I wishfully note that Nixon and Reagan (and Clinton!) were trending up at the time of those polls.

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:18:18 +0000

Ed Zeppelin wrote: “Clinton got over 50% in 1996.” Nope. 49.24%.

By: Ed Zeppelin

Ed Zeppelin — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:16:43 +0000

Just to point out that Clinton won, twice, with considerably less than 50%. Clinton got over 50% in 1996. Perot was significantly weaker that time out (can’t recall the exact percentages, but I know Perot came nowhere near his 1992 showing). IN 1992, though, Clinton got 43%, Bush I got 38%, and Perot got 19% (but no actual electoral votes, IIRC).

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:55:59 +0000

To tie this into the thread on the “Book of Revelations(sic)”, polls suggest that about 2/3 of the American people believe in the Second Coming of Jesus.

By: DJW

DJW — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:06:16 +0000

Statboi’s complaint makes sense, as long as we assume that Bush’s performance has been so bad that it’s rather surprising his approval rating aren’t hovering around zero. What I see him so close to the bottom of the graph, I think, “great, everyone’s finally figured it out, and…oh, wait, that’s 47%?! What the…”