Comments on: Framed

By: dsquared

dsquared — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 11:15:40 +0000

Is it possible that they skew toward Bush because the population involved is somewhat skewed toward the libertarian right? Not obvious from the data; the IEM has been perfectly happy predicting Democrat victories in the past. Also note that the “libertarian” right (as opposed to the “hanging chad libertarians” like Glen Reynolds) pretty much hates Bush more than the democrats do.

By: JPed

JPed — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 05:06:13 +0000

M. Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 seemed to be doing quite good business in Europe when I was there earlier this summer. While I am not a Bush fan, I think there were some charges there which … how shall I say … were rather aggressively made without much aim to fairness or completeness of reporting. Moore’s not a reporter—this I understand. But many who see his movie and may not understand the highly polarized context in which it was made may find it more convincing than I did. Not that I didn’t enjoy it… cheap shots are often entertaining, even to those who know better.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 02:38:21 +0000

And just as a majority of Americans over the age of 50 who think exposing a tumor to air during surgery will cause it to spread and grow, those who believe Saddam was directly involved 9/11 scare me. Does it scare you that the Bush administration has subtly hinted at such involvement, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, in order to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq? It does me.

By: msj

msj — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:43:41 +0000

Regarding IEM/tradesports how did they do on the Iowa primary? I remember seeing a huge Dean crash/Kerry surge after the caucuses, which means they were pretty poor predictors. On 18 Jan, the last price for Kerry was 0.154. On 20 Jan, the last price for Kerry was 0.349. Dean went from .510 to .209. Why should anyone pay attention to a market that’s demonstrably reactive, not predictive?

By: jet

jet — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:09:35 +0000

Kvetch, thanks for the info. And just as a majority of Americans over the age of 50 who think exposing a tumor to air during surgery will cause it to spread and grow, those who believe Saddam was directly involved 9/11 scare me. The world is slowly trudging forward even with all this ignorance. Imagine the world if people took a few hours a week to actually become informed. Ray, I searched and searched for th e link and all I could find were links and quotes to the original. None of those links worked, so maybe I was fooled and the Die Zeit never ran that poll. But I certainly wasn’t smoking crack and imagining it. Here a quote from the “original”. I tried googling key phrases from it, but no luck. # German disbelief over 9/11 – One-third of Germans under age 30 believe the U.S. government may have sponsored the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, according to a poll. – And about 20 percent of Germans in all age groups hold this view, according to a survey of 1,000 people conducted for the weekly Die Zeit. -

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:33:39 +0000

“(what was the number of Germans who believed Bush created 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq for oil? Something like 30-50%?)” Bollocks. There has never been any such poll. Come up with something vaguely plausible next time.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:23:16 +0000

Kvetch, I’ve seen many people talk about that, but I have yet to see the source. It was the Newsweek poll of September 2-3, 2004. Here’s the link to detailed results: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040904/nysa058_1.html And here’s the question as it was asked…I’ll let you be the judge as to whether there was a “trick” involved: 18. Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not? BASED ON REGISTERED VOTERS Yes / No / DK Current Total 42 / 44 / 14 Republicans 55 / 32 / 13 Democrats 32 / 54 / 14 Independents 37 / 48 / 15 Trends (1/29-30/04) 49 / 39 / 12 (9/18-19/03) 47 / 37 / 16

By: jet

jet — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:19:00 +0000

Kvetch, I’ve seen many people talk about that, but I have yet to see the source. The source for my poll, I believe and am perfectly open to correction, was Gallup in Germany approximately 2 months ago. I really am interested in the source because I want to see what the question was and what was the breakdown on who answered how. There was a similar poll floating around about the percentage of Americans who believed that WMD’s had been found in Iraq. It was used to show how gullible Americans were. But in reality it was a trick question. Do 20 bombs, several years old qualify as WMDs? Technically, they probably were. But in the spirit of the question, probably not. Perhaps the poll you are referring to might not be the same type of trick question, but is still a trick question.

By: Paul Orwin

Paul Orwin — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:47:27 +0000

About the IEM/Tradesports stuff above. Is it possible that they skew toward Bush because the population involved is somewhat skewed toward the libertarian right? People who think a market like that is interesting are probably not a broad cross section of the American voting public. They may well process the information in ways that presuppose a likely Bush victory, which may skew the numbers. Just a thought (Perhaps we need a poll of IEM participants; how meta)

By: Paul Orwin

Paul Orwin — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:46:51 +0000

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:04:33 +0000

But like many in America who view most of the world as slightly insane (what was the number of Germans who believed Bush created 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq for oil? Something like 30-50%?) In other words, approximately the same as the percentage of (perfectly sane, apparently) Americans who think Saddam Hussein had a direct and personal role in the 9/11 attacks.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:58:34 +0000

can you take a stab at explaining why the IEM or Tradesports has Kerry so far down Take a look at the historic chart of Gore vs. Bush. The current situation looks scary, but it isn’t really all that far out of the line of general volatility of this market. The IEM doesn’t really make its mind up until after the debates; at this stage, I think that even its proprietors would think of it more as a bit of fun than anything else.

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:47:05 +0000

I concur Ted that this debate was actually, unlike so many other staged and structured events in any given modern campaign, of real benefit to our democracy. I was genuinely surprised at how revealing I found it to be. There were several exchanges where talking points had clearly been left behind, and the candidates were actually thinking about how to respond to one another. Of course, this hurt Bush a lot. I don’t think he came out destroyed, but he did come out seriously pecked and pushed around. Kerry, gloriously, actually managed to keep him on the defensive almost the whole way through. (More thoughts from me here.) Regarding their exchange on North Korea, there’s an important point which I wish Kerry could have made (and he might of, because that back-and-forth was one of the less scripted ones of the night). Kerry is the one talking about “bringing the world in” whereas Bush wants “stay on the offensive”; however, in the case of Kim Jong Il, Bush insisted on talks with everyone involved, while Kerry focused on taking talks straight to North Korea. There’s a real opportunity here to see a meaningful difference, and not just to policy wonks—just observe that part of the reason Kerry seems to be, to the superficial and mostly uninformed voter at least, borrowing from Bush’s “directness” playbook in this case is the simple fact that the South Korean government and people, who have the most at stake in resolving the crisis on the peninsula, want talks to directly include the North Koreans. So in other words, in being “direct” in his approach to North Korea, Kerry is still being “global.” Which is a simple but important enough point that, who knows, it might have even changed a couple of minds.

By: Sam Dodsworth

Sam Dodsworth — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:30:14 +0000

I’ve got to go now, but I’ll just offer a couple of belated thoughts in favor of the “de Gaul was widely hated and we’re both wrong” alternative – the “events” of May 1968, and a vague recollection that public reaction to the use of torture was the last straw that led to the Fench getting out of Algeria.

By: Jet

Jet — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:30:11 +0000

I wasn’t arguing that he didn’t damage the UN’s credibility. I was just arguing that he didn’t go out of his way to do it. But like many in America who view most of the world as slightly insane (what was the number of Germans who believed Bush created 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq for oil? Something like 30-50%?), I think that when it comes to the UN’s credibility and the US’s credibility, the US interests should always trump. As for the international criminal court and the Kyoto treaty, I certainly hope Bush goes out of his way to damage them. That court has already attempted to try US soldiers for using depleted uranium in Iraq. And the Kyoto treaty would stave off global warming by maybe 7 years over the next century while incurring 10 times the cost of the actual warming. But I digress, as those are arguments for an entirely different thread ;)