Obama Campaign in tatters! McCain Surging Ahead!

[Skeptic]

Oh wait - that was the headline three weeks ago. An eternity. Who even remember those days?

(Cough)

Today's headline:

McCain Campaign in tatters! Obama Surging Ahead!

This sort of thing--from both sides--makes me triply annoyed.

1). First, the air of fatalism, done-deal, nothing-to-see-here in the press is inherently anti-democratic. It is disingeneous to first tell everybody the elections are practically over and that they're vote doesn't matter--and then, two days before the elections, rush in with "Bring out the votes", "your vote can make all the difference" campaigns.

2). Second, nobody seems to note that the "certain" results are not much more than the impressions of the moment, and that only a few weeks before the "certain" results were the opposite.

3). Third, and most annoying, these impressions of the moment (or of the last two weeks) are analyzed and re-analyzed over and over and OVER again, each side finding some "deep seated reasons" for the "historical change" that whatever is happening just now had *had* to happen, and that they said it all along.

I don't see how such analysis is any different from psychic "post-dictions": gee, if you are so smart and can tell us *now* exactly the "deep historical reasons" why the current polls were "inevitable", why couldn't you tell us that, say, six months ago?

Sheesh!

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Hey remember a few months ago when Hillary Clinton was deefintately going to be the Democrat nominee and the voting was pretty much just a formality?

I agree, the press' habit of acting as if the election is over as soon as someone gets ahead at that very moment is as annoying as all hell.

 

[Ausmerican]

Skeptic, where was that the headline three weeks ago? Obama has been ahead by varying margins for a while now, but even when he has been even or a little behind, tatters would have been a stretch.

 

[UserGoogol]

From the mainstream media sure, but from FiveThirtyEight I think it was clear that it was nothing but a post-convention bump and being discounted accordingly, and additionally the magnitude was not anywhere near these levels. Statistics is a science, and just because the mainstream media doesn't know how to do it because math is hard does not change the fact that it can and does produce reliable results.

 

[ZouPrime]

1) McCain NEVER lead by that much over Obama over the course of the race. It's not even close. And when McCain did lead, it was right in the middle of his convention boost.

2) The big difference between now and 3 weeks ago is that we are now very close to the vote, and there's less and less undecided out there. People tend to fix on their decision in the last moments of the campaign, and we're getting closer and closer to the end. It's getting more and more difficult for McCain to reverse the trend.

Of course nothing is won for Obama. Of course things can change until election day. But it's perfectly normal for the news media to observe the very obvious: it's getting almost impossible for McCain to win now. In fact, a republican win while trailing double digits that late in the race would be one of the biggest upset of American politics history. It would require a enormous, very quick and very decisive shift in the electorate. It has nothing to do with fatalism, and everything to do with understand how races are run and won, and comparing this campaign to past ones.

 

[Peephole]

McCain's lead was "artificial" and expected because of his convention and VP announcement. Obama's lead is almost in double digits and there's only three weeks and one debate left.

Tick tock, tick tock. Clock's running out.

 

[Skeptic]

Er, folks, you're missing my point: my point is precisely that such "predictions", on both sides, are not reliable...

 

[Peephole]

Your point that politics and elections are completely unpredictable is nonsense.

 

[ZouPrime]

Er, folks, you're missing my point: my point is precisely that such "predictions", on both sides, are not reliable...

My point is that they are. Candidates leading nationally by double digits in September win presidential elections. That's a very reliable prediction.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I've never quite trusted opinion polls since the 1992 UK general election. Even the exit polls suggested a narrow labour victory or hung parliament. In reality the Tories won it fairly easily.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

2). Second, nobody seems to note that the "certain" results are not much more than the impressions of the moment, and that only a few weeks before the "certain" results were the opposite.

Are you sure you're not reading something in to these reports that isn't there? Note that your two hypothetical headlines are phrased appropriately for reports about the moment and not predictions of the result.

 

[UserGoogol]

Er, folks, you're missing my point: my point is precisely that such "predictions", on both sides, are not reliable...

My point is that that's like saying that people predicted global cooling in the 1970s and global warming in the 2000s so it's impossible to predict the climate. There are differences in who is making the claims, (whether it's a media phenomenon, and how many actual experts are endorsing the idea) in how much data is supporting the claims, and so forth. Of course nothing is certain, but the evidence now points towards certain outcomes and strong changes would need to be taken to change that.

(I don't want to derail the thread with global warming, but it's a nice analogy.)

 

[pgwenthold]

If you read my post in a different thread, I think there is good evidence the "McCain campaign is in tatters." I even wonder if the campaign staff is even talking to their candidate!

For example, McCain introduces a new mortgage payment plan at the debate last week, and apparently his staff didn't know anything about it (they quickly threw together a press release afterward to explain it). The campaign is talking about going on the offensive last weekend, yet McCain doesn't do it at the debate. Then yesterday, McCain is defending Obama's honor while his campaign puts out a press release accusing Obama of "assaulting" McCain supporters.

It's not surprising for the press to ask, "Is there anyone in charge?"

Of course, they are only about a week behind the times, because Rachel Maddow was asking that question early last week, but hey, they will catch up.

 

[UserGoogol]

To give hard data, to take the RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight popular vote estimators (which is not the best metric but it's the easiest information to get historical data on) McCain's lead peaked at 3% and 2% respectively, whereas right now Obama has leads of 7.5% and 5.3% respectively. Intrade had McCain peak at about a 53% chance of winning and now they give Obama a 78% chance of winning. Plus, it's later and the conventions are done with which makes it harder for large movements to happen. There are clear differences in the data.

 

[T.A.M.]

1. It is never a done deal.
2. Obama will need to be 6-7% ahead in order to win, to counter the Bradley Effect.
3. I am still waiting for a Republican October Surprise.
4. If Palin becomes VP, I may start a group to create a large mote between Canada and the USA.

TAM

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

4.If Palin becomes VP, I may start a group to create a large mote between Canada and the USA.

Could you please just use the Rio Grande?

 

[T.A.M.]

Well, perhaps we could just extend the St Lawrence River back through the prairies and BC, that would do it.

TAM

 

[UserGoogol]

1). First, the air of fatalism, done-deal, nothing-to-see-here in the press is inherently anti-democratic. It is disingeneous to first tell everybody the elections are practically over and that they're vote doesn't matter--and then, two days before the elections, rush in with "Bring out the votes", "your vote can make all the difference" campaigns.

I don't understand what you mean. Predictions of who will be president are based on how people are expected to vote. That is the very definition of democracy: government determined by the will of the people. Now, human behavior like everything else in the universe is to some extent predictable using math (both individually and in the aggregate), and as such we can estimate what will happen within some margin of error, but what's wrong with that?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Er, folks, you're missing my point: my point is precisely that such "predictions", on both sides, are not reliable...

Hey. I got it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Er, folks, you're missing my point: my point is precisely that such "predictions", on both sides, are not reliable...

Right, but no one actually ever said the Obama campaign was in tatters, even when McCain was enjoying a slight lead because of the RNC bump.

I'm having a hard time seeing your point.

It's like the people who start off by saying when Columbus made his historic trip and found the New World, everyone else thought the world was flat. Whatever point they then try to make is lost on me.