Poll Dancers

One of the great failings of the media in this era has been the refusal to examine the issues, the objectivity of the facts of allegations put forth by various campaigns, or do much in the way of deeper investigations of real voters and the conditions in which they make decisions. They prefer instead to focus on the "horse race". The reasons for this are several. It's a lot easier. All one has to do is pretend to sit back and assess where one candidate stands relative to another. News organizations can pretend to be objective if they're not actually discussing any issues, or making editorial judgments about what issues to cover, but instead calling the game. This turns the Wolf Blitzers and Peter Jennings of the world into Vin Scullys and Dan Patricks.

The 'black baby' smears against the McCain campaign in 2000 were conducted in part by the use of push polling, that practice where paid pols pose as scientific pollsters but ask loaded questions in order to try to influence the result of the polls. Not just the polls, of course: the point of the poll is to push the voter, not actually get a result. Push polling is a deception, in that it masks a political organization within the seeming objectivity (for whatever that's worth these days) of a news-gathering organization. It's a form of lying and manipulation, which takes the horse race mentality to its logical conclusion. "Would you be more or less likely to want the Red Sox to win the World Series if you knew Pedro Martinez illegally imported llama fur and sold it as school lunches?" "Would you be more or less likely to want Smarty Jones to win the Belmont Stakes if you knew his owner supported thousands of 9/11 orphans?" But that kind of poll question won't change the outcome of an event: push polling will.

So where is the media coverage on the push polling campaign that's going on out there?

What push polling campaign, you might ask?

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported on August 4th about push polling being done in Wisconsin. The item appeared in a column by Cary spivak and Dan Bice, was only posted to the internet on August 31st, and has received scant attention near as I can tell. (I only spotted this on the excellent electoral-vote.com web page in their analysis of some state poll results.)

The Journal-Sentinel site requires a (free) subscription, so I'll clip bits of it here in case you don't have the patience to register:

This month, Oregon-based Moore Information called hundreds of [Wisconsin] state residents to ask them questions about the presidential contest.

[...]

"Whose position do you think is closer to the truth - those 'veterans who served with John Kerry' and say that he does not deserve the medals that he received, or John Kerry who disagrees with the veterans that he served with and who appear in the ad?"

That is, to put it mildly, a nudge, if not an all-out shove.

Days after conducting the poll, the firm put out a news release nationally, saying it had found that President Bush was slightly ahead of his Democratic challenger in Wisconsin, though the lead was within the 4 percentage point margin of error. The release said the poll was conducted "for our own consumption."

[...]

Bob Moore, the firm's president and founder, declined to discuss any of the questions in the poll, including the one on the controversial ads put out by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

[...]

As for who paid for the poll, Moore said his firm picked up the cost for the single question about which presidential candidate Wisconsin residents support.

He wouldn't disclose who paid for any of the other questions.

"I don't want to open that Pandora's box," said Moore, whose 20-year-old firm does polling for a variety of businesses but handles only Republican political clients.

Actually, Wisconsin law requires pollsters to disclose who is paying them if a person being questioned asks for that info. And - no surprise here - Krajewski swears he repeatedly demanded the info of the questioner, her supervisor and, ultimately, Moore himself.

Moore told us, "I never heard of that law before."

Learn something new every day - even after 20 years in the business.

Is it a surprise that Moore polls only for Republican clients? But they're only doing it for 'their own consumption'. This kind of activity is either electioneering, and needs to be reported to the FEC as such, or in violation of Wisconsin state law, or both.

It's unclear whether the Moore firm was doing this in concert with the Bush campaign or the Swift Boat group or not, but the activity is clearly in support of the smear.

What is not surprising is that this was being done at a time calculated to maximum the effectiveness of the Swift Boat smear. Let's say you're the average undecided Wisconsin voter in early August. You've probably just found out John Kerry was more than just a Vietnam Vet, he's a bona fide hero. You're starting to wonder about the kids in the next town over who got killed in Iraq. It's August and you might not be paying attention much, but all of a sudden an ad shows up in the middle of the Brewers game that says John Kerry faked his injuries and lied to get his medals. That sounds pretty bad, but maybe a bit over the top.

Then you get a call from an "news" organization asking you this question:

"Whose position do you think is closer to the truth - those 'veterans who served with John Kerry' and say that he does not deserve the medals that he received, or John Kerry who disagrees with the veterans that he served with and who appear in the ad?"

...and then you see straight news organizations reporting the Swift Boat allegations without analysis of the factual basis?

Back to the topic at hand: national poll data and the horse-race friendly, fact-checking averse media. The "bandwagon effect" is a well-known feature of electoral behavior, in which people on the fence will tend to go to the candidate they think is more likely to win, because they want to be associated with a winner. It may not be terribly principled, but we're talking about voters who are on the fence after four years of clear divisions in the practices, competence, and policies of the camps involved. It's nevertheless real.

The Time magazine poll that came out after the Republican convention showing a 10% lead for President Bush in a race thought to be neck and neck and "stuck" for ten months is rather suspicious. Without getting into the nuts and bolts of polling methodology or ana analysis of same in the Time poll, it's enough to point out that a good horse race has the horses pulling ahead and then dropping behind to keep each horse's fans on an emotional roller coaster. So much the better to keep tuned in, and so much the worse to stop the roller coaster by pausing to address issues, facts, and so forth.

But there are lots and lots of polls, some done by firms like the Moore company that have very specific political allegiances. The constant release of poll results after results feeds the horse race announcers, who keep out reporting on world events and facts and issues so they can keep in the safe space of pretending to call the ball and strike counts. Oops, mixed sports metaphor.

The continuing use of polls to define the race is just the biggest use of the bandwagon effect. I have suspicions that specific polls are designed to start pushing people into going with the winner, as they are told, and thus making the polls a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Losers" are less likely to show up at the polls if they think their vote won't count. The weird anti-democratic effects of the Electoral College continue to feed these manipulations of voter behavior, further suppressing votes from those "undecided" or who will vote "only if it counts".

A push poll serves two purposes. It pushes voters in one direction, and the bogus results, released to the public, and apparently as valid as any other poll, make that bandwagon go just a bit faster.

And why isn't there reporting about the use of push polling in swing states? Could it be that media outlets don't want the very idea of the poll to be questioned by raising doubts about the truthfulness of the polling? Or that they'd have to make actual factual judgments about which polls are trash, and then have their viewers change channels, the same way I change to ESPN News when I miss the score of the game on ESPN2?

Flying Low

Here's one high on the list of boring campaign issues nobody is paying any attention to: the federal government's "bail out" of the airline industry following 9/11. (It seems kinf of unfortunate to use the image of jumping out of a plane to describe a subsidy of the airline industry.)

The US Government (also known as you, taxpayer) has thrown at least $15 billion towards the airline industry since then. Well, not towards the industry: towards specific airlines. The worse off the airline, apparently, the more money it gets.

There seems to be little sentiment in Congress for another bailout, which may be a good thing, but it's illogical. If 9/11 caused a disruption in the airline industry, why then wouldn't the current world situation with high oil prices, resulting in high fuel prices, also be considered a war on terrorism-related 'act of god' requiring a bailout?

It's abundantly obvious that the major airlines are not constructed in an economical way, and are doomed, like most behemoth industries, to bankruptcy. It's called competition. Supply and demand will alter the fortunes of specific players within the industry, and that in turn means, if we're going to accept deregulation of industries like transportation, that we have to accept temporary shortages of supply when corrections (via bankruptcies) are made.

The hard part about all this is the completely outrageous loss of some workers' pensions, which, if they're honored, will in turn be paid out by the government (you, taxpayer). Yes, it's like paying into somebody else's 401(K) on top of paying your own social security and that for somebody else.

There's nothing really new here. The government felt obliged to bailout bankrupt passenger railroads like the Penn Central back in the early 1970s, when it had for years been stifling the effects of the marketplace by subsidizing road travel and forcing railroads to operate unprofitable branches. And remember the Chrysler bailout in the 1970s? Maybe that was a good thing, maybe it wasn't. But it's hardly fair to competitors within the industry to reward a company just for being incompetent.

This is the type of issue that should really be discussed in the Presidential election. It's bound to come up again. Under what circumstances would you, as President, agree to subsidize an industry? What's the relationship between the nation's strategic interests and the health of its domestic industries? Is the shipment of capital to foreign countries related to our domestic security and tranquility?

At the very least, the Congress and President ought to be held accountable for the money blown on the US Airline industry. Whatever problems resulted from 9/11, as the Business Week article from 2001 linked above indicates, they were trivial compared to fundamental flaws in the companies at hand. What role do special interests have in this kind of legislation? Which Presidential candidate is getting support from the airline industry?

Contributing to the Political Process

I had an article on Slate last week, which I neglected to post up here. Here's the link.

The Lyingator

The Governor thinks he saw Russian tanks when he was a kid, but the Russians were out of his part of Austria by the time he was born. The Governor thinks he grew up under the boot of socialism, when in fact Austria never had a socialist government while Arnold lived there, and had the most conservative government on record when he left for the United States (which was then under the liberal Lyndon Johnson administration).

Have we got a Manchurian Governor on our hands?

Burritos at four a.m....and TWINS!

Editor's Note: the following is a parody. It is not in any way, shape, or form meant to represent the actual remarks of the Bush twins to the Republican National Convention on August 30, 2004.

Jenna Bush: It's great to be here. We love Arnold. Isn't he awesome? Thanks to him, if one of us ever decides to marry a Democrat, nobody can complain.

Except maybe our Grandmother, Barbara. And, if she didn't like it, we would definitely hear about it. We already know she doesn't like some of our clothes, or music, or most of the TV shows we watch. Ganny, we love you dearly, but you\'re just not very hip. She thinks "Sex in the City" is something married people do, but never talk about.

We spent the last four years trying to stay out of the spotlight. Sometimes we did a little better than others. We kept trying to explain to Dad that when we were young and irresponsible. Well, we were young and irresponsible.

Barbara Bush: Jenna and I are really not very political, but we love our Dad too much to stand back and watch from the sidelines. We realized that this would be his last campaign, and we wanted to be a part of it. Besides, since we've graduated from college, we're looking around for something to do for the next few years ... kind of like Dad.

Jenna Bush: Our parents always encouraged us to be independent, and to dream big. We've spent a lot of time at the White House, so when we showed up for work the first day, we thought we had it all figured out. But, apparently, my Dad already has a chief of staff ... named Andy.

Barbara Bush: When your Dad's a Republican and you go to Yale, you learn to stand up for yourself. So I knew I wasn't quite ready to be President - but #2 sounded good - who is this man they call Dick Cheney?

Jenna Bush: I think I know a lot about campaigns, after all my Dad and Grandfather have both run for President, so I put myself in charge of Strategy. Then I got an angry call from some guy named... 'Karl'?

Barbara Bush: We knew we had something to offer. I mean, we've traveled the world. We've studied abroad. But, when we started coming home with foreign policy advice, Dad made us call ... Condi?

Jenna Bush: Not to be deterred, we thought surely there's a place for strong willed, opinionated women in communications... and next thing we know, Karen's back! So, we decided the best thing we could do here tonight would be to introduce someone we know and love. You know all those times when you were growing up and your parents embarrassed you? Well, this is payback time ... on LIVE TV!!!

Barbara Bush: Take this... I know it's hard to believe, but our parents favorite term of endearment for each other is actually "Bushie". And, we had a hamster, too let's just say...ours didn't make it.

Jenna Bush: But, contrary to what you might read in the papers... our parents are actually pretty cool. They do know the difference between mono... and Bono. When we tell them we're going to see Outkast, they know it's a band... and not a bunch of misfits. And, if we really beg them, they will even 'Shake it Like a Polaroid Picture'.

Barbara Bush: So, okay - maybe they have learned a little pop culture from us... But, we've learned a lot more from them. About what matters in life. About unconditional love. About focus and discipline. They taught us the importance of a good sense of humor. Of being open-minded and treating everyone with respect. And, we learned the true value of honesty and integrity.

Jenna Bush: When you grow up as the daughters of George and Laura Bush, you develop a special appreciation for how blessed we are to live in this great country. We are so proud to be here tonight to introduce someone who read us bedtime stories, picked up carpool, made us our favorite peanut butter and jelly sandwich and cheered for us when we scored a goal - even when it was for the wrong team.

Barbara Bush: Someone who told us we actually looked "cute" in braces, always welcomed our friends and, was there waiting when we came home at curfew.

Jenna Bush: Ladies and Gentlemen, one of the two most loving, thoughtful people we know

Barbara Bush: Your President ... and, our Dad - GEORGE W. BUSH!