wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Brian,

Please focus on issues, not polls and please also keep us up to date on Obama and his attitude towards the US relationship with Israel and Middle East peace process v. McCainn also.

We are also interested in if McCainn is going to suddenly step down and whomever is the Republican V.P. nominee would step in as the candidate running for President and they would provide another person as their V.P.

By, the way, great show and Congratulations on the Peabody award.

Also re: Ferd (#36) how about we learn from the Aussies as well? Make mandatory voting law. I'm sickened by people who blow off the voting system and then gripe about how pointless it is to vote. Just get out and vote, or go live somewhere else if you think the system and framework are permanently broken. I suggest China or North Korea as alternative places of residences for the 'why bother' demographic.

You asked if too much polling is done and if political junkies "sneek a peek" while decrying them.You aslo asked what individuals do and what they thnk about polling.
So being and individual and junkie wannabee:
Too much polling and analysis is done on the "horse race". I do look at polling but only when it appears as a news item and gets me worried or elated. If I hear or read that my canddiate is "down" or "up" I want to see what that means exactly. If "down" I hope to be reassured that it doesn't mean much, if "up" I hope that it makes me feel secure. But if no poll results were announced in the news I probably wouldn't go looking for it.
Although you didn't ask, I don't think that the "issues", although important, are that paramount either. One can generally tell how an elected official would stand based on party affiliation, so an issue might be important only if he deviates from the expected or if someone is really interested in the fine details. What is also important, and rarely discussed, are who is aligned with the candidate, where does he get his money from, who will his advisers be, who might be on his cabinet and so on. I wouldn't expect the candidate to announce it ahead of time, this only creates controversy, but a news organization should be able to present reasonable possibilities.

I was on hold for 10 or 12 minutes, listening to the discussion and thinking 'this could be about breakfast cereal or a new product for the home, it's all marketing'. When you turned to the subject of margin of error...where is the line between legitimate, and unavoidable, "error" and manipulation (as in stocks or futures trading)? As I was waiting to hear "one or two more questions" the subject of baseball stats was interjected. YUP! This is essentially bookmaking. I have a serious complaint about the application of statistical processes to evaluating human opinions when the result is that a candidate whose principles resonate with my core beliefs is labeled UNELECTABLE, thereby depriving me of the right to freely choose. Didn't Capra make a movie about a statistically 'perfect' town? When will we learn?

I agree with #34!

Please focus on issues, like the impeachment hearings that started on Friday, what is going on in Darfur, AIDS in NYC and awareness.

Learn from the Brits! Limit the days a candidate can campaign. Limit money spent to what the government gives - no contributions from anyone, anywhere. No public polling, the election itself is the only poll anyone needs to pay attention to. Of course no primaries. Let all the candidates run on issues and then a runoff will determine the winner, which of course eliminates the electoral college.

Ban polls! Every Monday we learn on "news" shows, which blockbuster movie had the biggest grosses over the weekend. This is just a way the studios have of increasing attendance. I have well educated friends who believe this is a good way to judge whether a movie is worth seeing. Just like polls!

Polls allow lazy people and lazy candidates to focus on unimportant parts of a campaign. I want to hear about issues! What does the candidate feel about the issues that are important to him/her. If the candidate is worth voting for he/she will touch a chord that resonates for us. Discussions will ensue, solutions will be discovered. Polls focus on less than important issues - race, flag pins, wives, the bible.

When candidates focus on the polls at the expense of discussing the issues and adjust their message to appeal to the lowest common denominator we all lose.

Polls give candidates a license to talk "down" to us. We deserve better! Focus on issues. Tell us what you want to accomplish. Let us know how you intend to accomplish your goals.

Re: Seth, who has cast 'shame' onto Brian; this wasn't a typical media BS-fest tossing around poll numbers, I feel that this segment was a probing and engaging view of the overall world of polling--how it's approached, its positives and negatives, etc. Please don't place such a hex on our morning host! Save "shame" for the real evildoers: Dick Cheney, K-Ro (Karl Rove), etc.

Brian, you're dumbing down and diluting the content of your show and WNYC as a whole by spending way too much time on polling data and money raised.
Focus on issues, issues, issues and more issues! Break out of this dumb herd mentality of your colleagues. I'm sick and tired of so much time air time and column inches wasted on poll numbers and fundraising data.
You should pledge to stop using sports metaphors for this election contest. You say the election isn't a baseball game and then you make the analogy anyway. Don't talk down to your audience with this too cute by half jocularity and frivolity. Don't come hat in hand, begging for money during pledge drive, if you're simply going to serve the same pap offered daily by cable news.

Skip the polls - let's talk about substance.

Polling and the horse race is inevitably part of covering any election.

Oct. 1, when most voters will actually be paying attention to making the choice, is the time to judiciously dip into the horse race.

Starting around this date, talking to
2 or 3 local political reporters in key districts of individual swing states is
my idea. This is where those reporters
with their ear to the ground discuss the
ISSUES in the state they cover.

Just before Oct. 1, a primer on how the
electoral college works, a little history
behind the system and whether or not
the system should be continued.

Finally additional shows could be dedicated
to possible voting machine issues that
could crop up in the swing states, the
history of voter fraud/voter intimidation, etc.

5% Literally 1 in 20. IMHO, anyone interested in the election has some interest in figuring out the result. But I think the best coverage is by truly independent analysts who dig deep. Where is the money going to come from to implement Obama's policies? Is McCain really knowledgeable on foreign affairs? Given the political paralysis, who has a chance of implementing their policies?

Brian, even on your show I think we can dispense with the political spokespeople. We know what they will say - or rather what they will not say. It is useless, infuriating - worse it is Booring.

Brian,
*Horse race stuff* - no. Nate Silver quality analysis - YES. Being a huge fan of 538, I don't think your categorization of his work into the up and down game is merited. He's very critical of the MSM in this regard.

I don't really pay attention to polls anymore. In fact, I don't even answer any market research by phone nor internet either for whatever reason. I should say I have been interested in Market research for years and have overseen business surveys - and focus groups - for years.

I had, in the past, liked to take surveys to figure out the point of view of the survey and what they were trying to understand about their market. But I found so many poorly constructed surveys and in the political arena the heavy use of push surveys that I don't play anymore.

To answer your question, Brian, there is a great deal to be learned from Nate Silver's work. It takes on a role greater than that of the average pollster, and instead calls into question much of current polling (an overall misleading and unscientific practice).

In addition, websites such as fivethirtyeight.com teach us much about how we perceive our own nation's demographic character. From these results, it becomes much more possible to understand how best to view our political culture, and how best we can change it in our favor, on a very geographically-based level.

Though most polling has made skeptics of many Americans, there is no need to be skeptical of this. It contributes greatly to our nation's discourse, and deserves as much of our attention and coverage as possible.

It was a true pleasure to listen to this segment.

Since you asked for feedback...
Occasionally, discussion of poll results, polling methods, and their credibility (or lack thereof) inform and are interesting to know about. But discussions of issues, and the candidates' positions, their actual record, and the character behind them are more important to me.

i get polls here http://www.electoral-vote.com/
but now i have 2 site to check

I HATE the horse race stuff. Political elections are NOT a game, but the horse race approach turns them into a game.
The statistics change all the time, are often inaccurate, and do not educate about issues or value. They may be exciting at the moment, but afterwards it all feels empty.

Maybe until November you could devote one day a week or one hour a week to this and tell us what it will be and I, for one, can plan to do something else during that time.

Dear Brian,

I am not at all interested in having you air more programs about polls. I think that polls contribute nothing to the electoral experience.
If anything, I think that polls are detrimental to voters thinking on their own about important issues and how they relate to their life.

Peppi

Thank you Brian for at least discussing the polls and fundraising. They are definitely part of politics.

Sorry Seth, even NPR dosen't have to be a snore fest.

What if polls were outlawed? What if we just had to make our decisions on what we saw of the candidates? I just wonder how things would be different, how candidates would campaign differently

Brian,

Polls are fun for those who love numbers. The election is a great betting game. I teach and I intend to have my students create their own electoral map prediction prior to the election and then compare their map with the actual result. What fun we'll have this year.

I don't put much stock in polls.

How about more coverage of the candidates policy positions, and less on polls. Just vote for who you want.

issues please i get the horse race other places

won't Romney help John McCain in Michigan, to paraphrase your website

I completely agree with Dan. The media will bend over backwards on behalf of McCain and unfairly go after Obama to keep this a tight race. The prez campaign is just another primetime tv show for the media. They'll do anything to pump up the ratings.
Political polling and fundraising data are the crack cocaine of the media. Brian Lehrer is no better than the cable tv by fixating on poll numbers and fundraising dollars. Shame on you, Brian. I expect more serious analysis from NPR. You've lost your credibilty as a serious journalist.

A question for your pollster: what is the response rate in your polls? This is something I never see in the fine print, but that I believe can affect results profoundly.

The major problem with polls is that the goal is to make the electorate appear that they have stronger opinions than they(we) actually do or that they have made up there minds on issues that they have not. The tools are biased in favor of polarization. I have experienced this when I have been polled and on stories I have heard with pollsters interviewed on NPR. Nobody want to hear about a poll that says people don't know and/or undecided.

I think what people should be paying attention to are the number of people who voted in the primaries! If you add up all the votes cast in new jersey for example, Mccain only received like 300,000, while Obama got like 650,000; not to mention or factor all the votes that went to the other democratic contenders (clinton got 500,000), that's over a million.
My prediction is Obama BLOWING out mccain!

I'm a big fan of Baseball Prospectus and BP raidio podcast and I am reading "Between the Lines: Everything You Think You Know About Baseball is Wrong", and what I like is how they use statistics to illuminate trends and expose truisms and accepted truths and examen them in a new way. Does Five Thirty Eight do something similar in their analysis in the political realm?

Can you explain why the media spun last weeks negative poll ratings to reflect the Obama overseas trip? Doesn't it take at least a couple weeks to see the results of big campaign events? Why was this exception made for this particular trip?

I am curious what Nate Silver thinks about how various outcomes of political polls might motivate different voter behavior. For example, when a ten point gap appears, is it possible that some people decide to not bother going out to lose an hour or two of valuable time during the workday to wait in line to vote, if they have the perception that it wouldn't even matter? Or perhaps when your preferred candidate is getting really bad poll results, it is a motivating factor to the base?

I have worked in a number of Latin American countries with poor rule of law, and I can guarantee you that many polls down there are manipulated by certain interests with the goal of making an impact on voter behavior.

Thoughts?

Love/hate relationship exactly. I'm most bothered by how the media interprets the polls. Love to hear how what Nate Silver thinks how the media is doing.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story

The link for the story in the LA times

I'm working for the Obama campaign in Georgia, what do the numbers look like down here?

Am I wasting my time?

Please.

While interesting to media and fund-raisers, polls are virtually meaningless to the average voter until after the conventions. Most people fail to realize that our presidential race is not a national one, but a 50-state contest (see "Electoral College).

Brian & Nate,

Did you see the LA times story about the anti-Obama media bias? do you think that the 72% negative comments about Obama , compared tot he 57% negative comment on McCain, skew the polls?

Take that O'Reilly

Nate does a good job.

It would be nice if the MSM reported on his findings as much as they do individual polls.

i'm interested, but i had a bad weekend

Brian, you're right. We don't care. Move on to the Starbucks segment.

538 confirms what i have long believed to be true about this campaign. The MSM has covered it like it was close in order to keep it close and expand their ratings. I just don't see how John McCain even has a chance to win and yet we always here the polling on TV that favors him rather than any polls that favor Sen. Obama. Nothing more horrible for the media that a race that is already over.