WaPo/ABC Tracking Shows Early Voting Obama Lead Mirrors Early Bush Lead In 2000, 2004

[Richard Tafoya]

Washington Post:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/10/wapo-abc_track_early_birds_for.html

More than twelve million voters have already cast ballots in the presidential contest, according to one estimate (http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html), and new data from the Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll shows these voters breaking Democratic by a wide margin.

Among those who said they have already voted at an early voting location or sent in an absentee ballot, Barack Obama picked up 60 percent of the vote in the new poll to John McCain's 39 percent.

These voters make up 9 percent of "likely" voters in the track.

The senator from Illinois has a similar lead, 58 to 39 percent, among those who plan to vote early but have not yet. (Those who plan to vote on Election Day also go for Obama, but by a narrower, 51 to 45 percent.)

These early voting numbers are a near mirror-image of those from the last two elections: A paper (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/4/1/4/7/p41477_index.html)using the National Annenberg Election Study reports that George W. Bush scored 62 percent of early voters in 2000 and 60 percent of them in 2004.

[Murrican]

Lots of wiggle room in this account:

Note waffle words: "according to one estimate", "likely voters", "plan to vote".

Question remains, if Obama supporters are as hard-core as Bush supporters in 2000 and 2004 then this account may mean something. We don't know that, however, from this selective extract.

[db44]

"Wiggle words" as you call them are proper reporting. Nothing is fact until it is done. Just like if you read a story of someone being murdered, you should always see words such as "alleged," "reported" how somebody "claimed" the defendant did something.

The media's job, when done properly is not to come to a an opinion on a story being covered. "According to one estimate?" You're concerned about that? How would you phrase it then, because I don't see how any way you say it that doesn't change the basic meaning of the sentence.

[Murrican]

"Wiggle words" as you call them are proper reporting. Nothing is fact until it is done. Just like if you read a story of someone being murdered, you should always see words such as "alleged," "reported" how somebody "claimed" the defendant did something.

The media's job, when done properly is not to come to a an opinion on a story being covered. "According to one estimate?" You're concerned about that? How would you phrase it then, because I don't see how any way you say it that doesn't change the basic meaning of the sentence.

You're right, and so am I. My point was that it is reporting that qualifies its analysis as "possibly" meaning something, which means it also may not. We don't have enough context to know for sure. That said, the reporting is fair comment because it does use the equivalent of "alleged" (we usually say "alleged" only when there is no final conviction, even if the perp is wounded in a TV-helicopter-reported takedown by the cops). The "possibly may not" angle is as I stated: is there any quantification on the attachment of Obama support to their candidate vis-a-vis the Bush support in 2000 and 2004? We don't know from this extract and maybe no one knows within a reasonable margin of error.

Typically, hard-core supporters vote early. That's because they want to avoid weather-related risk, or intend to be workers for a candidate on E-Day. I haven't seen any post-ballot info on the relative categorization of those doing early voting. Has any here seen such categorization?

I've heard a professor on tv (it was either CNN or FoxNews, I flip back and forth) say youth advance polling in Florida is lower than expected. That could have negative implications for Obama as his support is strong in the youth bracket. And, likewise, it could reflect negatively on the numbers of ground troops available on E-Day.

Will the TV buy tonight stimulate big advance numbers in the next week? That could be very good for Obama, obviously.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

All polls are estimates. All projections have "wiggle room." Any analysis based on such is speculative, yet that is how political campaigns are run. There is, however, much to be said for public perception. It's a cliche, but true: the only poll that counts is the final vote.

[Richard Tafoya]

This news item is written to establish context. To the extent that data points exist today that are very similar to those that existed in the last two presidential contests.

Context is, by its nature, subjective. It's a lens. Just like reporting that the last time Los Angeles had this many 90-degree days in October, we saw an increase in brush fires.

[db44]

Just curious Murrican, and if you've written this in one of your other meandering, I'm sorry I didn't see it, what is you fascination with our politics here? I have Canadian friends here who are more concerned about what's going on up there.

[Murrican]

Just curious Murrican, and if you've written this in one of your other meandering, I'm sorry I didn't see it, what is you fascination with our politics here? I have Canadian friends here who are more concerned about what's going on up there.

I'm an American. In exile. And even if I were not, you might be interested to know that the US election is front page news around the world. Most Canadians follow American politics closely, and a poll during the recent election up here said a good percentage would have preferred to vote stateside instead of up here. As I have a degree in political science covering both countries politics, my dual interest should be obvious.

I'm sorry if you think I meander. Thoughtfulness isn't usually a negative. Too much partisanship doesn't help in Congress and it sure doesn't lead to kumbaya moments online either...

[DoubleEdgeSword]

It's an interesting poll in that regard, Richard. I hope the parallel proves true. Florida has seen 1.2 million early voters as of Monday morning, according to my local news. That squares with your site, which states 2.6 million with 54% of votes cast in person.

[Murrican]

Context is, by its nature, subjective. It's a lens. Just like reporting that the last time Los Angeles had this many 90-degree days in October, we saw an increase in brush fires.

Well, no. Context can be subjective, but isn't necessarily so. If "context" is limited to a sentence or paragraph, it may well be, but not in the broader view (errr... context). And your example isn't an example of context but a simple linkage of what may be unrelated facts bordering on implied inductive connection. Context is the environment in which words and their meanings exist, from which they are drawn, and the sub-text to which they reference. You can expand that, of course, and you're welcome to, but this kind of article (the original, at the top) contributes to an election evaluation context, adequately attempts to state the elements in doubt upon which its story line hinges, and properly begs other questions...

One of those is the one I posed:

if Obama supporters are as hard-core as Bush supporters in 2000 and 2004

Do you think they are as hard-core (i.e. motivated)? Or moreso? Does that motivation vary regionally, or state-to-state? Has any one seen anything well-reported on this?

So what will be the impact of tonight's infomercial on his motivated base?

[Incident]

Just curious Murrican, and if you've written this in one of your other meandering, I'm sorry I didn't see it, what is you fascination with our politics here? I have Canadian friends here who are more concerned about what's going on up there.

In other words, if you are not an extremist lefty, shut up!

[lions1mew]

Paul ... definte "extremist" lefty for me please.

[db44]

No, in other words, I have friends around the world, and nobody from outside the borders that I know is anything more than curious. It's international news, yes, but none of my friends are actually trying to submit an agenda. They are asking questions, not trying to influence people. There is a difference.

[Incident]

Paul ... definte "extremist" lefty for me please.

What in the world would make you so definitely sure I am an "extremist" lefty?

[db44]

It's incredible to me how people love to label foreigners sometimes. What others call hostility when traveling is nothing more than curiousity.

I was in Iceland about a year after 9/11/01. I was on a package trip that had people from around the U.S. and Europe on it. The Europeans wanted to know from the Americans what the mentality was regarding the U.S. and president Bush. Later, some of the other Americans were saying how the Europeans hated us and were hostile. No, it was questioning, and considering what we were dragging the world into, it was very much approriate.

I've been to Europe for two semesters of college, where some students seemed to think not knowing English was being hostile to Americans. When some students then too considered questioning to be hostility. It's always been questions, never statements. I've been to Canada a handful of times myself. Except in Quebec, which is a special entity we shall say, has anyone ever taken a clear stand about America's actions in my visits.

So that's why I have curiousity. In countless travels around countries other than my own, nobody has ever tried to suggest as much as Murrican is. That he's an ex-pat explains it, and in itself answers my question. With his answer, I feel my curiousity has been justified, as was my reasoning, considering I could tell someething wasn't kosher, considering his location compared to his thought process.

As for meandering, I don't consider it thoughtfulness. Murrican is going on diatribes about language, saying things are innacurate, but then seems to think anti-Liberal sites are perfectly fine. Sounds like Paul, Murrican, Reg and Connie would enjoy a group outing. It's certainly why I believe Paul has come to Murrican's defense (again, on a point I feel vindicated on).

[Incident]

No, in other words, I have friends around the world, and nobody from outside the borders that I know is anything more than curious. It's international news, yes, but none of my friends are actually trying to submit an agenda. They are asking questions, not trying to influence people. There is a difference.


So in other words, foreigners, "shut up" unless you you just want to ask a question of the enlightened one, db44. Please, foriegners, we desire no opinions from you.

[db44]

Baby steps Paul, my second post which you didn't read I think explains.

[LesterX]

What in the world would make you so definitely sure I am an "extremist" lefty?

Huh? Is this your attempt to mock her for a typo*? Do you really want to go there?


*definte=define

[Murrican]

As for meandering, I don't consider it thoughtfulness. Murrican is going on diatribes about language, saying things are innacurate, but then seems to think anti-Liberal sites are perfectly fine.

Sounds like selective reading to me. I have opined on a variety of issues from various viewpoints, and mostly ask questions.

What has been inaccurate?

What diatribe about language?

What anti-Liberal sites have I said are perfectly fine? As I have drawn from dozens of sites, I'd say it's clear I'm no ideologue. The Sanchez article speaks for itself, as do his on-air diatribes.

What I find amazing is the denial there is here about poll movement despite the fact it's being reported by all the media. Tightening in some places and widening in others, all of which contributes to mixed value in some national polls if they don't treat states as the islands they are in electoral college terms... And helps explain why campaigns are doing daily what they're doing, better than tea leave readings.

[db44]

A site that says it's out to weed out the "liberal bias" in the media is anti-liberal. If it were to say it was pointing out the bias in reporting, that's being non-partisan.

Telling us how something is misleading or unsure because of the words used, going paragraphs about it, that's a diatribe about language. You drew on one site here about Sanchez, one out to get the liberal media, and from my personal experience watching close to the site, I dsagree.

[lions1mew]

What in the world would make you so definitely sure I am an "extremist" lefty?

DEFINE "extremist" lefty ... please excuse me for working 10 hours a day on 3 hours sleep and making a typo.

Your turn ...