Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim G Subject: Undecideds Prof. Wang, I'm probably what most would call an undecided voter,
and I've been reading your site regularly this month. I've always been fascinated with numbers, and while I
make my living in the world of professional sports
(not as an athlete), election time has always been
exciting for me. At least until 2000, the election
represented the one time when the real world was like
the sports world - the game gets played on the field,
everyone starts with a score of zero. Not that I'm saying Bush cheated to win. I'm confident
it was a fair election. But millions aren't, and that
has haunted us for the last four years. More than
anything, I hope that the end result is decisive. We
all need, at least, to feel comfortable that the
people decided and not the courts or the union guys in
the back room or the police intimidating minority
voters, etc. So, here we are, five days away, and I don't know what
box I'll fill in. I've benefitted from Bush's tax
cuts, but not so much that I wouldn't have benefitted
more from a strong economy. But I don't blame the economy's troubles on Bush. In
fact, I believe the tax cuts, as they affected the
very rich and corporations, may well have spurred the
economy. So that issue makes me want to lean toward
Bush a little. Health care is very important. I run a small business,
and all I can afford is catastrophic insurance for my
family. Tort reform is a big issue for me, and Kerry's
choice of Edwards for vice president was a huge
disappointment. My wife gave birth to our son last
year, and I almost fought with the doctors to avoid
her having to have a c-section just because our son
was taking his sweet time coming out. We have a happy, healthy kid, and now I read that the
rush to c-section is solely CYA medicine on the part
of doctors worried about cerebral palsy lawsuits. A
practice Edwards himself helped pioneer. Complete junk
science, as studies have shown rather convincingly. I was active in the Democratic primaries, voted for
Lieberman (in New Hampshire, you do not have to
register for a party to vote in a primary). I was very
disappointed that his candidacy was all but over
before New Hampshire. He seemed so sensible and
competent. I would have had no trouble supporting him
for president. Anyway, on domestic issues, I'd be a reluctant Bush
supporter. But, there's the war. Literally as my wife went into
labor last year, the first bombs fell on Baghdad.
Kerry's right when he says we had not reached a point
of last resort when the invasion began. There was no
imminent danger. There was no reason to believe there
was. While I think Kerry's dreaming when he says he
could get France and Germany to even entertain sending
troops into Iraq, Bush quite simply screwed up - and
screwed up badly. On foreign issues, I'm a Kerry supporter. Quite the
opposite of these silly pundits who think Bush wins
points on foreign affairs and Kerry on domestic
affairs. No wonder Bush was a babbling idiot during
the first debate, and sounded almost sentient in the
second and third. Pundits spend far too much time
listening to partisans and not enough time listening
to middle-roaders. And then there's religion. Until Kerry found Jesus
during the last debate, he had a huge edge there. You
see, I believe in the separation of church and state.
Neither of these guys does. You'd think they were both
running for the position of vicar in the local parish,
not for president, the way they keep spouting off
about things that should remain private. Which brings me to why I don't like Kerry. I don't
really believe he's a religious nut. But I do believe
that someone on his staff told him he'd win a few
votes in Iowa and Ohio if he made a few statements
about religion. I have no idea who he really is or
what he would do as president. He's very good at
criticizing what Bush did wrong, but I have no
confidence that he really has a plan for anything. He
just wants people to vote for him. So, I'm pretty torn right now. My gut tells me we need
to fire the incumbent. My brain tells me that the
alternative may be worse, may be better. I see why you're giving 2% to Kerry. Ordinarily, I'd
agree with you. But I think this case is different in
that we have an almost uniquely unpleasant
alternative. I would give about .5%-1.0% to Kerry, and
that's because there are so many of us now (mostly
younger and more likely to support the Democrats) who
just can't be reached by phone these days (I won't
pick up the phone unless caller ID indicates it's
someone I want to hear from). But in all other cases,
the challenger tried to make a case as to why he
should be president. Kerry hasn't. My prediction is that Bush will win the popular vote
by about 1%. And that because of the structure of the
electoral college, Kerry will become president due to
incredibly thin margins in Florida, Ohio, Minnesota,
Iowa and New Mexico. Maybe not as thin as Florida
2000, but on the order of half a percent at least in
Florida and Iowa. Sorry to ramble on so long. I get so tired of hearing
commentary from the partisans and I was hoping you
did, too (even if you are a Democrat). Thanks for
listening. Jim G., New Hampshire Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:49:19 -0400
From: John Walsh
Subject: Hitting the streets Hello Sam, Nice job on the web site. I have been trying to figure out where to go to help
Kerry in the four days before November 3. I called DNC national HQ and they said that they needed people most in MN and
Iowa. What do you suggest? (Of course the DNC knows what resources are
already in place and you do not. So in that respect your suggestion is not as
good as theirs. On the other hand they may not properly understand the
probability of winning in a given state.) Best,
John V. Walsh
Sam Wang says: My calculations indicate that those are good suggestions -
see the October 28 entry on the main page. I infer that the
DNC must think they have enough people in place already in OH and FL.
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:49:02 -0400
From: Steve Rosen You re-inspired some interest in statistics. My first hypothesis
tested was (obvious to me) that the dumber a state was (21 factor Smart
index about State's education systems and successes from the web), the
redder it was (based on your projected probability array). Correlation of
.38 was significant at 93% confidence. Please turn WI blue again ASAP.... :-) Steve Rosen
Roswell, GA Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:48:33 -0700
From: Gail Morthole Subject: thanks Professor Wang,
I have been enjoying your site very much. Not having a wide math
background, (only college statistics), I am wondering if your analysis is
ultimately limited by the "real world" problems of effective voting
methods which surely played a part in Florida last time around. The
October Scientific American has a good explanation of the multiple
reasons there was a huge discrepancy between pre-election polls, exit
polls and actual results. If the same thing happens in Fl. again (and
why couldn't it?) then in a race this close, your results can only go so
far. I agree that turnout is just about everything at this point.
Thanks,
Gail Morthole
San Francisco Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:46:05 -0400
From: Dana C. Hutchins
To: sswang@Princeton.EDU Professor Wang, I want to thank you for your efforts with your state poll analysis
site. I've found it the most interesting and educational in terms of
trying to predict the election. I'm a "registered Independent" in Bucks County, PA and have had no less
than 5 calls/visits by Kerry supporters, either from the Democratic
Party or ActUp [she corrects this to MoveOn - SW].
No contact whatsoever from the Republicans other than
direct mail. This mobilization effort probably isn't reflected in poll
data, and I expect that Pennsylvania will go for Kerry by a wider margin
then currently indicated. One would have to suspect that similar "get
out the vote" efforts by the Democrats in other states are
underestimated as well. Thanks, Dana C. Hutchins Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:56:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: Randall A. Blake
Subject: Election Website & question Prof., the election website is a great website. Election polling interest
will die after the election, but this site should not. Please develop a
subject for post-election discussion so that you will keep it up. Though
past my school years, I am very interested in (and teaching myself)
statistics and I find this site to be a great resource (even if a bit hard
for a new comer to statistics like me to understand). On the "undecideds": I believe that many people who claim to be undecided
in presidential polls are not, in fact, undecided. You hint at this sort of
analysis in your discussion of party identification. My question: Is there
a way to accurately quantify the proportion of persons who at any given time
(in any given poll) claim to be undecided but are not, in fact, undecided? Keep up the great work. Your site is a wonderful learning tool. Thanks, RAB Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:12:19 -0700
From: Marc Benjamin
Subject: Great site Sir: One quick note about the Hawaii polls. I was looking at newspaper articles about them on Sunday. The Advertiser
revealed the people it called were 31% Democrats, 42% Republicans and 24% (I
believe) independents. I don't know if that mirrors the state's political
backdrop, but I doubt it. The other Honolulu paper, The Bulletin, did not reveal the party
affiliations of those called for its survey. Both newspapers are operated
under a newspaper joint operating agreement and function out of offices, I
believe, within the same building with separate editorial employees only. The competitive pressures of one newspaper having a poll and the other one
not,no matter how inaccurate the polling was, likely was too great to pass
up. My guess is both surveys are inaccurate, but I have only seen two other
polls, none recently, that showed Kerry up 7 and 10 points. For what it's worth. Your site is outstanding and thank you for your diligent efforts. Sincerely,
Marc Benjamin Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Keith Pickering Subject: Electoral tie vote Hi Prof. Wang, Love your site, I'm watching it daily. You are
incorrect, however, in speculating that in the event
of an electoral tie that the VP would be Edwards if
the Senate switches to Democratic. Undoubtedly the
Dems would vote in Kerry as VP. (Just a heartbeat away
...) Keith Pickering Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:49:35 -1000
From: Jeff McNeill
Subject: election.princeton.edu site comments Aloha Professor, Thank you for your kind efforts in creating and maintaining your election
poll meta-analysis site. I wanted to offer a pithy quote to some of your
other letter writers: Belief is no substitute for arithmetic. -Henry Spencer Sincerely,
Jeff McNeill Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:03:45 -0500
From: Marta Caminero-Santangelo Prof. Wang,
I am an English prof at the University of Kansas, and I^Òve been avidly
following your site. I^Òve read the entire site, including your
explanation of why the probability map and the ^Ómedian outcome^Ô
sometimes differ, but I have to confess I still don^Òt understand this
point. (I will admit I^Òm mathematically challenged.) Could you please
explain it again, in very simple layman^Òs terms? What is ^Ómedian^Ô
measuring, and what is ^Óprobability^Ô measuring, and why are they
different? Thanks for all the good work. Marta Caminero-Santangelo,