Ignore ‘em
Tuesday, Sep 8, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Nate Silver…
In a sense, the primaries are a lot like the NCAA basketball tournament: You know there are going to be some surprises. The odds of every favorite winning every game in the NCAA tournament are longer than a billion-to-one against. And yet, in the end, one of the front-runners usually wins. (Since the men’s tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, all but three champions have been No. 4 seeds or better.)
So be wary of grand pronouncements about What It All Means based on a handful of “surprising” developments. Is Scott Walker’s campaign off to an “unexpectedly” bad start, for instance? Maybe. (I wouldn’t be thrilled if I were one of Walker’s strategists. I’d also remind myself that we have five months to go before the Iowa caucuses.) Even if you grant that Walker is having some problems, however, it would be stunning if all the Democratic and Republican campaigns were doing exactly as well as pundits anticipated. At any given moment, some campaigns are bound to be struggling to meet expectations, or exceeding them.
Similarly, while one might not have predicted that Bernie Sanders would be the one to do it, it was reasonably likely that some rival would emerge to Hillary Clinton. It’s happened for every non-incumbent front-runner in the past: Buchanan for Dole; Bill Bradley for Al Gore.
The other big difference between the general election and primaries is that polls are not very reliable in the primaries. They improve as you get closer to the election, although only up to a point. But they have little meaning now, five months before the first states vote.
It’s not only that the polls have a poor predictive track record — at this point in the past four competitive races, the leaders in national polls were Joe Lieberman, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton and Rick Perry, none of whom won the nomination — but also that they don’t have a lot of intrinsic meaning. At this point, the polls you see reported on are surveying broad groups of Republican- or Democratic-leaning adults who are relatively unlikely to actually vote in the primaries and caucuses and who haven’t been paying all that much attention to the campaigns. The ones who eventually do vote will have been subjected to hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of advertising, had their door knocked on several times, and seen a half-dozen more debates. The ballots they see may not resemble the one the pollsters are testing since it’s likely that (at least on the GOP side) several of the candidates will have dropped out by the time their state votes.
All very good points.
- walker - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 12:06 pm:
Even worse when someone claims “He’s gonna lose his seat because of this vote.” So much else will factor in.
- Anonin' - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 12:12 pm:
What is sad is how editors/news directors confuse reporting on political polls with political reporting. It is the nature of journalism generally, but more carried away every cycle. We in IL are guilty especially there are several firms that can punch out a robo-call poll for media distribution just as soon as the credit card clears the card reader. We are not sayin’ the polls may be accurate, just that all hands seem to think they “covered” the race by spitting out poll results.
- Anon - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 12:35 pm:
===The odds of every favorite winning every game in the NCAA tournament are longer than a billion-to-one against. And yet, in the end, one of the front-runners usually wins.===
This doesn’t actually describe how actual probability works. It’s pretty frustrating to read something like this.
Polling also tends to be largely impacted by qualitative data more than the quantitative data produced. If 80% of your respondents are on land lines, you’re going to have a bad time. If you pick your universe poorly, you’re not testing elect-ability, you’re testing for name recognition.
- A Jack - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 12:36 pm:
I think it unfortunate that they already gave Thursday’s special election for Schock’s seat to La Hood.
AFSCME has an opportunity to send a message here, but so far not a peep out of them. I am not even sure they know there is a special election on September 10.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 12:37 pm:
===has an opportunity to send a message here===
Hilarious.
I think AFSCME is deserving of much criticism, but that race ain’t one of them.
Pull your head out of your hyperpartisan rear end please.
- Tournaround Agenda - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 12:40 pm:
@A Jack: Schock won the 2014 election 75% to 25%. The 18th has been deliberately drawn to cram as many Republican voters in as humanly possible. Plus, LaHood has raised over $1.5 million to Mellon’s $15,000. A large bloc of Republican voters in the Peoria area still blame the Schock scandal on the “liberal media” rather than the former rep’s own actions.
I don’t think any amount of campaigning by AFSCME would throw this election to the Dems. The Thursday voting date certainly doesn’t help matters.
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 12:45 pm:
Jack - what T.A. says is 100% right. Thanks to gerrymandering, that district is about as R as the 15th. It’s probably a push.
What would AFSCME’s end game be there? To waste a ton of precious resources on a federal election?
- Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 12:48 pm:
A Jack, I’m going to vote against LaHood but Rich is right. The best that can be hoped for is that LaHood’s race doesn’t get called until 7:15 p.m instead of 7:05 p.m..
- @MisterJayEm - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 12:52 pm:
Early primary polling resembles the predictive power of asking a young child what she wants to be when she grows up. Even if the answer is as thoughtful and sincere as possible, it simply can’t take into account the effect of unknown facts that may be revealed and events that may transpire before the actual decision is made.
– MrJM
- A Jack - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 12:59 pm:
I know it’s a lost cause for Mellon. But the last few days have seen a lot of comments on this blog toward Republicans reps who have a lot of AFSCME members, not voting with labor on SB 1229.
I am not saying AFSCME should spend a dime. But they could send out one of their e-mails reminding members that La Hood is a strong supporter of the Governor’s agenda.
- A Jack - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 1:06 pm:
And much of the 18th encompasses areas with strong AFSCME presence like Springfield, Jacksonville, Menard county. I don’t think it’s being hyper partisan to point that out.
Another opportunity like this won’t come about till November 2016.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 1:20 pm:
Rich, just curious if you’d like to elaborate about criticisms of AFSCME. I’m in the mood for some Maoist style self criticism after our drubbing. (Not that you’re Maoist. I just want to know how we went so wrong that people hate us so much.)
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 1:22 pm:
=== I just want to know how we went so wrong===
https://capitolfax.com/2015/09/08/two-very-important-lessons-need-to-be-learned/
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 1:37 pm:
I’d also not worry about Trump.
Not that he couldn’t win the GOP nomination; the sad truth is, he could, if he stuck around.
But he’s just in it for the free media and brand-building. No way the dude wants the gig. There’s nothing in his life history to suggest that he wants to take on that kind of work load and responsibility. He’ll withdraw at some point.
He’s a clown, and a few months from now, there will be a lot of GOP supporters of his pretending they never heard of him.
- A guy - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 1:55 pm:
AFSCME treated Republicans a lot like how Democrats have been treating Republicans in the GA. Both got a little lesson last week. Ignoring and insulting them didn’t attract any of them.
Irony of it is, that’s how AFSCME says the Governor has been treating them. Hmmm.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 2:02 pm:
Thank you Rich, apologies. I thought you had more general criticism of AFSCME. My earnest question now is whether wooing of ILGOP would have worked given this governor? I have to wonder whether bipartisanship is possible in an age of “F#$*ing problem”s? Do you honestly think it possible for AFSCME to work with ILGOP under Rauners thumb? This is not a rhetorical question. I’m a learner here. I don’t see it. That’s why I’m asking to understand how you do.
- Mama - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 2:07 pm:
I view Trump in the same light as Rauner. I believe they are two peas in a pod. I do not believe Trump will withdraw - - I think he wants the power of the office.
- Mama - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 2:15 pm:
++My earnest question now is whether wooing of ILGOP would have worked given this governor? ++
Wooing Republicans would not have worked with this governor. AFSCME mistake was not telling their Republican voting members to support Dillard in the primary.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 2:44 pm:
Mama, they did. I voted for Dillard in the primary. Again, the problem that I see with AFSCME is complacency and apathy. Nobody gives a crap. Nobody understands how their lives are being affected. It’s what I thought Rich would point too. Union folks just assume we’ll survive it. Well I’m here to tell you this governor is different. This country is different. AFSCME’s big mistake was not caring what happened in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and the other states that went Right to Work. We just didn’t give a crap. Heads in the sand. Well we’re learning now aren’t we.
- Mama - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 3:09 pm:
++- Honeybear - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 2:44 pm:++
I didn’t vote for Rauner either so.
- Mama - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 3:12 pm:
“Union folks just assume we’ll survive it. Well I’m here to tell you this governor is different. This country is different. AFSCME’s big mistake was not caring what happened in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and the other states that went Right to Work. We just didn’t give a crap. Heads in the sand. Well we’re learning now aren’t we.” I agree with you, but the question is how does AFSCME wake it’s people up?
- Anon - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 3:33 pm:
===Nobody gives a crap. Nobody understands how their lives are being affected.===
Absolutes are the path to the darkside. Only Sith lords deal in absolutes.
===The problem that I see with AFSCME is complacency and apathy===
Apathy in general is caused by a lack of effective leadership. Having leadership is different than having leadership that can motivate or inspire.
It’s foolish to pretend like union members are immune to any other form of organizational dynamics.
There’s tens of thousands of AFSCME members in this state — how many of them were even invited to a Labor Day picnic or parade by their local?
- walker - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 3:44 pm:
MrJM: usually your 12:52 comment would be two short clever. phrases with a tangy zinger at the end. Off your game? Let the rest of us overflow with verbiage.
A fan.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 4:20 pm:
Mama, anon, et al, yes it’s leadership but not, in my opinion the top leadership. I just met a lot of them this summer and was very impressed and inspired. I think it’s the local leadership and the stewards that are lacking. These are regular every day folk. Many if not most have never had to or learned how to lead people, let alone inspire. What we need are Marine-like gungho stewards and local leadership, all focussing on one on one and group communications and development. They (council 31 leadership) get that we have to improve our ground game and especially our one on one skills. I recently got 6 days of training on this from AFSCME. Here’s the problem. Even with that it barely seemed to move the needle. I came to the training with skills (Ministry,Navy Officer) so I was digging what they were trying to do. Many were skipping classes. I think AFSCME needs to hire more staff to go around and inspire and motivate the local folks. I’d take half the money we spent on candidates and hire 100 inspirers/motivators/agitators. Ground game, ground game, ground game. Effective inspiring leaders can help folks understand what is at stake and how to stoke them to action. Forget candidates who will betray us when it becomes convenient. And why not, we’re too apathetic to do anything about it. That’s our problem.
- A Jack - Tuesday, Sep 8, 15 @ 4:43 pm:
Yes, that was my point earlier, too much apathy. Thursday’s election is only a tiny blip. But La Hood has come out in support of Rauner’s agenda. And that is why AFSCME should at least not want to send him to Congress.
I don’t think I am hyper partisan though. I don’t care which party a candidate represents as long as they aren’t anti-labor. I might be hyper pro-labor or just hyper.
- Anon - Wednesday, Sep 9, 15 @ 2:02 pm:
Honeybear,
While I appreciate your acknowledgement that the problem is a lack of leadership, I think your response has really just reinforced those.
===I think it’s the local leadership and the stewards that are lacking.===
Where is their week long training?
=== I recently got 6 days of training on this from AFSCME.===
It sounds like someone expected you to return to your local or labor council and work on improving ground game by communicating with members and developing the group and organizational identity.
===I came to the training with skills (Ministry,Navy Officer) so I was digging what they were trying to do.===
Neither of these is actually an example of effective leadership. As a naval officer you would be in command and have command authority where folks have to do what they’re told and someone else is paying them to do what they’re told. Having a paid staff that follows your orders isn’t really the best preparation for leadership.
Similarly, as a minister you evoke some agreed upon higher authority that adds credibility to your opinion, view, status.
=== I’d take half the money we spent on candidates and hire 100 inspirers/motivators/agitators. Ground game, ground game, ground game===
Your training wasn’t free. You are the ground game. They didn’t train you so that you could waste your days posting on Capitol Fax instead of reaching out to your members.
===Effective inspiring leaders can help folks understand what is at stake and how to stoke them to action.===
Why have you decided to be an ineffective leader? You’ve said more mean and nasty things about your brothers and sisters in a public forum than some of the people who want to take their bargaining rights away. How on earth do you expect to go to them and ask them or encourage them to do anything?
===we’re too apathetic to do anything about it.===
Sounds like you’re part of the problem. You’ve been given training, inspiration, and resources, and here you are giving excuses for not trying.
And this blog is definitely not the forum you should be using to air your grievances or concerns.
Most of my point was that AFSCME takes their membership for granted and expects organization and group identity to exist where they’ve spent no effort to create it.
You’ve pretty much reinforced that.