Harry Reid marches to victory

OK, so it won't be that easy, but the (non)Communicator received a huge gift from the tea party last night with the election of Sharron Angle as the GOP's standard-bearer. She's a political novice with little substance and she's taken some truly wacky positions. Not mentioned on the list is Angle's support of a Scientology-based treatment program for Nevada inmates. She took a junket to Mexico to see the cult's "treatment" program in action while in the state Senate.

Make no mistake, this will be a knock-down, drag-out campaign, but I expect Reid to mop the floor with her in the end. In Las Vegas, where Angle is unknown and 2/3 of Nevadans live, Reid will use TV ads to define her early. Angle doesn't have the organization, competence or intelligence to rise above it. The dour truth-teller wins another six years!

Intrade has Harry up 5% to 55% to win after last night. I agree that will only widen as Angle continues to make it clear just how bizarre she is. I'm kind of hoping these two will debate when I'm in Vegas in October. I'm not one for shows, but there is no way I would miss that...

I think most damning for her will be her consistent support for burying nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. That's a third rail of Nevada politics, and she's in a very small minority with that position. It would almost be like a Louisiana candidate calling for more off-shore oil drilling.

I predict Harry will prevail, but a margin of less than 3 points. It is easy to make Angle look pretty loony, but Harry is about the least charismatic politician I can think of.

Just about everybody will cast their votes not for their candidate, but against the other one. Then again, that is usually the case in any election.

Quote: Wizard

Just about everybody will cast their votes not for their candidate, but against the other one. Then again, that is usually the case in any election.

Gotta disagree with you on that one. In any election, most people vote for the party they identify with.

One of the biggest fallacies around is the concept of "leaners". If you ran a poll on this website asking if people were a democrat, republican, or independent, there would likely be a large (at least 1/3rd) segment which votes independent. The problem, though, is that these people say they are independents but are actually partisan.

In polling, the Party ID question is phrased this way:

Quote:

Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a REPUBLICAN, a DEMCRAT, an INDEPENDENT, or what? (If Republican or Democrat is selected): Would you call yourself a STRONG [Democrat/Republican] or a NOT VERY STRONG [Democrat/ Republican]? (If Independent, no preference, or other is selected): Do you think of yourself as CLOSER to the Republican Party or to the Democratic Party?

This question breaks people down into these categories:

- Strong Partisan
- Weak Partisan
- Leaner Partisan
- True Independent

If you look at defect numbers for those categories, they are extremely small. While I don't have the numbers in front of me, it's something like 4% for a strong partisan, 5% for a weak partisan, and 10% for a leaner. Although historically, Democrats have enjoyed a larger Party ID advantage but have endured a higher defect rate, evening out.

Most people aren't going to say that they are voting for a candidate because he's a Republican. Sure, some will, and those make up the Strong Partisan types. However, Party ID affects most people by pre-disposing them to a certain view. When they combine that view with the information they gain from opinion leaders, commercials, news programs, talk radio, etc., it leads to a fierce dislike for the other guy, hence the extreme feeling of hate for the other candidate and the reason why they vote.

Party ID has been a remarkably accurate predictor of voting behavior, and both political parties use it to determine who they are going to market to in elections.

Quote: bluefire

Gotta disagree with you on that one. In any election, most people vote for the party they identify with.

One of the biggest fallacies around is the concept of "leaners". If you ran a poll on this website asking if people were a democrat, republican, or independent, there would likely be a large (at least 1/3rd) segment which votes independent. The problem, though, is that these people say they are independents but are actually partisan.

In polling, the Party ID question is phrased this way:

Quote:

Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a REPUBLICAN, a DEMCRAT, an INDEPENDENT, or what? (If Republican or Democrat is selected): Would you call yourself a STRONG [Democrat/Republican] or a NOT VERY STRONG [Democrat/ Republican]? (If Independent, no preference, or other is selected): Do you think of yourself as CLOSER to the Republican Party or to the Democratic Party?

This question breaks people down into these categories:

- Strong Partisan
- Weak Partisan
- Leaner Partisan
- True Independent

If you look at defect numbers for those categories, they are extremely small. While I don't have the numbers in front of me, it's something like 4% for a strong partisan, 5% for a weak partisan, and 10% for a leaner. Although historically, Democrats have enjoyed a larger Party ID advantage but have endured a higher defect rate, evening out.

Most people aren't going to say that they are voting for a candidate because he's a Republican. Sure, some will, and those make up the Strong Partisan types. However, Party ID affects most people by pre-disposing them to a certain view. When they combine that view with the information they gain from opinion leaders, commercials, news programs, talk radio, etc., it leads to a fierce dislike for the other guy, hence the extreme feeling of hate for the other candidate and the reason why they vote.

Party ID has been a remarkably accurate predictor of voting behavior, and both political parties use it to determine who they are going to market to in elections.

Everyone always looks at modeling elections in a 2D sense. They just look at percentages on a scale of Republican and Democrat and the middle. You have to get X% of this or that. The problem is that it isn't that simple. You have the added axis of turnout within each of those groups. If I lose an election 55%-45% and decide to run again the following term, how many people who voted for against me last time do I have to get to win? Zero. If I can get more of my base to turn out, then I can win without convincing any of the voters to change their minds. We see Bush getting 49% in 2000 and 51% in 2004 and think that a percentage changed from Gore to Bush rather than Kerry. But when you look at the raw numbers, you see that is not necessarily the case. It really is all out turning out your voters, and less about changing a lot of people's minds. The former is much easier than the later.

Quote: cclub79

Everyone always looks at modeling elections in a 2D sense. They just look at percentages on a scale of Republican and Democrat and the middle. You have to get X% of this or that. The problem is that it isn't that simple. You have the added axis of turnout within each of those groups. If I lose an election 55%-45% and decide to run again the following term, how many people who voted for against me last time do I have to get to win? Zero. If I can get more of my base to turn out, then I can win without convincing any of the voters to change their minds. We see Bush getting 49% in 2000 and 51% in 2004 and think that a percentage changed from Gore to Bush rather than Kerry. But when you look at the raw numbers, you see that is not necessarily the case. It really is all out turning out your voters, and less about changing a lot of people's minds. The former is much easier than the later.

Absolutely, I completely agree. If I'm looking at it from the perspective of a political party, I worry much more about driving out my base than I do winning the middle. If you energize your base, you generally win. I had a professor at UT that worked on Bush's two campaigns in both strategy and polling. The message was clear: Figure out who your base is, where your base is geographically located, and focus on driving out the people likely to vote for you in states where the Party ID of likely voters is very close.

The fact is, Party ID shows us that people aren't likely to change. If you look at historical Party ID numbers, they're EXTREMELY stable over time, and Party ID tells us who someone is voting for and why they are voting for who they are voting for, even if it's not the direct cause. But Party ID doesn't tell us the motivation behind taking the time to vote in the first place.

Generally speaking, the more effective method has been to get people to believe in their own party's candidate as being the best choice. I've read a few studies that show campaigns are getting much less negative over time, despite perceptions.

Quote: nyuhoosier

OK, so it won't be that easy, but the (non)Communicator received a huge gift from the tea party last night with the election of Sharron Angle as the GOP's standard-bearer. She's a political novice with little substance and she's taken some truly wacky positions. Not mentioned on the list is Angle's support of a Scientology-based treatment program for Nevada inmates. She took a junket to Mexico to see the cult's "treatment" program in action while in the state Senate.

Make no mistake, this will be a knock-down, drag-out campaign, but I expect Reid to mop the floor with her in the end. In Las Vegas, where Angle is unknown and 2/3 of Nevadans live, Reid will use TV ads to define her early. Angle doesn't have the organization, competence or intelligence to rise above it. The dour truth-teller wins another six years!

Reid is already down 50-39%. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/nevada/election_2010_nevada_senate

Even with a bounce for Angle that is an amazing amount for a sitting Majority Leader to be down at any point. I surely expect Reid to pull out a bunch of hateful, personal attacks. But the population of the USA is totally upset with how things have been run since Obama took office. The energy is all with the Tea Party Movement right now and will keep up until November.

That poll doesn't mean much because most people haven't even tuned in to the campaign yet. Plus, it's from Fox News' favorite pollster Rasmussen, which makes it all the more unreliable. Other polls taken just before the primary election had Reid pulling basically even with the top three GOP candidates.

The Tea Party has been really good at derailing electable Republicans and getting fringe people like Angle out of the primaries. The question is whether she can win a statewide race in a moderate state like Nevada, a state that voted for Obama and where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans. I say no. A lot of people here will hold their nose and vote for the uncharismatic Reid, and he'll win a slim but comfortable victory.

Your commentary has the ring of hopeful thinking rather than lucid analysis. If Angle is in such great shape, why has she scrubbed her website of all her true positions this week? She will get nailed early and often over the things I linked to above.

Quote: nyuhoosier

That poll doesn't mean much because most people haven't even tuned in to the campaign yet. Plus, it's from Fox News' favorite pollster Rasmussen, which makes it all the more unreliable. Other polls taken just before the primary election had Reid pulling basically even with the top three GOP candidates.

Rasmussen was most accurate in the 2008 POTUS election and has proven very reliable. It does not favor liberal candidates and positions since it polls a better cross-sample, which drives liberals nuts.

Quote:

The Tea Party has been really good at derailing electable Republicans and getting fringe people like Angle out of the primaries. The question is whether she can win a statewide race in a moderate state like Nevada, a state that voted for Obama and where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans. I say no. A lot of people here will hold their nose and vote for the uncharismatic Reid, and he'll win a slim but comfortable victory.

Uh, what the Tea Party has done is get rid of RINOs and put forth better, actually conservative candidates. We don't meed more McCains. We need more Reagans.

Quote:

Your commentary has the ring of hopeful thinking rather than lucid analysis. If Angle is in such great shape, why has she scrubbed her website of all her true positions this week? She will get nailed early and often over the things I linked to above.

No, I am the one quoting an actual poll. I am the one who can see that the energy is 100% anti-incumbent and anti-Obama Agenda. This will take Reid out. No matter how many seminar-posters such as yourself try to make a case against Angle. If she was no threat no one would care.

Amgle scares the left. Look who they are attcking today. They telegraph their true feelings with the blogs and MSM.

Quote: AZDuffman

Rasmussen was most accurate in the 2008 POTUS election and has proven very reliable. It does not favor liberal candidates and positions since it polls a better cross-sample, which drives liberals nuts.



Uh, what the Tea Party has done is get rid of RINOs and put forth better, actually conservative candidates. We don't meed more McCains. We need more Reagans.



No, I am the one quoting an actual poll. I am the one who can see that the energy is 100% anti-incumbent and anti-Obama Agenda. This will take Reid out. No matter how many seminar-posters such as yourself try to make a case against Angle. If she was no threat no one would care.

Rasmussen is an interesting pollster. He's had Republicans higher than other pollsters this cycle, but many believe it's because he uses a LIKELY voter screen, rather than a REGISTERED voter screen. Most pollsters use RV until right before the election. Many liberals dislike his results, but Nate Silver of www.fivethirtyeight.com (a liberal leaning stat wizard) gives Rassmussen better than average marks in the methodology. This can make his friends on the left hot under the collar. I think some of Ras's polls have been outliers, but when we look at actual results, he underestimated the Republican vote in Mass (he had Coakley by 2), VA, and NJ. Only time will tell to see how he fairs this year. Liberal or Conservative, you probably would enjoy fivethirtyeight.com if you like this site, due to its statistical analysis.

Quote: likeplayingcrapsandbj

Amgle scares the left. Look who they are attcking today. They telegraph their true feelings with the blogs and MSM.

It is not only the left that is terrified of Angle. Here's how three of the most respected Republicans in Nevada reacted to Angle's victory:

CREDIT: Sun...

Several key Nevada GOP figures, including former Gov. Kenny Guinn and state Sen. Bill Raggio, grew sober when it became apparent Angle would defeat Lowden.

Guinn would only say: “If she wins, she’ll be the candidate. It’ll be a tough race for her.”

Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert, R-Reno, said Wednesday, “It’s important that Sharron Angle reach out to the nonpartisans. It’s going to take more than just registered Republicans to win the U.S. Senate race.”

Raggio, whom Angle nearly defeated in 2008, said: “It’s doubtful Sharron Angle can garner the Democrat and independent support necessary to win against Harry Reid. Her views are extreme. Many good Republicans would find it hard to subscribe to those positions.”

AND now the GOP mayor of Reno is backing Reid

No amount of wishing is going to change the fact that Angle is a terrible nominee for the GOP. Against anyone but Reid, she would get absolutely destroyed. It might be close, but she'll lose.

Notice the Wizard never gets involved in these political discussions and even he said she appears "pretty loony."

Quote: AZDuffman

I am the one who can see that the energy is 100% anti-incumbent and anti-Obama Agenda.

Do you know how many incumbents lost in the primaries this week? One. Do you know who that incumbent is? Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, aka the Luv Guv, aka I text my mistress, sexually harass cocktail waitresses and divorce my wife while in office.

Just because Hannity tells you it's 100 percent anti-incumbent, doesn't make it so.

Quote: AZDuffman

I surely expect Reid to pull out a bunch of hateful, personal attacks.

Reid can't really go after the Scientology stuff, what with him being a Mormon, he'd look ridiculous. The Mormon cult is obligated to vote for Reid already so he has that built in advantage, especially in Nevada. No need to open that can of worms. The only thing "hateful" that he can do is scary music and then paste all of Angle's policy choices on the screen like, "Sharron Angle Wants To Bring Radioactive Waste To Nevada". That's not really hateful or personal. As for myself, I'd like to see Harry Reid lose, then the Democrats would have to pick another leader, preferably one that has testicles like Barbara Boxer :)

Russ Feingold would be awesome as the new Majority Leader.

Here is an excellent presentation of the ONE incumbent who has lost so far ... this research complete debunks the "anti-incumbent" nonsense. Incumbents are doing just fine in both parties.

CLICK HERE

--Dorothy

Quote: AZDuffman

Reid is already down 50-39%. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/nevada/election_2010_nevada_senate

Polling can be influenced by a ton of factors, from how the people who called behaved, to stats analysis. Just like with gambling, you're still dealing with std. dev and confidence levels. The std dev. in that poll is +-4.5 at a 95% confidence level.

As a result, it's more accurate to look at a number of polls together, like RCP does:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/nv/nevada_senate_angle_vs_reid-1517.html

Quote: AZDuffman

The energy is all with the Tea Party Movement right now and will keep up until November.

Ideological movements generally have much better luck in the primaries than the full race. When the full race comes around, the actual base of each side is usually more energized. They also typically get a bounce after they win a primary, but that bounce can (and usually does) start to drop.

For the tea party movement to be successful, they're going to have to make sure the entire Republican base is still energized. If they don't energize the full base, or they end up splitting the Republican coalition, Reid has a strong shot at winning. We'll see if they are successful at driving out the other part of the conservative base. So far, they have been, but it's at the 88% mark, which is somewhat low historically for Republicans (although that likely has to do with Reid being such a long-time incumbent).

Quote: nyuhoosier

Make no mistake, this will be a knock-down, drag-out campaign, but I expect Reid to mop the floor with her in the end. In Las Vegas, where Angle is unknown and 2/3 of Nevadans live, Reid will use TV ads to define her early.

Reid's got the much harder position right now, even as an incumbent. His base is not energized at all, which is a huge problem. His passing of unpopular measures like the health care bill has suppressed his base.

As far as campaign strategy, Reid is going to have to have to get his base energized again. In order to do so, he's going to have to paint Angle as dangerous to the people of Nevada (super out-of-touch, hardcore conservative), while he's the safer option. He's also going to have to figure out a way to get voters to forget about all the unpopular legislation he pushed through.

On the flipside, Angle's got her base fired up, and even has the moderates right now. Her goal is going to be to keep her base energized while surpressing the other side. I think the best way to do that is to keep reminding voters of Harry Reid's mistakes (item #1: Heath Care). She'll also need to defend against the whacko remarks, but she doesn't need to really attack Reid's persona like he's going to have to attack her's.

We'll see who can accomplish this, but I think Angle's got the much better Angle right now (pathetic pun intended).

Quote: DorothyGale

Here is an excellent presentation of the ONE incumbent who has lost so far ... this research complete debunks the "anti-incumbent" nonsense. Incumbents are doing just fine in both parties.

CLICK HERE

--Dorothy

Anti-incumbent feelings generally show themselves in the general election, not the primaries for incumbent candidates. Incumbents aren't really ever thrown out by their own party, mainly because the hardcore partisans rule the primaries. In the general elections, more weak and leaning partisans vote, which tips the scales.

btw, I didn't bother watching the video. <Insert 24-hour News Network Personality>, "research", and "debunks" should never go in a sentence together.

Quote: bluefire

Anti-incumbent feelings generally show themselves in the general election, not the primaries for incumbent candidates. Incumbents aren't really ever thrown out by their own party, mainly because the hardcore partisans rule the primaries. In the general elections, more weak and leaning partisans vote, which tips the scales.

btw, I didn't bother watching the video. <Insert 24-hour News Network Personality>, "research", and "debunks" should never go in a sentence together.

With no due respect, one can't simultaneously argue that there is anti-incumbent fever and also argue it doesn't apply until the generals.

Maddow's research absolutely debunks the media's nonsense about it being an anti-incumbent year. She actually attacks the "liberal" media, if that will get you to watch it. The fact that you don't want to be educated says more about you than it says about the facts of the specific fairy tale story line of "anti-incumbency."

--Dorothy

Quote: DorothyGale

Resident OZ-like entity ...

I stole your domain (evil cow says) Moo-hahahaha.

Quote: DorothyGale

With no due respect, one can't simultaneously argue that there is anti-incumbent fever and also argue it doesn't apply until the generals.

Maddow's research absolutely debunks the media's nonsense about it being an anti-incumbent year. She actually attacks the "liberal" media, if that will get you to watch it. The fact that you don't want to be educated says more about you than it says about the facts of the specific fairy tale story line of "anti-incumbency."

--Dorothy

I've just never seen so many entrenched incumbents held down in their percentages in my lifetime...here's the chart from the liberal-leaning "Swing State Project": http://swingstateproject.com/diary/7062/house-incumbent-2010-primary-performance Most of the Reps. on this list are usually renominated with 80%-100% of the vote, even if they are opposed. Anti-incumbency doesn't mean all incumbents lose. It means that the normal HUGE advantage has been reduced significantly. Who knows if it will translate to November. But just because Blanche Lincoln won the primary and the runoff, it doesn't mean that squeaking by with 47% and then 52% means there isn't an anti-incumbent feeling out there.

Quote: DorothyGale

With no due respect, one can't simultaneously argue that there is anti-incumbent fever and also argue it doesn't apply until the generals.

Why's that? It's absolutely true in most cases.

The biggest reason? With few exceptions, political parties prevent incumbents from having a real challenge (for a number of reasons). If you want an example, check out the Colorado race, where challenger Romanoff is down by 15%, but the White House still offered him a job to drop out of the race.

Since this thread is about Harry Reid, let's take a look at his primary race. Here are the different campaign websites:

Harry Reid: http://www.harryreid.com/
Alex Miller: http://www.nevadacan.com/
Edward Hamilton: http://www.edwardhamiltonforussenate.com/
Carlo Poliak: Can't find a website

Take a look at the three that I could find, and compare Alex Miller & Edward Hamilton's websites to Harry Reid's. They seem like a couple of amateurs versus a professional (which is exactly what they are).

Here's some other primary race examples for incumbents:

Iowa:
- Grassley (Unopposed)

Louisiana:
- Vitter (Unopposed)

California:
- Boxer: http://www.barbaraboxer.com/
- Mickey Kaus: http://kaus.sitebuilder.completecampaigns.com/

I'm not going to list every candidate's website. However, I did go through all the races:

In total, there are 23 Republican or Democratic incumbents. Here's how they break down:

- Serious Challenge (opposition with professional political experience & professional campaign): ARK, ARZ, COL
- Amaeteur (No Professional Campaign Experience - and it shows): CAL,HI, MAR, NEV, NY, NY, ORE, VT, WSH, ALA, AK, ID, NC, SC
- Unopposed: WIS, GA, IA, LA, OK, SD

There are only three races in 2010 that have true incumbent challenges. One's already finished (ARK), but that primary went to a runoff, and it's looking like the incumbent is going to get crushed by Boozman in the general election.

My point is you're not going to see a lot of incumbents lose in the primary because the quality of their challenger is so terrible (or they're running unopposed). The political parties have a huge say in opposition to incumbents, and they make sure the races, by and large, aren't challenging.

BTW, the other big reason why anti-incumbent feelings don't come out until general elections is the type of voter that votes in a primary. If you're looking at the Party ID scale, the voters that vote in the primaries are the strong partisans. These guys are going to vote for whichever candidate gives their party the best chance to win. The people who are more likely to defect (leaners) don't usually get energized until near the general elections, where you'll see defection rates higher than normal in that category.

Quote:

Maddow's research absolutely debunks the media's nonsense about it being an anti-incumbent year. She actually attacks the "liberal" media, if that will get you to watch it.

I watched the video, and what Maddow correctly shows is that sometimes media outlets stick to a point even when it doesn't make sense to do so (ex: primary races). She's right about that. However, she's wrong that the "anti-incumbent" sentiment doesn't exist.

Quote:

The fact that you don't want to be educated says more about you than it says about the facts of the specific fairy tale story line of "anti-incumbency."

Unfortunately, I wouldn't call what she does "education". It was more self-promoting her own viewpoint against bigger media outlets/shows.

When you look at what she did, you can't call it research. She liked to talk about data, but she didn't provide any. Instead, what she did was cherry pick a few articles that met her pre-conceived ideas, extrapolated that to the entire media, and then said "this proves I'm right!", when it doesn't really prove her point.

She also tries to characterize the media as pulling the "anti-incumbent" thing out of their ass without any proof, which is entirely false. She fails to mention the multitude of polls that show this exact feeling.

The media is good at finding out information. What it's bad at is characterizing that information into something that makes sense. Both Rachel Maddow's characterization of the "anti-incumbent" sentiment not existing (due to the primaries) and the mainstream media's expectation of how anti-incumbent sentiment would affect the primaries are examples of this.

Quote: bluefire

Why's that? It's absolutely true in most cases.

The biggest reason? With few exceptions, political parties prevent incumbents from having a real challenge (for a number of reasons). If you want an example, check out the Colorado race, where challenger Romanoff is down by 15%, but the White House still offered him a job to drop out of the race.

Since this thread is about Harry Reid, let's take a look at his primary race. Here are the different campaign websites:

Harry Reid: http://www.harryreid.com/
Alex Miller: http://www.nevadacan.com/
Edward Hamilton: http://www.edwardhamiltonforussenate.com/
Carlo Poliak: Can't find a website

Take a look at the three that I could find, and compare Alex Miller & Edward Hamilton's websites to Harry Reid's. They seem like a couple of amateurs versus a professional (which is exactly what they are).

Here's some other primary race examples for incumbents:

Iowa:
- Grassley (Unopposed)

Louisiana:
- Vitter (Unopposed)

California:
- Boxer: http://www.barbaraboxer.com/
- Mickey Kaus: http://kaus.sitebuilder.completecampaigns.com/

I'm not going to list every candidate's website. However, I did go through all the races:

In total, there are 23 Republican or Democratic incumbents. Here's how they break down:

- Serious Challenge (opposition with professional political experience & professional campaign): ARK, ARZ, COL
- Amaeteur (No Professional Campaign Experience - and it shows): CAL,HI, MAR, NEV, NY, NY, ORE, VT, WSH, ALA, AK, ID, NC, SC
- Unopposed: WIS, GA, IA, LA, OK, SD

There are only three races in 2010 that have true incumbent challenges. One's already finished (ARK), but that primary went to a runoff, and it's looking like the incumbent is going to get crushed by Boozman in the general election.

My point is you're not going to see a lot of incumbents lose in the primary because the quality of their challenger is so terrible (or they're running unopposed). The political parties have a huge say in opposition to incumbents, and they make sure the races, by and large, aren't challenging.

BTW, the other big reason why anti-incumbent feelings don't come out until general elections is the type of voter that votes in a primary. If you're looking at the Party ID scale, the voters that vote in the primaries are the strong partisans. These guys are going to vote for whichever candidate gives their party the best chance to win. The people who are more likely to defect (leaners) don't usually get energized until near the general elections, where you'll see defection rates higher than normal in that category.




I watched the video, and what Maddow correctly shows is that sometimes media outlets stick to a point even when it doesn't make sense to do so (ex: primary races). She's right about that. However, she's wrong that the "anti-incumbent" sentiment doesn't exist.



Unfortunately, I wouldn't call what she does "education". It was more self-promoting her own viewpoint against bigger media outlets/shows.

When you look at what she did, you can't call it research. She liked to talk about data, but she didn't provide any. Instead, what she did was cherry pick a few articles that met her pre-conceived ideas, extrapolated that to the entire media, and then said "this proves I'm right!", when it doesn't really prove her point.

She also tries to characterize the media as pulling the "anti-incumbent" thing out of their ass without any proof, which is entirely false. She fails to mention the multitude of polls that show this exact feeling.

The media is good at finding out information. What it's bad at is characterizing that information into something that makes sense. Both Rachel Maddow's characterization of the "anti-incumbent" sentiment not existing (due to the primaries) and the mainstream media's expectation of how anti-incumbent sentiment would affect the primaries are examples of this.

I agree. Though both on the liberal side, Swingstateproject.com and fivethirtyeight.com both use a great deal of statistical analysis. Maddow didn't use any. She just looked at "first past the post" winners in a few races. When you see how many incumbents are getting their bulletproof primary margins eaten into, it MAY suggest trouble in November. To say "Lincoln won in 2004 and she won in 2010 so there's no difference and anti-incumbency is a lie." is looking at the situation one dimensionally. How much did she have to spend to win the nomination in 2004, vs. (barely win it in) 2010?

Quote: bluefire

Unfortunately, I wouldn't call what she does "education". It was more self-promoting her own viewpoint against bigger media outlets/shows.

That's what commentators do, they promote their own viewpoints. What else do you expect?

Quote: bluefire

When you look at what she did, you can't call it research. She liked to talk about data, but she didn't provide any. Instead, what she did was cherry pick a few articles that met her pre-conceived ideas, extrapolated that to the entire media, and then said "this proves I'm right!", when it doesn't really prove her point.

It's not really fair to say she "cherry-picked" articles to support her view because she looked at the totality of primaries this campaign season. All of them. She showed some egregious examples of outlets clinging to "the narrative," which you don't need any "data" to see. (By the way she never used the word "data.") You might disagree with her conclusions but you cannot disagree that the following two points are true: 1) The CW this year has been that incumbents are doomed, and 2) Almost no incumbents lost in the primaries.

I think Maddow is right to point out this contradiction.

Quote: bluefire

She fails to mention the multitude of polls that show this exact feeling.

You're right, and neither did you cite them. Where are they? I'm not saying they don't exist, but you can't attack Maddow for not showing them because maybe they don't exist. Your point here is a negative trying to prove a negative trying to prove a negative.

Quote: bluefire

The media is good at finding out information. What it's bad at is characterizing that information into something that makes sense.

I'm not a regular watcher of the show, but this is actually one of Maddow's strengths. She finds a way to present information in a way that "makes sense." Her show is backed by a better research team than just about any on cable news.

Quote: nyuhoosier

That's what commentators do, they promote their own viewpoints. What else do you expect?

Hence why I didn't want to watch the video in the first place. I was specifically responding to the acquisition that I didn't want to educate myself, when I didn't want to watch the video because of the source. Not sure what your point is here.

Quote:

It's not really fair to say she "cherry-picked" articles to support her view because she looked at the totality of primaries this campaign season. All of them. She showed some egregious examples of outlets clinging to "the narrative," which you don't need any "data" to see. (By the way she never used the word "data.") You might disagree with her conclusions but you cannot disagree that the following two points are true: 1) The CW this year has been that incumbents are doomed, and 2) Almost no incumbents lost in the primaries.

She insinuates that it's the entire media that was saying this narrative over and over, but I've seen websites (like the huffington post) contradicting it. My point was that she didn't offer any statistics to back that up. I agree that it's likely true, but if she wants to nail the MSM for offering a simplified view not backed up by results, she shouldn't do it herself.

Quote:

I think Maddow is right to point out this contradiction.

Except that it isn't a contradiction. Just because there's a lot of anti-incumbent sentiment doesn't mean incumbents are going to lose in the primaries, because of the reasons I've given above.

Quote:

You're right, and neither did you cite them. Where are they? I'm not saying they don't exist, but you can't attack Maddow for not showing them because maybe they don't exist. Your point here is a negative trying to prove a negative trying to prove a negative.

http://tinyurl.com/28wgths

Quote:

I'm not a regular watcher of the show, but this is actually one of Maddow's strengths. She finds a way to present information in a way that "makes sense." Her show is backed by a better research team than just about any on cable news.

Just because she purports to do it better than the rest of the media doesn't mean she's good at it, it just means she's better than the rest of her craft.

The media is nowhere near as good at it as the professionals who work in that field. They tend to oversimplify things and offer a picture that doesn't take all of the variables into account. Pacomartin on this board is a great example.

Warning--Outrage follows:


Give me a break-- people here nitpick a Maddow segment about politics while the MSM produce pap for the masses. At least she says something. If you disagree with her, good for her, at least she made you think. The top two stories on CNN for the most of today were 1)about a sixteen year old in trouble in her attempt to sail around the world alone, and 2)a story about the 1951 US soccer team. All this while millions of people are affected by BP in the gulf. At this very moment CNN top stories are 1)the US park service new system to warn campers about the weather and 2)The US soccer team tied England. Maddow and those like her at least report something. Give me a break

Bluefire, you're a guy who claims to like "data" and quantitative comparisons. You should know, then, that the following caveat -- a HUGE caveat -- makes the poll results you're pointing to almost meaningless:

"Unfortunately, Gallup has never asked that question before, so there is no way of knowing how this result compares to previous years."

It could be that when you ask people "Would you prefer to elect somebody who has never served in Congress before?" they'll say yes 60 percent of the time. But then when they see Rep. Joe Neighborly's name on the ballot they say, "Oh, that's MY rep, he's a good guy, etc."

ADDED: I'm not even saying there isn't some anti-incumbent fervor, I just think it's hilarious that people ARE CHEERING SO HARD for this "anti-incumbent" wave that they're ignoring facts and saying things like, "B-B-B-But p-p-p-primaries don't count! You just wait!"

Quote: nyuhoosier

It could be that when you ask people "Would you prefer to elect somebody who has never served in Congress before?" they'll say yes 60 percent of the time. But then when they see Rep. Joe Neighborly's name on the ballot they say, "Oh, that's MY rep, he's a good guy, etc."

That's what we call the old 25/75 rule: 25% Approval for Congress, 75% Approval for your own local Representative. I did see a poll earlier this year that had it negative for your own Rep. for the history (with a poll that DID have trendlines) but it was a busy time for me and I didn't really care to investigate further.


I see your point about the Mainstream media being pap, though I don't think you can completely fault the likes of CNN for giving the masses what they desire. If it was all about the most important issues and crises, then ratings for straightahead "boring" news programs would have been successful enough for their expansion. Instead we have dozens of versions of Entertainment Tonight. It's just where we are as a society right now. However I can't enjoy Maddow (Olbermann worse...O'Reilly worser...Hannity worstest - and I'm a Conservative) because I KNOW what they are going to be saying before they say it, and it's boring. It doesn't stimulate or engage me. Odd that my most visited websites are this one, the two that I mentioned earlier in the thread, plus dailykos.com and redstate.com. Maybe enjoy it more in text form...But I love elections...to me they are like sports. I love polls and I love the horserace and all of that. I might want my side to win (again, I'm quite Conservative), but I want to get clear info that isn't slanted or tainted by the sides. I don't want to hear my side is doing better than they really are if it isn't true...So I guess I go to kos and redstate and mash the information and figure out what I can.

But getting back to the point, when I was younger I worked a quite a few political campaigns. When I talk to some friends who are still working for various Congress members, they've said that this primary season has been the "scariest" they've had, in terms of spending money to protect from challengers. Again, what it means for November, well, that's the best part. Both sides spin but there's one day when we can cut the crap and get the answers.

Quote: nyuhoosier

Bluefire, you're a guy who claims to like "data" and qualitative comparisons. You should know, then, that the following caveat -- a HUGE caveat -- makes the poll results you're pointing to almost meaningless:

"Unfortunately, Gallup has never asked that question before, so there is no way of knowing how this result compares to previous years."

It could be that when you ask people "Would you prefer to elect somebody who has never served in Congress before?" they'll say yes 60 percent of the time. But then when they see Rep. Joe Neighborly's name on the ballot they say, "Oh, that's MY rep, he's a good guy, etc."

That's exactly what happens most of the time, and it's mostly because of both their pre-conceived opinions and their party affiliatons. However, I'm not sure which Gallup poll you're looking at. Most of these types of polls (including Gallup's) have been tracked for decdaes. Look at:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/101895-gallup-poll-voters-hold-strong-anti-incumbent-sentiments
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29458.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-06/09/c_13340359.htm

Quote:

ADDED: I'm not even saying there isn't some anti-incumbent fervor, I just think it's hilarious that people ARE CHEERING SO HARD for this "anti-incumbent" wave that they're ignoring facts and saying things like, "B-B-B-But p-p-p-primaries don't count! You just wait!"

Except that I don't really care if the "anti-incumbent wave" exists or not. I'm not really rooting for the Dems or Republicans (I don't vote for either). Here are the things that I'm asserting:

1.) An anti-incumbent sentiment exists in polls.
2.) Incumbents are rarely seriously challenged in primaries.
3.) The types of people that are likely to make up anti-incumbent sentiment (weak/leaning partisans) tend to not vote in primaries.
4.) As a result, primary results are not a good way to judge whether the anti-incumbent sentiment actually exists.

This contradicts Rachel's point that the anti-incumbent sentiment should show up in primary results.

The other thing I asserted is that most people vote because of an ideological association with a certain political party. However, due to this overall feeling, you'll likely see a higher rate of defection among the weak partisans and leaning partisans. I *didn't* say that this would necessarily lead to more incumbents losing, but it likely will show up in the elections somehow. I have no clue how big the impact would be, it could just be that incumbents don't win by such large margins this time around, but I do think it'll show up more in the general elections than the primaries.

Good points, and I don't necessarily disagree with them. The poll question I referred to above is from the same Gallup Poll you're citing. It's the poll result most often used to buttress the anti-incumbent claim.

It asks: If you had to choose, which type of Congressional candidate would you rather vote for in November –
[ROTATED: a candidate who has been in Congress, (or) a candidate who has never been in Congress]?

I think it's seriously flawed because of the 75/25 rule mentioned by CClub. That is, philosophically, people will answer that question with a YES, but the result changes when you ask them about their particular representative. Also, that question has never been asked before, so the meaning is impossible to divine.

I appreciate your recognition that the public sentiment is not "100 percent anti-incumbent" (as someone else said) and that there are so many variables in play that anything can happen.

Looking at the better question from that Gallap poll -- the one that asks whether YOUR representative deserves another term -- there is clearly some movement away from incumbents. But the incumbent advantage is still 10 points, 50 percent to 40 percent, so the races will likely be closer but that still might not create a tidal wave.

The Republicans will pick up some seats, no question -- the opposition party always does in the midterms. It will be interesting to see how many.

Ah, I see which one you're talking about.

The classical question that pollsters ask (and talked about in all three articles up there - all citing polls by different polling organizations) is described in this article:

http://people-press.org/report/561/anti-incumbent-sentiment

I would argue that this question is the significant one, which right now is significant when matched against historical values.

I kinda doubt the Republicans will pick up enough to take the majority, there just isn't enough that's going to go their way from the looks of it.

This NPR poll from this morning is getting some attention. Realize that while they combined data in these swing districts to make it look like a "Generic Ballot", each individual district's Rep's name was used.

https://preview.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127834800&live=1

Quote: nyuhoosier

The Tea Party has been really good at derailing electable Republicans and getting fringe people like Angle out of the primaries. The question is whether she can win a statewide race in a moderate state like Nevada, a state that voted for Obama and where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans. I say no. A lot of people here will hold their nose and vote for the uncharismatic Reid, and he'll win a slim but comfortable victory.

Your commentary has the ring of hopeful thinking rather than lucid analysis. If Angle is in such great shape, why has she scrubbed her website of all her true positions this week? She will get nailed early and often over the things I linked to above.

Quote: nyuhoosier

OK, so it won't be that easy, but the (non)Communicator received a huge gift from the tea party last night with the election of Sharron Angle as the GOP's standard-bearer. She's a political novice with little substance and she's taken some truly wacky positions. Not mentioned on the list is Angle's support of a Scientology-based treatment program for Nevada inmates. She took a junket to Mexico to see the cult's "treatment" program in action while in the state Senate.

Make no mistake, this will be a knock-down, drag-out campaign, but I expect Reid to mop the floor with her in the end. In Las Vegas, where Angle is unknown and 2/3 of Nevadans live, Reid will use TV ads to define her early. Angle doesn't have the organization, competence or intelligence to rise above it. The dour truth-teller wins another six years!

Hate to say I told you so, but ... I told you so. Reid was up again fierce headwinds, including 50 percent unfavorables and his status as the political face of the party, and yet Angle was such a horrible candidate that he won anyway. Most Republican leaders in Nevada rallied to Reid because they didn't want to trade Michael Jordan for the guy who sits on the end of the Bulls' bench. She had zero establishment backing -- mostly she had the backing of Fox News viewers who live out of state (she touted their donations in her loser's speech) and knew little or nothing about her. It's bitter irony that the tea party hated Reid so much and yet wound up reelecting him by nominating someone unfit for the Senate.