Gordon L. Weil
In an old movie, two tribes are fighting brutally on a battlefield
in what may be Afghanistan. Suddenly, a
single line of religious monks crosses the field. The fighting abruptly halts. All watch in silence and respect as the holy
men pass, and then the battle resumes.
The same thing may be happening now in the U.S. The monks are pollsters, revered for their objectivity
and neutrality. Media pundits are the
high priests who explain the “truths” revealed by the pollsters.
Pollsters’ truths these days are that Donald Trump leads Joe
Biden in the presidential race and that, though both are old men, Biden is worryingly
older than Trump. And, while there are
about eight months until the election, it’s almost over now.
This is called conventional wisdom. It’s not wisdom, because it could easily turn
out to be wrong, but it surely is conventional.
The media promotes what’s conventional, because the pundits listen
mainly to one another – a kind of herd (or “heard”) instinct.
In reality, polls may be worse than ever. Technological change has made it more difficult
for pollsters to find a truly random sample of likely voters. That’s essential if survey responses from the
1,000 people interviewed can predict how tens of millions of people will vote.
Many people randomly selected cannot be reached or refuse to
reply, so pollsters artificially weight some participants more than others. Besides,
some people don’t give honest answers.
In the Republican Super Tuesday primaries, Trump performed
less well in most states than his polling numbers had forecast. For example, in Michigan, a swing state, 57
percent of Republicans told polls they would vote for Trump, but only 42
percent did.
Where will the lost Trump supporters go in November? And what about those Republicans who say they
would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of a felony? Plus, what will be the effect of third
parties if the race is close? The
pundits are silent.
Polls are conducted every day, and the results are instantly
interpreted by the journalistic herd to suggest to lowly voters what we will do
eight months from now. Campaigns and voters may make decisions based on the
doubtful data stated as conventional wisdom.
In short, statistical guesses are treated as sure things. Excessive reliance on polling misleads and
distorts the election process.
By the way, there is one area where we should consider scientific
statistics – the age of the candidates. The
media constantly focuses on doubts about Biden’s age but much less on Trump’s. It ignores so-called “actuarial tables.”
The U.S. government must calculate how long people at each
age will live in order to know the future cost of Social Security benefits. Highly trained and experienced experts, the
actuaries, determine how many more years a man or woman at each age is expected
to live. They set life expectancy at the
age to be reached by at least half the people born in the same year.
They calculate with great accuracy how long men the ages of
Trump and Biden will live. Trump would be 78 at the start of the next
presidential term; Biden would be 82. At
that time, Trump’s life expectancy would be 88, while Biden’s would be 90. That means either would have a good chance of
serving a full presidential term.
So, the age difference does not particularly favor
Trump. But they are both old men and
both are gaffe-prone. Either could make
such a disastrous error in campaigning that it would seriously threaten their electoral
chances. No pollster can take that into account, though both parties and the voters
may.
Finally, given their ages, will the election focus less on the
two men and more on their two running mates?
If voters believe both are dangerously old, they could focus on the vice-presidential
candidates. Their debate could be the
most important ever for the number two slot, especially if one or both of the
presidential candidates won’t debate.
The biggest and most public decision a presidential candidate
makes during a campaign is the selection of their running mate. Biden’s is known and Trump’s will be a person
who hews loyally to his positions.
Either must be viewed as a possible president, maybe even a likely
one. That could make this election more
about the running mates than about the top of the ticket.
Finally, much will depend on the media. The mainline media seems committed to promoting
the conventional wisdom, breathlessly reported every day. It owes the voters more than daily spot
reporting and hot-off-the press analyses.
It should avoid snap conclusions drawn from flawed or possibly biased
polling.
Questionable polling and hasty analyses dominate the election
campaign these days. We need more light and less heat.
No comments:
Post a Comment