How to read polls
According to the Washington Post today, 49% of evangelical Christians in Iowa voted for Huckabee, 19% for Romney, 11% for Thompson, and 10% for McCain; nothing is said about how the other 11% voted. This means, of course, that 51% of them did not vote for Huckabee. Nevertheless, our friend E.J. Dionne speaks of his victory in Iowa as “the revenge of evangelical Christians who had been taken for granted by the GOP establishment and decided to vote for one of their own.” Even though six out of ten Iowan Republicans declared themselves born-again, Huckabee got only 34% of the vote. So I don’t see how Dionne’s conclusion follows; there seems to be a good deal of diversity among evangelical Christians in Iowa. That 19% voted for Romney I find striking. Or am I missing something?
In an editorial, the Post asks people “not to get carried away by the results [advice the editors might send to their reporters and columnists!]. In both parties, caucusgoers were a small and unrepresentative sample of a small and unrepresentative state.” (Perhaps someone could parse the use of the word “unrepresentative” in these two phrases.) If this is the case, why is it taken so seriously? Why should it have led at least two of the candidates to discontinue their campaigns, among them Sen. Biden who complains about the difficulty he had in getting the media to cover his efforts? (In the Post’s charts today, results are given only for three of the Democrats and four of the Republicans.)
Is anyone thinking about a better way of going about this?
I am not sure we need a new electoral procedure, but a better reporting of the facts would be nice. One of the problems with the electoral procedure is just that- reporting. Rather than take an objective look at the data, many reporters are intent on making the election entertaining. As long as Governors Huckabee and Romney remain in the race, no matter what the voting data tells us, it will be about religion- first and last. I am inclined to agree that the diversity among evangelicals in the Iowa caucauses is impressive, but it doesn’t fit the pre-scripted narrative.
I interpret “nonrepresentative state” as meaning that the proportion of Republicans, evangelicals, liberals, young people, etc., does not match the proportion of those same classes in Iowa itself, in other states or in the nation at large. However, the results quite possibly tell us something about the individual classes of voters. For instance, a very large number of young people voted for Obama. This *might* be predictive of both Iowa and the other states. For instance, Florida has a much higher proportion of old people than other states, so Obama, if he is the candidate of the young, would seem to have less of a pull there.
Since it is possible that that the figures do in fact give some indication of which way the zeitgeist is moving. I’m hoping that the caucuses are one more indication that the extreme liberalism of the Democratic Party in the last 40 years is on the wane.
Yes, I think that Biden and the other “second tier” candidates have a legitimate complaint. The reporting has been over-whelmingly about nose-counts, not about the candidates views and the exact *reasons* they hold those views. Sadly, the candidates themselves don’t usually go into their reasons sufficiently , and those reasons are what I want to hear. So it’s partially their own fault. I was very impressed by Bill Clinton’s speech the night before the caucuses. He actually went into detail about *why* Hillary would be a fine president — much more than she herself has done, so far as I know. To me he was much more persuasive than she ever is.
Thanks to all you Iowans for a great job done. I learned a lot about the temperament, if not the character, of the candidates. For instance, to me McCain came across as a much less belligerant person than I expected, while Hillary confirmed my view that if a hard choice were required, she would lean towards an aggressive path. You’re a great state, if not a representative one.
Oops — I said wrongly “I interpret “nonrepresentative state” as meaning that the proportion of Republicans, evangelicals, liberals, young people, etc., does not match the proportion of those same classes IN IOWA ITSELF, . . . “”
Obviously, that should have said ONLY that, “I interpret “nonrepresentative state” as meaning that the proportion of Republicans, evangelicals, liberals, young people, etc., IN IOWA does not match the proportions of those same classes IN OTHER STATES . Neither does the proportion of those classes IN THE CAUCUSES represent the proportion of those classes in Iowa taken as a whole.”
Sorry. (I should never try to deal with anything mathmatical. Sigh.)
Here’s an article “Why Iowa? Sociologist says it’s groupthink”. it seems that the early choices cause a cascade because we tend to think that all those people can’t be wrong. Ah, human solidarity, such as it is.
Go to:
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-9/119951413576410.xml&coll=1