# Most telling statistic from the debate. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2008, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292 "2008-10-03T09:43:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/21 "2008-10-03T15:24:13Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > What exactly are 538 doing that puts them “in the tank” for Obama?? Publishing an analysis of various polls, and clearly showing showing their methodology? I just don’t see the bias. Could you enlighten me as to how they are specifically biased towards Obama? Well they list Obama as ahead in the polls. Any fair organization would show McCain ahead no matter what the actual numbers were. ---
**Author:** ![CircleofWillis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/54ee81/32.png) [@CircleofWillis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CircleofWillis)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/22 "2008-10-03T15:26:35Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > No, it means Fox is reliable as a pollster. Fox and CNN both do news and both do polls at this time of year. The two functions are not that related. ..and yet any cite of any kind linked to Fox is dismissed out of hand (with many saying 'That’s Faux News, I’m not even going to bother to read it.")… seems like a bit of a double standard to me ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/23 "2008-10-03T15:49:58Z")
> [@CircleofWillis](#): > > ..and yet any cite of any kind linked to Fox is dismissed out of hand (with many saying 'That’s Faux News, I’m not even going to bother to read it.")… seems like a bit of a double standard to me Because usually people cite Fox for _actual news_, not polls. For elections, Fox is simply not one of the better-known pollsters, like Quinnipiac and Mason-Dixon. Not bad, but not famous. ---
**Author:** ![CircleofWillis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/54ee81/32.png) [@CircleofWillis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CircleofWillis)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/24 "2008-10-03T16:28:14Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > Because usually people cite Fox for _actual news_, not polls. For elections, Fox is simply not one of the better-known pollsters, like Quinnipiac and Mason-Dixon. Not bad, but not famous. So “I don’t have to read it, It’s Faux News.” regardless of what the link might provide is reasonable? Really? Might be a poll, might be a story on the existence of Bigfoot, might be a legitimate news item, might be a recipe for “We Love America” pie. If it’s Fox, it’s handwaved. Interesting. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/25 "2008-10-03T17:36:35Z")
> [@CircleofWillis](#): > > So “I don’t have to read it, It’s Faux News.” regardless of what the link might provide is reasonable? Really? Might be a poll, might be a story on the existence of Bigfoot, might be a legitimate news item, might be a recipe for “We Love America” pie. If it’s Fox, it’s handwaved. Interesting. What you said had no connection to what you quoted. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/26 "2008-10-03T17:41:22Z")
> [@CircleofWillis](#): > > So “I don’t have to read it, It’s Faux News.” regardless of what the link might provide is reasonable? Really? Might be a poll, might be a story on the existence of Bigfoot, might be a legitimate news item, might be a recipe for “We Love America” pie. If it’s Fox, it’s handwaved. Interesting. No, you’re either not reading, or not understanding. For POLLS, Fox news has a methodology that is sound, and pretty much everyone here would take a Fox news poll as a valid data point (along with many other sound polls) For NEWS and EDITORIAL CONTENT (which can be blurred in any news organization), people here are more inclined to be skeptical, and look for alternate sources of explanation. I have never seen anyone here write “I don’t have to read it, It’s Faux News.” They might say “Fox news has a slant, let’s look at other reports from different news outfits” ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/27 "2008-10-03T17:41:24Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > What exactly are 538 doing that puts them “in the tank” for Obama?? Publishing an analysis of various polls, and clearly showing showing their methodology? I just don’t see the bias. Could you enlighten me as to how they are specifically biased towards Obama? I did not say that they are biased toward Obama in the projection they provide. I said that they are “in the tank” for Obama, which they clearly are. I didn’t think that this fact was at all controversial. Nate and Sean want Obama to win. Again, they don’t try to hide this, and they attempt to keep a firewall between result projection and political analysis. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/28 "2008-10-03T18:01:22Z")
> [@stolichnaya](#): > > I did not say that they are biased toward Obama in the projection they provide. I said that they are “in the tank” for Obama, which they clearly are. I didn’t think that this fact was at all controversial. Nate and Sean want Obama to win. Again, they don’t try to hide this, and they attempt to keep a firewall between result projection and political analysis. There’s a disconnect here. You’re confusing personal opinion with what their professional product is. If they allowed their personal opinions to affect their professional product, you could say that they’re in the tank for Obama. But they don’t. They present their numbers as they are and base their analysis on that. They don’t shape their numbers to support their opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/29 "2008-10-03T18:03:56Z")
> [@stolichnaya](#): > > I did not say that they are biased toward Obama in the projection they provide. I said that they are “in the tank” for Obama, which they clearly are. I didn’t think that this fact was at all controversial. Nate and Sean want Obama to win. Again, they don’t try to hide this, and they attempt to keep a firewall between result projection and political analysis. So if they are not skewing their results then what, _exactly,_ does this offer to the thread? ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/30 "2008-10-03T18:19:38Z")
> [@CircleofWillis](#): > > From the site: > > “ **What is your political affiliation?** My state has non-partisan registration, so I am not registered as anything. I vote for Democratic candidates the majority of the time (though by no means always). This year, I have been a supporter of Barack Obama. The other contributor to this website, Sean, has also been a supporter of Barack Obama” [Here (scroll down a bit).](http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html) > > and > > “My methodology remains essentially the same as in this Daily Kos diary.” [Here (Scroll down to Pollster Rankings 2.0).](http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/pollster%20ratings) > > SO while not out right saying it, expressing your political leanings and having a diary on Daily Kos kinds of belies… or at least poisons the appearance of.. neutrality. Nate Silver has come out quite openly for Obama on the blog portion of 538 and in interviews. However, he is trying to keep his own bias outside of his statistical methodology for poll analysis. And if the methodology is unbiased (and it does appear to be unbiased) and he sticks to the methodology consistently (the transparency is going to keep him honest even if he wasn’t), the poll analysis should be unbiased. Accurate? Its statistics - he is still giving McCain a greater than 10% chance to win the election… ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/31 "2008-10-03T18:48:23Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > So if they are not skewing their results then what, _exactly,_ does this offer to the thread? Did you edit to add the italics? It was a nice touch. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/32 "2008-10-03T19:12:52Z")
> [@stolichnaya](#): > > Did you edit to add the italics? It was a nice touch. No, to fix a minor typo. I have Dyscalculia and light Dyslexia, I often have to edit. Nice dodge, care to answer the question I posed to you? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/33 "2008-10-03T20:03:35Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > … For POLLS, Fox news has a methodology that is sound, and pretty much everyone here would take a Fox news poll as a valid data point (along with many other sound polls) > > For NEWS and EDITORIAL CONTENT (which can be blurred in any news organization), people here are more inclined to be skeptical, and look for alternate sources of explanation. > > I have never seen anyone here write “I don’t have to read it, It’s Faux News.” They might say “Fox news has a slant, let’s look at other reports from different news outfits” To emphasize - I take [Fox’s poll](http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2299) on who “won” the debate as a data point too. Yes, different pollsters may have leans, and those leans should be considered. As to to reporting bias, yes, it is interesting that I cannot currently find Fox’s poll results on Fox’s own website. Funny that. Really. I’ve searched their site. I find it reported in multiple newspapers across the world, but can’t find it on their site. Only spin by experts of how well she did. Odd. > [@](#): > > Randomly selected subjects on three other polls also show Biden winning: > > CNN/Opinion Research Biden 51 Palin 36 > CBS Biden 46 Palin 21 > **Fox Biden 61 Palin 39** > > In the CBS poll, of the uncommitted voters, 18% now say they will vote Obama/Biden, 10% now say McCain/Palin. (Bolding mine.) ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/34 "2008-10-03T20:05:50Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > No, to fix a minor typo. I have Dyscalculia and light Dyslexia, I often have to edit. > > Nice dodge, care to answer the question I posed to you? Not really. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/35 "2008-10-03T20:08:24Z")
It’s odd that Fox didn’t offer the option of a tie. And **stolichnaya** , why won’t you answer **Acid Lamp** ’s question? ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/36 "2008-10-03T20:16:19Z")
In other words: FOX **Polls** may produce reliable, sound polls with a high degree of accuracy, that come close to reflecting the true nature of the will of the electorate. Fox **News** may not publish the results of polls they don’t like. Both statements can be true. ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/37 "2008-10-03T20:19:25Z")
> [@](#): > > And stolichnaya, why won’t you answer Acid Lamp’s question? Because he asked it in an pissy way, and I’m feeling uppity. Eh, I am not making any implications whatsoever about value of the poll data and I neverdid. The original statement was that 538 is not “in the tank” for Obama. But it is relatively easy to tell that the _management_ of 538 is “in the tank” for Obama. They are very open about it. My point was the division between commentary and poll numbers, which did not clear the bar by some estimations for participation in this thread. It is Friday and it’s time to go outside. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/38 "2008-10-03T21:08:47Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > In other words: FOX **Polls** may produce reliable, sound polls with a high degree of accuracy, that come close to reflecting the true nature of the will of the electorate. > > Fox **News** may not publish the results of polls they don’t like. > > Both statements can be true. Exactly. Fox News may even bury the results of their polling service if reality has a liberal bias. As to 538, yes Nate and Sean are explicit with their personal support of Obama as President and as bloggers are “in the tank” - insightful in their analyses I think - but clearly wanting an Obama victory. Their model on the other hand is unbiased. Polls are included so long as they are not campaign sponsored. They are rated according to past track record and consistent leans are factored in. (Leans btw are not the same as bias). Results closer to election day are rated more highly than older polls. So on. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2008, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/39 "2008-10-05T02:07:06Z")
Some other liberal media spin, this a [Ipsos/McClatchy poll.](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/713320.html) > [@](#): > > Palin’s performance in the debate did nothing to clinch undecided votes for her running mate, Arizona Sen. John McCain. Before the debate, those same undecided voters were leaning 56 percent to 44 percent for McCain. The day after the debate, the numbers tilted 52 percent to 48 percent for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. > > “It’s suggesting an overall tendency of undecideds toward Obama, so it is significant,” said Clifford Young, a senior vice president at Ipsos Public Affairs. “We’re catching an underlying trend that’s going on.” … > > … Palin got poor marks from voters when asked if she looked vice presidential or whether she had a good understanding of the issues - only 39 percent of the undecided voters thought she looked vice presidential. Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed thought Biden would be a better commander-in-chief. > > But Palin did well when people were asked who would do a better job bringing change to Washington. Palin, they found, 58 percent to 42 percent. And roughly two-thirds said they like her, and some 53 percent found her believable. That’s a significant number in a debate watched by an estimated 69.9 million viewers - more than the previous presidential debate. So undecideds like her, they really really like her. But amazingly they aren’t wanting to choose based on who they’d like to have a beer or a coffee with, but on who they think could take over the job if called upon to do so and how that reflects on the top of the ticket. So the VP debate pushes them just a bit more Obamaward. Who’d have thunk? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2008, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292/40 "2008-10-05T02:53:47Z")
Thirty percent of the people still think Bush is doing a good job. That shows she added perhaps 16 % to that base. Not so impressive. But if that debate made people see her as qualified for the presidency . I worry for us. She is a small town hick mayor who got too lucky. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-telling-statistic-from-the-debate/466292.md?page=3)