For quite some time, the Chicago Trib has printed a bar graph on page 1, reflecting the candidates’ electoral votes standing. Since at least last Friday, this graph reflected W pretty far ahead - he had around 230 locked up or strongly leaning, compared to 180 or so for Gore. Gore had to win essentially every undecided state to pull it out.
Now this morning, the paper shows it as essentially a dead heat. 209 solid or leaning Bush, 196 for Gore.
Does this graphic reflect an actual change? Or is the information presented in this manner to encourage people to vote, or to encourage them to watch/buy media coverage of the election?
Kind of related, last night on the radio I heard some “polling expert” essentially disavowing the use of polls to predict winners. He said they are basically used to assess trends within certain demographics, but are poor indicators of ultimate victory and should not be interpreted as such. Well, that doesn’t seem to be how they are traditionally presented. And I question whether the majority of news consumers have sufficient statistical sophistication to draw such fine distinctions.
So, my question is, to what extent are polls and news media coverage manipulated to essentially sell the polls and coverage itself?
Related question, how many of you are going to vote, and what amount of news coverage will you watch/read?
I will vote on my way home, and will probably turn the TV on occasionally to see what if any trends are developing. But I certainly will not watch coverage for hours and will not stay up past my normal bedtime. Hey, they’d better not pre-empt Buffy! Then tomorrow a.m. I will listen to the radio when getting ready for work, and will read the paper on the train.
Saturday I got really excited. I was called on the phone to participate in a poll conducted by the Associated Press! Now I’m a poll statistic! There were lots of questions, some I didn’t know, some I couldn’t answer. It seemed pretty comprehensive. Just thought I’d share that little story.
I plan to vote after work today. This will be my first time at the polls even though I am 42. For many years I had a very laid back attitude about politics. In essence I didn’t think my tiny little vote counted for much. Even in this election I don’t think my vote will carry much weight. My fundamental beliefs lean toward the “liberal” side. And my state, Virginia, traditionally votes “conservative”. But for some reason this time I feel like it’s my duty as an individual to at least try and let my lean on things be accounted for. I’m voting mainly because it gives me a certain measure of personal satisfaction. The pollster asked me a question something like that on Saturday. “Did I believe my vote counted or was I voting because it gave me personal satisfaction?” Something to that effect.
So today I go and vote because I think it’s important, to me at least, that my poor little outnumbered “liberal” views should have some support in this otherwise “conservative” state.
Needs2know
The guy will take up half of the class time to talk about it. He checks out Reuters polls 'til midnight every night. The election is definitely a spectator sport; this guy is living proof.
My teacher (let’s just call him Mr. W) was a major football fan as a child. He still has everything about the '79 Eagles memorized (which is kinda creepy). Perhaps he’s refocused the same momentum he had towards football to politics.
Would anyone agree to this hypothesis? Anyone know other people like that?
A guy where I used to work used to draw up big maps and charts on congressional elections and the electoral college.
While on occasion we laughed about him behind his back, he was a pretty reliable source of this type of info when you wanted it.
When in college I was a PolSci major, and we would have election night parties where students and faculty would gather and watch the returns.