Category: Political Calculus

Election Modelling isn’t Inherently Political

One of the sad trends I have noticed is the desire to attack politics journalists or pollsters or elections modelers and dismiss their work because it fits there political views.  An example of this is someone saying Nate Silver is only predicting the Democrats would flip the house because he is a Democrat, and not because there was actual evidence of this (and as you know this actually happened).  There might be journalists/pollsters/modelers who can not separate their politics and their work.  But, I assume most of them like me try put their politics aside and follow the facts.   I think it’s important for me to draw attention to this issue, and also share that as a conservative-leaning independent,  I do trust that people on the other side of the spectrum to do a good job.

It has surprised me as a newcomer to polling analysis is that how some people view the polls and models as something used to promote an agenda or attack the president. I’ve struggled with convincing some of my own friends and family that the polls could be trusted even though they didn’t predict that Trump would win the Presidential election. In some people’s minds polls aren’t worth dealing with, so you should just let the phone ring when “Survey” comes on the caller ID. 

And this disconnect between members of the public and the pollster and election modeling community is a problem. Combine this with a mediocre public understanding of probability and you get a level of mistrust in the models because they are “flawed”. I will acknowledge that all models are imperfect and they can always be improved, but we shouldn’t attack experts because their political opinion is different than ours.

 We should try to improve public support of the polls and models. Because if public trust is low the response rates may go down and with them, the errors may go up resulting in a never-ending self-fulfilling prophecy. 
  In particular, I think that the polling community does need to reach out to conservatives to attempt to try to gain a level of trust.  If there is a polling trust gap between conservatives and liberals it could affect how the polls perform.

But I trust the polls and the models. I know they have flaws, but I also know that it is the nature of all statistical modeling. But the power of political polling is more than election prediction and helps us understand how the electorate feels about politicians and policies. The challenging nature of this field and its potential for statistical education of the public is why I do what I do. 


For me, this has never been about my politics, and I trust the models of those whose political opinions and demographics are different than mine.  In this era of tribalism and polarization, we need to acknowledge that the field of political polling analysis isn’t inherently political.

If Beto O’Rouke Wins the Senate Tonight Here’s (Probably) Why

One of the criticisms of election predictors in 2016 was that some people felt that the risks and potential for errors were not explained.  I don’t think Beto will win the Senate but his odds right now are somewhere in the range of rolling a die and getting a 6 or rolling a die and getting either a 5 or 6 which basically says that weird things can happen but they probably won’t.  So I am writing this post so that no one can say I misrepresenting Cruz winning Texas as a sure event or was not clear about the possibility of a model/poll error, not because I am trying to hedge my bets.

But there are several factors at play that could cause the polls and my model to be wrong in Texas and other Senate races.  I trust my model and the polls,  but I know from experience that there are a few cases where the polls and my model have issues predicting a winner, and I wanted to share that those scenarios.  I don’t want to give the impression that my model is perfect and always right because it isn’t.  No statistical model is ever always right, and something as incredibly complicated as an election means that nothing is ever certain.  But I do know my model on average predicts the outcome by 2.5 points in presidential elections and calls the winner over in over 90% of the races.  I have never predicted Senate races, but I have no reason to believe this will change significantly.  Some people may wonder why I ever bother to predict something that will eventually happen,  knowing that I am going to wrong sometimes.  But I do this because it’s fun and it makes election night more exciting to have some skin in the game.

Scenario 1: Systemic Polling Error (Beto wins by 2 or more points)

Under this scenario, the polls failed to capture the enthusiasm of young and minority voters and incorrectly estimated who would turnout.  There are a lot of telephone polls, and they are probably more apt to miss Beto’s base than internet polls.  On great example of this is a New York Times / Sienna College Poll .  They struggled to get young, and minority voters and the categories were reweighted,  However, when you don’t get an accurate sample, you introduce error.  It’s not the pollsters fault for this since they have to randomly sample and they can’t make you answer.  I’ve talked about the importance of poll participation before.  Sometimes polls are wrong because they aren’t conducted properly but the vast majority of the time its because not the right group of people answered. Under this scenario, Beto would win by at least 2 points because that’s the minimum error you would need to see for the polls to be considered abnormally wrong.

Scenario 2:  Republicans Stay Home

In this scenario,  Republicans don’t turn out like they did in past elections.  The rough indicator of this is the exit poll, but it may not be detailed enough to conclude this happened.  Another proxy for this is relative turnout in the strong Republican counties versus the more urban and liberal counties. If turnout is unexpectedly weak among Republicans, this would also hurt the polls as well which were probably designed with Cruz having a turnout advantage.

Scenario 3: The Polls aren’t “Wrong” and Beto still wins by less than a point

This seems like a contradiction,  but its normal for Senate polls to be wrong by about 5 points on average.  And Cruz has slightly below a five-point lead in the polls. So Beto could win by less than a point, and the polls would still perform like they usually do. Competitive races are really hard to poll and predict because a lot of the time there will be a statistical tie.

 

The Role of the Supreme Court Confirmation in the 2018 Midterm Elections

Today I want to discuss the role of the Supreme Court nomination in the competitive Senate races I am following.

I’m especially interested in how the Democratic incumbent senators in states Trump won will vote.  Ultimately, I think  Kavanaugh will get confirmed before the election so his confirmation may no longer be a direct issue in November.  However,  how the senators voted could definitely still be on voters minds.  It’s probably a lose-lose situation  Vote no and you may have just created a new attack ad and alienated Trump supporters and conservative,  but vote yes and alienate independents and your parties leadership.  I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these candidates will be considering the effects this vote could have on their reelection.  I’m am particularly interested in Heitkamp from North Dakota and Tester from Montana since both of them are in tight races in places where a conservative Supreme Court justice might be popular.

I am going to remove a few states I previous named as competitive,  because the polling data doesn’t support a close race.  I am no longer considering the Texas race competitive after a 5th poll shows Cruz with a study lead.  O’Rouke may do very well for a Democrat in Texas,  but I just don’t think the polls support a competitive race.  Pennslyvania and Ohio are now considered safe for the Democratic candidate, and Wisconsin and Michigan will be considered safe for the Democratic candidate after there primary unless the Republican nominee has a poll with the Republican Candidate winning outside of the margin of error.  On August 1,  races will be recategorized depending on whether or not they have at least 1 post-primary poll showing a within margin error lead.

 

My Comments on the Special Elections in 2017

I thought I would provide my perspective on the special election that occurred last week in Kansas, and the upcoming special house election in Georgia.

For full disclosure, I am a republican who is against some of the President’s policies on immigration, and health care.

I do not think Trump’s performance will have a major affect the voting behavior of people with strong party ties.  Republicans vote Republican most of the time, and Democrats vote Democrat most of the time.  Independents and moderates are more of a wild card.  Independents may not vote the same as they did in 2016.

The districts in question are in no way representative of the whole country. They  Any result from these elections cannot be applied to the whole country or  “predict” the entire midterm election outcome.  You could maybe use the results to for certain districts, but certainly not the entire country.  For statistical analysis to work properly, the samples need to be reasonably representative.

Special elections are all about who turns out.  In the Kansas election, Democrats spent a lot of money and attention on the race since there are only a few races this year.   The money and a lack of an incumbent is probably why the race was closer than the 2016 race.  The 2017 Kansas race had about half the votes compared to the 2016 race,  this big of a change can affect the outcome.  In Georgia, I expect a race  that is closer than usual for that district, but still with a Republican win. I doubt that a Democrat will win a majority of the votes in the primary.

These special elections need to be interpreted in context.  They are two races in House districts that haven’t been competitive in years.  We should not even try to extrapolate to the entire country from these races.  Favorability polls are a much better indicator of political sentiment  However, I think that the favorability polls like the general election polls could be underestimating Trump’s support.  It has been difficult to get Republicans to respond to the polls, and this may affect the accuracy of polls.  After the midterms in 2018,  there will be a clearer picture of support for the Republican party.  Until then we can only guess.

 

 

A look at Alternatives to the Current Electoral College Process

First, I want to be clear, that there is no universally fair way to elect a president. All methods have pros and cons, and you can have your own opinion about which way is the best.

Current System

Right now with the exception of Nebraska and Maine, the electoral college is decided by whoever has the most support in a state.  The winner usually has a majority of votes, but sometimes no single candidate was a majority. This method also helps smaller states as they have a lower ratio of voters to electors than larger states.

Pros

This method makes it easy to determine the winner on election night.  You don’t necessarily need all the votes to come in if you have enough information to predict the winner.

Cons

Most states have a clear winner party.  So most of the attention goes to swing states who do not have a regular winner.

Popular Vote

The popular vote method is based on the winner of the popular vote.  Whoever gets the most votes wins.  This method can be implemented if enough states change their laws to award their electors to the popular vote winner.

Pros

Every vote counts the same.  Larger states would have more power than the current system.

Cons

Smaller states lose some electoral power compared to the current system.

Congressional District System

This system awards 2 electors to the state winner and 1 elector to the winner of every congressional district.  This is the method Maine and Nebraska use.

Disclaimer:  This is my personally prefered system.

Pros

It’s a compromise between the current system and the popular vote system.  The electoral college would probably mimic the congressional makeup.

Cons

Like the current system,  could elect a president that didn’t win the popular vote.

 

All of these systems have pros and cons.  There isn’t necessarily a “best” way to pick the president.

Here is a Five Thirty Eight article about different methods of deciding the electoral college.

 

If I were a Senator

Donald Trump is officially the 45th president of the United States. Next the cabinet nominees will be voted on by the senate for confirmation. Republicans have a majority, but it would take only three Republican senators to prevent the appointment of a nominee. Technically a Democrat might vote for a nominee, but considering how many Democrats aren’t participating in the inauguration no Democrats will probably vote yes on the more controversial nominees. The question is if you were a senator that doesn’t like Trump or a certain nominee should you vote for them anyway to protect your position in the senate?

This is a complicated decision given what we know about Trump’s low favorability rating. A YouGov/Economist poll asks questions about how voters view Trump and his cabinet picks. Some picks aren’t as controversial like mates who has the highest favorability among non-Trump voters in the poll. But the Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson and Attorney General nominee Jeff Session have the lowest favorability among non-Trump voters. You have to consider that the majority of voters didn’t vote for Trump in the election, and the majority of voters have neutral or negative opinions in most polls. This decision is difficult if you don’t like the nominees, but as a Republican senator feel obligated to support your party.

Here is what I would do if I were a Republican Senator. I don’t think most of the cabinet picks are qualified or good candidates for their positions. I know that independent and democratic and a portion of Republican voters don’t like some of the cabinet picks. Not voting for a nominee would hurt me, it would probably anger my colleagues and lower my favorability with my constituents. Not voting for my party’s nominee would probably make national news and may not be beneficial for me. However, if I vote against a nominee and it turns out they don’t get confirmed, it probably wouldn’t hurt me that much. If I run for reelection and Trump and his cabinet are unpopular my dissent could help. If I don’t vote for a cabinet candidate, but they still get confirmed I would have risked my position for nothing. This scenario is complicated and an example of a prisoner’s dilemma game (more info here). The idea in this case is voting against a candidate is only worth it if it blocks the confirmation of that candidate and it turns out that Trump is not favorable at the time of my reelection. But the payoff is higher if I vote for the nominee regardless of the actions of the 51 other Republican senators. I also know that the rejection of this nominee doesn’t mean that the next nominee going to be a better nominee. Knowing these things the only nominees that I would consider voting against being Sessions and Tillerson because those are high power positions and are unpopular enough to increase the chance that my vote would prevent their confirmation. So it wouldn’t surprise me if almost all the senate nominees get confirmed.

Why I am against the Recount

I don’t support Jill Stein’s call for a recount the election results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  There are multiple reasons why I think Jill Stein is going about this the wrong way.

1. Jill Stein has no chance of winning the three states in question.

Jill Stein will not be the next president of the United States.  She got less than 2% in all of these states.  If Hillary Clinton wanted to pursue a recount in Michigan which was won by Trump by probably under 1% (right now Trump has a lead of just 11,612 votes),  I  could understand that decision, especially if Michigan was all Clinton needed to be president.  I know that the probability of 11,612 being incorrectly counted is low, but if the presidency was decided by less than 0.0001 of the votes cast I think it the results should be verified.    But I think the Clinton campaign probably considered a recount and decided it would not change the outcome so it wasn’t worth the money, time, and controversy.  But a candidate who at most got 1.1% in the states questioned shouldn’t throw a fit. I don’t think its her place to call for a recount.  I would have had the same opinion if Gary Johnson had tried a similar approach in light of a Clinton Presidency.

2.  If the election was hacked a recount would probably not catch it.

Let’s say the electronic votes were tampered.  I don’t believe this happened at all but let’s entertain the idea for a second.  If the machines were hacked they would have probably changed the record of the vote which is all that is analyzed in a simple recount.  A recount is just recounting the votes. An audit would maybe have caught it, if this hack had taken place.  But audits are expensive and a far more sensible explanation for a Trump win in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin is that turnout was down in urban areas where Obama got  a lot of support. I am not denying that foreign interests tried to influence the election, like the creation of fake news by teenagers in Macedonia (here is an article about that: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fake-news-macedonia-teen-shows-how-its-done/). The lower turnout compared to 2008 probably hurt Clinton.  At the end of the day it appears that more republicans turned out to vote than democrats.     Nate Silver (a democrat) wrote about the possible hacking claims here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/.

3.  This process isn’t helping the division in this country.

The recount isn’t going to change anything.  Trump won.  Trump may have not been the candidate you would have picked.  Personally I would have wanted any other republican candidate from the nomination process.  This recount is just making things worse.  Jill Stein should want our country to come together and accept the results.  Her own VP pick doesn’t approve of this process. Instead of escalating the situation Jill Stein should stop fighting.

The bottom line is that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States.  All this talk about a rigged election was not backed by any evidence.  Trump shouldn’t have called the election rigged.  Stein shouldn’t do the same thing.  I would have supported a recount if we had  a 2000 situation with the election decided by 121 votes, regardless of the winner.  But given the situation a recount is unnecessary and wasteful.  I know that you may not trust Statisticians right now because we were wrong about the election, but still listen to the multiple voices speaking out against the recount.  It’s time for our country to unite and accept what happened on November 8, 2016.