I’m willing to engage in people on the other side of the aisle.? I’ll even excuse the occasional ideologically-inspired perspective that leads to one side of the debate to distort the actual situation.? But I will not tolerate a blogger who just simply FLAT OUT LIES.? And Jon Keeling is a documented liar.

From Keeling’s Friday’s post “About that Quinnipiac Guv poll… “:

It seems the experts have the same kind of frustration as I did regarding the way Strickland’s lead in the latest Quinnipiac was framed in the media.

From Robert Moran of Pollster.com:

While the Quinnipiac poll may show Strickland ahead of Kasich 44%-39%, that is in NO WAY the headline. The headline is actually that (a) Strickland is way below 50% and (b) incumbents under 50% in a two way race have a very poor track record in November.

Keeling then claims that Nate Silver backs up Moran on the issue of whether Strickland polling below 50% is actually “great news for… John Kasich!:

Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com, a well-respected and left-leaning political statistics blog, did extensive research into the “under 50%” rule.

Except that the link Keeling used for Nate Silver doesn’t go to Silver’s blog, it goes to another pollster at Pollster.com who felt compelled to protect the site’s credibility by attacking Moran’s factually incorrect post!

Well, I don’t like criticizing our contributors either, but when Bob wrote on Tuesday in the context of a post on the latest results on the Ohio governor’s race that incumbent candidates “get what they get in the tracking, ” that it’s a “fairly ironclad rule” that “incumbents tend to get trace elements of the undecideds at the end of a campaign,” Nate is right and Bob is wrong.

So, the only thing the experts in polling are frustrated about is how hacks like Keeling are claiming that the fact that Strickland is polling in the mid-forties in February spells doom for Strickland come November!

Silver’s post titled “The Myth of the Incumbent 50% Rule” actually says that the Quinnipiac is good news… for Ted Strickland!

Although I have no particular comment on the dynamics of the Ohio race, which I have not spent much time following, Moran’s general sentiment is demonstrably false. What the actual evidence shows, rather, is the following:
1) It is extremely common for an incumbent come back to win re-election while having less than 50 percent of the vote in early polls.
2) In comparison to early polls, there is no demonstrable tendency for challengers to pick up a larger share of the undecided vote than incumbents.
3) Incumbents almost always get a larger share of the actual vote than they do in early polls (as do challengers). They do not “get what they get in the tracking”; they almost always get more.
4) However, the incumbent’s vote share in early polls may in fact be a better predictor of the final margin in the race than the opponent’s vote share. That is, it may be proper to focus more on the incumbent’s number than the opponent’s when evaluating such a poll — even though it is extremely improper to assume that the incumbent will not pick up any additional percentage of the vote.

On the Ohio race specifically, Silver wrote:

If we instead look at those cases within three points of Ted Strickland’s 44 percent, when the incumbent had between 41 and 47 percent of the vote in early polls, he won on 11 of 17 occasions (65 percent of the time).

In other words, given Strickland’s position in the polls, Silver concludes that historical polling data suggests that an incumbent in Strickland’s position in the polls at this point in the election cycle will win re-election TWO-THIRDS of the time.? Silver found that actually nearly HALF of all incumbents poll below 50% at this point in the election.?

Granted, Strickland’s odds do improve if he were polling above 50%.? Silver concludes that such incumbents have won 32 out of 33 times.? However, that fact doesn’t exactly spell DOOM for Strickland.?

This is the same kind of nonsense like how Keeling and the Ohio conservativesphere has gotten the vapors over Larry Sabato changing Congresswoman Betty Sutton’s re-election from “Safe Democratic” to “Likely Democratic” over the entrance of Tom Ganley’s Sutton-inspired “Cash for Clunkers” millions of campaign dollars.? Instead of certainity, it’s now only a near certainity.

Other great news for Kasich by Silver?

On average, the incumbent added 6.4 percent to his voting total between the early polling average and the election, whereas the challenger added 4.5 percent. Looked at differently, the incumbent actually picked up the majority — 59 percent — of the undecided vote vis-a-vis early polls.

Which means that Strickland got the same bump, he’s on pace to get over 50% on election day.?

How bad is Keeling’s dishonesty over the Quinny poll?

Not even Tom Blumer from BizzyBlog (who himself calls Keeling’s “spin” “pathetic”) doesn’t buy it:

That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t explain why Kasich’s situation with Qpac in Feb. 10 is WORSE than it was in Nov. 09.

Still waiting for why you shouldn’t be concerned about that ….

Tom Blumer
BizzyBlog.com

When you’ve lost Tom Blumer, give it up, man, because it’s gone…

Next up for Keeling?? Explaining why John Kasich is losing ground while Portman’s been gaining.

Whatever it is, I’m sure it’s good news for John McCain John Kasich!

Tagged with:
 

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!