What can I say. I've been very annoyed with National Review's Campaign Spot. I don't have a problem with people supporting McCain as much as I couldn't handle the horrible arguments he was using. All he's been doing is cherry picking polls (worse than Drudge even) and trying to say that that was the new reality. Fortunately last night he over extended himself and I got a chance to get a little revenge.
Geraghty posts thoughts from a Republican strategist that he annoyingly refers to as Obi-Wan. Last week he forwarded a bizarre rant that had some rather aggressive assumptions:
The shocker polls last Wednesday came out indicating McCain had had a seven point rise over six days and essentially tied the race. (And had gone back into a slight lead in Florida and Ohio ) The AP’s article about their poll putting Obama ahead by 1 percent was crediting what no one else saw, that McCain’s performance in the debate had actually been a game changer...
The Uncommitteds saw McCain not only as better leader, but he moved up on key issues. So in the mano-a-mano comparison he was not only way ahead but he had set up his issues for the rest of the campaign — he had control of the foreign policy issue and then he took away his opponents main issue with "spread the wealth." And he had a great visual — Joe the Plumber.
...
Anyway, trajectories like the one McCain was on are almost impossible to stop. Obama had to do something or McCain was going to go into the weekend with a lead.
Having sat on his lead in the debate, he now seemed frozen. In normal times that should have sealed the deal.
But... this is the most unusual political environment since the Depression.
Because by Thursday, McCain had stalled and Obama got points back going into the weekend.
Obama didn’t do anything. The stock market did a lot.
...
But probably the least emotional pollster around told somebody I know about Obama’s lead returning late last week. This pollster said, "They aren’t voting for Obama. They are angry about what has happened to their 401(k) and are voting against Bush. They actually favor McCain."
So it starts out by looking at one outlying poll and assumes that it's the unvarnished truth. He compared the results of this poll to those in others and called it movement. Then he assumed that that movement would continue because, ummm, because it will so shut up that's why! [1]
Once you go there, any movement towards Obama has to be fake because the AP poll proved that everyone loves McCain. The rest of the argument is a rationalization as to how Obama could possibly be moving in the polls when everyone knows that McCain is friend to all children. The best part about this is that it makes the economic problems to be akin to some force of nature, and not something that policies enacted over the past 8 years could have caused.
The level of analysis here is so simplistic that it would scare me if I were a Republican. He doesn't even seem to think that Joe the Plumber would wear out his welcome quickly or that even a great debate might only produce a short term bump or that maybe the Republican platform isn't playing well. Nope, it's just bad luck and if the stock market were to just rebound for a few days, McCain would win. That's a level of denial that might hand the Democrats a few more elections.
Even after that post though, he decided to double down last night. Basically his argument was, "Ignore all polls except for the ones that Republicans are doing really well in and then hope that McCain outperforms those by a few more points."
Think I'm kidding?
So on Election Day, Obama has maybe a three or four point lead, underperforms his polling again and the Electoral College math works in favor of the Republicans. Or Pennsylvania comes through. McCain pollster Bill McInturff was suggesting something like this on Friday. If this happened it would mean the media mania didn’t push people into voting for Obama but only into saying they were voting him. Or it could mean the models for turnout were wrong in missing that the high levels of interest in this election also included voting blocs that are pro-McCain.
...
We will find out whether [the polls that show Obama doing well] suffered from the same inner culture that skewed the exit polls in 2004. Ignore’em for now. Instead, tomorrow morning look at Battleground which has a good record and, again, has it around four now. If Obama’s numbers are starting to decline then go to Rasmussen. His turnout model is more favorable towards Obama but he will probably catch a fall-off in Obama’s numbers if it is happening. At midday watch for IBD-TIPP, the most accurate poll in 04. It has got it around two now and is actually saying for the record that Obama may have picked up strength over the weekend only because trick-or-treating Republican parents weren’t answering polling calls. If Obama’s strength shows a fall in that poll, consult this space and find out what you are saying about Pennsylvania. In addition, do not neglect your prayer life.
Unfortunately, he gave a prediction that could be tested. The polls are out this morning and I sent him an email:
" Instead, tomorrow morning look at Battleground which has a good record and, again, has it around four now. If Obamas numbers are starting to decline then go to Rasmussen. His turnout model is more favorable towards Obama but he will probably catch a fall-off in Obamas numbers if it is happening."
So far Battleground has moved from 49/45 to 50/44 (http://www.tarrance.com/files/2-way-ballot-trender-11-2.pdf) and
Rasmussen moved from 51/46 to 52/46 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/d
aily_presidential_tracking_poll).
I look forward to seeing your follow up post.
Perhaps bad of me, but I couldn't resist. Besides, it was his post that said, "Having said that, he thinks tomorrow morning’s polling will say a lot."
Yes, I am annoyed at cherry picking and bad logic. I don't mind supporting McCain; I just hate the quality of argument that he's using. I bet that email gets deleted though. It felt good to call him on his argument though. Feel free to let him know that his prediction was inaccurate - although if you do email him please don't just cut and paste my text. Have fun with this. It's a great chance to tell the conservative "elites" that they're wrong. Hey they're using this to build up their morale to fuel their GotV efforts. Let's bring them back down!
[1] The reason why tracking polls move is because when a candidate gains a new plateau, it takes a few days for the old days to be removed from the sample. That was obvious in the R2000 poll that shows the daily samples. There's no reason though for a non-tracking poll to have momentum.