Psychology of Polls
This election has been weird for me with the polls. The biggest riddle for me has been: why, in a race that the media describe as a dead heat, has John McCain been throwing hail Mary passes, acting in such a desperate fashion? The most frequent answer is that the media wants drama so that people follow the news more closely, which I can buy, but I’m still kind of baffled and annoyed about the highly democratic (all polls are worth reporting) approach to polling data.
Weird moment of NY Times coverage in today’s/yesterday’s online version (interesting: I just realized that the phrase “today’s paper” is really twisted on-line. Long time coming, that thought). On the front page is an article about the campaigns in battleground states with the graphic:
The image is one of the worst case scenarios for Democrats and pretty far removed from current thinking: no toss-up states, no recognition of polling showing some of the reds leaning blue. So, what’s the editorial thinking driving that? Is the Times trying to panic its liberal readers into reading that article? What role does polling data play in the news? I’m confused.
Very grim, 2004, version of the election in that graphic. In fact, if we assume that most readers and viewers are becoming quite familiar with shades of red and blue for barely, weakly, and strongly dem or repub and that they expect some neutral color to indicate toss-up, this graphic gives no indication that there are any battleground states.
Then there’s the Times’s ongoing electoral map graphic which appears in the right column of the Politics section:
It’s even more jarring when the two items appear together:
Poll reportage has been tricky for several elections: exit polls on the east coast have been thought to influence west coast voting, exit polls created the mis-announcement of the Florida winner in 2000, landslide vote predictions make people nervous about voter turnout. I’m having a hard time figuring out what role poll reportage is supposed to play in the election.