Martin: Democrats need more than working-class whites

Originally Posted: May 9th, 2008

Roland Martin is great. Looking back at this debate, one should also note that the Republicans generally sweep the demographic in question anyway, so the point stressing their importance, while far from moot, is a fairly poor one. Where the bigger picture is concerned, the bigger puzzle in my view, will be how to get either group of alienated supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee in November after all of this divisiveness.

Commentary: Democrats need more than working-class whites
By Roland S. Martin, CNN Contributor

"(CNN) -- Excuse me if a look of bewilderment crosses my face when a surrogate of Sen. Hillary Clinton's starts off on the "we need hard-working white workers to win in November" mantra.

Roland S. Martin contends the Democratic nominee will need a broad-based coalition to win in November.

The candidate herself has now made that notion the primary -- and latest argument -- to superdelegates to convince them she's the best person to beat Sen. John McCain in November.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she told USA Today.

The newspaper quoted her as saying that an Associated Press article showed how Sen. Barack Obama's support among "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Now, I know I'm not one of those voters she's talking about, but the reality is that hard-working white Americans alone will not put Clinton or Obama in the White House.

Neither will African-Americans alone or young voters, senior citizens, the college-educated, the "no-working" Americans, gays and lesbians, nonreligious voters, veterans, Hispanics, women, etc.

In fact, Democrats alone won't do it. You also must take a good portion of independents.

No Democrat can win the White House unless he or she is able to pull from all the various constituencies in the country, and it's downright silly for the Clinton campaign to assert that idea that hard-working white votes are the only ones that matter.

Sure, the Clinton camp will contend that's not what it's saying. But it sure sounds that way (and no, I don't agree with what's being said on blogs -- that this is playing the "race card").

Is Clinton suggesting that whites who voted for Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire (where she beat him by around 8,000 votes), Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington state, Minnesota and so many other states were phantom voters? Were they not hard-working white voters? Were they only the "eggheads and African-Americans" whom Paul Begala referred to on CNN on election night?

Look, I get spin. And I get that Clinton must figure out some kind of argument that makes sense for the superdelegates to go her way and ignore Obama's lead among pledged delegates, the popular vote and states won. But when a Democratic candidate continues to ram home this notion that hard-working white Americans somehow are the bedrock foundation of the Democratic Party, it's just not true.

Clinton wants to make the argument that her white working-class support in Ohio and Pennsylvania -- states the Democrats need to win in November -- shows she's the best choice.

But one major failure in Clinton's argument is the assumption that all the traditional Democratic constituencies will offer her broad support if she's the nominee. And considering her high negatives, she can't afford any erosion.

Obama could make the case that she has failed miserably in the primaries in garnering young and African-American voters, and without them, she loses.

Not only that, the Democratic Party has a chance to expand the map beyond the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Democrats have a solid shot at winning Iowa, New Mexico, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire. Of those states, Obama won four of the seven, and he had narrow losses in New Mexico and New Hampshire.

Small states? Sure. Winnable? Absolutely. Their electoral votes can be as important as the big states.

If Democrats are serious about winning, they are going to have to put on ice this notion that white working-class voters or any other constituencies are the be-all and end-all in November.

Winning the White House is about building a true broad coalition. You should judge which candidate has been able to do so in the primaries. If it's Obama, he's the nominee. If it's Clinton, then she is.

Such a coalition should be on the mind of every superdelegate -- not the debate over which ethnic group reigns supreme at the ballot box.

Roland S. Martin is a nationally award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. Martin is studying to receive his master's degree in Christian communications at Louisiana Baptist University. You can read more of his columns at http://www.rolandsmartin.com/

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer."

Here's a link to the original column: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/08/roland.martin/index.html

Lol. Once again, Mr. Martin gets it 100% right. Sure, we know all of this business about needing to merely win working-class whites is spin, but it's spin that has illegitimately worked it's way into the conventional wisdom; a talking point that has evolved through spin, into false conventional wisdom; bullshit masquerading as a fact because the public and the media fail to question it, whether it be deliberately, or through intellectual and/or moral laze.

Whatever you'd like to call it, the bottom line is that the candidate that is more "electable" is the one that can appeal not to one particular demographic, but a broad base of support, from both the more traditional Democratic Party electorate, and a very diverse cross section of new progressive voters (whether they be undecideds, Republicans, first time voters, or whatever). I wish people would stop calling them a "coalition" or "base", because it's not like they organize together to support candidate x or candidate y.

Once again, we see that the conventional wisdom fails us miserably. In case this argument isn't resonating with you yet, think back to 2004. Pundits and analysts pointed to record numbers of new, young voters turning out to justify predictions of a win for the left. Situation after situation, and election season after election season, we oversimplify the processes we witness in everyday life. Reflecting on an earlier note, even IF you DID believe the spin, that too many of these WBCWs will REFUSE to support Obama (which I maintain, is still insulting to said voters), the Dems definitely need broader support than simply any one demographic group.

Yet Another Hair-Brained Idea From Folks That Should Know Better

Originally Posted: May 6th, 2008

Talk about bad policy. I maintain that this idea is as bad as all of those "Lower Gas Prices" groups on Facebook. Misguided, wasteful, and nothing more than pandering to the masses.

Ugh. Gas tax-holiday? Seriously?

I'm pretty sure the conversation about whether or not to use this idea as a campaign tool, in both the McCain and Clinton campaigns went something like this:

Candidate: "Well okay, so a gas tax holiday won't actually work... But wouldn't it still be a good idea to float to make voters seem like we're sympathetic to their needs?"

Advisor: "Well yeah, the voters are too dumb to know that it won't actually work. If there's any opposition we'll just tell them that it's elitist to think that it won't, and that our projections show they'll save like, 70 bucks because of it. Besides, it'll never pass into law anyway, so we'll never actually find out that it indeed won't save anyone anything."

At least, I HOPE it went that way. Otherwise these people are just complete idiots. I'm not sure which scenario I'm less comfortable with. I believe Hilary Clinton's exact words were, ""I'm not going to put my lot in with economists", basically indicating either:

1) That she is not an economist, and she doesn't care what they think, or:
2) That she thinks that the economists are all wrong, or:
3) That she knows she's wrong, but still supporting a bullshit policy because it suits her political needs, or:
4) All or some of all or some configuration of, all of the above.

Whatever the case might be (I certainly am not going to profess to know the inner secrets of this sordid tale, but I'm guessing it's option number four), I'll say this: I AM an economist, and the idea is absolutely absurd.

Now I must admit, that yes, sometimes experts can appear to be elitist. (Like right now for example, when CNN runs a story about rats infesting O'Hare International Airport, and brings in 2 "experts with more than 15 years of extermination experience" to identify whether or not the furry little long-tailed long-eared critters captured on their undercover cameras are indeed rats, lol. Seriously? I need an expert to tell me what a rat looks like?) This however is not such a case.

If you've ever taken Econ 101, you know this is a bad idea. Quoting Greg Mankiw from the Washington Post on May 1st: "What you learn in Economics 101 is that if producers can't produce much more, when you cut the tax on that good the tax is kept... by the suppliers and is not passed on to consumers." I'm quoting the good man because he's spot on.

Assuming the supply of gas is inelastic relative to demand (i.e. it is difficult for producers to increase the quantity of gas supplied to the market), then when there is a tax, producers bear the burden. In simpler terms, when producers have little control over the quantity they can bring to market, it is harder for them to shift the cost of the tax to the consumer. Remove this tax, and the majority of the revenue that previously went to the government now goes to the producer.

That's the scenario that every economist subscribes to, and any student of economics should subscribe to, without exception. It is entirely unreasonable to believe that removing the tax would benefit consumers more than it would benefit producers. The estimates the Clinton campaign have come up with are wildly optimistic at best - $20 to $30 in savings per consumer is a far more neutral estimate, though I personally would go as low as $10.

Even worse however for the McCain and Clinton camps, is the idea that the supply inelasticity of gas may be perfect. Perfect inelasticity would be the case if producers had NO ability to increase the quantity of gas supplied to the market. Considering that refineries are producing to capacity as we approach the summer (somewhat daunting, since prices usually don't skyrocket quite this early), it is fairly unreasonable to assume that there will be any increase in supply over the time frame that this gas tax-holiday would be in effect. If this is the case, then relief to the consumer falls to ZERO. Yes, zero.

Even IF refineries are not producing to capacity, what's to stop producers from freezing the supply of gas where it is while the tax holiday is in effect, and hoarding the total tax relief revenue for themselves?? Absolutely nothing.

This talk of a gas tax-holiday is mindless babble. It's a ploy to get voters to think that their needs are being seen to compassionately.

Again, it's insulting. To think that voters are too dumb to consider expert opinion is insulting. To think that voters will ignore the media coverage saying as much is doubly insulting.

Worse than the insult to our collective intelligence however, is that it's simply BAD POLICY. Did I say bad? I meant ATROCIOUS. You have one candidate who has already confessed he knows nothing about economics, and another, who has now professed that she will not listen to economists.

It's a bad policy not only because it doesn't achieve what it sets out to (lowering the cost of gas for consumers), but also because it does exactly the OPPOSITE. It provides an incentive to producers to increase the supply of gas more slowly than demand is increasing through 1) their opportunity to hold on to what they no longer have to pay to the federal government, and 2) their expectation that if they squeeze the consumer enough, the government may drop the tax again in the future, having set the precedent earlier.

If you really want to relieve consumers from high gas prices in the short term, take all the money being spent on fuel for shipments to and for fuel for military actions in Iraq, and use it to a) set up a short term government funded fuel subsidy in the form of a debit card that can be used for fuel purchases, and b) start an advertising campaign showing people how they can minimize their fuel consumption.

Tax-holiday? Really? Bloody rubbish. I expect these kind of shenanigans from the likes of Rove and Company, but shame on you Hilary Clinton. I used to think you wouldn't actually say absolutely anything to get elected, but this changes my mind. It's about as great an idea as all of these hair brained calls to boycott gas from a particular company, or to not drive for a day. Oil is now $122 a barrel. The only way to reduce the cost of it is to USE LESS OF IT. If I hear anyone else expounding such filth again, I'll smack them with a trout.

"That's Insulting!"

Originally Posted: April 23rd, 2008

Another blog motivated by the Democratic primary races between Senators Clinton and Obama, challenging the conventional wisdom and spin being generated and perpetuated by spin.

Lol. If you're a Trini, you'll get the reference... If not; well it's still insulting. If I were an American, I must say, I'd be incredibly insulted by much of the media coverage, and Hilary Clinton's current spin on Barack Obama's electablity.

Hilary Clinton's current position is that she is more electable than Barack Obama. Her cited evidence for this, is that she's doing better in the larger states, primarily because she's "doing better with blue collar Democratic voters." (Insert the word "white" there, because it's what the polls actually show.) The media has followed this particular notion - this spin - and it's a strong thread. Anyone from the Times to the Post; CNN to Fox; even a range of international sources, have picked up on this thread. Their reasoning is that this will be the major argument in convincing super delegates to sway towards either candidate.

Why should Americans find this insulting? Any plausible analysis here has centered around one theme: A "disconnect with white working class voters", who Clinton is pulling in in superior numbers. Each candidate has put forth an almost identical policy platform. To say that Barack Obama is not connecting with these folks must therefore hinge on some aspect of campaign strategy, voter identity/disposition, or candidate image.

Please note carefully, that the proportion of white working class voters that Clinton has been pulling in has been almost IDENTICAL over the span of the Presidential Primary race. Since Obama's "bitter" comment, as evidenced from the numbers in Pennsylvania, there hasn't been much change in that distribution.

So why are all of these pundits, and why is the Clinton campaign, assuming that these white, blue collar workers (who will be referred to as WBCWs from here onwards - I refuse to call them "Lunch Bucket Democrats"), would either not vote at all, or vote for John McCain in a general election if Barack Obama were candidate? It is this so called "disconnect" that is being cited. Here's a further question:

Where is the evidence for this so called disconnect? As far as I can tell, there is none whatsoever, especially considering he did not experience a decline in his share of the WBCW vote in this most recent primary. How many unions have turned out in support of the man? How can anyone honestly say that he has no ability to connect with these people? This notion reeks of the Rubin's Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference. For you non-stats geeks out there, that's simply the fact that it is impossible to observe the causal effect on a single unit. To say that these WBCWs vote for Clinton because she connects BETTER with them is fair (A causes B); but to say that because they vote for her instead of him, they aren't connecting at ALL with Obama, not only makes no sense (it is unclear whether, because we know A causes B, that A also causes C, because we can't measure the causal effect on C through B; it must be measured separately if we are to ascertain its value).

Look at the numbers. 46% of WBCWs are still voting for Obama, meaning that 46% still like him better than Clinton. Clinton may be connecting better, but to say that the 54% of democratic WBCWs voting for Clinton instead of Obama would either dessert their party by not voting at all, or turn parties and vote Republican, carries a less than savory assumption.

The underlying assumption - no, I'll just come out and say it - insinuation here, is the WBCWs are not voting for Barack Obama because he is black. One can't claim it's the result of recent campaign developments, such as the "bitter" comment or an alleged elitist, as poll numbers (and you know how much I hate polls) have balanced out. One can't claim it's due to policies towards such workers, because both candidates' policies are too similar.

This is the assumption that I find insulting. The insinuation that there are hundreds of thousands of Americans in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere that are vehemently racist and simply refuse to vote for a black candidate. No - even worse - that they vote for a white candidate instead, simply because of race. If I were a voter in one of these states, I would be insulted. Who's to say that these 54% are ALL voting for Clinton in this fashion - because they feel "disconnected" from Obama because he is black?

It's insulting. It might be true, but there's no way of knowing it. I'm sure there are a certain number of Democrats who are effectively voting against Obama by voting for Clinton because they are racists; but to say that all 54% of them in these states are is a gross underestimation of the character of that 54% of WBCWs. Very few people in the media are suggesting that perhaps this 54% aren't completely disconnected from the Obama campaign - most are assuming that they'd rather abandon their party than vote for Obama, by putting weight behind the Clinton campaign's argument that she is more electable in this fashion.

To make matters worse, it also insinuates that they're stupid. That they would vote for a candidate that doesn't represent their values, or that they would allow such a candidate to win by not turning up to vote at all, implies that they'd rather be bitter and suffer than support a candidate who does support their values, but doesn't share their background or skin color.

All the 54-46 distribution tells us, is that on that given day, Clinton would be guaranteed 54% of that particular pool, Obama 46%. We can't simply assume that eithers' supporters will not vote for the other, with any demographic. (The hypocrisy of people negatively criticizing Obama's "bitter" comment, while simultaneously insinuating that all of the same people are racists, is evident here, but let's not get me started on a new rant...) I'm reasonably sure that no one intends to refer to these folks as stupid racists, but that's what is effectively being doing through the aforementioned rhetoric.

Instead of swallowing the bullshit unquestioningly, the question the analysts, pundits, super delegates, and other inquisitive minds such as myself should be asking is, how do we estimate the number of Americans that would vote for either Barack Obama OR Hilary Clinton, within those key battleground states, using the data we have?

It's impossible to know exactly how many people will vote in a racially motivated fashion, especially since people tend lie to the pollsters when asked such sensitive questions; but it is possible to perhaps tease some new information out of proxy data ("Freakonomics" talks about an American Idol study that was used to test people's perceptions via their inclination to vote for or against certain participants based on race - something clever like that maybe).

I'll leave you with one last thought. If there really is a such a "disconnect" between Barack Obama and working class voters, why, when asked whether they felt each candidate connected with them, did they answer an almost identical 70% for both Clinton, and Obama? Do we really think so little of all of these people that we think that they wouldn't vote for Obama based on his race; or that matter, for Clinton based on her sex? If we do, then it really does say something quite daunting about the society we live in.

DUMB.

Originally Posted: April 9th, 2008

This might as well have been a stream on consciousness exercise, haha. Exactly what I was thinking while I watched the coverage.

What the hell is WRONG with people??

Who really wakes up in the morning and thinks to themselves: "You know what? I'm so strongly against human rights violations in China, that I'm gonna go beat up an Olympic torch bearer."

WTF man. Seriously. You're going to ASSAULT someone, to protest other people's human rights being violated? You're going to disenfranchise someone of their right to be free from harm (and political persecution) in order to make a case for the rights of Chinese people to be free from harm (and political persecution)?

WHAT IS THE POINT?!?

And then they have the audacity to wonder why they bring the cops out to spray you with a fire hose or pepper you with rubber bullets (which can actually kill you).

Why. Why? Because you're f*cking idiots that's why. Clearly these people have been sniffing too much glue to make reasonable decisions anymore. If you're assaulting Olympic torch bearers for any reason whatsoever, you're a dumbass that deserves to have dogs sicked on them. By all means, protest whatever you want, but as far as I'm concerned, the second you try to harm an innocent party, you deserve to have a cap or two popped in yer arse.

Tabhair póg dom, táim Éireannach!

Originally Posted: March 17th, 2008

This one pretty much speaks for itself. ;)

Okay, so I'm sure most of you celebrated St. Patrick's Day on SATURDAY... And sure, I went out on Saturday. Didn't wear my green, and didn't even end up at the bar for very long (haha, as Jorge can attest to) due to the congestion, crazy police raids, and crazy combination of Saturday & St. Patrick's Day celebrating... But I was out. HOWEVER, today is the day you should be celebrating, if any...

...unless we're talking about going to mass here. Then yeah. You should have been in church on Saturday. If you're Catholic, you probably realized that the Church moved the Feast Day from March 17th, to March 15, in order to accommodate "Holy Week" (the last week before Easter). I suppose this makes sense if you're a practicing Catholic, going to mass on both Saturday for the feast day and Holy Monday (today). One should also note that the decision to move the feast day was an entirely liturgical decision.

In Ireland, though the Catholic diocese all celebrated St. Patrick's Day on March 15th, secular and other celebrations (read: libations) have all remained unchanged, and will be held TODAY. The St. Patrick's Day parade in Dublin was today. People in Ireland had a work holiday, TODAY.

So why all this confusion? Well, there are 2 sides to St. Patrick's Day. The religious side, if you're a Catholic; and the celebration of national pride, if you're not. The holiday has become far more than a feast day over the years - so much so that there are even Orangemen from Ulster parading in the streets today.

I for one think it's nice that for once, people can celebrate the two sides separately; Church for mass on Saturday, Pub for pints on Monday, and back to work on Tuesday. Being the cynical agnostic and/or non-practicing-secular-Anglican (read non-practicing-secular-Episcopalian for all you Americans) that I am, I for one, will be celebrating with the rest of my countrymen TODAY.

*Raises his pint of Guinness* So here's to your health! Sláinte chugat!

St. Patrick's Day blessings upon you. Beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig oraibh.

NAFTA In Ohio

Originally Posted: February 25th, 2008

The debate surrounding NAFTA has always provided interesting questions for economists. The discourse leading up to the Ohio primary however, provided me with a particularly succinct and interesting question: Was there a way to measure the jobs lost to NAFTA in Ohio? While not an absolutely precise measure, the answer was yes. Whether the loss of jobs was worth the overall economic gains of NAFTA is another question entirely, though in terms of settling the argument between Senators Obama and Clinton, that part was fairly irrelevant.

So it would seem that strong words are flying once more in the Democratic race for the Presidential nomination, and this time it's around NAFTA (and all manner of other things, though this seems to me to be the only worthy point of contention this week). It seems that once again, the conventional wisdom is prevailing - but don't buy it for a second.

NAFTA was largely a success. That is, it did what it was supposed to. The majority of economists agree on this, and it really isn't debatable. As paraphrased from Moss' article, "Economic Developments during NAFTA's First Decade", the main provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement were to eventually eliminate both tariff and non-tariff barriers to goods and services trade, to phase in free trade in agriculture, textiles, and automobiles, and to liberalize cross-border investment, all between Canada, the USA, and Mexico. Since going into effect on January 1st 1994, the vast majority of economists agree that the agreement had a small, though net positive effect for the United States, and a larger net positive effect for Mexico. (I neglect Canada here due to their prior free trade agreement with the US.)

All in all, returns to the U.S. from foreign direct investment in Mexico grew, and quantities of imports to and exports from the United States increased, as did tertiary sector jobs in the U.S., and secondary sector jobs in Mexico. Such benefits were the direct causal result of NAFTA.

What about unemployment? The problem for economists here is that isolating the other individual effects of NAFTA on the economy is a particularly tricky puzzle. Where unemployment is concerned, the typical rate in the U.S. is around 6%. Sure, unemployment fluctuated in both directions during the period of time that has elapsed since NAFTA was ratified - but who is to say how many of those jobs were lost or created due to NAFTA? Especially when one considers the range of other economic factors in play. The regular business cycle. The Mexican Peso Crisis. Supply shocks. The boom of the early to mid 1990's. I could go on.

Luckily, for those of us that are actually wondering, policy makers knew that NAFTA would bring significant change to the structure of the American economy. Many of NAFTA's proponents were right - jobs would be created as a result of increased capital for investment due to lower tariffs, etc. Many of NAFTA's detractors however, were also right. Lower skilled jobs, particularly in manufacturing, would be destroyed as capital holders took advantage of cheaper labor in Mexico and moved factories there. As a result, they created the NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance program (hereafter referred to as the NAFTA-TAA program).

The NAFTA-TAA program sought to provide assistance to workers "who lose their jobs or whose hours of work and wages are reduced as a result of trade with, or a shift in production to, Canada or Mexico", as well as both their upstream and downstream counterparts in industries with shared linkages. As a result, there is actually data that points to the number of jobs lost due to NAFTA. This data is not perfect - it is likely to understate the number of jobs lost, since fewer workers were aware of the programs existence. It is also likely to overstate the number of jobs lost, since not all workers will have lost their jobs. Perhaps these balance out - either way, NAFTA-TAA's certification process is the best available count of the number of workers displaced due to increased NAFTA exports.

So what do these numbers indicate? Approximately 3/4 of a million certifications were issued between NAFTA's ratification in 1994 and 2002. That's around 90,000 jobs lost a year, which, for the entire United States, is actually a fairly small number when compared to national unemployment. From this perspective, the Clinton's argument is fairly sound - NAFTA did little damage when it came to unemployment nationally, and in fact, the jobs created in the service industry are pointed to by many as part of the reason for the boom of the 90's.

Regionally however, the picture is very different. The majority of the manufacturing industry in the United States is densely concentrated by region, especially when one considers the concentration via migration of manufacturing infrastructure to the Midwest through the 80's, which persists even to this day. According to the American Manufacturing Association, 235,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing industry in the state of Ohio since 2000. Since January 2001, the TAA program has certified 56,414 workers in Ohio alone. That's around 24% of the manufacturing jobs lost in Ohio that can be directly tied to NAFTA, and it's probably a low estimate. From this perspective, Obama's argument is solid. Ohio voters can certainly blame a significant portion of the unemployment in their state's manufacturing industry on NAFTA, and it's something Hilary Clinton should own up to and provide one of her much vaunted "solutions" to, if she's to be believed, rather than trying to call her opponent a liar.

So there's the beef. There are winners and losers in free trade. Get used to it. Sadly, Ohioans* got the shitty end of the stick on this one.

*More specifically, Ohio manufacturers.

Super Tuesday Rant

Originally Posted: February 5th, 2008

There's almost always a disclaimer on political polls which reads something like, "This is not a scientific poll." As consumers of media products, we have no idea what this actually means. That is, exactly WHICH rules did they violate? Well, you can be pretty sure in most cases that at the very least, the sample size was not statistically significant.

Undoubtedly, you're voting. You're either taking your lunch break to do so, or waiting until you get out of work, or skipping class... Or doing whatever it is you have to do in order to VOTE. If you're not, then I'll request that you please turn in your credentials as a human being and live in the wild for the rest of your existence. You have a say, and you'd best be using it!

However, that's not what's grinding my gears today. If you refuse to exercise your right to active citizenship, so be it. Today, I'm going to complain, once again, about the plague upon humanity that is the prevailing conventional wisdom.

All of the pundits on television have been brashly rattling off polling results and attempting to predict today's outcomes based on polling results across the country. Conventional wisdom holds that these polls good indicators of the outcomes. That they have strong predictive power. Hence, the debate and discussion revolving around which candidates are going to win which states is rife with statistics derived from the results of these polls.

How many people would you guess are being questioned in these polls? 1000? 5,000? 10,000? One would imagine that a significant percentage of the population were undoubtedly being questioned - such is the resolute conviction with which the results are being used to predict who will win each state!

Haha. Fat chance. Take a look at the bottom of that little box they have the chart in next time. Usually they have the sample size in there. State polls? I've seen numbers as low as 200. National? Try 1,000. The question is - why? The pollsters don't have enough time or money to ask EVERYONE how they're going to vote, so they have to pin down a reliable sample size. The conventional wisdom says that these sample sizes are derived by responsible statisticians, and are widely adhered to by polls around the country.

Sadly, this is NOT the case. Most of the criticism you'll see of the polls is that they employ an unreliable sample frame - that the people being asked who they are voting for are often inadequately representative of the entire sample population, be it due to demographic distribution, or researcher error. There is however, an additional concern - is the sample size large enough to warrant statistical significance?

If you don't have a background in stats and are curious as to how this decision should actually be come to, here's what is generally accepted as the definitive study: http://www.osra.org/itlpj/bartlettkotrlikhiggins.pdf

There are many variables that determine what the minimum sample size should be for any given population - alpha level for each tail, variance estimate, number of standard deviations, acceptable margin of error - since they're all different and we aren't looking at any data, it's hard to say what the minimum sample size for a given state would be. Two things however, are certain. The first is that the data is categorical, which pushes the required minimum sample size up. The second is that we'll be choosing a fairly small t-value, because it's a two tailed test, and we're reasonably sure the actual margin of error isn't greater than acceptable.

Haha - half of you are yelling at me - "WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN ENGLISH???" Well, instead of talking in math for the next few paragraphs, let's do something simpler. Working backwards, the majority of state polls I've seen have been averaging about 300 responders. After doing a few quick estimates with the aforementioned assumptions, the minimum sample size from a population of 100 would be about 80-something. From a population of 1000? About 400. From 10,000? Well over 600. See a pattern here? 10,000 is FAR below the number of persons even voting in a small state like New Hampshire.

Even if we severely relax our assumptions, which is undoubtedly what many of these folks are doing, we end up needing more than 250 responders in a population of 10,000. The only way you can relax those assumptions is by being absolutely sure that your sample frame is as diverse and representative as it should be. Sadly, since this isn't observational data and people have to volunteer information, you're really going to want a much bigger sample size than folks have been using.

Not to mention that on TOP of all that statistical mumbo-jumbo, some people LIE, some people change their minds, and some people don't even vote. If you're trying to guess the outcomes this Super Tuesday my advice is as follows: forget about the polls, and read between the lines. Take a look at the political data on each state and make an educated guess. The conventional wisdom is that the polls are a fair predictor of outcomes and therefore very useful tools. The truth is that they are generally statistically flawed and, while useful at times, should generally be taken like everything else in politics: with a grain of salt, and alot of tequila.