Electoral Advice

Hotline has some good advice from Stu Rothenberg:

As he prepares for "the ups and downs of this election cycle's stretch run," Stuart Rothenberg(Subscription Required) anticipates "the inevitable stories about a Republican 'surge'" and predicts "some normal 'firming' of the GOP base in the next six weeks that helps GOP candidates in Republican-leaning districts."

There are times that a 5 point lead is a closing gap, and there are times a 3 point lead is insurmountable. All races aren't the same and all polls aren't the same. But take a hard look at all polling done as on Oct 1 or so. That's the usual snapshot that sets conventional wisdom. September is for building the foundation for October, and that's why the WH is so upset about the Republicans spoiling the party on torture. it hurts people like George Allen, still reeling from the macaca idiocy.

And when both the WSJ and Washington Post, past war supporters, line up against Bush, he's got a problem in drrawing the sharp lines the GOP needs.

From the WSJ:

"Somebody is going to have to interpret what Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions "requires in real world situations," the Wall Street Journal contends in support of Bush's proposal. "And we'd rather see it done by open and honest Congressional debate than by secret Justice Department memos."

From The WaPo:

There are no detainees in the CIA prisons at the moment, according to the president, and the only clock running out is that measuring the midterm election campaign. There is no need for Congress to act in the next two weeks. But if it does, the clear answer to Mr. Bush's question, endorsed by Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), former secretary of state Colin L. Powell and a host of other responsible Republican and military leaders, is "no." For both moral and practical reasons, the country should reject this fundamental violation of its principles.

Here's Newsweek spelling it out:

Scott Horton, a New York City Bar Association lawyer who has advised the Senate on the legislation, says Capitol Hill aides have told him that the CIA has sought to use the following techniques: (1) induced hypothermia; (2) long periods of forced standing; (3) sleep deprivation; (4) the "attention grab" (the forceful seizing of a suspect's shirt); (5) the "attention slap"; (6) the "belly slap"; and (7) sound and light manipulation. Tom Malinowski, the Washington director for the group Human Rights Watch, says that Hill sources working on the legislation have described the same list to him.

Some human-rights activists view only the first two methods, hypothermia and forced standing, as outright torture. But Malinowski said there is a reason why U.S. military interrogation manuals consistently ban physical abuse of any kind. "The Army's experience has taught them that once you allow physical contact once, even if it's mild, it's very difficult to prevent much more violent physical contact," he said.

it's not at all clear that the national security issue is playing the way the WH wants. OTOH, no one should assume this election is over, or that a House victory is a sure thing for D's. The doom and gloomers will be out in full force, though, so make sure you prepare for the emotional highs and lows of an unpredictable election season in advance.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

By the way, reporters still can't read and interpret polls. what they do is make up a storyline in their head and then use what they think they see to justify it.

The concerted effort, which also included new plans for bringing terrorists to trial and conducting surveillance to disrupt terrorist plots, appears to have had an effect on his approval ratings. A series of recent polls shows Bush's approval inching back into the low 40s -- a level at which many pollsters say he won't be a significant drag on candidates in House and Senate races. And more voters are citing terrorism as a top concern, allowing Republicans to highlight an area that has long been a strong suit for their party.

So contrast that with Rasmussen:

The latest Bush bounce is over. Today, 41% of American adults approve of the way that President Bush is performing his job and 57% disapprove. That’s exactly where the numbers were before the President’s 9/11 speech.

Overall, 21% of Americans Strongly Approve and 42% Strongly Disapprove.

Contrast that with Pew at 37% and Ap-Ipsos at 39 (all adults)%.

[Newsie8200]

Do reporters even bother to educate themselves about polling?

They talk to pollsters on and off the record... one would think that reporters as a whole wouldn't get spun as often when it comes to interpreting polls. There are good books and legit sites on polling and how to interpret them (or at least avoid the type of traps reporters fall into when "interpreting" polls.)

[merciless]

...make sure you prepare for the emotional highs and lows of an unpredictable election season in advance.

My liquor cabinet is fully stocked.

[Meteor Blades]

Interpreting polls is one thing, Newswie. That takes a little thinking and we shouldn't expect too much of that from run-of-the-diploma-mill reporters. But we should expect that they can read and compare. In this case, they failed to do even that.

Only eight Tuesdays to go. I'm finding myself surprising calm. Perhaps that's because, in the two districts in which I am making phone calls and going door-to-door about 20 hours a week, one Democrat (Xavier Becerra) is a shoo-in, and one Republican (David Dreier) is (sadly) on his way to another victory. So there aren't any ups and downs on the home fronts, and I'm counting on those I know in competitive races to make it happen. So I'm on an even keel until November 8, whatever the polls say.

[Smooth Jazz]

I wouldn't pay too much attention to polls from Pew & AP. They're both Anti Bush and tend to oversample Dems to push their agenda. Pollsters do that you know.

[DemFromCT]

Pollsters do that you know.

Actually, they don't.

[Newsie8200]

Interpreting polls is one thing, Newswie. That takes a little thinking and we shouldn't expect too much of that from run-of-the-diploma-mill reporters. But we should expect that they can read and compare. In this case, they failed to do even that.

Or sometimes the reporters just can't make up their minds. Very good catch by Sargent at The Horse's Mouth: link

[DemFromCT]

Newsie8200, thanks. I agree with Greg Sargent, obviously.

[janinsanfran]

I read the polling sites, I have understood enough about polling methodology to believe that anomalies ought to work themselves out in the mass of data -- but when I find myself being polled, I sure can imagine a lot of ways that the responses could themselves be subject to multiple interpretations. There is an awful lot of art in polling as well as science.

Reporters add their own art, especially when they take polls in isolation, instead of looking at trends over time.