Chatting with "Ann"

 

                                                            Photo credit: Facebook

ANN: Hi, dear. Could you do me a little favor please? And if you don’t mind, dear.

TAYLOR: What is the favor?

ANN: I’m a bit tight on cash this week and could really use some help with groceries for the weekend. Any chance you could assist? I hate to ask, but it would mean a lot to me, I promise I won’t spend it on anything crazy, but I could really use some help with my grocery bill and I’d also love to treat myself to a nice dinner this weekend. Would it be possible for you to pitch in a bit? I’d really appreciate it.

TAYLOR: No, sorry. No money for someone I haven't met. I know that you're honest, but the Internet is so rife with fraud that we have to apply the same rules to everyone. This is especially in your own interest, because those on foreign deployment are especially vulnerable to scams. Congress approved a salary increase for the military for fiscal 2025. I don't know your pay cycle, but you may receive the increase at the end of this month. It's not as much as you deserve. Staff sergeants are poorly paid, I know. But if you have an account at the Armed Forces Bank in Seoul, you can use the pay increase to get a credit card. [Actually, there is no Armed Forces Bank in Seoul. As people in the US armed forces know, most branches of the AFB are on the mainland. OK, it was a trap. So sue me, if you don't mind standing in line.] That will cover the dinner that indeed you should indulge in for relaxation. And WIC can help with your grocery bill. I do appreciate your thinking of me.

ANN: I completely understand where you’re coming from, and I appreciate your honesty. Just to share openly with you, my account always gets put on restriction whenever I’m deployed overseas due to security reasons, especially after some theft issues in the past. Right now, I can’t access my account, even though my salary is being paid into it. I won’t be able to access it until I’m back home.

I know how things are on the Internet these days, and I understand why it’s important to be cautious. This might sound a bit unusual, especially since we’ve just met, but I feel a strong connection between us, which is why I’m comfortable being open with you about my challenges here.

The military meals aren’t always the best, and sometimes I like to treat myself to something better. But getting certain things here has been tough unless a friend or colleague helps out. That’s why I felt comfortable trusting you with this. I completely understand if you’re not comfortable with it, and I appreciate your understanding either way, dear.

I appreciate you looking out for me, baby. Right now, I get paid about $3,654 per month as my salary. The increase will definitely help when it comes through, but until then, things can get a bit tight, especially while deployed. Unfortunately, with my account being restricted while I’m overseas, it’s hard to access anything until I’m back home. I truly would appreciate your understanding and care it could mean a lot to me.

TAYLOR: Just open an account at AFB in Seoul.

ANN: I’ve tried several times, but I’m being asked to provide information that isn’t available to me here. To avoid delays, I’ve been using BTC [bitcoins] as my only option to receive funds while on deployment. I tried opening an account at AFB in Seoul to streamline things, but it still won’t let me. No problem if you’re not interested in helping out. I’ve tried several options and still feel helpless, which is why I’m reaching out to you for help. But either way, anything you can do would be greatly appreciated.

My pay is solid, and I’m doing well financially overall, but being overseas brings its own challenges, especially with accessing my funds. My bank places restrictions on my account when I’m deployed due to past experiences, so while my money is safe, it’s just hard to reach right now. If you could help me out with some groceries, I’d gladly refund you as soon as possible. You’d be my superhero for life.

TAYLOR: That's strange. I didn't think that AFB had a branch in Seoul. Neither does the military normally restrict access to home banking accounts. Maybe you should talk to your CO.

ANN: Ok. Thank you for your care. I understand it sounds unusual. The account issue seems to be more about the policies of my specific bank and past experiences while on deployment. AFB isn’t available here but there is SAB [Saudi-Arabian British Bank. It isn’t in Seoul, either. Neither are the Marines, for that matter] which was the one I tried opened an account with before but still won’t let me. SAB here, not AFB. If you're not comfortable helping, it's totally fine. I understand you're just being careful. I’ve tried several times to get money out of my account, but it still won’t let me while I'm here, which is why I reached out to you for help to get by this weekend. Talking to my CO? I’ve done that several times, but they have no responsibility for my personal financial situation. Thanks for considering it either way.

[Later]. ANN: Good evening, my dear. How are your assignments and projects been going so far, handsome?

And if you don’t mind, dear, could you pls help me buy a gift card from the nearby store there while you’re out and about today?

I’m really having some challenges here and I feel so helpless. Could you possibly get a Razer Gold gift card or an Apple card of $100 for me today? Either one would be really helpful, dear. Anything you can do today would mean a lot.

Dear, I hope I’m not being too much of a bother. I feel so helpless right now and just need someone to reach out to. I consider you a friend and feel comfortable sharing everything with you. I trust that you can help me in this moment, and I promise to make it right for you.

[Later] ANN: I’m not sure how this will come across, dear, but I want you to know that I really need the card for my phone to stay connected and cover my phone and router expense, while I’m here in South Korea. It’s just the easy way for me to manage things online

Please if you can conveniently walk into a store there and assist me with it, I’d really appreciate it, dear. Let me know if it’s possible.

Ps any new picture of you today? I took several pictures and sent to you when I was about to leave work this evening. Hope you like it?

TAYLOR: I could write your CO to ask him or her to help you. You are at Camp Humphreys in Seoul? [Humphreys is actually in Pyeongtak, 65 kilometers from Seoul. So sue me again.]

ANN: You don’t need to do that, dear. I can handle all of that myself. OK. What do you want to write to the CO about? I know my way around here, hun, and I understand the right thing to do at the right time. I appreciate your concern. I’m a Navy nurse assigned to support a Marine Corps unit. I’m not typically embedded with Marines in combat roles; instead, we provide medical support at hospitals or medical facilities where Marines are stationed. That’s my main assignment here in Korea, so there’s really nothing you can do by writing to the CO. If you can help me with the card from there, that’s fine. Please don’t worry about the groceries or weekend dinner; I just wanted to share how I feel with you. The idea of reaching out to the CO sounds funny to me, and you really don’t need to do that. Thank you.

[Later]. ANN: Hello dear. Pls I may need you to assist me with the card because I’m currently in South Korea and can’t find it anywhere around here due to regional unavailability. As I mentioned earlier, I haven’t had a chance to get the card since I've been here. The cards aren't that expensive, so if you're not comfortable with it, I completely understand. I just use it to get credit for online services and digital content while I’m still here, and to access streaming platforms for movies, music, and online games to relax in my free time. It's just the best way for me to manage things online and keep everything running smoothly. I don’t require that much, even a little amount would be greatly appreciated.

Are you there?

Dear, and I want you to know that no matter what you write to my CO asking for help, it won’t change anything because, regardless of how you view this, you still have much more access to resources than I do here. -- Leon Taylor, Seymour, Indiana tayloralmaty@gmail.com

Notes: For useful comments, I thank but do not implicate Mark Kennet and Barry Lenk.

ll reactio

Fibbers of the Fourth Estate

 

                                           Patrick Soon-Shiong: Is a newspaper a $500 million toy? 

                                           Photo credit: David Paul Morris, Bloomberg 

The Wall Street Journal writes: "Donald Trump has opened a narrow lead in the presidential race....." In the next paragraph, the newspaper notes that Trump's lead is "within the poll['s] margi[n] of error, meaning that either candidate could actually be ahead."

The Journal is lying. It knows full well that the race is too close to call. A poll is only a sample, subject to error. One cannot ignore errors that may exceed the estimated margin of victory.

The Journal also knows that most readers don't understand the margin of error, especially when it won't explain this simple statistical concept in the main story. So The Journal can safely assume that readers will ignore its weasel words in the second paragraph as just some confusing nonsense. The Journal has its Presidential cake and eats it, too. Most readers will accept its lie that Trump is winning. If any reader challenges this, it can always point to the weasel words.

Political pros who should know better argue to me that this lying really doesn't matter. After all, we're just talking about a couple of percentage points between the candidates. Well, it matters a hell of a lot if The CBS Evening News leads with "New polls show that the White House race is a dead heat" or with "New polls show that Trump leads."

The Journal, The Washington Post, and The New York Times -- and therefore the news media in general -- have lied about the Presidential polls throughout the race, by ignoring the margin of error. Probably this is because "It's a close race" is not as thrilling a headline as "X is winning." But I cannot dismiss the possibility that the reporters, editors, or executives of the newspaper skew the headlines in favor of their candidate. At The Los Angeles Times, the editor of editorials resigned a few days ago because the owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, refused to let the newspaper endorse a Presidential candidate. It is a small step from interfering in a newspaper's editorials to interfering with its headlines, although I have no evidence of such headline-management.

One major story in this tight race is how the media's fibbing with statistics has affected the donations, strategizing, and voter choices that will determine the wee hours of November 6. One thing for sure: We won't read that story in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, or The New York Times. -- Leon Taylor, Seymour, Indiana, tayloralmaty@gmail.com

References

Katie Robertson. L.A. Times Editorial Chief Quits After Owner Blocks Harris Endorsement - The New York Times .  October 23, 2024. 

Aaron Zitner. Exclusive | Trump Takes Narrow Lead Over Harris in Closing Weeks of Race, WSJ Poll Shows - WSJ.  October 23, 2024.

Boys and girls together, not

 

                                                     Danny Lopez: Learning from The Donald

                                                    Photo credit: Danny Lopez for Indiana

Always something brewing in Indiana politics.

In the 39th State District, longtime Republican incumbent Jerry Torr won't run for re-election to the Statehouse. The Democrat candidate is Matt McNally, who got 48% of the vote when he ran against Torr two years ago.

The Republican candidate is Vice President of Community Affairs and Corporate Relations for the Indiana Pacers organization, Danny Lopez, basically a spokesman and a tenderfoot in politics. What's interesting is that Lopez opposes transgender boys in female sports. The Pacers, a professional male basketball team, want good relationships with the LGBTQ+ community and are between the ol' rock and hard place. They issued a non-endorsement endorsement of Lopez.

A Lopez ad features a Hoosier sweetheart right out of the pages of Booth Tarkington. Call her Katie. "I play volleyball for my school. I love being on the team with my girlfriends. If Matt McNally has his way, me and my friends will be taking turns on the bench."

Don't cry, Katie. In Indiana, transgender boys haven't been able to play in K-12 girls' sports for at least 12 years. Two years ago, the legislature banned such activity and over-rode Governor Eric Holcombs' veto. Before then, the Indiana High School Athletic Association had enforced a trans-youth policy for a decade. Not that it took much work: Only two transgender students had applied to play on teams, reported IndyStar.

Lopez is beating a dead mare. But a lot of people like to watch. In less than three months, Republicans have spent more than $65 million on ads attacking transgender-friendly policies, reports The New York Times. Asked last week in a Fox Town Hall what to do about transgender athletes in women's sports, Trump said it was "such an easy question": "You just ban it."

McNally's own TV ads attack Lopez for his "radical' opposition to "reproductive rights." This would play like a charm in New York. But welcome to the Hoosier State, where then-President Donald Trump beat now-President Joe Biden 57% to 41% in 2020. Trump need not break into a cold sweat about Indiana this year, either.

The 39th District is in Carmel, just north of Indianapolis (population 103,000): White (80%), affluent (78% home ownership rate, median household income $133,000), educated (74% college degree-holders), slightly female (52%). It might normally back reproductive rights like abortion, but McNally's Doomsday ads will backfire. Well, probably: There is no good political polling in this part of Indiana. And Trump took Hamilton County, where Carmel is, 52% to 45% in 2020. Don't touch that dial. -- Leon Taylor, Seymour, Indiana tayloralmaty@gmail.com

References

Caitlin Doombos. Trump pledges to end transgender athletes playing women's sports . New York Post. October 16, 2024.

Gregg Doyel. Indiana state rep candidate Danny Lopez's ad could hurt Pacers, Fever . IndyStar. October 15, 2024.

Shane Goldmacher. Trump and Republicans Bet Big on Anti-Trans Ads Across the Country - The New York Times . October 8, 2024.

Leslie Bonilla Mun~iz.  Checking out the key Indiana House races up for grabs this year – Inside INdiana Business . October 23, 2024.

Even more games newspeople play

What, me worry about margins of error?

The Wall Street Journal's poll of the seven swing states finds that either former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris leads by 2% or less, except in Nevada, where Trump is up by 6%. The Journal says the margin of error in each state is +/- 4%. Although Trump leads by 6% in Nevada, the Journal says this lead too is "within the margin of error."

Say what? In the technical notes, we read:

"A candidate’s lead—the difference between two candidates’ percentages in a poll—has its own margin of error. This is because the margin of error for a lead is calculated to account for the margins of error around both candidates’ percentages.

"In most cases, a candidate’s apparent lead must be at least two times the poll’s basic margin of error to say a candidate is actually in the lead. In this case, the poll’s basic margin of error of 4 percentage points would require a lead of 8 percentage points to clearly show a lead."

This is a misunderstanding. Trump really is winning in Nevada.

A simple example may clear up the confusion. Suppose that I toss a fair coin. The chances of a head are one-half. And the chances of a tail are one half.

Suppose that we observe a head. What was the probability of a head?

The Journal would reason something like this: "Well, the chance of a head was one-half, and the chance of a tail was one-half. Either outcome could occur, and their probabilities are independent. That is, the chance of a head does not affect the chance of a tail. The probability of two independent events is the product of their probabilities. Therefore the chance of a head is one-half times one-half, or one-fourth."

Uh, no. The probability of a head is one-half. There are two outcomes, heads and tails. If a head occurs, a tail cannot. Given the head, the probability of a tail is not one-half. It is zero.

The same thing in political polls. We ask the interviewee if she would vote for Trump or Harris. If she chooses Trump, she cannot simultaneously choose Harris. So the only margin of error -- which measures the dispersion in responses for Harris in the sample -- that matters is for Harris. Once Harris is chosen, the choice of Trump is no longer a random variable. Its standard error, which determines the margin of error, is zero.

The margin of error for a Trump victory is 4%, not 8%. The +/- 4%, which The Journal incorrectly calls a margin of error, describes the probability that either Trump leads by up to 4% or Harris leads by up to 4% in the poll sample, given that the race is actually a tie.

What The Journal probably has in mind is something like the difference in votes for Harris in two periods. For example, we may observe that Harris took 50% of the sample this month and only 45% last month. We want to know whether the difference, 5%, is more than a fluke. In this case, we can reasonably treat the two events -- a Harris win last month and a Harris win this month -- as independent. That Harris won last month need not affect her chances of winning this month. So, in determining whether the two Harris shares differ significantly, we should consider the probability of each share independently.

But that is not the case for the event in which an interviewer says this month that she favors Harris. There is not an independent probability that she favors Trump. The Trump probability is zero.

In practical terms, The Journal's error matters little, this time. But in a race this close, one must take care to interpret future poll results correctly.

The major newspapers -- The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal -- are abominable at reporting political poll statistics. They have misreported the Presidential race at every stage. And their mistakes have probably changed the race, by misleading donors and campaign coordinators. -- Leon Taylor, Seymour, Indiana tayloralmaty@gmail.com

More games newspeople play

 

                                           Do the voices add up?  Photo credit: Unsplash

As always, The Washington Post offers, er, interesting political math.

It tells us that in the seven battleground states that would probably determine the electoral vote in the Presidential election, Vice President Kamala Harris leads in three, former President Donald Trump leads in two, and the other two are ties. A tie is defined as a margin of a quarter of a percentage point. No explanation.

But digging into the story, we read that "every state is within a normal-sized polling error of 3.5 points and could go either way." In other words, all seven states are too close to call. Neither Harris nor Trump leads in any of them merely because they lead in the sample. The sample is never a perfect reflection of all voters, and one must consider how imperfect the reflection may be before basing conclusions on the sample.

For example, suppose that in Pennsylvania, Harris led in the sample by one vote. Would we conclude that she is winning the Pennsylvania race? Surely not. A one-vote margin is tiny. It is very likely that one winning vote results from an error, such as voters who misunderstand the question. So we would not put much faith in the conclusion that Harris is truly ahead.

How large must the margin be, then, for us to conclude that it gives us good information? The answer to that question is a statistic called the "margin of error."

The Post tells us that the margin of error is 3.5%. The usual interpretation is that if the margin exceeds 3.5%, then the probability is 95% that the leader in the sample is truly winning.

But here is where the Post math gets really interesting. The explanatory notes say that the 3.5% estimate is based on a calculation that in "the last few presidential cycles...the average modeled polling error in competitive states was 3.5 percentage points." Which presidential cycles? Which competitive states? Were they the same as this year's seven battleground states? Who knows?

Well, OK, 3.5% is the "average" polling error. I presume that this means that chances are 50% that the candidate ahead by 3.5% in the sample is actually winning the race. I presume wrong. Reading on: "...To account for this [3.5% polling error], our averages factor in the 90th percentile possible error (i.e., how bad would the error be in the worst 10% of cases)." In other words, chances are 90% -- not 95%, not 50% -- that the candidate ahead by 3.5% in the sample is truly winning. Feel free to scratch your head.

Freaky fractions

Sports fans, here's the score. Usually, the margin of error is based on the probability distribution. This is the range of probabilities for particular outcomes. For example, a probability distribution for the outcome of one coin toss is 50% no head (that is, a tail) and 50% one head (no tail). The distribution for the outcome of 100 coin tosses can give us the probability of zero heads (or 100 tails), the probability of one head (99 tails), and so forth. All distinct probabilities sum to 100%. For example, on a coin toss, there is a 50% chance of no head and a 50% chance of one head, adding up to 100%.

The distribution of a Harris margin may be the probability of minus 100% (that is, she got no votes), the probability of minus 99% (she got 1% of the vote), etc. We could also look at fractions like minus 99.9%.

The most common distribution used is the normal. This has a bell shape: Small probabilities at the extremes (like minus 100% of the vote for Harris, or plus 100%) and large probabilities in the middle (like a zero margin for Harris, that is, both candidates get the same vote).

The probability distribution is a theory. But it leads to accurate conclusions when correctly handled. For example, if we observe that Harris loses 100% of a well-executed and large poll sample, we may confidently conclude that she is not winning the race. To calculate the precise margin of error, one fits out the probability distribution by using information from the poll sample.

But The Post derives its margin of error not from a probability distribution but from recent actual errors. Its information came not from the current sample but from past performance. How it gets from this estimate based on past empirics to the present theoretical one is beyond me. Perhaps it assumes the same probability distribution for past election cycles as for the present poll samples, but The Post says nothing about this. It looks to me as if it arrived at its estimates essentially by playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.

To recap: Harris is winning in three states! No, wait a minute. We're not sure. It could be an error. No, wait. We're not sure how to calculate the possible error. No, wait....

This matter is serious, and not just for nerds like me. The Post is wrong about how close the race is. It's too close to call not only across the battleground states on average, but in every battleground state. The Post's nonchalance would lead campaigns to understate the need for staff, volunteers, ads, and money in most battleground states.

The Post's FAQ asks: "Are you going to release the code of your model?" The newspaper replies: "We really want to and are working on that." Outstanding. Shouldn't The Post have released the code when it published the results? One delays code publication to clean up confusion and error. Why didn't The Post clean up the code first?

Continuing: "When we release the code, we're also hoping to publish a more technical explanation." In other words, The Post did not think through its assumptions, since one does so by writing out their justification. The Post winged it.

Democracy dies in darkness. And The Post is smashing the lamps. -- Leon Taylor, Seymour, Indiana, tayloralmaty@gmail.com

References

Lenny Bronner, Diane Napolitano, Kati Perry, and Luis Melger. Harris vs. Trump 2024 presidential polls: Who is ahead? - Washington Post   September 13, 2024.

The misshape of things to come

 

                                           Going south?  Photo credit: NBC News.

The New York Times writes: "With the Kursk incursion, Mr. [Rustem] Umerov [Ukraine's defense minister] argued, Ukraine has demonstrated it can invade, and even occupy, Russian territory without igniting World War III, according to two officials.

"But American officials say it is too early to reach that conclusion, because there are many ways for Mr. [Vladimir] Putin [Russia's president] to retaliate."  

November 5, for example -- the day of the Presidential election in the United States. If Putin seeks to win his war with Ukraine, his cheapest means may be to ensure, by hook or crook, the election of former President Donald Trump. In the Republican candidate's debate Tuesday with the Democrat candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump refused repeatedly to say he wanted Ukraine to win the war. Instead, he said he wanted to end the war and if elected would do so in 24 hours by phoning Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The implication, as Harris said, was that Trump would force Zelensky to concede the war by threatening to cut off military aid to Ukraine.

However, even Harris did not seem to understand how a Russian victory would affect Central Asia. Harris said Putin would next target Poland. This, I think, is ludicrous. Poland has belonged to NATO since 1999. An invasion of Warsaw would activate the NATO requirement that all members defend the one under attack. That would mean World War III, and Putin is not so stupid as to risk it.  More likely he would target a nation that does not belong to NATO and that has relatively little strategic interest for the US and Europe -- Kazakhstan.   Leon Taylor, Seymour, Indiana tayloralmaty@gmail.com        

References

David Sanger, Helene Cooper, and Erich Schmitt.  Biden Poised to Approve Ukraine’s Use of Long-Range Western Weapons in Russia - The New York Times (nytimes.com)  September 12, 2024.

The games newspeople play

 

                                            A winner or just a statistic? Photo credit: Britannica

Is Kamala Harris winning? The Washington Post and The New York Times would love to tell you. What they won't tell you is that they are either hopelessly confused or lying. 

Let's start with today's Post. "Vice President Kamala Harris holds a narrow lead over former President Donald Trump in the presidential election, a notable improvement for Democrats in a contest that a little more than a month ago showed President Joe Biden and Trump in a dead heat, according to a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll....Given the margin of error in this poll, which tests only national support, Harris's lead among registered voters is not considered statistically significant."

Big news, sports fans! Harris is winning! Our poll says so! But...wait a minute...it's not statistically significant, which means...um...hmm.

Friends and neighbors, you can't have it both ways. Either Harris is winning, or she isn't. The rule of thumb is this: If the poll margin is within the margin of error, you cannot deduce with 95% confidence that either Harris or Trump is winning. The race is a dead heat.

But.

Digging into the story, we learn from a graph that the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5%. Harris's lead in the poll is 4%, or 49% to 45%. So Harris is winning. The poll margin, 4%, is larger than the margin of error, 2.5%. It is statistically significant: In other words, the result is very likely to hold as well outside of the sample, for the country in general. The Post is breathtakingly mucked up.

Its confusion probably arises from its misunderstanding of the plus-or-minus designation. The idea is this: We want to test the hypothesis that the race is a tie. That would happen if Harris is neither winning nor losing. Our usual criterion is that we will accept that the race is a dead heat unless we are 95% confident that Harris is either winning or losing. Well, if Harris's lead exceeds 2.5%, it is not a dead heat. And had Trump's lead exceeded 2.5%, that is, had Harris's lead been -2.5%, it would not have been a dead heat. It is not the case that Harris's margin must exceed 2 times 2.5% for us to conclude that the poll result is statistically significant, that is, that the race is not a dead heat.

The further conclusion, that Harris is winning, is easy to confirm once we see that the race cannot be a tie. The intuition is this: If Harris is so far in the lead that we can reject the possibility that the race is a tie, then we can also reject the possibility that Trump is winning.

In this case, The Post lucked out. Its headline correctly said the poll indicated that Harris was winning. But there is a more important point: The Post doesn't know what the hell it is doing.

 The error about errors

 Newspapers goof when reporting polls because they do not understand how polling errors occur. When you ask someone in newspapers why they don't take the margin of error seriously, you will get an answer like this: Well, the pollsters told us they were careful about polling. So we didn't worry about potential errors. They had to be small. We reported the margin of error only because everyone says we should.  

Grrr.  Now hear this: The margin of error is calculated under the assumption that the polling was perfect. Even when the polling sample is an accurate mirror of likely voters, the outcome of the poll may not be accurate. There is still a good chance that too many Harris supporters were interviewed. There is also a good chance that too many Trump supporters were interviewed.

A simple example will show what I mean. Suppose that we have a class of 100 students: half receive As, and half receive Bs. (Welcome to grade inflation.) We take a sample of 10 students. Even if the sampling is utterly fair, there is still a chance that at least 6 of the 10 students sampled received As. Based on the sample, we wrongly conclude that the majority of students received As. In reality, only half did.

Because of such possibilities, statisticians test the idea that of all likely voters, half favor Trump and half favor Harris. We can dismiss this hypothesis of a dead heat if a large-enough share of the sample favors either Harris or Trump. The "margin of error" reflects how large the share of respondents backing one candidate must be if we are to dismiss the possibility of a dead heat, assuming perfect polling. If the pollsters made mistakes, and they usually do, the actual margin of error is even larger than the one usually reported.

Moving right along…

 For years, The New York Times has reported poll survey results as if they were true for likely voters in general. Yesterday's story is an example. Yes, we can conclude that Harris is leading in Arizona, because her margin (barely) exceeds the margin of error (see the figure below). But contrary to The Times, we cannot conclude with 95% confidence that either Harris or Trump is leading in North Carolina, Nevada, or Georgia. Those survey margins are within the margins of error, which are shown in the graph in the article. By the usual definitions in political polling, those races are dead heats.

Remarks later in the story indicate what The Times is really up to:  "As the Harris and Trump campaigns rush to define each other in the remade race, voters see a choice between strength and compassion. Voters were about equally likely to see each candidate as qualified and change-makers, but significantly more voters viewed Mr. Trump as a strong leader....When voters were asked who 'cares about people like me,' Ms. Harris had a slight edge over Mr. Trump: 52 percent compared to 48 percent."

The Times seems to think that it can report results from a sample as if they held for the population, as long as it labels results that hold with 95% confidence as "significant." (The poll margin for the question about strong leaders was 8%, much larger than the margin of error.) The Old Grey Lady is playing word games. Most readers are not statisticians. When The Times says Harris has "a slight edge," they think that The Times is talking about the population, that is, the world outside of the sample. They view the word "significantly" as redundant. 

So The Times has it both ways. It tricks readers into believing that it is breaking news by declaring a winner. And, if challenged, it can always point out that, after all, it did refer to significance, sort of.

A simple example will show why this is a cardinal sin. Suppose that the president of General Motors misstated stock earnings for years. The Securities and Exchange Commission would investigate and probably force the president to resign. He might even face charges of fraud. Shouldn't we hold the nation's leading newspapers to standards at least as high? In a close race like this, newspaper reports of the polls affect donors. The money is sloshing towards Harris because of her perceived momentum. How real is that perception?

Another common dodge of newspapers: Well, do we really need 95% confidence that Candidate X is winning? Surely 90% is good enough. In that case, the margin of error is smaller, and the poll margin may now exceed it.  We can then conclude that X is winning.

It is true that 95% is an arbitrary standard. But it is also a universal one, especially in political polling. To apply 95% in some cases and (quietly) 90% to others, which The Post is fond of doing, amounts to moving the goalposts at halftime for some games but not for others. It makes it hard to compare poll results. Is Harris ahead in certain polls because she is winning the race, or because those polls adjusted the margin of error until she was "winning"?       

The Times and The Post say their polling staffs have graduate training in statistics. I do not see how a well-trained statistician can unknowingly make errors this basic. I will leave it at that.  

Noncardinal sins....

There's more, much more. The Times writes: "The polls show some risk for Ms. Harris as she rallies Democrats to her cause, including that more registered voters view her as too liberal (43 percent) than those who say Mr. Trump is too conservative (33 percent)." 

It is not clear why The Times says this shows "some risk" for Harris. Perhaps it means that voters are significantly more likely to view Harris as liberal than to view Trump as conservative. If that's what it means, it should provide evidence. The margin of error applies here, too. But even if it is true that voters are more likely to judge Harris as liberal than to judge Trump as conservative, why would this be a risk for Harris?

The Times continues, "For now, [Harris] is edging ahead of [Trump] among critical independent voters." Evidence?

The Times also writes, "Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris are tied at 48 percent across an average of the four Sun Belt states in surveys conducted Aug. 8 to 15. That marks a significant improvement for Democrats compared with May, when Mr. Trump led Mr. Biden 50 percent to 41 percent across Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada in the previous set of Times/Siena Sun Belt polls, which did not include North Carolina." 

The Times is comparing apples to oranges. One sample includes North Carolina, the other doesn't. And it is not clear why it bothers to make this top-level comparison. The polls differ from state to state, and The Times has specific information about each. Why not stick to reporting the results for each state poll rather than aggregate them into an inferior measure? 

If The Times simply must have a nation-level conclusion, it can view each state poll as an observation in a sample of all state polls and compute the probability that Harris is leading nationwide, given the sample of state polls. Do the same for May.

Finally, a puzzle. In Arizona, The Times/Siena poll reports Harris ahead in the sample by 5% among likely voters and 4% among registered voters. But the poll by the Competitiveness Coalition/Public Opinion Strategies about two weeks earlier reported Trump ahead by 5% among likely voters. And The Hill/Emerson College poll about three weeks before The Times/Siena poll reported Trump ahead among registered voters by 5%. Were these differences due to Harris's momentum? Or were they due to differences in how the polls were conducted?

 

                                           Source: The New York Times

 The key question: Are The Washington Post and The New York Times statistically significant? 

Anyway, these conundrums pertain to Central Asia because the political polling in the region, or at least the reporting of it, is anything but perfect. The margin of error is correspondingly higher.  In short, politics pervade political statistics. --Leon Taylor, Seymour, Indiana, tayloralmaty@gmail.com 

 

Notes             

For helpful comments, I thank but do not implicate Annabel Benson, Richard Green, and Mark Kennet. Parts of this post draw upon my earlier articles on my Facebook page.

 

References

Dan Balz, Scott Clement, and Emily Guskin.  Kamala Harris holds slight national lead over Donald Trump, Post-ABC-Ipsos poll finds - The Washington Post August 18, 2024.

Shane Goldmacher and Ruth Igielnik.  Kamala Harris Puts Four Sun Belt States Back in Play, Times/Siena Polls Find - The New York Times (nytimes.com)  August 17, 2024.

Lisa Lerer and Ruth Igielnik.  Harris Leads Trump in Three Key States, Times/Siena Polls Find - The New York Times (nytimes.com)  August 10, 2024.