Joe Conason recommends Ruy Texeira: Donkey Rising

[buycitgo]

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/

he wrote the Emerging Democratic Majority, which seems ironic, still, but Conason says he has the best grasp of what's going on in the polling miasma, for those who care to torture yourselves in this manner

he's trained in interpreting polls, methodolgy, sociological ramifications, etc, and Conason finds him a most reliable source

example, in reponse to commonly asked questions:

1. How can you deny that Bush is ahead?

*I don't. My view is that he is currently ahead, but only modestly, contrary to the tone of media coverage and the findings of some polls. I have tried to explain the reasoning behind this assessment, especially as it pertains to possible problems with contemporary polls. It's worth noting that the latest poll data on RVs--ending the night of the 12th--have Kerry up by 2 (IBD/CSM/TIPP) or Bush up by 4 (ICR). That averages out to a 1 point Bush lead, even without party-weighting the data. And Rasmussen LV data for the period ending the 12th also has Bush with a one point lead.

2. How is it possible for samples of RVs to suddenly have too many Republican identifiers? Aren't voters just shifting their party identification?

*It is certainly possible that we gone from, say, a 4-5 point Democrtic lead in party ID to a 4-5 point Republican lead in the space of the last month. But color me skeptical about this 8-10 point swing in a few short weeks. A better explanation for this sudden shift in poll samples, in my view, is that when the political situation jazzes up supporters of one party, they are more likely to want to participate in a public opinion telephone poll and express their views. An increased rate of interview acceptance by that party’s supporters would then skew the sample toward that party without the underlying distribution having changed very much, if at all.

In this case, the Republican convention, coming on the heels of the Swift Boat controversy, may have helped raise political enthusiasm among Republican partisans, leading to more interview acceptances and a disproportionate number of Republicans in recent samples.

Do I know this for sure? No, I don't, because we lack direct evidence that this is happening, just as we lack direct evidence that individual voters are suddenly and massively shifting their party allegiance. But I do know which of these explanations I find more plausible and consistent with other evidence about the general stability of party ID.

[buycitgo]

1. from a discussion there:

Here's how I look at it. In the month of August, Bush, his Swift friends, and the Republicans more generally, took a two prong approach. One, they tore into Kerry with vicious attacks on his character, both through the Swift Lies and the convention. Two, they tried to beef up Bush's image, in particular by focusing on national security issues. By any rational account, there was a lot more of the first then the second. As one telling sign of this, it was Kerry bashing, not Bush supporting, that was front and center on Bush's own web site.

What was the effect? A clear if modest lead for Kerry turned into a clear if modest lead for Bush. So the tactic worked.

My view is, don't complain about the tactics, steal them. Return fire. Pay the Bush campaign the ultimate compliment of acknowledging the efficacy of their approach. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

And what should we imitate? Well, I think that the empirical approach is best. Since the tactic employed had two parts, be sure to adopt BOTH. There's no way of knowing apriori which of the two was the effective one, or of concluding that it was only one of them.

[jean]

2. Donkey Rising is excellent. And Joe Conason has shown himself to be

a wonderful radio personality. He has a great voice and is very agile and thoughtful in handling whatever comes his way on the Al Franken Show.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. kick