On 5 Dec 2002 09:49:55 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Humberto Barreto) wrote: [ snip, some interesting stuff] [ snip, first part of Nicaragua example... ] > ' ... Yet, the results show clearly > that the pens influenced the respondents. When the interviewer held a > Sandinista pen, the respondents voiced support for Ortega by a 63% to 37% > margin. Ortega also came out ahead in the neutral-pen condition, 60% to > 40%. However, when the interviewer held a UNO pen, Chamorro was the winner > by 56% to 44%. The UNO-pen condition thus came close to predicting the > election outcome, whereas the Sandinista-pen condition replicated the > highly inaccurate pre-election polls.' > > Timur Kuran, "The Inevitability of Future Revolutionary Surprises," > American Journal of Sociology, 100 (May 1995): 1528-1551.
One summary: The UNO candidate was favored by a majority polled, only when the respondents felt intimidated by UNO. Thus, it (probably) was important that the UNO maintain a strong 'presence' on the election day. Personally, I don't remember reading about that, in particular. I think I do remember reading that the Sandanistas did not raise any fusses that day. I did not realize until now, that *that* news report was possibly intended as a message-between-the lines. > > Unfortunately, what this example -- and others that show the pitfalls of > polling (back to phones!) -- does is leave the message that polling > doesn't work. That's the wrong message. After every negative example I > will tell my class, "This does not mean polling stinks -- it means it's > hard to do well." Or, it could mean that polling well can lead to successful manipulation. The U.S. GOP knew that this last election could be difficult - especially if the electorate was aroused about health care or about the economy, and if Democrats came out to vote in as much strength as Republicans. Those were *poll* results. In general, they were known to both sides. The Republicans managed to mobilize the hicks in the sticks without stirring up the cities, by sending out Bush personally. His personal money-raising also helped provide a fairly large edge in advertising dollars; and funded GOP phone-banks, etc., for reaping the votes on election day itself. Counting across the whole country, the GOP won by a nose. It is scary, isn't it, how obvious the outcome can seem, in 20-20 hindsight? On the other hand, the GOP had 'all the same advantages', loosely speaking, for the runoff race for Senator of Louisiana -- advertising money, celebrity endorsements. That was decided in favor of the Democrats on last Saturday. -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
