It’s always interesting to dissect a fallacious argument which is being used to ‘prove’ a point (I must get round to reading that book that Dizzy recommended). Yesterday on CentreRight there was a discussion of McCain catching up in the polls which contained more than a couple. A representative paragraph:
In Oregon, won by 52/48 by Kerry, Obama leads by only 3.5%. Interestingly, whilst Obama leads by 15% amongst voters younger than him, McCain leads by 9% amongst those in between his and Obama’s age. I’ll leave it to you to predict which age range is more likely to actually show up at the polls. [emphasis mine]
Read that first sentence again. Kerry won Oregon 52/48, Obama leads in polls by 3.5%. Put another way, such as ‘Kerry’s 4% lead is now 3.5% under Obama’, it doesn’t look anything like so bad. Granted it’s still not wonderful news for Obama, but it’s a clear sign that the writer is representing two numbers in two different ways to try and make the difference seem larger.
The next two sentences are even more cryptic. Apparently Obama leads by 15% among those aged between 18 and 48, but McCain leads by 9% among those aged between 48 and 72. What relevance these age ranges have is unclear, and the range Obama leads in is 6 years larger. We’re presumably supposed to infer from the rhetorical last sentence that the author believes the seniors will have a higher turnout in the election despite the 18-48 demographic representing a considerably larger proportion of the US population than the 48-72 (this will change in the next few years when the ‘baby-boomers’ start hitting their 50s).
Another thing to factor in is Obamamania, the motivating effect Obama has on young people – he has been commended many times for inspiring young people to become interested in politics. His grasp of the fact that global many-to-many communication is no longer the world of tommorrow but the world of today’s politics can only strengthen that position, particularly when compared to McCain.
The truth is, inferring voting intentions for November from a couple of polls taken in July is Kremlinology and mystic ball-gazing at best. Obama and McCain are likely to flip-flop about, and McCain has the current initiative because Obama’s been away and hasn’t really shifted from Primary into Presidential mode.
This race is now, as it has been since the primaries, extremely difficult to call and neither candidate really has the edge. Personally, I’m rooting for Obama (partly as the underdog) but neither candidate will cause the apocalypse to begin. The only thing that most definitely won’t happen is Hilary Clinton coming back!
Tizzy
August 9th, 2008 | 12:12 am
Try watching Fox News, especially Sean Hannity whose mission is to dig up whatever he can on Obama, blow it up like a balloon whilst holding a peg on his nose when discussing McCain.
It is apparently a close race, at the moment. Both are making a pig’s ear out of pretending they have it in the bag. Michelle Obama has been locked out of sight and Barack does seem a bit up himself. McCain’s memory is shot but, on balance, if I had a vote I’d probably go with him. Not because of any positive reasons, unfortunately. But I don’t, so there’s not much point in going further.