New York Times Death Spiral Watch (Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee Edition)

The Obama campaign is righteously p.o.'ed at Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee.

Ta-Nehisi Coates draws a broader lesson:

Ta-Nehisi Coates: New York Times Uncovers A Shocker--Blacks and Whites Disagree: Sorry, but this article is pretty stupid and well critiqued by the Obama campaign. The older I get the more I think that journalism--daily journalism, especially--is simply incapable of dealing with something as nuanced as the black-white relations in this country. They just aren't capable, nor despite their claims of objectivity, are they unbiased. Take it from a journalist--good journalism needs conflict. No conflict, no story. But while the artisan searches for the natural conflict inherent in life itself, the hack has some polling firm call a bunch of people, and then writes a headline overstating the results.

And here is what the Obama campaign has to say about Adam Nagourney's ability to read:

Obama Campaign Criticizes New York Times Story On Poll: The NYT story about their poll ignores multiple and significant pieces of data that actually indicate a trend much different from that which the story suggests....

Some straightforward points from their data that are omitted from the story...

1. More white voters say Obama cares about people like them, than say the same thing about McCain by 31 to 23
2. On the essential issue in this campaign - bringing about change in Washington - Among white voters, Obama is seen as the change agent by 52% to 30%
3. Obama's 31% favorable rating among white voters is virtually identical to McCain's, which is at 34%.
4. By a 2 to 1 margin over McCain, white voters are more likely to say that Obama would improve America's image in the world
5. "Racial dissension" around Mrs. Obama's 24% favorable rating among whites is an extremely odd description given that Mrs. McCain's favorable rating among white voters is 20%.
6. Enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy is roughly 2.5 times higher among white voters than is enthusiasm for McCain's...

I must admit that my breath is stopped by the idea of saying anything about Black-white opinion differences based on a poll with only 300 Blacks in it. That is bizarre statistical malpractice of a high order.

Nagourney:

From <>:

Poll Finds Obama’s Run Isn’t Closing Divide on Race: Americans are sharply divided by race heading into the first election in which an African-American will be a major-party presidential nominee, with blacks and whites holding vastly different views of Senator Barack Obama, the state of race relations and how black Americans are treated by society.... More than 80 percent of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama; about 30 percent of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him...

It's at this point that Nagourny and Thee should have said that about 35 percent of White voters--and 5 percent of Black voters, 15 people--have a favorable view of John McCain. And it is at this point that Nagourney and Thee should have said that 19 percent of white voters ar enthusiastic about the candidacy of Barack Obama, and 8 percent of white voters are enthusiastic about the candidacy of John McCain.

They go on:

Nearly 60 percent of black respondents said race relations were generally bad, compared with 34 percent of whites...

And it's at this point that Nagourney and Thee should have said that 60% of Blacks and 80% of whites think that race relations in their community are good.

Four in 10 blacks say that there has been no progress in recent years in eliminating racial discrimination; fewer than 2 in 10 whites say the same thing...

Nagourney and Thee say that 40% of Blacks and 20% of whites say that there has been "no progress." That's not what the question asked. The question reads: "Some people say that since the 1960s there has been a lot of real progress in getting rid of racial discrimination against blacks. Others say that there hasn’t been much real progress." If you think that there has been some--but not much--real progress in getting rid of discrimination but a lot of progress in reducing discrimination, then you say "no."

I could go on. But what would be the point?

Comments

[bdbd]

This is why they call a newspaper article a "story." Now, imagine how the Nagourney/Thee story line gets boiled down for inclusion in a local news broadcast or on one of the morning shows...I'm getting goosebumps! or is it shingles?

[anne]

Why are you rampaging so on behalf of Barack Obama? These posts are scary, as are many Obama supporters among whom I know I must where my "Yes, we can" ring, but really, what gives with the bullying by Obama supporters that has increasingly turned me against them?

[anne]

Please forgive the comment above. "Yes, we can." Really, we can. I know, we can. Really, really. I was only kidding.

[Movie Guy]

Too funny. Whoo hoo. Statistical analysis be damned.
.

[pgl]

This is even worse than that New Yorker cartoon. But here is what I like - how the Obama campaign has responded. I think we have a real Presidential candidate this time - and the Rovians over at Team McCain will soon realize as much!

[bigTom]

How is this different from the headline writing we see for nearly any technical/scientific study. No matter what the intention of the authors, and the results of the study editors usually make up the most sensationalist headline possible. Usually after reading the headline, and uttering OMG (or something like it), once I read the actual article/paper I don't find anything remotely justifying the headline. This seems to have become standard practice. Without an eyegrabbing headline, you just won't attract very many eyeballs. Of course the problem comes in as many of us scan through the headlines, and only read a few of the articles, we get a distorted view of the world.

[anne]

The point is that there is nothing wrong with the headline or with the article, which deals with issues discussed repeatedly in the Black Agenda Report and elsewhere:

http://www.blackagendareport.com .

[kharris]

BigT,

Who said it was any different?

[anne]

Just as there was a fierce attempt to make it impossible to discuss Hillary Clinton's policy stances, even for a Paul Krugman, by repeated bullying, there is a parallel attempt to make it impossible to discuss Obama's stances as those stances become ever more conservative and with regard to Afghanistan, now, ever more fierce.

[jerry]

"The nationwide telephone poll was conducted July 7-14 with 1,796 adults, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. In an effort to measure views of different races, the survey included larger-than-usual minority samples — 297 blacks and 246 Hispanics — with a margin of sampling error of six percentage points for each subgroup."

It does seem that for a story of this import, a sample size leading to a margin of sampling error of six points is a small and lazy sample size.

Not to mention the cellphone issue that presumably skews the poll to an older population. A question like "are race relations" improving may very likely have a different answers for differently aged populations. A quick glance at the complete poll results shows no effort to break answers down by age, just by race.

A poll trying to determine trends in "the racial divide" is probably best designed and interpreted by an anthropologist or sociologist rather than by a political reporter.

[George Smiley]

"Why are you rampaging so on behalf of Barack Obama? These posts are scary, as are many Obama supporters among whom I know I must where my "Yes, we can" ring, but really, what gives with the bullying by Obama supporters that has increasingly turned me against them?"

I don't see any rampaging here. Perhaps you could explain in a bit more detail exactly what your complaint is. From what you wrote, it's not at all clear.

[jerry]

"Just as there was a fierce attempt to make it impossible to discuss Hillary Clinton's policy stances, even for a Paul Krugman, by repeated bullying, there is a parallel attempt to make it impossible to discuss Obama's stances as those stances become ever more conservative and with regard to Afghanistan, now, ever more fierce."

This is our liberal blogosphere's version of the Mighty Wurlitzer in action. It's every bit about shaping the limits to the debate as it is about getting the information out there to debate. The acceptable limits to the debate are shaped with various threats and claims that dissenters are racists, (or sexists), and not pure enough. Bill Maher (and many others) have discussed these techniques for years only to be chided and dismissed by many uber-liberal bloggers as validating the concept of political correctness, a concept they claim either does not exist, or that should be ignored by us other uber-liberals.

I used to think that Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo was a memo on today's talking points as handed down to the right wing by the uber right wing. But at times, I think it is one of our Wurlitzer's largest horns, spreading and amplifying our own must be repeated, talking points.

It's not just Obama either. There are many sacred cows that our uber-left holds dear and finds a need to defend at all costs, including the use of the smearing of others to delegitimize their arguments.

This is one reason I am appreciative of Brad's insistence that at his blog, in his comments, we all grasp reality.

[anne]

Simply look to the comments about the New York Times, Economist, New Yorker, Washington Post, Mark Halperin, and on, and on, all because of political readings that might not be all that favorable to a specific candidate who will have to remain nameless.

[Yes, we can, I know we can and I can too.]

[Adam W. Foley]

Anne:

I preface this post by noting that I'm an admittedly biased Hillary supporter.

The "Left on Left" bullying may be related to the nature of Obama's appeal. Many (though certainly not all) Obama supporters don't really think of him as a politician as much as a messiah, and we all know how the faithful react to blasphemous images of the Savior. Think of the Danish cartoon and "Piss Christ" controversies.

[cfpete]

Yes, what would be the point?
This has nothing to do with this post.
This is just about DeLong.
You hate the yelling shows, which I understand.
The question is?
Why would a producer believe that you are an appropriate guest for a yelling show?
These decisions are not accidental.
You may want to ask yourself why someone would think that Grover Norquist is the appropriate counter to your opinion.

Personally, I believe that the United States would be better off if Brad DeLong spent more time on research and less time on this blog.

[anne]

Brad DeLong's blog is excellent and Brad DeLong's research is excellent and Brad DeLong is excellent when complaining. I am only complaining back.

[anne]

"Personally, I believe that the United States would be better off if...."

Huh??? I would be better off with an ice cream cone, but as for the United States???

[save_the_rustbelt]

Most Americans are too busy working and/or raising their families and doing the normal things of life to get caught up in all of this spin - counterspin yahoo yelling nonsense.

Most of the polls do not matter. Most of the news articles do not matter. Most of the criticism does not matter.

Those of us who are wonks and/or semi-retired and/or not busy enough get to sit around and read and think about all this.

[jerry]

"Those of us who are wonks and/or semi-retired and/or not busy enough get to sit around and read and think about all this."

You know who's really got it made? There's a group of people from all ages and all walks of life that meet near the Market Street BART Station everyday to play chess and gab. All walks of life. San Francisco weather, San Francisco charm, San Francisco personalities and Street Chess.

Imagine that!

http://images.google.com/images?q=street+chess+san+francisco

[anonymous]

bogTom: multiple "big" results based on 15 positive responses out of a total sample size of 300 would never make it into the results section of a scientific paper as nationally representative, at least one that had a competent statistical reviewer. Therefore, there would never be overblown headlines about them, since they would not get published in the first place.

There are a lot of big results pubished in political polling that are based on multiple post hoc subgroup analyses, perhaps after considerable eyeball analysis searching after results. DeLong gives quite a bit of evidence that the results were cherry picked to the max to get the conclusion the authors wanted, so there is good reason to be believe the 'results' are the results of considerable eyeballing and selection. These results are unreliable. The article discussed by DeLong is just one more, particularly bad, example. Too bad it is getting so much play -I heard a story about it on national news today before I saw it in the paper.

Some of the results quoted by DeLolng would never be accepted by good scientiric editors as representative of the US, and would not be considered reliable by statistical agencies. Check out the reporting guidelines of the National Center for Health Statitics for any of their national surveys.

[George Smiley]

"The "Left on Left" bullying may be related to the nature of Obama's appeal. Many (though certainly not all) Obama supporters don't really think of him as a politician as much as a messiah, and we all know how the faithful react to blasphemous images of the Savior. "

Paint with a borad brush, much? That's a ridiculous charicature.

[anonymous]

I meant to type:
multiple "big" results based *things like* on 15 positive responses out of a total sample size of 300

The Obama campaign's response doesn't prove anything either. Too many hypothesis tests and estimates, to few people, one poll with dicey sample design and problems with non-response that are not well documented.

People grossly overinterpret these kinds of surveys when they get into a dozen estimates based on 'crosstabs' and 'internals'.

It all turns into statistical mush. Overcooked and mushy mush. BS.

[anne]

The study makes perfect sense:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/us/politics/16poll.html?hp&pagewanted=print

July 16, 2008

Poll Finds Obama Candidacy Isn't Closing Divide on Race
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE

Americans are sharply divided by race heading into the first election in which an African-American will be a major-party presidential nominee, with blacks and whites holding vastly different views of Senator Barack Obama, the state of race relations and how black Americans are treated by society, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The results of the poll, conducted against the backdrop of a campaign in which race has been a constant if not always overt issue, suggested that Mr. Obama's candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.

After years of growing political polarization, much of the divide in American politics is partisan. But Americans' perceptions of the fall presidential election between Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, also underlined the racial discord that the poll found. More than 80 percent of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama; about 30 percent of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him.

Nearly 60 percent of black respondents said race relations were generally bad, compared with 34 percent of whites. Four in 10 blacks say that there has been no progress in recent years in eliminating racial discrimination; fewer than 2 in 10 whites say the same thing. And about one-quarter of white respondents said they thought that too much had been made of racial barriers facing black people, while one-half of black respondents said not enough had been made of racial impediments faced by blacks.

The survey suggests that even as the nation crosses a racial threshold when it comes to politics — Mr. Obama, a Democrat, is the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas — many of the racial patterns in society remain unchanged in recent years....

[Hektor Bim]

I don't understand your complaint, anne. Why don't you just spell it out instead of vaguely insinuating things?

[George Smiley]

Anne: did you even read the criticisms of this piece? You show every sign of not having done so, and merely reprinting portions of it without commentary suggests more than a little laziness in your habits of thought.

Please, try to actually post an argument from time to time.

[Davis X. Machina]

There are many sacred cows that our uber-left holds dear and finds a need to defend at all costs....

'Uber-left?"

This is 'uber-left': http://www.icl-fi.org.

You don't hear 'Property is theft!' much, over at DailyKos.

[jerry]

There are many dimensions of Uber-left. And I may have my terminology wrong too. If you want to give me better terms, please do.

There is a sense in which DK is not the uber-left. As you point out, they ain't commies, Kos himself is a former republican and I believe a pragmatist that mainly wants to win elections.

There is a sense in which DK seems to be the uber-left. The sense I meant is in the notion that those of the uber-left are terribly willing to become the policemen of the left, defining who is left, and who is left-not, and willing to punish and police those that would step outside those boundaries.

I think DK might fit that definition, but since I rarely visit DK, I wasn't actually referring to DK.

More importantly, if that does not fit some canonical definition of uber, please let me know. If there is a better word for my perception (apart from jerkfaced) let me know that too.

So my uber-left more consists of the policeman of the liberal blogosphere. The Pandagons and other members of the sanctimonious women's studies set (a name coined by Kos actually), the academic hacks like Michael Berube and the policeman over at LGM. The Shakespeare's sisters set. And many others.

These are the people that have stated with the we should do away with the concept or criticism of political correctness. They have endorsed many authoritarian, anti-free speech policies. They do this with their cloak that they are the uber left and anyone that dissents is a rightwing f*tard, a racist, a sexist, or even a rapist and pedophile.

We have lots of people that claim this authority and role for themselves, and they are the ones I refer to as "uber-left holding their sacred cows."

I don't find them particularly liberal or progressive and figure they'd literally be the first ones to introduce torture in their reeducation camps.

(By the way, apparently a very well understood acknowledged source of feminist thought as realized into law by Catherine MacKinnon is Marxism, so amongst certain putative uberleftists, we ain't all that far from "Property is theft!" http://www.atypon-link.com/GPI/doi/abs/10.1521/siso.69.1.113.56796)

[George Smiley]

Jerry: paint with a broad brush, much?

It's not helpful. It does not increase our understanding of political philosophy, or policy, or much of anything else.

Please try to do better.

[Bloix]

Well, this thread has deterioriated pretty completely, hasn't it? Anyone interested in actually learning something about the study from someone who knows something about polling should jump off now and read this:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/obama_and_race.html#more

[jerry]

George, I understand you disagree, but I am not sure what your specific criticisms are. If you could clarify, I would appreciate that and be better able to understand, and perhaps improve.