Burying the Lede

I'm a "premium member" of Scott Rasmussen's tracking poll service, mostly because I'm a poll junky and he's a cheap date, so to speak. So I've watched with interest as users at Dkos (among other sites) have attempted to use the information on the spreads between candidates in each day of the tracking poll to estimate the daily sample. I've been guilty of trying to do this too, but it's a really bad practise. Allow me to demonstrate with some graphs drawn from a simulation of Rasmussen's data (see below...the x axis is the sample day and the y axis the spread between candidates). I generated random spreads between 2 hypothetical candidates for a period of 15 days by sampling an underlying normal distribution (seen in blue in graphs below). I used this raw data to calculate a 3-day moving average, which was used in the next step of the analysis.

I then attempted to "estimate" spreads for each day by guessing values for the first two days in the 15 day period (as these are not known to anyone save Rasmussen in the real world). The plots here show estimated results (green line) for 2 different pairs of guessed values:

Attempt 1

Attempt 2

As you can see, these results differ considerably not only with the actual values, but also from each other. So this sort of estimation is neither consistent nor accurate. In that the output depends rather sensitively on the input, one might wish to investigate this kind of estimation for some kind of chaotic behavior. But that falls beyond the purview of this simple example.

Estimate with caution, friends.

One thing we are going to have to fix in the next 4 years, whether or not Kerry wins, is party discipline.

It is simply unacceptable, in the middle of a campaign, for senior party officials to leak to the press that they are pressuring the Kerry campaign to retool. Even if it is true...especially if it is true. It feeds an image of disarray that no campaign wants, and given the bias our media has toward the GOP, that this campaign can't afford.

Compare the ship the Democratic Party runs with that run by the RNC. It's one message all the time with them. Internal squabbles happen, but the press doesn't learn about them (or at least doesn't until its far to late to exploit them). This discipline is reflected in all aspects of the RNC's operations, from their superior (to ours) surrogate operation to their simple ability to stay "on message" individually and as a group.

I don't expect this problem to be fixed overnight, and I don't expect that a party as diverse as the Democratic party can ever clamp down on intra-party conflict as completely as does the authoritarian tilting GOP. But we've got to do better.

In the last 4 years, the blogosphere has been the key to reactivating Democrats and connecting them to the political process. We've got to move this revolution into the antiquated power structures of the DNC, reforming those structures so that the organization can present a united front to the enemy, and not simply act as a reward for loyal campaigners and turf over which various factions can fight fro control of a caroming party.

Juan Cole gets it:

Likewise, CNN appears to have been the victim of a second-hand psy-ops campaign, insofar as it is referring to the guerrillas as "anti-Iraqi forces." The idea of characterizing them not as anti-American or anti-regime but "anti-Iraq" was, according to journalist Nir Rosen, come up with by a PR company contracting in Iraq. Nir says that they were told that no Iraqis would fall for it. So apparently it has now been retailed to major
American news programs, on the theory that the American public is congenitally stupid.

I noticed this the other day whilst reading a piece on CNN. "anti-Iraqi forces?" Whatever
happened to reporters actually reporting the news, as opposed to channeling talking points concatenated in the bowels of the American Enterprise Institute?

I apologize for having been away for so long. I've been trying to enjoy a summer vacation, raise a son, and build a new website. But I'm still following Iraq, still learning Arabic, and I hope I still have some insights to bring to bear on the situation in our own little Raj.

It's been about a week since I posted. I know, I know. I'll never be Kevin Drum or Atrios with a schedule like that.

In other news, one notices that oil futures have plunged after the resumption of some oil exports from Iraq.

This is just foolishness. Apparently many commodities traders believe the rosy scenario that Iraqi "prime minister" Ayad Allawi has outlined for the "restoration" of security in Iraq:

1) Declare Martial Law

2) ???

3) Profit!!!

with apologies to the Underpants Gnomes.

A few days ago the American press willfully and wildly misread a statement by as-Sistani on the new Iraqi "government."

Well, the Kool Kids have done it again.

Our View:

Sadr says, 'I support the new government'

Their view:

Al-Sadr: Conditional support for government

What Sadr said is: if the new government commits to quickly kicking out the American's, I'll support them.
(For Backup, see Juan Cole):

The wire services are misinterpreting this statement as an about-face on Muqtada's part. It is not. It is a piece of bargaining. He is saying that he will swing the Sadrist movement around to support the transitional government if it will commit to throwing the Americans out of Iraq on a strict timetable. That is what Muqtada has wanted since the fall of Saddam. He started calling for a US withdrawal in April, 2003. It seems probable that one reason the Americans came after Muqtada in early April, intending to kill him, was fear that he will become powerful enough after June 30 to lobby effectively for the expulsion of the Americans. (It has now come out that the US military actually printed up broadsheets announcing thet Muqtada had been killed resisting arrest, and that some GI's jumped the gun and actually put some of those out in early April even though in fact, Muqtada eluded his American would-be murderers.) Paul Bremer's recent attempt to ensure that the major Sadrist leaders are not allowed to run for parliament has the same goal. The civilians in the Department of Defense such as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz probably went to war against Iraq in part precisely to get bases there. The realization that they might be tossed out at the instance of a few million Shiite slum dwellers has so infuriated them that they attacked the movement without provocation, killed about a thousand of them, and are now trying to disenfranchise several million Iraqis by disallowing Sadrists from holding office.

Our headline and story is, of course, more optimistic than Al Jazeera's.

Why?

The first reason is boredom. Because the Kool Kids are tired of the "Iraq Bad News" meme, they will willfully misinterpret as-Sadr's statements just to change the media zeitgeist on Iraq.

The second reason is laziness. Some wire reporter puts up the original story and the rest just report it as fact, without any followup or interpretation. Leaving the Green Zone is scary. Who needs to talk to the principals of a story when you have a wire service, right?

Boredom and laziness, the wicked step-parents of our so-called liberal media.

I apologize for not posting more often in the last few days. It's tough getting back in the swing of blogging, especially with a 3 month old boy. I hope to minimize absences of more than a day or two, but if subh absences do occur, please understand that I'm spending time with my son, more than likely.

Anyhoo, here's something interesting. I didn't even know there was an Iraqi Pipeline Watch.

That's about an attack every 6 days.

If Saudi Arabia ever gets this bad, we're screwed.

Apparently some of our commanders in Southern Iraq think they have defeated Moqtada as-Sadr because an apparent (sistani blessed) truce has led to his troops disappearing from the area.

Of course, they apparently just popped up back in Sadr City and have figured out that roadside bombs are the best way to kill us without getting killed in the process.

I actually don't think there will be a big boost for Bush from this. It's just as likely the public will compare the two president's and find Bush wanting.