Ozean Digital Media Logo
Call 352 376 0505
Book My Meeting
Quick Question: Is there a correlation between primary turnout and general election turnout in Florida?

Quick Question: Is there a correlation between primary turnout and general election turnout in Florida?

by | Aug 22, 2018 | Political Research

Great question via twitter this morning – is there a correlation between primary election turnout and general election turnout?

My first guess was “no, it is more a function of competitive races on the ballot, and historically one party will have incumbency.”

BUT – let’s goto the data for a quick explore.

Lucky for us, Florida has a historical archive.

https://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/elections-data/voter-turnout/

I cleaned it up a little and added a binary variable to explore POTUS v midterms.

flturnout (excel sheet)

The relationship between primary turnout and general election turnout in Florida Elections (1954-2016)

Correlations
primary general
primary Pearson Correlation 1 .039
Sig. (2-tailed) .834
N 31 31
general Pearson Correlation .039 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .834
N 31 32

POTUS ONLY YEARS

 

Correlations
primary general
primary Pearson Correlation 1 .111
Sig. (2-tailed) .693
N 15 15
general Pearson Correlation .111 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .693
N 15 16

 

MIDTERMS ONLY YEARS

Correlations
primary general
primary Pearson Correlation 1 -.130
Sig. (2-tailed) .632
N 16 16
general Pearson Correlation -.130 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .632
N 16 16

 

Conclusion

There is no measurable relationship between the two variables; need to explore other potential variables that may predict general election turnout better – such as the number of competitive races.

This Polling Stuff is KILLING us!

by | Mar 6, 2018 | Political Consulting

Daily, we get a new approval rating on Donald Trump and NONE of them agree.  It seems my Republican friends believe his approval is skyrocketing and my Democrat friends believe it is in the toilet.  Both can’t be right….or can they?

The Battle of the Polling Methods

I did a quick review of the individual polls using data from Real Clear Politics.

The scuffle always seems to track back to Rasmussen Polling.  When a new Rasmussen poll is released, it seems it is covered extensively by Fox News and Drudge.  Why?  Because the polling consistently rates POTUS higher than all the other polls.

Is Rasmussen dishonest?  Or is Rasmussen nailing it and everyone else idiots?

The differences lie NOT with the intentions, but with the methodology.

Rasmussen polls likely voters.  Rasmussen discloses this on their methodology page:

“For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.

Rasmussen Reports determines its partisan weighting targets through a dynamic weighting system that takes into account the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area.”

Rassmussen takes into account prior voting history in their methodology – nothing shady and they disclose it.

All other pollsters are polling registered voters or adults.  What is the difference?

Turns out, a lot.

Using RealClear Politics data, I simply grouped the polls by sample type (A=adults, LV=Likely Voters, RV=Registered Voters).  This graph is a simple average of the approval ratings.   (yes, this is a very simplistic way of looking at this problem, but it is illustrative).

As you observe, there is a significant difference between likely voters and all other types.  (You can also observe how flat it POTUS’s rating have been, but that is another post.)

As you can see, different methodologies are leading to consistently different results.

So, which method is correct?  Normally, I would have no issue with Rasmussen’s methodology.  In normal times, voter turnout is remarkably stable from election type to election type; however, these are not normal times.

In special elections leading into today, Democrat candidates are OUTPERFORMING their baseline partisan index by approximately 15%.

This simply means, NON-likely voters are showing up in these elections and are likely to show up for the upcoming midterms – young voters, minorities, and angry people.  Rasmussen is missing these voters in their methods and thus painting a rosier picture than the likely, current reality.

The challenge is partisans on both sides are engaging in misusing polling data to push a narrative, and people are buying it.  People only pay attention to the polls they like, disregard others as ‘bad polling.’  Most people are not informed consumers of polling data and this confusion leads to the further erosion of confidence in polling.

It is a toxic misuse of polling, and it needs to stop.

However, the cynic in me knows it isn’t likely to stop; therefore, we need to become better consumers of polling data.

The next time someone says, “The President is on his way to 50% approval!” you must reply “Among who?”  Because the answer matters….a lot.

PS  For a much deeper dive, Survey Monkey did an excellent write-up/experiment using the Roy Moore Senate race in Alabama and illustrating how different methodologies lead to huge variances in polling results.  Past vote vs. intention: an Alabama Senate race

Public Opinion Doesn’t Exist

Public Opinion Doesn’t Exist

by | Feb 9, 2018 | Political Consulting

Ever have that book that stays with you and gnaws at you well after you finish reading it?  One of my recent reads has been How Not to Be Wrong:  The Power of Mathematical Thinking by Jordan Ellenberg.  It is a highly recommended read, but Chapter 17 is causing me heartburn.  It is entitled “There is No Such Thing as Public Opinion.”

Why heartburn?  I wrote a paper in graduate school taking issue with that old adage that “Americans are ideologically conservative but operationally liberal.”  I did a poor job expressing and supporting my view and my paper’s grade reflected it.  However, Ellenberg says what I was attempting to say, just much more eloquently.

“Each voter has a perfect rational coherent political stance, but in the aggregate, their position is nonsensical” (p 367).

For example, we did some polling on the medical marijuana issue.  I will simplify, but the results were as such:

  • 1/3 of respondents opposed any legalization of marijuana.
  • 1/3 of respondents supported legalization of marijuana for only medical use.
  • 1/3 of respondents supported full legalization of marijuana.

After the completion of the polling, the following statements were made about the polling:

  • MAJORITY OF PEOPLE POLLED OPPOSE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA.
  • MAJORITY OF PEOPLE POLLED SUPPORT SOME FORM OF LEGALIZED MARIJUANA.

Both statements tell different stories about public opinion, and both statements are true.   When you aggregate the three choices, they no longer make sense.

When Americans and democracy are offered more than one choice, it gets messy because “majority rules” systems work best with two choices, not three.   (which returns to a theory of why political parties exist – to offer clear choices.)

Returning to the inconsistency of aggregate judgments. “The majority isn’t a unified entity that follows logic” (p 374).    This is why public opinion tells us repeatedly that Americans want a smaller government with less spending.  However, when offered choices of 13 categories of government spending, more people want to increase rather than cut in 11 of the categories.

Ellenberg makes the following conclusion – and this is what gives me heartburn:

“I think the right answer is that there are no answers.  Public opinion doesn’t exist.  If there is no such thing as public opinion, what’s an elected official to do?  The simplest answer:  when there’s no coherent message from the people, do whatever you want” (p 369).

Frankly, I am still noodling this through, but my heartburn continues but now for different reasons.    Enjoy your weekend.

 

 

Photo by Rob Schreckhise on Unsplash

 

Reading list – Q4 2017

Reading list – Q4 2017

by | Jan 11, 2018 | Ozean Media

I was asked yesterday “Whatcha reading?”

Here is the 2017 Q4 Reading list:

  • Principles by Ray Dalio- GREAT business/life book.   I wish I would have read it before I ever started any businesses.
  • The Drunkard’s Walk by Leonard Mlodinow – A look at how randomness, probabilities, and uncertainty affect our lives.
  • How Not to Be Wrong:  The Power of Mathematical Thinking by Jordan Ellenberg – A dense read about math, decision making, and thinking.  I need to re-read this one, but I enjoyed the challenge and the writing.   Been chewing on the concepts for weeks.
  • On Writing by Stephen King – part autobiography, part how to write, part how to edit (with examples), part how to structure your work, and part screed against adverbs.  At times, hilarious.  Easy read, enjoyed very much.
  • Rat F**ked by David Daley – about the most political process known to politics: the process of drawing political districts.   Remember:  one party’s map is another party’s gerrymander.
  • Slingshot: The Defeat of Eric Cantor by Lauren Cohen Bell and David Elliot Meyer- a deep dive into the Cantor defeat/Brat win.  Short, accessible, and must read for political nerds.
  • Break Your Invisible Chains: Own The Power Of Your Story by Brandon Telg,  Jaron Jones,‎ Carly Barnes – local Gainesville authors about storytelling.  Offers writing prompts on how to tell your story and the importance of stories.

Book Awards:

Most Enjoyable Read:  On Writing

Read that has stayed with me for weeks:  How Not to Be Wrong

Need to Read Again:  How Not to Be Wrong

Most relevant to political nerds – Slingshot

Book(s) I wished I read much sooner: TIE:  Principles / How Not to be Wrong

Best Title:  Rat F**ked

 

note:  The links on this page are NOT affiliate links and are provided for your convenience.  

 

 

What is an Ozean?

What is an Ozean?

by | Oct 26, 2017 | Ozean Media

A long time ago, we were going to change the world.  We decided we had enough of that stuffy corporate world with its salary, benefits, and ample cash flow.  We thought we had a good business plan, we thought we had completed the research – and we jumped.  We started our own company, and damn it we were going to change the world.  

Now, what to call this company?

Our brainstorming led us to German words.

The two founders of the company had strong ties to Germany – specifically Heidelberg, Germany.  Alex Patton, Ozean’s co-founder, attended high school in Heidelberg (go lions!), and Ozean’s other founder was born in Heidelberg.

As a side note, Heidelberg, Germany is beautiful, and you should visit!

Ahh…inspiration was taking over.

Several rounds of brainstorming later, we came across “Ozean”.  Ozean made PERFECT sense to us.

“Ozean” is the German word for “Ocean.”  O•ze•an, pronounced Ozean! 

THEN inspiration met cockiness – we were going to change the world by “making waves”….

BOOM!  A company was named, a logo made complete with waves, and a brand birthed.

 

Fast forward years later, and I still get asked: “What is an Ozean?”, “How in the world did you come up with that name?”, “Can you spell that?”

At times, I wondered if we should have just named the company “AAAA Communications” and been done with it.

It begs the questions, “Do you name a company for personal reasons, name it for your potential customers, or does it really matter?”

In this case, every time I am asked, I explain the origin story.  I would like to think it is somewhat memorable.

Regardless of whether it is memorable or not, the name is meaningful to us.

I’d like to believe we have matured from “making waves” to “Navigating to Victory – even the hard ones” but that evolution story is for another day!

Well, now you know….the origins Ozean. – a name inspired by Heidelberg, Germany, and cockiness (maybe naiveté).

PS.  You really should plan a trip to Heidelberg, you’ll thank us!