Do not miss the comments of John Kelly below. John, a filmmaker and Boston University prof, is an old Afghanistan hand and knows whereof he speaks. He thinks UBL’s URL (as I enjoy calling it) is under a pile of Tora Bora rubble.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Here’s a link to froggyruminations where John’s comments can be found after the “Usama bin Laden is Dead” post. You need to scroll down almost to the bottom to find the post. Comments here.
Fascinating.
I have long taken it for granted that Osama bin Ladin is dead. It makes absolutely no sense for him to keep a low profile. A live Osama shown on video feeds over the internet would be an extremely effective recruitment tool. He would be perceived as giving the middle finger to his enemies; God is on his side. No, the odds are overwhelming that Osama was killed during the Afghanistan invasion. And the MSM would be loudly saying so if a liberal Democrat resided in the White House.
Roger: it must be very gratifying for you to have developed such an interesting group of commenters on your site. John’s observations are some of the most interesting I’ve seen regarding UBL, and his URL. Let us hope UBL is now with his 72 virgins, where he can harm us no more.
Ithink Mr. Kelly is correct and that OBL has been dead for several years. My hope is that soon Zawahiri and Zarqawi will be joining him.
“‘E’s notjehadin’! ‘E’s decomposin’! This Osama is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! ‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in pieces! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im in the cave ‘e’d be pushing up the poppies! ‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the camel! ‘E’s kicked the keffiyeh, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal burkah, run down the tent and joined the bleedin’ virgins invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-MUSLIM!!”
What’s major-league disappointing is that JFK 1.8 is using the “Osama is still alive” fiction to attack Bush, and in passing denigrate the outstanding job our armed forces have performed in Afghanistan.
No shame whatsoever.
Let me respond–albeit not briefly–on some of the points lonewacko brings up in his comment on the original thread regarding who and what is to believed in reporting on Afghanistan. I think these questions are important, even vital to understand what we are missing in the reliance on the MSM for opinions and information.
I admire Dan Pipes and had very pleasant ‘think tank’ email exchanges with him post-9/11, on some particular information I had on the subject of anti-Semitism and Islam via Berlin and Afghanistan. I think he makes, as usual, some important points…but remember, this is an article dated 2001. I’m sure he was fairly correct at that point in time (though a bit overstated, as subsequent events in Afghanistan proved.) My opinions on OBL are more contemporary and are, I believe, more reliable at this time. There aren’t any kids being name Osama, nor are there any pictures of him in any shops or kiosks. No rallies chanting his name. He is, as I pointed out, perceived as both an unwelcome interloper into Afghan affairs and a loser.
But, to touch on your second point, I also understand how the blogosphere works: why would anyone believe a comment on a blog, especially a comment without the ubiquitous link added for authority or authenticity? But the beauty of the net is that a new kind of ‘expert’–the expert amateur–has emerged to challenge the reporting of the gatekeepers of the MSM.
I see myself as one of those ëamateurs,í but unlike the specialists, my own expertise comes less from overseas contacts in the field, reading the literature or plugging the latest news reports into an academic template based on an a priori analysis. My information comes from long standing, first-hand field research; that is, my work in these countries and friendships ‘on the ground’ with everyone from executives in the media to shopkeepers, businessmen, bankers, government officials, American and coalition officers and soldiers, university deans and students, farmers, national parties, embassy employees, US contract workers, mullahs, commanders, foreign journalists, NGOs, cab drivers, bounty hunters, tribal leaders and artists. [That list is based on a quick perusal of those I lived with and spoke to just this past summer.]
I’ve even worked for various governments–four in all, if you count the UN as a ‘government’ (which I do.) I don’t parachute in, like news reporters, for a couple days working the embassy pressers while doing their best to avoid any uncomfortable contact with the people themselves. [Daniel Pearl's unfortunate experience has dampened the enthusiasm of journalists for investigative pieces in dangerous countries.] As a free-lance observer I’m not handicapped in presenting a thesis that might contradict my earlier academic pronouncements or publications. I’m not invested in protecting or rationalizing long held points-of-view. (Though I have published two different books on the subject, one in Iran (!) and one in Germany.)
So if I don’t typically feel the need to provide or ‘do’ links to prove my points, it’s because I consider myself an original link! In truth, most googled or ‘linked’ opinions from ‘professionals’ come from folks with significantly less in-country experience than I have, or worse, from those who rarely travel abroad to the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I think we’re seeing more and more reliable and interesting analyses these days from outside the MSM, from the folks who actually live, work and fight in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. These internet writers and bloggers may lack the credentials or outlets of the MSM, but also aren’t under any obligation to mirror the prejudices and editorial viewpoints of their news organizations. When I watch CNN, Fox or BBC in Kabul, the locals often snicker at the journalists and desk jockeys brought into the studio for expert opinion. They are generally unknown (and unseen) in Afghanistan, just talking heads and parrots. Iíve yet to see on the streets one of the reporters doing a stand-up report from Afghanistanóeven though we live in the same city! They do them from a hotel on the safe outskirts, from a balcony at a ëluxuryí hotel in the suburbsÖthey wouldnít be caught dead (or thatís their fear) in the hurly-burly of our home in Charahi Siddarat and the inner-city.
I always (not often, always) find that the western media is regarded with suspicion by our pro-American allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. For example, when I was given hundreds of pictures (all reliably time-dated with contemporary news headlines in the foreground) of WMDs–Stingers and the like–by former mujahideen, I asked why they hadn’t turned over the pics to journalists. The Afghans replied: “Don’t you watch CNN? I’m not turning over these photos to them. I don’t trust them. I tried working with them before. They’re afraid to leave their hotels; they’ll never go to these caves to confirm the weapons caches. So they’ll never work this story.” This was a great story; these photos were fairly shocking stuff, but yet never made it to the western media outlets.
That encapsulates the problem with getting accurate, interesting and important information out of the ME and Afghanistan. The reporters work ‘safe’ stories, either safely mirroring the editorial position of their news organization, or stories that won’t place them in any possible danger. We the voters who are asked to make decisions on the success and/or importance on the WOT are cheated. Look at Kerry. Heís flogging Bush for failure to kill or capture OBL; he may even win the election on this issue. Any decent and unbiased reporting would reveal the tactics behind the OBL strategyóa rational, thoughtful and political/culturally sensitive strategy protecting and providing cover for the persecution of the WOT in America, Afghanistan and especially Pakistan. The woeful, deficient and biased reporting on the Afghan election seems orchestrated by the MSM to aid Kerry at the expense of presenting the far more pleasant and optimistic truth. This was an historic event, yet the lead of the story was either voter fraud (false) or a single death. That would be like completing invalidating the Red Sox victory because a student was killed in the post-victory melee. I notice the US media found the proper perspective on that event…Afghanistan wasn’t accorded the same journalistic perspective or courtesy.
John©
That encapsulates the problem with getting accurate, interesting and important information out of the ME and Afghanistan.
I agree with you. I love good investigative articles, but these days it’s hard to find good ones that are not biased one way or the other. I know if you were to be able to get your articles published in MSM, I would be reading these.
The other issue is that internet access is still limited for a large number of people here in the US, so they won’t be able to stumble across places like this.
There’s got to be an alternative to the MSM (and to keep them in check), the question is how is it going to look like and whether it will be taken seriously enough by people with power to change things or cause pressure for change.
Mr. McEnroe:
“He’s resting is all.”
Mark Poling
Might that account for the disgusted look on Bush’s face whe the subject came up in the debate?
John (c)
Thank you for sharing your experiences and opinions.
John (c) (or anyone else with an opinion)
If the Administration believes OBL is dead, and has some evidence (direct, indirect, circumstantial, anything), has that been shared with the relevant Congressional committees?
BobT ó If it has, Kerry wouldn’t know it, having blown off 76% of his intelligence committee meetings and, as far as I know, all attempts to brief him during the campaign.
At this point in the game, even if they do know, the Administration admitting it would be a mug’s game. Better in some ways to announce it after the election. If they don’t know, giving how colorfully and often the CIA and State have screwed up lately, claiming it is also a mug’s game, because there’s no way to no AlQ isn’t sitting on one last video or audio tape, whether or not its provenance is established…
BobT ó If it has, Kerry wouldn’t know it, having blown off 76% of his intelligence committee meetings and, as far as I know, all attempts to brief him during the campaign.
At this point in the game, even if they do know, the Administration admitting it would be a mug’s game. Better in some ways to announce it after the election. If they don’t know, giving how colorfully and often the CIA and State have screwed up lately, claiming it is also a mug’s game, because there’s no way to know AlQ isn’t sitting on one last video or audio tape, whether or not its provenance is established…
Very funny Richard (your first post)
To have him pop up after you announced that he was or was probably dead would be a game over gaffe.
ìJohn (c) (or anyone else with an opinion)
If the Administration believes OBL is dead, and has some evidence (direct, indirect, circumstantial, anything), has that been shared with the relevant Congressional committees?î
Your question is somewhat bewildering. What is it that you donít get? We know that Osama is dead or severely physically incapacitated—because of his absence! Itís really that simple. Once again, there is no logical reason Osama to remain silent. He has everything to gain by releasing a video every few months. This would be a tremendous way of recruiting new members to Osamaís terrorist network. Do you perceive any holes in my argument? If so, please point them out. You do, though, have a right to question why the Bush administration fails to make a better case for its actions. The liberal media are admittedly unfair. Still, some of the blame must fall on President Bushís top officials. They too often seem flat footed.
Bob T ó Yes: “He was tired after a prolonged muezzin…”
Maybe the jihadists miss Osama almost as much as the movie Pearl Harbor sucked.
That might explain why Mrs. H. Kerry made the comment about a month or so ago that she wouldn’t be surprised if we find OBL before the election.
John©:
An excellent post, which exemplifies the point at which two views of the blogosphere diverge. The first view, that of the neo-reactionaries, is that it is an information market subject to a digital version of Gresham’s law. They believe that information is like a coinage that must bear the royal seal of the New York Times or CBS, and that bad information circulated freely will proliferate and destroy the value of good information. A different view is that the blogosphere is an information market that is developing its own, very sophisticated, ability to distinguish good from bad information. Posts like yours show that the latter view is accurate. When I read posts like yours on specific topics on which a poster really has unusual knowledge, and then read a copy of the New York Times, I wonder whether journalists now don’t fall into two categories, those who don’t know what is going on and those who aren’t even curious.
Barry Dauphin ó But not as much as Ben Affleck…
Frederick ó One of the blessings of this election is that the people who always suspected the press not only doesn’t know what it’s talking about, but doesn’t even suspect, now have more proof than they know what to do with… the press doesn’t come back from this one without some major changes.
Richard,
When I read John Kelly’s clear, fact filled and precise reporting, the image that comes to mind concerning the MSM is one of the scribes guildhall in Mainz in 1465 – “Boy, that Gutenberg is just an untrained jerk, you know he never even applied for membership in the guild.”
The MSM is incapable of the changes necessary. Something new is coming and todays media is far too focused upon production of increasingly ornate buggywhips to pay much attention to the infernal machine scaring the horses in the street.
David: I’ve made some of these points before, but let me expand and refine a bit:
I do assent to your point [withholding Bin Laden's death announcement] and the risk to Bush, as well as your frustration, but years ago it was a great decision. Even in hindsight it remains a smart choice. The world was outraged, the face of terror was Bin Laden and the will of American military power intimidated even the most ardent Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
With Bin Laden dead in 2001, however, the case was closed and America was expected to retreat from the region. So this decision to allow Bin Laden his life in death was pragmatic and brave, even though it gave critics comfort and ammunition to use in the presidential campaign, the 9/11 Commission, etc.
The destruction of OBL’s cave (we spared nothing in the arsenal and then repeated it redundantly) made DNA recognition difficult, nearly impossible. With nothing bigger than a grain of sand [the description used by eyewitness Al Qaíeda survivors] there’s not much chance for the kind of convincing identification the world would demand. What might be found in terms of blood specks on pebbles was undoubtedly forwarded back to the US to be typed against… what? Or whom? And which bin Laden DNA is it anyway? OBL’s son? Another son? A third family member in the cave with him at the time? Itís an article of faith on the left, Bush is a liar, donít you know?
But we did kill Bin Laden to a degree of probability that any sensible court would accept, though not to absolute, indisputable surety to my knowledge; though I’m sure that the Pentagon knows for certain. The irony is we killed him too well, destroying the gross physical proof as well; the type of evidence the DNC would demand. Imagine three years of OBLís ‘death’ in skeptical scare quotes by Reuters and The Guardian, et al. So what’s the point? Who needed to hear Dr DNA Dean scream for months: “The casket doesnít fit, we must acquit. Bin Laden never died, Bush lied.î
Nonetheless, I’m sure that factions within Pentagon and State wanted to go with the story based on very strong, credible eyewitnesses. Recall, Al Jazeera and most of the Arab states immediately sent reporters after Al Qa’eda assured the news agencies that OBL had in fact been atomized. Their press confirmed it on the scene and subsequently published effusive death noticesóso sure were they that OBL was dead. The administration wisely denied these reports. Fortunately, Musharaf’s (and Karzaiís) position was factored in and the idea of publicizing the death notice of OBL in the west was scotched. This allowed the Afghans and Pakistanis to prosecute forcefully and without fear their own war against Al Qaíeda. Musharaf especially is in tenuous situtation: a life and death struggle against the mutinous Taliban in his own administration, armed forces and ISI, as well as with the Arab sponsored religious/military training centers in his country.
Also, most Pakistanis and Afghans understand the US’ justifiable revenge [the anchor leg of the code of Pustunwali] against OBL. Were OBL certified dead, it would be impossible for Musharaf to make the case for a strong American presence inside Pakistan’s sovereign territory and in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. And you can bet that there are also US covert ops working freely, helping Musharaf within Pakistan as well–a situation that would become highly unpopular after the confirmed death of Bin Laden.
Ironically, most–if not all–journalists I knew in Afghanistan covering the beat after 9/11 believed Bin Laden was dead, and that Bush was an evil genius for keeping him alive. Bush was purposely and cynically hiding the death of Bin Laden in order to remain in Afghanistan without incurring any international philosophical/moral/political opposition. This wasn’t casual talk, this was complex argumentation–err, drunken brawls– every night on the rooftop of the Kabul Mustafa for weeks on end. These were good investigative journalists too, many of them making excursions as imbeddeds and on their own to Jalalabad (Tora Bora) and Kandahar–not exactly safe places right after 9/11. They spent a great deal of time and effort getting independent confirmation that OBL was dead. So they weren’t at all happy that Bush had outsmarted a world they understood to be hostile to his administration. All complained their home editors (bowing to Blair?) refused to print OBLís obitÖotherwise, these journalists would have unleashed their full fury on Bush’s illegitimate war and our illicit occupation of Afghanistan. They understood Bin Laden ‘alive’ permitted free rein to the US throughout the world; a fair trade for Bush. He loses bragging rights but gains far more. Given the phony righteousness and duplicity of the DNC and its MSM supporters, even if they all agreed OBL was indeed dead, they’d invent another bogeyman [Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?] to beat Bush with…so what’s the loss?
John©
John© ó Yes, but Bush’s real evil genius lies in his brilliantly arranging to get his enemy to insist OBL is still alive, so now he doesn’t even have to try to prove it! Diabolical!
ìIronically, most–if not all–journalists I knew in Afghanistan covering the beat after 9/11 believed Bin Laden was dead, and that Bush was an evil genius for keeping him alive. Bush was purposely and cynically hiding the death of Bin Laden in order to remain in Afghanistan without incurring any international philosophical/moral/political opposition.î
Wow, these journalists are incredibly strange. I see absolutely no reason to immediately leave Afghanistan simply because Osama bin Ladin is probably dead. That is similar to arguing that the police should stop hunting down the remaining mobsters merely because an Al Capone or a John Gotti have been removed from the scene. The terrorist swamp must still be cleaned out. It is also sad that the national Democratic Party has opted not to cease pursuing partisan politics at the rivers edge.
“…or a John Gotti have been removed from the scene.”
Should be: “or a John Gotti has been removed from the scene.”
David Thomson
You misunderstand. I agree there’s a high likelihood OBL is out of the picture one way or the other.
My question has to do with far any evidence suggestive of this has been propagated within the USG. More specifically, if Kerry or surrogates are aware of the information and the reasons for not announcing the (presumed) fact.
Oops, that’s “with *how* far any evidence”.
Folks — Off topic for this thread, but the “polls” thread is way down the list now and I want to make sure to bring up something that’s going to get lots of attention in just a day or so.
WitchitaBoy, his brilliant and lovely wife, his son Ben, and I had lunch together today and we talked at some length about the polls, in particularly about the Real Clear Politics poll average.
For various technical reasons that I won’t bother to explain because (a) you’d all fall asleep, (b) it would require math coding that I don’t want to mess with, and (c) I haven’t done the proofs, I think we concluded that the running average thing is a mathematically suspect way to track those polls, and that a more reasonable inference of the real poll number would be with Bush between 3.5 and 5 percent ahead. (And I want to reiterate my prediction of 55±2 percent Bush and > 300 electoral votes.)
More to the point, however, I just relalized that there is an artifact of the RCP method coming up that will look real depressing: there’s an outlier high value (+7 percent) for Bush that’s about to fall off the bottom of the window on which they calculate their average.
When this happens, Bush’s average will drop precipitously. If we assume, for example, that the 7 percent falls out of the window with no other poll being added. Bush’s average will go from the current 2.7 percent margin (it’s really an average of 2.75 percent, but RCP is apparently rounding down) to 2.1 percent on the average. If the next poll is a tie, Bush’s margin in the average will drop to 1.8 percent.
This change is not significant: it’s just an artifact of the way RCP does their average.
But I bet it’ll get a lot of press coverage, what do you think?
(By the way, what probably makes more sense is to throw out the high and low outliers; if we do that, the margin is Bush by 3 percent.)
Yes, UBL is dead. But unfortunately for him, there is no sex in heaven, no 72 virgins, but perhaps 72 Virginians.
There is only one remaining problem, John Kerry says that “Bush Allowed Bin Laden to Escape“.
Ironically, Andrew Sullivan has jumped on the Bush didn’t get UBL bandwagon. He cites Josh Marshall as having an unimpeachable argument as to the fact that Bush (through Franks, BTW, a fact never mentioned) screwed up. Marshall article is a classic case of Monday morning QB. It quotes the Washington Post to say:
“After-action reviews, conducted privately inside and outside the military chain of command, describe the episode as a significant defeat for the United States. A common view among those interviewed outside the U.S. Central Command is that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the war’s operational commander, misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda’s leader. Without professing second thoughts about Tora Bora, Franks has changed his approach fundamentally in subsequent battles, using Americans on the ground as first-line combat units.
In the fight for Tora Bora, corrupt local militias did not live up to promises to seal off the mountain redoubt, and some colluded in the escape of fleeing al Qaeda fighters. Franks did not perceive the setbacks soon enough, some officials said, because he ran the war from Tampa with no commander on the scene above the rank of lieutenant colonel. The first Americans did not arrive until three days into the fighting. “No one had the big picture,” one defense official said.
The real key is “without professing second thoughts, Franks has changed…”. What this tells me is Franks ran a very unorthodox campaign and much of it had to be learned on the fly. Franks learned and adjusted. The real question is how long would UBL have stayed in Tora Bora in the face of a slow build up of American forces. What were the real options at the time? A good comparision might be how we got Yamomoto during WWI. We had some info and took a quick shot at it. Any build up or attempt to overwhelm the area would have lead to Yamomoto escaping.
HOWEVER
Given Andrew’s recent shift to total partisan behaviour, this makes me suspect that, not only is UBL dust, but Kerry knows that that is the current intellegnce assessment. It also means that Kerry can continue to make the charges without any risk of us getting UBL in the next week. As John? has pointed out Bush will let UBL go the route of Nana Sahib, the architect of the Cawnpore massacre. Then, the important issue was to quell the mutiny, not kill Nana Sahib. Now the important issue is to reform the middle east, not kill UBL.
It is ironic, Bush wants UBL alive for his second term. If Kerry wins, he would immediately discover UBL was dead so he could shut down the WOT. Bush has actually been too successful.
Charlie (C),
Jay over at The Horeserace Blog is looking at the RCP 3-way and the state races in a manner that you may find interesting. I agree with you about the impact of the 7 pointer falling out. I would also note that the AP/Ipsos poll has been debunked for its sampling methodology in several places. The MSM really needs a “momentum” story for Kerry next week. I wonder which polling company will provide one?
Jay will also be providing an analysis of FL registration data very soon.
BobT:
Of course. My impression is that Kerry and Bush are playing two different games. Kerry is playing “Win the Presidency”. Bush is playing “Protect the Nation”.
I’m voting for the man playing the better game.
Charlie(C)
I think we concluded that the running average thing is a mathematically suspect way to track those polls
I think mathematics is the least of it. These folks are trying to predict the future. Straight sampling doesn’t seem to work, so they toss in eye of newt and various other exotic tricks and incantations. We will see who had the best guess come November. Statistics is more an art than a science in any case: the mathematics is not difficult, it is the modeling and interpretation that is tricky.
As to RCP and their averaging, anyone who has been involved in meta-analysis will recognize that one of its chief virtues is to point out poorly done investigations. There is simply no substitute for good data and sound methodology. Averages, arguably the least sophisticated form of meta-analysis, aren’t going to help much if there is no sound criteria with which to weight the polls. I can’t find where RCP discusses their own methodology, so I can’t say much more than that.
I prefer to look at the electronic political markets like the Iowa Market or tradesports. People are wagering real money, so you are seeing their best guesses. These markets are usually better than polls in predicting outcomes, although they can be gamed (Soros could manipulate them the way he does currency prices).
ìMore specifically, if Kerry or surrogates are aware of the information and the reasons for not announcing the (presumed) fact.î
Iím sure that John Kerryís more rational surrogates believe that Osama bin Ladin is no longer among the living. Unfortunately, they are willing to minimally keep their mouths shut to help him win the election. Even making disingenuous remarks is not beneath them. But I still donít comprehend why President Bush might think it necessary to hide this probable event. Did we immediately leave post WWII Germany after it became clear that Adolph Hitler was dead? Of course not. We still had to eradicate the last vestiges of Nazism. The same holds true for the nihilistic Islamic ideology in Afghanistan.
Here’s the thing I don’t get. If Osama really has been proven dead by the government, how on earth would they keep that secret? Don’t get me wrong. I think he’s probably dead as well, but knowing the leaking ship commonly referred to as the US government, I can’t believe this could be kept secret.
I think the reason we get bad polls like Ipsos is to bring down the averages, that way the Dems have hope. Does not changed the fact that Kerry is not ahead in any consistent poll that anyone takes seriously.
But what happens is what happens and come Nov 2 we will know. At least I hope we do.
And as for Andrew Sullivan why doesn’t he just pack up and go over to Afhganistan and do a little first hand reporting if he thinks he is such a hot shot on the subject? Christ, people like Kerry had a decade to get this son of a bitch and could not bother to show up to work and now some snarky little dick like Sully thinks he is an expert.
disgusting.
ìI think he’s probably dead as well, but knowing the leaking ship commonly referred to as the US government, I can’t believe this could be kept secret.î
Alas, that is because we will never likely find the body. It probably was destroyed. There may not even be an DNA evidence left. In other words, the mystery may never be completely solved. But we are still able to employ our common sense. It would be foolish for Osama bin Ladin to remain silent. His marketing value would be greatly increased by making occasional video appearances. Try imagining the impact of Osama holding up a newspaper dated a week ago.
ìI think the reason we get bad polls like Ipsos is to bring down the averages, that way the Dems have hope.î
During normal times, it is absurd for pollsters to delude themselves about their results. They ultimately earn money only for being accurate. Being wrong hinders oneís marketing ability to prospect for new customers. Sadly, though, we do not live in normal times. The anti-Bush hysteria has reached the point that I strongly suspect that a number of liberal pollsters are going crazy.
Someone (and I forget who) recently suggested that a number of these professional pollsters who support John Kerry may be premising their results on the huge sign up of newly registered Democratic voters. If so, there a serious flaw in this line of reasoning. The reality is that a good size number of these recently registered citizens—may not bother to show up on election day! Only those who passionately adore their candidate will almost certainly vote. The more indifferent often find some excuse not to take the time. How many Democrat inclined voters consider Kerry to be their secular savior? My guess is that the figure hovers around a mere 40%.
David Thomson,
Like you, I don’t give much credit to voter registration drives – I don’t believe they will add particularly meaningful numbers to actual turnout.
People who couldn’t be bothered to register to vote until a volunteer got in their face while they were shopping aren’t likely to do anything different than they’ve always done which is, of course, fail to vote. They have always been, and remain, typically unaware of the location of their polling place, will find some inconvenience that prevents them from getting there, will see a line and vow to return later rather than wait, etc. Many of the legions of college kids signed up failed to submit their absentee application or will fail to send off the actual ballot.
The only places where GOTV movements will have any impact is precisely where their impact is most diluted – the deepest Blue sections of the Bluest states. They may help pull the popular vote in the desired direction to a small degree, but they won’t effect the EC in any real way. All JMO, of course.
Rick, thanks for the pointer; it’s open in another tab at this moment but I haven’t read it yet.
John, I agree with you about the amrkets, and — now that I’ve seen some comparisons of the different market’s rules, I agree the IEM is probably best of the bunch. My point was that the RCP is getting a lot of attention now, methodological problems or no. (And, to be fair to RCP, at least they’re making some attempt, even though flawed, to make a better inference than the usual MSM one.)
Chuck, the notion I’ve been exploring — I’m more than a bit of a Bayesian — is that we could better look at this as samples of a normal distribution where the prior probability is normal with the mean being exactly 50/50 Bush/Kerry, and with a very narrow variance (because we’re actually predicting a fixed number), and then apply each poll’s mean and variance to improve the posterior distribution. Just noodling around, it looks like the result is, as I said, something between 3.5 and 5 percent in Bush’s favor.
Here’s the thing I don’t get. If Osama really has been proven dead by the government, how on earth would they keep that secret? Don’t get me wrong. I think he’s probably dead as well, but knowing the leaking ship commonly referred to as the US government, I can’t believe this could be kept secret.
Lindenen, I think the thing is that UBL hasn’t been proven dead. If, as I think John© is suggesting, UBL is a monomolecular film of oxidizing lipids on some newish rubble, it’d be very difficult to prove him dead.
But the longer we go without seeing pictures of UBL holding a recent copy of the LA Times, the more we have to think he’s probably dead.
Charlie(C)
Chuck, the notion I’ve been exploring — I’m more than a bit of a Bayesian — is that we could better look at this as samples of a normal distribution where the prior probability is normal with the mean being exactly 50/50 Bush/Kerry, and with a very narrow variance (because we’re actually predicting a fixed number), and then apply each poll’s mean and variance to improve the posterior distribution.
That would be a Kalman filter, no? There is the question of initializing the filter, in this case the variance of the initial 50/50 split. The other problem is modeling the dynamics for the time update. For that I would probably let the percentages remain constant and throw in some process noise to allow drift; in practice that would act a like a moving average.
Yeah, I like the Bayesian approach when the uncertainties involve lack of knowledge on the part of the observer. For physics I prefer the classical interpretation: entropy is a property of the object, not the observer. Jaynes got himself into all sorts of trouble pushing the latter point of view.
Elvis has been spotted more often than Osama over the past two years.
Osama, he dead.
A bit late to the thread–alas. It does seem to me that the idea of keeping UBL “alive” is a great idea–were he alive, and the Taliban as well, it suggests they had NO ability to affect the results of the Afghan election–I can’t believe the Arab “street” didnt notice this. UBL has been neutralized and probably destroyed. The significance of the Afghan election cannot be overstated,, IMHO. The election rendered the forces of Islamofascism in Afghanistan impotent.