What the Polls Are Saying

Was thinking a little today about the preponderance of polls that tend to dominate the reporting about the ongoing presidential race. It’s almost claustrophobic, with the only thing seeming to cut through the constant stream numbers being the next outrageous thing a candidate (usually the current GOP frontrunner) says or does.

In fact, after that outrageous thing gets spun through the usual news cycle a few dozen times, the focus immediately returns to those numbers again and how they may or may not have changed as a result. Then come the primaries and caucuses, with even the reporting of actual voting results being prefaced by unending references to exit polls and still more polls appended afterwards.

Of course, there’s the unthinking reporting of poll numbers (which we most often see), then there are more careful examinations of what those numbers actually mean. Like has happened with the rise of “analytics” in sports -- and poker -- some of the analyses of polls have become increasingly sophisticated, occasionally resulting in uncannily accurate predictions of how the voting will go (although surprises still do happen).

I’ll admit I find myself checking in over at FiveThirtyEight frequently, especially on those evenings when there are primaries or caucuses, just to see how Nate Silver et al. are further crunching the numbers as they arrive. FiveThirtyEight helps us judge particular polls’ credence as well as how to sort through all of the data in a way that helps show its actual relevance.

That said, the constant focus on polls tends to eclipse actual discussion of candidates and their various positions and substantive issues, operating like a kind of virtual (and ongoing) scoreboard alongside the delegate tallies. To borrow Global Poker Index CEO Alex Dreyfus’s favorite word, it works to “sportify” the presidential race, or at least making it even more like a sporting event than has been the case in past decades.

Polls become a shorthand for both reporters and voters, fitting easily within 140 characters or as a colorful, eye-catching graph and standing for more involved consideration, and becoming something to cheer or fret over. You know, now that football season is over.

Photo: Voter polling questionnaire on display at the Smithsonian Institution, CC BY-SA 3.0.

Campaign Strategy and Button Mashing

Tonight comes another of the Republican presidential candidates’ debates, the seventh one so far. This one is in Des Moines, with the Iowa caucuses -- the first votes of the major parties’ primary season -- just a few days away on February 1.

The GOP debate would’ve been in the news this week, anyway, but is getting some extra attention thanks to current frontrunner Donald Trump’s announcement earlier this week he wouldn’t be participating due to his ongoing feuding with the host network, FoxNews.

The decision by Trump not to debate has inspired some discussion of campaign strategy, with pundits sharing all sorts of ideas regarding whether his non-participation will amount to a positive or a negative for Trump both in Iowa and going forward.

I find these discussions interesting to follow mostly because of how much time I’ve spent reading about and studying Richard Nixon’s various campaigns from the first 1946 Congressional campaign all of the way through his last 1972 run for reelection.

The “game” (as it were) has changed markedly, of course, with all of the old strategies mostly being inapplicable to today’s political landscape. That said, there are still analogues here and there, including the role of debates and whether they are good or bad for particular candidates.

Nixon, of course, famously welcomed the opportunity to debate John F. Kennedy in 1960, having experienced much success doing so versus various (less savvy) opponents in earlier campaigns. Then later in both 1968 and 1972, Nixon chose against participating in debates with Democratic candidates versus whom he was ahead in the polls, with most seeing those decisions as correctly made as far as risk-versus-reward was concerned.

As if to inspire such comparisons even further, at this very moment I’m seeing Evan Thomas, author of the recent Being Nixon: A Man Divided, popping up on FoxNews being asked what he thinks Nixon would think about Trump not debating. (Thomas unsurprisingly says he thinks Nixon would approve.)

Regarding Trump’s “strategy” (or lack thereof) as it relates to his decision not to attend the Iowa debate, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight tweeted a comment a couple of days ago that perhaps betrayed his own online poker-playing background:

“Still not sure if Trump is the most brilliant political tactician of his era or just a guy randomly mashing buttons,” opined Silver.

The comment evokes the idea of an amateurish or untutored poker player making what seem “random” decisions that don’t add up to a coherent understanding, contrasting that with a knowledgeable player (or “tactician”) whose unorthodox moves you’d have to trust as being part of a larger, complex design.

“Button-masher” perhaps seems to fit Trump (here involved deeply in his first serious political campaign) more readily than does “brilliant political tactician,” but I think like all of the candidates he probably falls somewhere in between these two extremes.

As did presidential candidates in earlier decades, too, for that matter.

Images: “Press this button,” Howard Lake (adapted). CC BY-SA 2.0 (top); @NateSilver538 (bottom).

On Predictive Reviews; or, “It Probably Sucks”

Earlier tonight Vera and I decided on dinner and a movie. Was kind of spur of the moment, with no particular idea in mind when starting out for either half of the date.

For dinner we ended up at a burrito place down the road a bit that we like but hadn’t visited lately. For the movie we traveled over to a small theater located just around the corner from the restaurant, and of the available offerings decided The Intern starring Robert DeNiro and Anne Hathaway appeared the most inviting of the choices.

Apparently others were thinking similiarly, as the showing was sold out. We drove a few miles up the road to another, larger theater where we discovered another showing was also sold out, but another one a half-hour later was not. We bought tickets for that one, spent time at a nearby Barnes & Noble looking at magazines, books, and vinyl records (I was surprised to see), then got back over in time for the movie.

I’m not going to provide a review here other than to say it was an enjoyable couple of hours, with both DeNiro and Hathaway giving solid performances (as usual).

For DeNiro such roles are obviously a million miles away from his finest work. I had to chuckle a little at one kind of silly sequence when he was looking at himself in the mirror and testing out lines he’d deliver in a later meeting with Hathaway’s character, thinking back to the severe contrast of Travis Bickle threateningly asking himself “You talkin’ to me?” in another mirror long ago. Meanwhile Hathaway is more obviously portraying a character that evokes an earlier one, here playing the boss rather than the personal assistant as she did in The Devil Wears Prada.

One observation I’ll share about the film has to do with the music, which I realized about halfway through was kind of relentlessly designed to keep the mood as light as possible at all times. Every transition and most empty auditory spaces within scenes were filled non-invasive snatches of “easy listening” that helped lessen any sort of apprehension about what was coming next. It was the exact opposite of, say, better horror soundtracks (of which I’m a great fan) that produce the opposite effect of making it impossible to relax.

In any case, the main point I wanted to make about The Intern in this non-review has to do with how when it comes to movies so many are so quick to fire off reviews without having seen the film at all, usually forming those judgments on either the trailer (or a 30-second TV spot), what the “Rotten Tomatoes” site is saying, or both.

For example, there is a new piece on FiveThirtyEight currently discussing “The Three Types of Anne Hathaway Movies.” The article begins with a one-sentence summary of the The Intern’s premise (DeNiro portrays an elderly intern working for the younger Hathaway) followed by the flat judgment “That’s the extent of the joke.” A total, unambiguous dismissal.

Then comes the next sentence: “And judging by the trailer, the movie doesn’t get any more sophisticated than that.”

That’s right. The author, Walt Hickey, hasn’t even seen the film he’s just dismissed. (From there he goes straight to Rotten Tomatoes, natch, for supporting data.) It’s like deciding a hand isn’t worth playing before you even get a look at your hole cards.

The article goes on to share another one of those catalogues of subgenres 538 likes to create, then analyzes each category according to box office and, of course, Rotten Tomatoes ratings (which somewhere along the way has become an unquestioned quantitative measure of cinematic value). The conclusion then suggests Hathaway’s track record “means ‘The Intern’ may suck (and it probably sucks, barring a brilliant twist or a terrifically inaccurate trailer).”

I guess that’s the point of the 538 site which tries to use data to predict outcomes of all kinds -- politics, sports, entertainment, business, and so on. So maybe it isn’t entirely fair to complain about someone on the site providing a kind of “predictive review” of a film before actually seeing it.

I’ll agree the trailer for The Intern didn’t exactly enthuse me much when I saw it a couple of weeks back. Nor did it suggest the film was going to be anywhere near as brilliant and moving as Interstellar (the last film with Hathaway I’ve seen). Now that I have actually seen the move, I’m not going to defend it too vigorously as an especially remarkable achievement in film, although as I said it was entertaining and even somewhat thought-provoking despite its efforts to avoid challenging the audience too aggressively.

But think about it. How often does “it probably sucks” essentially stand in for reviews by those who actually watched a film? Or really listened to an album? Or carefully read an article on which they’re commenting (something I’m remembering coming up here before)?

I guess in a way the film itself is trying to explore that common phenomenon of preconceived ideas -- in this case about age and about working women -- overwhelming our ability to exert fair, unblinkered, informed judgments.

How well or deeply does it explore this phenomenon? That’s something you can judge a lot better if you see it.