1) Somehow, the SC GOP has gotten a lot of pundits to believe that the choice of SC voters is what determines the nominee of the GOP.
Related myths of political significance are
2) No one has won the first two contests (and until last week when the IA win result was changed, Romney was believd to be the first)
3) There has never been a different winner in the first three contests (which presumes that SC is always in the first three contests)
Myth 3)
2012 is the first year that SC was in the first three contests. In 2008, besides IA and NH, the Michigan primary and the Wyoming caucus preceded them. Huckabee, Romney and McCain won the first three events.
In 2000, the Delaware primary and Alaska caucus also preceded SC. In 1996 the first three events were the Alaska, Louisiana and Iowa caucuses and Buchanan's win in Louisiana was a major factor to his performance in Iowa.
In 1988, Bush, Robertson and Dole won the first three events with Roberton's Hawaii caucus win being a major factor in his performance in the 4th event (the Iowa caucus).
Myth 1 and 3)
In 1996, it was the NINTH contest of the year.
In 1988, it was the THIRTEENTH contest of the year.
After 8 or 12 contests, the winner of the nomination is clear. Whatever SC has to say about it is irrelevant.
In 1980 it was the 5th primary of the year (6th election including caucuses). Even then, it would be 2 months before the eventual nominee stopped losing primary/caucuses.
Prior to 1980 they had no vote (caucus or primary) so it had zero relevance.
No event had relevance in 1984 or 2004 when incumbent presidents were reelected president. Possibly in 1992 it was of minor significance though Bush Sr's competition was effectively over after the New Hampshire primary.
Myth 2)
In 2000 Bush won both the Alaska and subsequent Iowa caucuses (NH was the 3rd election that year). In 1996, Alaska was joined by Louisiana as pre-Iowa caucuses, and both were won by Buchanan.
In 1980, Bush sr won the first two contests, the Iowa Caucus followd by another primary that was NOT New Hampshire. It was Puerto Rico.
In 1968, Nixon one the first two contests (Wisconsin being the 2nd primary after New Hampshire). Iowa did not begin its caucuses until 1972.
Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
SC GOP Voter Demographics
UPDATE: Actual Vote % and Exit Poll % added
It seems that very few polls actually try to reach more than one (if any) demographic targets within their surveys. Monmouth is a notable exception. Unfortunately their latest poll was a week ago, before two debates, one candidate withdrawl, one candidate reentry (Cain/Colbert), a potential scandal or two, etc.. Given the number of news events just before the election and the questionable demographics of their pollees, I suspect many pollsters will be lucky if they come close to the actual vote percentage.
The 2012 SC GOP Primary (which is an OPEN primary in which Democrats or Independents can vote) should be a cross between the 1996 election where there was no Democratic primary as President Clinton ran unopposed and the 2008 SC GOP primary election where the competition was very close (however the record Democratic primary turnout drew away voters from the GOP primary). The SC population is getting older, and the GOP primary voters are getting more conservative. One counter trend is that Ron Paul is running a competitive campaign this time vs. '08 so his dedicated following dominated by younger voters (and the 50ish age group) and independent voters will somewhat offset other prevailing demographic trends. The 2000 election is another kind of anomaly in that the Democratic election was essentially unopposed and one popular candidate was very popular with independents (McCain) while the other candidate was also popular (Bush). So turnout was VERY high for the 2000 GOP primary.
When looking at polls before the election, it can be VERY important to look at the demographics of the people being polled. Many polls do not provide much information.
As a general rule, the less detail you see, or the more minimal the methods you see described to explain how one could reproduce the same result, the more likely there are to be errors in the results. In the case of this blog entry, I have omitted steps, but I will be continually revising this, to add more details, as time permits.
Many polls reported detailed demographics ONLY in the form of crosstabs so that you never see a simple statistic saying how many people over the age 65 were polled or how many people who do not consider themselves Republican were polled.
Methodoligical note: When only crosstabs are provided, I was able to estimate the range of possible values by solving many simultaneous algebraic equations and taking into account that a % without a decimal point (say 25% actually represents a number between 24.5% and 25.4999999...%) and trying both values to determine the maximum and minimum ranges of the final result. I then reduced the range, by using the maximum of ALL minimum values from each permutation of simultaneous equations. Likewise, I used the minimum of all maximum values. Perhaps if I had solved EVERY combination of simultaneous equations I could have narrowed the range a little more, but the range in most cases is reasonably narrow. Probably the midpoint is very close to the true value, but I offer no math at this point to support this notion.
The numbers for each year are either from exit polls, census data, or GOP election results. 2012 data is my best guess based on trends and my comparisons of the different mix of candidates each election.
* Before weighting due to voting history and other demographics (likely age, sex, race and perhaps party id)
It seems that very few polls actually try to reach more than one (if any) demographic targets within their surveys. Monmouth is a notable exception. Unfortunately their latest poll was a week ago, before two debates, one candidate withdrawl, one candidate reentry (Cain/Colbert), a potential scandal or two, etc.. Given the number of news events just before the election and the questionable demographics of their pollees, I suspect many pollsters will be lucky if they come close to the actual vote percentage.
The 2012 SC GOP Primary (which is an OPEN primary in which Democrats or Independents can vote) should be a cross between the 1996 election where there was no Democratic primary as President Clinton ran unopposed and the 2008 SC GOP primary election where the competition was very close (however the record Democratic primary turnout drew away voters from the GOP primary). The SC population is getting older, and the GOP primary voters are getting more conservative. One counter trend is that Ron Paul is running a competitive campaign this time vs. '08 so his dedicated following dominated by younger voters (and the 50ish age group) and independent voters will somewhat offset other prevailing demographic trends. The 2000 election is another kind of anomaly in that the Democratic election was essentially unopposed and one popular candidate was very popular with independents (McCain) while the other candidate was also popular (Bush). So turnout was VERY high for the 2000 GOP primary.
When looking at polls before the election, it can be VERY important to look at the demographics of the people being polled. Many polls do not provide much information.
As a general rule, the less detail you see, or the more minimal the methods you see described to explain how one could reproduce the same result, the more likely there are to be errors in the results. In the case of this blog entry, I have omitted steps, but I will be continually revising this, to add more details, as time permits.
Many polls reported detailed demographics ONLY in the form of crosstabs so that you never see a simple statistic saying how many people over the age 65 were polled or how many people who do not consider themselves Republican were polled.
Methodoligical note: When only crosstabs are provided, I was able to estimate the range of possible values by solving many simultaneous algebraic equations and taking into account that a % without a decimal point (say 25% actually represents a number between 24.5% and 25.4999999...%) and trying both values to determine the maximum and minimum ranges of the final result. I then reduced the range, by using the maximum of ALL minimum values from each permutation of simultaneous equations. Likewise, I used the minimum of all maximum values. Perhaps if I had solved EVERY combination of simultaneous equations I could have narrowed the range a little more, but the range in most cases is reasonably narrow. Probably the midpoint is very close to the true value, but I offer no math at this point to support this notion.
The numbers for each year are either from exit polls, census data, or GOP election results. 2012 data is my best guess based on trends and my comparisons of the different mix of candidates each election.
| Category | Politico/GWU | Clemson | You Gov | 2012 Actual | 2012 Estimate | 2008 | 2000 | 1996 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll: Days Before Election | 3-4 | 2-3 | 1-3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Percent Undecided | 8% | 20% | 2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Percent May Change Choice | 5-34% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Decided Day of Election | 17% | 19% | 18% | 9% | 17% | |||
| Decided Day Before or 2 Days Before Election | 38% | 17% | 16% | 10% | 14% | |||
| Decided within Last Week | 50% | 47% | 38% | 55% | ||||
| Decided in January | 76% | 75% | 73% | |||||
| Decided prior year | 24% | 25% | 27% | |||||
| Voters or Polled | 600 | 429 | 759 | 601,166 | 480,000 | 445,499 | 565,704 | 278,183 |
| Voters/Adult Pop Voters | 16.5% | 13.1% | 13.0% | 18.8% | 11.1% | |||
| GOP Primary Winner/% | Romney 37% | Gingrich 32% | Gingrich 33% | Gingrich 40% | ?? 30% | McCain 33% | Bush 53% | Dole 45% |
| GOP 2nd Place/% | Romney 30% | Romney 26% | Romney 29% | Romney 28% | ?? 27% | Huckabee 30% | McCain 41% | Buchanan 29% |
| Dem Primary Winner/% or GOP 3rd Place | Paul 11% | Paul 11% | Paul 18% | Unopposed | Obama 55% | Gore 92% | Unopposed | |
| Dem 2nd Place/% or GOP 4th Place | Santorum 10% | Santorum 9% | Santorum 16% | No One | Clinton 27% Edwards 18% | Bradley 2% | No One | |
| GOP % | 71% | 71% | 65% | 78% | 61% | 69% | ||
| Indy % | 27% | 25% | 28% | 18% | 30% | 26% | ||
| Dem % | 2% | 4% | 7% | 5% | 9% | 5% | ||
| Very Conservative % | 45% | 36% | 40% | 34% | 24% | 25% | ||
| Somewhat Conservative % | 44% | 32% | 28% | 34% | 37% | 41% | ||
| Moderate or Liberal% | 11% | 32% | 32% | 31% | 40% | 33% | ||
| Moderate % | 23% | 22% | 24% | 29% | 25% | |||
| Somewhat Liberal % | 7% | 7% | 5% | 8% | 6% | |||
| Very Liberal % | 3% | 2% | 2% | 3% | 2% | |||
| Male (census data) | 51% | 49% | 53% | 51% | 52% (48%) | 51% (48%) | 50% (48%) | 53% |
| Age 65+ (census data) | 50% | 29% | 27% | 26% (18%) | ?? (17%) | 25% (16%) | 23% (16%) | |
| Age 60+ (census data) | 64% | 36% (26%) | 35% (25%) | 35% (22%) | 32% (23%) | |||
| Age 45-64 (census data) | 40% | 46% | 45% | 43% (35%) | ??% (35%) | 40% (31%) | 37% (28%) | |
| Age 45-59 (census data) | 27% | 33% (27%) | 32% (27%) | 30% (25%) | 28% (21%) | |||
| Age 30-44 (census data) | 8% | 16% | 19% | 20% (25%) | 23% (26%) | 25% (30%) | 31% (32%) | |
| Age 18-29 (census data) | 1% | 9% | 9% | 11% (22%) | 10% (22%) | 10% (23%) | 8% (24%) |
| Category | 20/20 Insight | Monmouth | ARG | NBC/Marist | PPP | 2012 Actual | 2012 Estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll: Days Before Election | 4-6 | 6-9 | 1-2 | 4-5 | 1-3 | 0 | 0 |
| Percent Undecided | 4% | 7% | 2% | 8% | 5% | 0 | 0 |
| Percent May Change Choice | 16-45% | 22% | 0 | 0 | |||
| Decided Day of Election | 17% | 19% | |||||
| Decided Day Before or 2 Days Before Election | 38% | 17% | |||||
| Decided within Last Week | 50% | ||||||
| Decided in January | 76% | 75% | |||||
| Decided prior year | 24% | 25% | |||||
| Voters or Polled | 512 | 963 | 600 | 684 | 1540 | 601,166 | 480,000 |
| Voters/Adult Pop Voters | 16.5% | 13.1% | |||||
| GOP Primary Winner/% | Romney 34% | Romney 33% | Gingrich 40% | Romney 34% | Gingrich 37% | Gingrich 40% | ?? 30% |
| GOP 2nd Place/% | Gingrich 23% | Gingrich 22% | Romney 26% | Gingrich 24% | Romney 28% | Romney 28% | ?? 27% |
| GOP 3rd Place | Santorum 15% | Santorum 14% | Paul 18% | Paul 11% | Santorum 16% | Santorum 17% | Paul 20% |
| GOP 4th Place | Paul 11% | Paul 12% | Santorum 13% | Santorum 14% | Paul 14% | Paul 13% | Santorum 10% |
| GOP % | 69% | 76% | 62.5-68.7% | 75% | 71% | 65% | |
| Indy % | 30% | 24% | 31.3-37.5% | 21% | 25% | 28% | |
| Dem % | 1% | 4% | 4% | 7% | |||
| Very Conservative % | 41%* | 10.5-32.9% | 41% | 36% | 40% | ||
| Somewhat Conservative % | 38%* | 31.7-72.9% | 35% | 32% | 28% | ||
| Moderate or Liberal% | 21%* | 17.7-35.4% | 25% | 23% | 32% | ||
| Moderate % | 23% | 22% | |||||
| Somewhat Liberal % | 7% | 7% | |||||
| Very Liberal % | 2% | 3% | |||||
| Male (census data) | 52% | 52% | 40-50% | 53% | 51% | 52% (48%) | |
| Age 66+ (census data) | 32% | 25% (17%) | |||||
| Age 65+ (census data) | 26% | 27% | 26% (18%) | ||||
| Age 45-64 (census data) | 41% | 45% | 43% (35%) | ||||
| Age 46-65 (census data) | 38% | 44% (35%) | |||||
| Age 45+ (census data) | 67% | 72.7-77.8% | 69% (53%) | ||||
| Age 18-44 (census data) | 33% | 22.2-27.3% | 31% (47%) | ||||
| Age 30-45 (census data) | 22% | 21% (26%) | |||||
| Age 30-44 (census data) | 19% | 20% (25%) | |||||
| Age 18-29 (census data) | 8% | 9% | 11% (22%) |
| Category | We Ask America | Insider Advantage | Ipsos/Reuter | CNN/Time | 2012 Actual | 2012 Estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll: Days Before Election | 2 | 3 | 8-11 | 4-8 | 0 | 0 |
| Percent Undecided | 14% | 2% | 10% | 8% | 0 | 0 |
| Percent May Change Choice | 43% | 0 | 0 | |||
| Decided Day of Election | 17% | 19% | ||||
| Decided Day Before or 2 Days Before Election | 38% | 17% | ||||
| Decided within Last Week | 50% | |||||
| Decided in January | 76% | 75% | ||||
| Decided prior year | 24% | 25% | ||||
| Voters or Polled | 988 | 718 | 398 | 505 | 601,166 | 480,000 |
| Voters/Adult Pop Voters | 16.5% | 13.1% | ||||
| GOP Primary Winner/% | Gingrich 32% | Gingrich 32% | Romney 37% | Romney 33% | Gingrich 40% | ?? 30% |
| GOP 2nd Place/% | Romney 28% | Romney 29% | Paul 16% | Gingrich 23% | Romney 28% | ?? 27% |
| GOP 3rd Place | Paul 14% | Paul 15% | Santorum 16% | Santorum 16% | Santorum 17% | Paul 20% |
| GOP 4th Place | Santorum 9% | Santorum 11% | Gingrich 12% | Paul 13% | Paul 13% | Santorum 10% |
| GOP % | 100% | 63-83% | 71% | 65% | ||
| Indy % | 17-37% | 25% | 28% | |||
| Dem % | 4% | 7% | ||||
| Very Conservative % | 36% | 40% | ||||
| Somewhat Conservative % | 32% | 28% | ||||
| Moderate or Liberal% | 32% | 32% | ||||
| Moderate % | 23% | 22% | ||||
| Somewhat Liberal % | 7% | 7% | ||||
| Very Liberal % | 2% | 3% | ||||
| Male (census data) | 51% | 52% (48%) | ||||
| Age 65+ (census data) | 27% | 26% (18%) | ||||
| Age 45-64 (census data) | 45% | 43% (35%) | ||||
| Age 30-44 (census data) | 19% | 20% (25%) | ||||
| Age 18-29 (census data) | 9% | 11% (22%) |
IPSOS claims to have weighted results to "South Carolina current population registered voter data by gender, age, education, ethnicity and an eight item political values scale".
Time/CNN claims to have weighted to "reflect statewide Census figures for gender, race, age, education and region of the state." Since older people are much less likely to vote, and virtually no non-whites vote in the GOP primary, it is unclear how much this is a distortion of the actual voting population for this primary.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out
This is not my usual tone for this blog, but I grow weary of bad polls and bad explanations of the GOP race.
From Wikipedia:
Garbage in garbage out "was coined as a teaching mantra by George Fuechsel,[1] an IBM 305 RAMAC technician/instructor in New York. Early programmers were required to test virtually each program step and cautioned not to expect that the resulting program would 'do the right thing' when given imperfect input. The underlying principle was noted by the inventor of the first programmable computing device design:
On two occasions I have been asked,—'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
In my years of working with health insurance data, we spent far more time cleaning up garbage data, redefining vague information into something more useful and coming up with models that rationally explain how healthcare services were used before we got to using much more than basic arithmetic. Rarely were T tests, R squared values or more sophisticated statistics used like actuaries or less successful competitors did. You can't put lipstick on a pig.
As I look at the internals of various primary polls for Iowa, New Hampshire and now South Carolina, I am struck by the number of times a poll with seriously flawed input data is touted by the media and used to build a false narrative. The worst case has to be the late December CNN Iowa poll, which surveyed ZERO voters who weren't registered Republicans, despite the undisputed significant voting by non-Republicans in Iowa GOP caucuses. The right % should have been 25%, the same % was demonstrated during the last non-competitive Iowa Democratic caucus (1996) - the same number that would be validated in the 2012 exit polls. Since the media either was ignorant of it, or gave so little warning, and there were no other polls for two days, the 24 hour media trumpted a nonexistent surge by Santorum due to this seriously flawed poll. So today, I read an article about how the evangelical leaders have coalesced around supporting Santorum... someone who would have likely stayed in 6th or maybe reached 5th place in Iowa and then returned home if not for a single flawed, heavily promoted poll.
Today I see an even worse poll, from some organization I've never heard of, that somehow believes that less than 5% of the voters in South Carolina's primary will be less than 40 years old and 55% will be at least 65 years old. For reference, in 2008 35% were older than 60 like in 2000 according to the exit poll. The 2000 exit poll showed that 25% were older than 60.
This poll is inexplicably given a weight rating of 4 bars out of 5 on Nate Silver's otherwise credible forecasting model. Aggregators favor combining as many polls as possible, no matter their quality, hoping that with enough garbage, the various garbage factors will cancel each other out. Some skilled analysts like Nate Silver, attempt to quantify and somewhat discount the garbage by using theoretical formulas about sampling error on a bell curve, applying some likely useful heuristics like the age of the poll, and employing the somewhat controversial, though still likely useful strategy of rating a pollster by how close it's polls come to predicting the actual result.
I guess this is better than nothing, but it is not something we did in the healthcare data analysis industry, nor did any of our competitors. Admittedly, we were spending millions of dollars on these tasks, while the polling aggregators do this for something with at least one or two zeros in their budget.
Still, I can't believe that spending a little effort on trying to adjust the data or at least dump a poll that has such problems as today's horrendously bad SC poll isn't low hanging fruit for these small organizations.
Nate Silver's latest article also repeats a widely spread meme that the South Carolina GOP is home to 60% evangelicals/born agains and as evidence, cites a 2008 exit poll that doesn't even ask this question. Worse yet, the 2000 GOP exit poll shows 34% belong to the religious right (which is not the same as born again/evangelical, but it is the closest I could find). Perhaps some non-exit poll has this 60%, but before I cite that, I want to do a serious look at the internals to figure out if other anomalies exist.
Another false notion:
Too often I hear that South Carolina isn't like New Hampshire where independents are such a factor. Wrong. It is an open primary. In 2000 when there Gore still had some modest competition from Senator Bradley, 39% of voters who identified themselves as Independent or Democratic voted in the GOP primary. This is compared to Iowa's caucus in 2012 where there was no competitive race for the Democrats and 25% of the GOP voters were non-Republicans.
These bad polls due to age distribution and independent voter % can heavily penalize Ron Paul - someone who the establishment wants to discredit, but I'll leave that explanation for another post.
As I look at suspect polling internals, I wonder if the accuracy of the aggregations in Iowa and New Hampshire weren't the beneficiaary of a certain amount of luck, and that a repeat of the NH Dem 08 primary is waiting.
So for the next week I'm going dumpster diving into SC and FL voting/polling data, sifting through the garbage, hoping to bring out some good.
Or for my dyslexic friends: IGOG. Into the Garbage, Out comes Good.
From Wikipedia:
Garbage in garbage out "was coined as a teaching mantra by George Fuechsel,[1] an IBM 305 RAMAC technician/instructor in New York. Early programmers were required to test virtually each program step and cautioned not to expect that the resulting program would 'do the right thing' when given imperfect input. The underlying principle was noted by the inventor of the first programmable computing device design:
On two occasions I have been asked,—'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
In my years of working with health insurance data, we spent far more time cleaning up garbage data, redefining vague information into something more useful and coming up with models that rationally explain how healthcare services were used before we got to using much more than basic arithmetic. Rarely were T tests, R squared values or more sophisticated statistics used like actuaries or less successful competitors did. You can't put lipstick on a pig.
As I look at the internals of various primary polls for Iowa, New Hampshire and now South Carolina, I am struck by the number of times a poll with seriously flawed input data is touted by the media and used to build a false narrative. The worst case has to be the late December CNN Iowa poll, which surveyed ZERO voters who weren't registered Republicans, despite the undisputed significant voting by non-Republicans in Iowa GOP caucuses. The right % should have been 25%, the same % was demonstrated during the last non-competitive Iowa Democratic caucus (1996) - the same number that would be validated in the 2012 exit polls. Since the media either was ignorant of it, or gave so little warning, and there were no other polls for two days, the 24 hour media trumpted a nonexistent surge by Santorum due to this seriously flawed poll. So today, I read an article about how the evangelical leaders have coalesced around supporting Santorum... someone who would have likely stayed in 6th or maybe reached 5th place in Iowa and then returned home if not for a single flawed, heavily promoted poll.
Today I see an even worse poll, from some organization I've never heard of, that somehow believes that less than 5% of the voters in South Carolina's primary will be less than 40 years old and 55% will be at least 65 years old. For reference, in 2008 35% were older than 60 like in 2000 according to the exit poll. The 2000 exit poll showed that 25% were older than 60.
This poll is inexplicably given a weight rating of 4 bars out of 5 on Nate Silver's otherwise credible forecasting model. Aggregators favor combining as many polls as possible, no matter their quality, hoping that with enough garbage, the various garbage factors will cancel each other out. Some skilled analysts like Nate Silver, attempt to quantify and somewhat discount the garbage by using theoretical formulas about sampling error on a bell curve, applying some likely useful heuristics like the age of the poll, and employing the somewhat controversial, though still likely useful strategy of rating a pollster by how close it's polls come to predicting the actual result.
I guess this is better than nothing, but it is not something we did in the healthcare data analysis industry, nor did any of our competitors. Admittedly, we were spending millions of dollars on these tasks, while the polling aggregators do this for something with at least one or two zeros in their budget.
Still, I can't believe that spending a little effort on trying to adjust the data or at least dump a poll that has such problems as today's horrendously bad SC poll isn't low hanging fruit for these small organizations.
Nate Silver's latest article also repeats a widely spread meme that the South Carolina GOP is home to 60% evangelicals/born agains and as evidence, cites a 2008 exit poll that doesn't even ask this question. Worse yet, the 2000 GOP exit poll shows 34% belong to the religious right (which is not the same as born again/evangelical, but it is the closest I could find). Perhaps some non-exit poll has this 60%, but before I cite that, I want to do a serious look at the internals to figure out if other anomalies exist.
Another false notion:
Too often I hear that South Carolina isn't like New Hampshire where independents are such a factor. Wrong. It is an open primary. In 2000 when there Gore still had some modest competition from Senator Bradley, 39% of voters who identified themselves as Independent or Democratic voted in the GOP primary. This is compared to Iowa's caucus in 2012 where there was no competitive race for the Democrats and 25% of the GOP voters were non-Republicans.
These bad polls due to age distribution and independent voter % can heavily penalize Ron Paul - someone who the establishment wants to discredit, but I'll leave that explanation for another post.
As I look at suspect polling internals, I wonder if the accuracy of the aggregations in Iowa and New Hampshire weren't the beneficiaary of a certain amount of luck, and that a repeat of the NH Dem 08 primary is waiting.
So for the next week I'm going dumpster diving into SC and FL voting/polling data, sifting through the garbage, hoping to bring out some good.
Or for my dyslexic friends: IGOG. Into the Garbage, Out comes Good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)