Fuzzy Numbers

Watching all these Linda Lingle and Mazie Hirono commercials really bugs me. After learning about statistics it is easy to see why it’s so hard to trust really any one candidate. While I understand that it is not the candidate, rather their team, that chose to mud sling, it really upsets me how they use numbers to trick people.

Hirono accuses Lingle for taking an amount of money from outside contributors. Lingle accuses Hirono of taking a larger percentage from outside contributions than she has. They are both true, Lingle has taken a large amount of outside contributions, sure, but it’s because she has raised lots of money total, including from here in Hawaii. Hirono did take a larger percentage from mainland contributors, but it’s still a smaller amount than what Lingle raised. Who do you trust? Who do you side with? Which one is more important to you? The larger amount? The larger percentage? Does it really matter?

This lying with statistics is rampant in the newspapers too. If a graph does not look dramatic enough to print then they stretch the X or Y axis to make it look steeper (look at the next graph you look at next time, each increment on the X and Y axis should be about equal, if it’s not then they altered it for a better effect). Why do they do this?

As we come to the home stretch to election time we will probably see more of these fuzzy numbers, from both media and candidates.

Comments

The state of political campaigns and the media is not the fault of either. The public is to blame for what Carrier calls "lying with statistics." I call it marketing and people are fooled by far more of it than just campaigns and the media.

While I agree that campaigns should be run with more integrity and the media should practice more intelligent, informed reporting, the public -- as consumers and voters -- fuel this state of affairs.

Most consumer-voters don't read The Economist, which is one of the best magazines on the rack. Why? Because you have to *read* it. You can't skim it like a newspaper and catch the headlines and photos like most readers do. Newspapers know this and will run stories that make people buy papers. Consumers drive this fifth-grade reading level type of media dissemination.

As to campaigns, most voters don't take the time to understand the issues and the candidates. I'm not talking about debates at your friends' parties. I'm referring to comprehending why creating county school boards may not be the best solution for public education. And why the continued focus on the technology industry as a economic diversification strategy may not work if it's just a government slogan.

People love, just love, to blame the government for what's wrong today. We no longer practive government "by the people" and have turned it over to a group of insiders, activists, and special interests. (I have been all three by the way, so I know this first hand.)

If you're thinking "well, I don't have the time to do all of this?" then the answer is your reap what you don't sow and the misfortunes of society continued without your participation. Voting is not enough. It's not enough.

What's the silver bullet? Like most issues, there is no rabbit out of the hat that we can pull. I think Hawai`i would be a much better place if every single voter worked on a political campaign. We would all then have access to elected officials (as we should anyway) and be in a better position to understand how politics works (for good and for bad).

The spat over Mainland contributors annoyed me too, and both sides certainly "stretched the graphs" as it were. But the only thing that really occurs to me when I see those attack/counterattack ads, or even the tireless coverage of LatestSpat 2002™ on the local news, is, Where are the issues?

From the perspective of an average citizen (which I probably am not, involved as I am in current campaigns), the only substantive debate on issues I've seen involves education. Lingle believes this, Hirono believes that. Everything else is just murky.

As a life-long Democrat (albeit one working now for a Republican), the floundering of the past week has really disappointed me.

What has the Hawaii Democratic Party focused on? Ideas to diversify the economy? The future role of UH? Environmental concerns and eco-tourism? Nope. Instead, they're obsessed with Lingle's marketing! This Lingle radio ad is a backhanded slap at our teachers! (Although the comment in question is one I hear all the time - it's just not one many are willing to make in public - and it's not about the teachers, it's about the system they're forced to try and make work.) That Lingle rally is insulting Filipinos because it advertises free food and door prizes! (When all rallies have gimmicks, and frankly, I'm definitely down when a sign says "free food!")

The Democrats want to stay in power, so why not focus on what they've done with it over the last few years? (They must have done some good, right?) Focus on the record, on the issues, not the latest paid ad in Midweek... or who your daddy is (I'm talkin' to you, Matt!).

I agree with what Keith said, that we should all work on political campaigns. But does everyone really have that liberty?

The old excuse of "the people get what the people want" does not really apply. When Sony decides to make a God out of a B-rated artist they make a new God, period, no ifs, no maybe's, they have a new American Idol.

The media seems to think that this is true of them too. That if they deem a story important enough then everyone else should too. Remember the 9-11 polls, people saying that they were ready to move on and did not want to see anymore 9-11 news. Even THAT made headlines. Isn't that ridiculous? A headline saying "YOU DON'T WANNA READ THIS ANYMORE"

The media has long been the "watchdog" of politics, but who watches the media when IT wants to get into politics themselves? Obviously not us, because we have no say anymore over what news we want to see.

The people who decide what goes on the news, what happens in our televisions, and which Gods are revered are not the masses anymore. What's the solution? Not buy the newspaper anymore? Educate ourselves from the source themselves rather than hearing it second hand from Lingle's campaign or Hirono's team? I never thought democracy should only come to those who go above and beyond average American living.

Recently it came out that polls can't be trusted either, since they use home phone numbers and call during the day. Few people are home then, so the results are very skewed and misleading- it's not a random sample.

Add that to media consolidation, which has expanded exponentially since the early 90s, and it's suddenly easy for the media to tell the public what to do, how to feel, in the guise of "news".

Regarding campaign contributions, I'm more interested in who is giving the money, and in what amounts. That is more likely to show up after the elections, in everything from appointments to policies.

Numbers have an inherent "scientific" feel to them, which is why they can be and are used to manipulate people.

I'm still not convinced that elections these days are any more real than pro wrestling.

I'm still not convinced that elections these days are any more real than pro wrestling.

Gasp!

Lisa, you can't tell me you don't believe those horrendous worldwide wrestling federation slapstick shows, errr ..., I mean, serious sports, aren't REAL?! No, you can't be serious.

So who watched the Great Debate? Amusing that both newspapers used "spar" in their headlines.

I had it on as background noise. I had no strong response to anything except when Hirono had the gall to say, emphatically, "I have always been for change." I woke up the baby with my flabbergasted snort.

The most interesting part, for me, was playing with my digital cable box when Oceanic tried out a live poll. And hearing Joe Moore report the results — the cable box poll and the phone-in poll, giving Lingle a 60/20 lead — barely able to disguise his disgust with the "non-scientific" methods. (Hey, Joe, it's just for fun!)

Although I agree that issues SHOULD be important, when you have such a heated race, the noise tends to drown out most of the substance. What I took away from the debate was a sense that Lingle wants the public to swallow her "New Beginning" plan whole without a critical analysis. Then, she uses the pamphlet to bash everything in sight.

Hirono may not have been as specific as I would have liked, but she at least looked real and gennuine.

Do I want a slick saleswoman backed by outside money telling me how things should be? NO. I'd much rather take my chances with a woman who shares some of my values and wants to work with what we've got and make changes from the inside.

I take exception to Ryan's statement about change. And, since he's the one with the baby, maybe he'd better remember the saying about babies and bath water.

I'm sick of Lingle's pamphlet, too, to be honest. Then again, the Hirono-Matsunaga "First 100 Days" seems like an afterthought, and more like poll-based pandering (Go Seniors!) than a comprehensive plan.

I thought both Lingle and Hirono have had better days. Lingle seemed too practiced and prepared. Hirono seemed too generic and unprepared.

The "backed by outsiders" argument is moot, in my opinion. I mean, Hirono's campaign is bringing in Bill Clinton, for crying out loud.

As for change, I don't see how anyone can argue that Hirono's advocated much beyond the status quo (at least prior to the start of actual campaigning). And as Exhibit B, I'd point to Matt Matsunaga's "My Dad Was Sparky!" ad — after he specifically said he wouldn't exploit his father's legacy in his last campaign — as well. There's not much of a line between a sentiment like, 'Preserve what my father fought for' to 'Let me and my Democratic colleagues keep our thing going.'

Well, given your choice just on star power, wouldn't you grab Bill over Karen Hughes, who, it's reported on TV, will be here to plump for Lingle? In other words, I'd do that in a New York minute, if I'd had my druthers.

'Course, Bill is good for energizing the base, and there are a lot more Democrats in that base than there are Republicans in their base.

Heh. Absolutely, Link. I'd jump at featuring Bill at an event any day. I mean, comparatively... Karen Hughes? Pshaw! (Is that how you spell 'pshaw'?) The last time an organization I worked with tried to book him, his "discount price" was still in the upper six digits!

But with Bubba in the House, I don't want to hear no more guff outta the Dems on "outside support."

Pshaw is correct. And poor Bill; if you believe Channel 4's sked it's a circle state tour with no time for golf!

I'll be so glad when next Tuesday has come and gone. If I hear Lingle say "an agenda for a new beginning" much more, I may throw something at the tv set. This would be unfortunate since it doesn't belong to me.

That would indeed be unwise. It reminds me of a next-door neighbor back when I was in high school and he was three or four years younger: he had a Daisy BB gun and was watching "Combat;" put a hole right through the tube watching a Nazi sneak up on Vic Morrow.

renew domain name, domain name sale
http://renew.domain.name/

Post a Comment