Hypocrisy from the Conservative Elites

For most of the last fifteen years, I have been an avid listener of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts. During this time, I have listened to countless thousands of conversations between Rush and callers to his show.

On several occasions, I have heard Rush talk with disillusioned Republican voters who have felt neglected by the party establishment. Usually, these people were social conservatives. In most cases, these callers would openly contemplate staying home on election day; in other cases, they would call for the creation of a third-party. (These conversations were especially prevalent during the term of Bush 41 and the first term of Bill Clinton.)

When faced with such open dissent, Rush played the role of the pragmatist. He would say words to the effect of, "If you agree with the Republican nominee on some, if not most, of the important issues, then why would you ensure the election of a Democrat who opposes all of these issues by staying home or by bolting from the party?" To Rush, this seemed like foolishness.

My how times have changed! Today, John McCain and Mike Huckabee--two men for whom Rush has expressed open disgust--have garnered the support of most Republican voters. As a result, Rush has openly stated that he may not support the Republican nominee for President. (His fellow-traveller Ann Coulter has even stated that she would vote for Hillary over McCain.)

I find this to be hilarious. When social conservatives in the 1990's dared to question the Republican Party's direction, conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter preached the gospel of party unity through pragmatism. But now that their oxen are being gored, they want to take their marbles and go home.

Crybabies!

Huckabee Is No Jimmy Carter

Since the rise of the Huckaboom, pundits and candidates alike have alleged that Mike Huckabee, if elected President, would behave like another southern Governor-turned-President, Jimmy Carter.

Last night, Mike Huckabee dispelled that notion.

The London Times reports:

Asked whether the American commanders on the scene were right in not attacking the Iranian boats, Mr Huckabee said he backed their decisions, before warning Iran: "Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next thing you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that."

I don't seem to recall Jimmy Carter using this kind of language during the 444-day Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Do you?

Mitt Romney is Toast

I recently published this comment on another site. I figured that it was pretty good, so I would re-post it here (with minor corrections in spelling--oops):

How can a man say that he is a "fiscal conservative" when he spends 1,500% more money than his nearest competitor and still loses?

If Romney were half the candidate that Messrs. Hewett, Sekulow, et al. claim that he is, Romney should have blown Mike Huckabee away.

Beyond this, the evangelical vote is powerful---especially in the south. Mitt Romney is not going to win in South Carolina, or Mississippi, or Tennessee. Why? Mitt has essentially said that Iowa is an outlier because evangelicals came out in droves the other night. Well, evangelicals are going to come out in droves in these states, and it will be ugly for Mitt.

They are not going to vote for a guy who claims to don the very mantle of Reaganism that he so vociferously rejected in the early nineties.

97.35% Chance That Huckabee Will Win Iowa

The latest polls listed on the RealClearPolitics website list the following numbers:

American Res. Group (12/31 - 01/02) Huckabee 29%, Romney 24% (600 Likely Voters)
Zogby Tracking (12/30 - 01/02) Huckabee 31%, Romney 25% (914 Likely Voters)
InsiderAdvantage (01/01 - 01/01) Huckabee 30%, Romney 24% (430 Likely Voters)
Strategic Vision (12/28 - 12/30) Huckabee 28, Romney 30% (600 Likely Voters)
Des Moines Register (12/27 - 12/30) Huckabee 32%, Romney 26% (800 Likely Voters)
CNN (12/26 - 12/30) Huckabee 28%, Romney 31% (373 Likely Voters)

The weighted average for these polls is Huckabee 29.99%, Romney 26.35%, with the aggregate sample size equalling 3,717 voters.

Let's calculate the margin of error for Mike Huckabee. This equals 1.96 X Square Root (29.99% x 70.01% / 3,717), or 1.47%. (The standard deviation is 0.0075). As such, Mike's range is 28.52% to 31.46%.

Let's calculate the margin of error for Mitt Romney. This equals 1.96 X Square Root [26.35% x 73.65% / 3,717], or 1.42%. (The standard deviation is 0.0072). As such, Mitt's range is 24.93% to 27.76%.

Notice that Mitt's high range (27.76%) is LOWER than Mike's low range (28.52%). Mike is leading outside of the margin of error with only seven hours to caucus.

What is the probability of Mike's true average exceeding Mitt's true average?

STEP 1: The probability of Mike's true average exceeding Mitt's high range number is based upon the normal distribution. The cumulative normal distribution will take Mitt's high range (we will call it "x"), Mike's sample average (we will call it "u"), and Mike's standard deviation (call it "sd").

The probablity of Mike's true average exceeding Mitt's high range is equal to 1-cumulative normal distribution with the aforesaid values for x, u, and sd. From the EXCEL spreadsheet function, this value equals 1- NORMDIST (0.2776, 0.2999, 0.0075, TRUE), or .998527.

STEP 2: Since the augmented poll has a confidence interval of 95% (hence the Z-value of 1.96), there is a 2.5% chance that Romney's true average exceeds his high range. Put in terms favorable to Mike, there is a 97.5% chance that Mitt's true average will be less than his high range value.

STEP 3: The probability of Mike winning is .998527 x .975, or .9735

FINAL ANSWER --- MIKE HUCKABEE HAS A 97.35% CHANCE OF WINNING.

Combined Polling Analysis

According to RealClearPolitics, there have been three polls conducted in the last forty-eight hours in Iowa---the Des Moines Register, CNN, and Zogby's tracking poll. Here are the specific results from each poll:

Des Moines Register -- 32% Huckabee, 26% Romney (800 LV surveyed)
CNN -- 28% Huckabee, 31% Romney (373 LV surveyed)
Zogby -- 29% Huckabee, 25% Romney (928 LV surveyed)

Now if you were to combine all three polls into one poll, you would find that out of 2101 persons surveyed, 712 respondents supported Huckabee, while 656 supported Romney. Thus, in effect, 33.88% Huckabee, 31.22% Romney.

Given the size of this augmented, combined poll, the margin of error would be about 2% points. Here is how we come up with the margin of error. Take Mike Huckabee's number (33.88%) and multiply it by (1-33.88%). You get 0.2240. Then divide this number by 2101. You get 0.000106. Take the square root of this number, and you get the standard deviation of .0103. Multiply the standard deviation by 1.96. Voila! A roughly 2% margin of error. (Actually, 2.024% for Huckabee and 1.981% for Romney.)

Accordingly, the actual range extends from 31.86% to 35.91% for Huckabee and from 29.24% to 33.20% for Romney.

Notices that Romney's high-end number (33.20%) is less than Mike' average (33.88%).

If we wish to estimate the probability of Mike's true population average being greater than Romney's high end number, we can use the normal distribution to find this answer. Using the Excel Spreadsheets NORMDIST function, I have estimated that there is a 74.6% chance that Mike's numbers will exceed Mitt's if the election were held today.

MINOR CORRECTION: I failed to factor into the equation the fact that there is a 2.5% that Romney's high end number is greater than 33.20%. Therefore, Mike's chances of winning have been reduced slightly to 72.73% (or 97.50% times 33.20%)