Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
On the most recent episode of the Ricochet Podcast, Peter, James, and Rob were discussing the polls – and Gov. Romney’s troubles therein – with NRO’s Jim Geraghty, who asserted the conventional wisdom that undecided voters tend to break for the challenger rather than the incumbent, stating that anyone inclined at all to vote for President Obama will already have decided to do so. I waited for Peter to tut-tut this notion with a vigor equal to that with which he tut-tutted Andrew Klavan for making the same assertion only a week earlier. As it happened, not only was there no vigor, there was no tut-tutting at all.
So, Peter, my question to you is this: Was Mr. Geraghty more persuasive in his assertion than Mr. Klavan, or was he simply accorded more deference? And a second question for Peter, and for anyone else who cares to answer: Given the choice at hand, how can anyone who claims to be sentient remain undecided at this late stage of the contest?
Like most – should I say all? – here in the Ricochet community, I very much hope the undecideds will flock the way Messrs. Klavan and Geraghty believe they will, and that on Nov. 6 the electorate will rise up and regurgitate the confection it so imprudently consumed four years ago. Undecided? It's scarcely a decision at all.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
Yeah! Yeah! How come Jim Geraghty gets respect and I don't? That's what I wanna know! What's Jim Geraghty got that I ain't got?? What kind of name is Geraghty anyway? I mean, is it Gerawty like haughty or Giraffety like laugh-ty? And yet HE gets respect and I get - what? Tut-tutted! Pooh-poohed! Diss-dissed! Jim Geraghty, my eye. So take that, Peter Robinson! Ya silver-haired egghead, ya...
Jun '11
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
That post/comment combo right there earned my latte this month. :)
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
Drew Klavan, having just completed a novel, is spending altogether too much time lurking about in these parts. (I lurk too, of course, but at least I attempt to disguise my omnipresence by seldom putting up the first post.) And what's with the "silver-haired" bit? Graying at the temples, my friend, that's all it is--a trait I happen to share with our next president.
But the only reason I held my tongue with Jim was that I had the sense I'd done altogether too much talking already. Anyway, Jack, I base my skepticism about the undecideds-always-break-against-the-incumbent rule on the work of someone who has agreed to join us on a podcast sometime before the election: Nate Silver. To wit:
Jun '11
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
I shouldn't be butting in, but why does Nate Silver get any credit here? He was receiving Obama internals last election, is admittedly an Obama supporter AND writing for the New York Times.
The incumbent rule is an old saw from way back. Its been part of the "table stakes" analysis of political races until this cycle, with Obama as the incumbent under 50%. Gee! I wonder why Nate and the smart set have thrown it out?
Edited on September 29, 2012 at 12:21amDec '10
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
We shall listen to Mr. Silver. Meantime, I am skepitcal that the media will ever break against Obama, in the debates, as Mr. Robinson envisions. There are undecideds out there, that I see. Plus decideds that can be swayed. Romney has a shot at those people, during the debates, while not being filtered through the media.
Period. He will never have a shot at them, once filtered through the media.
Apr '12
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
In any event I think the official bashing of undecideds should wait at least until after the debates.
To some, the choice isn't that obvious, especially those who really believed in the Big BS'er and are unwilling to confront their own foolishness until absolutely necessary.
Mar '11
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
The future of the Republic depends on the insentient beings? - great!
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
Peter Robinson: But the only reason I held my tongue with Jim was that I had the sense I'd done altogether too much talking already. Anyway, Jack, I base my skepticism about the undecideds-always-break-against-the-incumbent rule on the work of someone who has agreed to join us on a podcast sometime before the election: Nate Silver. To wit:
2 hours ago
So, Peter, you trust the fellow hired by Pravda-on-the-Hudson. The rule, in fact, is that when an incumbent's favorables are below 50% the undecideds nearly always break against him.
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
Strategoist: I shouldn't be butting in, but why does Nate Silver get any credit here? He was receiving Obama internals last election, is admittedly an Obama supporter AND writing for the New York Times.
The incumbent rule is an old saw from way back. Its been part of the "table stakes" analysis of political races until this cycle, with Obama as the incumbent under 50%. Gee! I wonder why Nate and the smart set have thrown it out? · 2 hours ago
Edited 2 hours ago
Silver was pretty good as a prognosticator in 2008 and terrible in 2010 -- which fits your thesis.
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
Jack, my view is that many of the undecideds have put off a decision until a decision is needed. We outsource politics in this country, and once every couple of years we wake up, smell the coffee, and vote. You and I may be political animals. Most Americans are what Benjamin Franklin called all mankind: tool-making animals.
Aug '12
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
...how can anyone who claims to be sentient remain undecided...
Imagine a hereditary Democrat, to whom voting for a Republican feels like a betrayal of the first order. He is going through emotional hell because he knows that Obama is not fit to be reelected, but just can't admit that he should vote against him. He may stay home, undecided to the end; he may get to the polling place and "make up his mind" by marking the ballet, for or against will depend on a last second emotional reaction.
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
So now I'm a political animal. I was afraid it would come to this. Is there a cure?
Jul '12
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
I get it. Peter is bringing Nate Silver in here to try and quell the remaining untutored optimism that Romney will win that many here have, despite the recent "main" podcast and the biased polls from Marist, Quinnipiac et alia. Peter wants more of us to become discouraged [just like him] so he is bringing in the NYT and Obama's pollster to "educate" [or "psy-opps"] us and aid the Obama objective of depressing GOP turnout. [all in the interest of pure "education"] I swear that I certainly could not make this up! If someone other than Peter had told me he was inviting Silver to a GOP audience BEFORE THE ELECTION, I would not have dared believe that about Peter. Isn't it funny that Mr. Silver's insights all tend one way? --I have a better idea, Peter. Mr. Silver would be a good "get" for the mid-December pre-Christmas podcast. OK?
Jun '11
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
Hear, hear!
Sep '11
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
One thing about being a small or limited-government conservative is that I don't think citizens should have to think that much about government, they should be able to focus on working, raising their families, going toPTA, whatever... Unfortunately, expanding government threatens that. I still have sympathy with the apolitical.
Nov '10
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
I agree with Jack's original assessment as a general critique. Peter did jump on Andrew's comment with a certain amount of certainty and a certain amount of host's prerogative, without explaining the logic behind his refute. I recall that being intriguing in its own right...and was even more intrigued when the same assertion by Jim went unchallenged. The sound of its absence was deafening, and I only wish that I had thought of bringing it up. I made the assumption that Peter had his logic challenged during the week, and righted his thinking. For anyone who uses the Last Question as artfully as he, Peter should never worry about grabbing additional time. He has made an art form of grabbing time, and would never be accused of being rude in its practice.
May '10
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
After we bring in Nate Silver, can we please have Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on? We just need to tamp down some of the rampant optimism on this forum.
Dubayoo tee eff?
Dec '11
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
Nancy is on to something. There are some number of us who have been paying far more attention than we think we should have to. We're tired, we're angry, and we know how we're going to vote regardless of what happens over the next four weeks!
Jan '12
Re: Calling Peter Robinson (About Those Undecideds)
Thank you Mr. Dunphy! I was wondering about that too. My sense was (1) Mr. Klavan is Ricochet family and therefore Mr. Silvertemple was ready to reply forthwith, whereas Mr. Geraghty is a guest and was accorded more manners; and (2), this is what really scared me, was the thought that Peter was grasping at straws because Rob's pessimism was beginning to hit home.