How Did the Pollsters Get the Election Wrong?

Greetings and Salutations,

This past Tuesday, November 8, 2016, marked the end of a historic election cycle in American history.  We, the people of the United States, elected our 45th President in one of the most hotly contested battles between two very unpopular and not well-liked candidates.  Be that as it may, the people of our great nation and perhaps even the world were stunned when the "underdog" Donald J. Trump was elected over the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton.  So how in the world did that happen when practically all the national polls showed otherwise?

While there is no easy answer, there might be some logical explanations.  First off, what exactly is a poll?  Basically, a poll is the recording of an opinion or the actual process of voting, but for the purpose of this blog, we're talking about polling in the sense of recording an opinion.  Here is where this gets really screwy!  A poll is supposed to be one question with multiple choice answers and the people being polled pick one.  However, a survey asks multiple questions over a range of issues.  So when we see what the "national polls" are saying, are they really polling or surveying.  This is an important set up to what I'm about to delve into next.

Polls, in terms of the infamous "survey of likely voters" do not ask the simple question, "Whom are you voting for?"  They ask a range of questions, which is actually a survey; I know, semantics!  But for people who conduct actual research, this is a crucial difference!  Why?  Because the question or questions being asked can skew the results!  I know, I know, hold the phone, get outta town, what you talkin' 'bout, Willis!!!?  Let's put it in a way that makes a little more sense.  If a person is asked, "Which of the of the following candidates is your choice for president," the answer will be clear and straightforward.  That is a poll.  Now imagine if you were asked several questions phrased like, "Based on the audio recording of the candidate talking about sexually assaulting women how likely are you to vote for him," or "Due to the revelation of new emails discovered by the FBI, how likely are you to vote for her," followed by a series of Not At All Likely, Less Likely, Neither Likely or Not Likely, Likely, or Very Likely, now one has to interpret the answers to draw a conclusion, in other words, a survey.  Are you with me so far?  Good!

The second part to figuring out what you have is to determine your sample.  A sample is a subset of a population that we wish to learn about.  We use samples to draw a general conclusion about the greater population because it is not always practical to conduct a census which is polling or surveying every single person in the population.  There is a lot of science behind how many people need to be included in the sample to accurately measure the results, but researchers try to make the sample representative of the general population.  With that, we are now getting to the crux of how the pollsters may have gotten this wrong.

If one samples an area that is predominantly Democrat-leaning, the results of the survey will likely favor the Democrat running for office.  Likewise, if the samples are predominantly Republican-leaning, the results will likely favor the Republican running for office.  This is what we call bias, and this occurs when particular characteristics are over-represented or underrepresented in the sample.  But here's where the pollsters failed to use cognitive reasoning.  Donald Trump was favored strongly over his Republican rivals all through the primaries by large margins.  Why then did they think the millions who voted for Trump would suddenly not vote in the general election or all of sudden vote Democrat?  This, my friends, is an example of the suspension of disbelief coined by philosopher Samuel Coleridge (1772-1834).  That is to say the people conducting polls suffered a willingness to suspend their own critical faculties and believe the unbelievable which is that suddenly all of these Republicans would not vote or choose to "jump ship" and vote Democrat.  Call it liberal media bias, call it a misjudgment, call it whatever you'd like, but it laid the foundation for one of the biggest polling blunders in decades!

How could this have been avoided?  First off, STOP FOLLOWING TRADITIONAL PARADIGMS IN A NON-CONVENTIONAL ELECTION for one!  Secondly, the L.A. Times poll which was one of the only national polls that successfully predicted a Trump win did something not used in traditional polling methods.  They asked their polled subjects one question, "How committed are they to their candidate," on a scale of 1-100 and they kept the same sample group throughout the election cycle!  BOOM!  That is called research, people!

In almost every election cycle, there is a "hidden vote" for the "unlikely" candidate.  It was there for Obama in 2008, it was there for Bush in 2000, and it was there for Clinton in 1992.  Trump had the hidden vote all along, but the suspension of disbelief caused the most intelligent of pollsters to miss what was staring them right in the face.  Plus, there are those who supported Trump that gave misleading information to the pollsters, or were just worried about how they would be viewed if they said they were supporting him.  Even director, Michael Moore, said there was a very real possibility of a Trump win months before the election.   However, the hidden vote would have revealed itself had the pollsters gathered themselves a control sample group of voters, and deferred back to them every so often during the election cycle to see if the proverbial needle changed.  A control group is the people that receive no exposure to the treatment or variables.  In this case, the pollsters would not ask the control group the survey questions, just ask them the one question the same way each time, "What is your commitment to your candidate?"  Instead, what the pollsters did in this cycle was stick to what they've always done, and that is poll a new group each time they conducted a poll after some major event.  So of course, each time the media breaks something about Trump, the needle pegged strongly towards Hillary on each new group.  This led to confirmation bias and why the polls showed Hillary touting double digit leads at one time!  The LA. Times in their masterful brilliance, however, deferred to their control group where the needle held strong with Trump showing a slight advantage because the commitment to their candidate NEVER WAVERED!!!!  Hillary's committed voters did!

Now we can sit here and say it was Trump's straight talk, his immigration stance, his economic policy, his threats to "throw Hillary in jail," or any number of shock and awe statements he's made throughout the campaign.  I'll leave that to the political pundits.  But as for the polling, the pollsters screwed up...BIG TIME!!!!  Folks, ask yourself, when was the last time a presidential candidate won the election by 14-18 points?  With all of the breaking news over the past year, when Hillary Clinton was "up" by that amount, didn't someone find that as odd?  Again, the suspension of disbelief played a key role.  Heck, it even showed Gary Johnson with 9 points at one time!  Seriously?  The numbers weren't making any sense, and even though Hillary would have seemed to be the likely elected president, the numbers were skewed too much in her direction, and that should have caught someone's eye.

So to you pollsters out there, take this as a learning experience in the future.  Remember the principals of standard deviation which is a measure that is used to quantify the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of data values.  When you start seeing major dispersion away from the norm, check your data and make sure you aren't skewing it one way or another.  If the graph to the left was the voting public, and it shifted strongly to the left or right, you may have a problem!  Voters don't normally do that!  I'll leave you pollsters to chew on that for a bit, and for those of you who voted Trump, congratulations on an astounding victory.  For those who voted Hillary, you always have 2020!  Thank you for reading, and we'll talk again.

Didn't We All Have "The Talk?"

I probably don't need to tell anyone reading this what has been going on in the United States as of late. There have been two very high profile police involved shootings resulting in the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. Soon after, one of the deadliest days in law enforcement history resulted in the deaths of five Dallas police officers and the wounding of 10 others. All of these deaths are tragic on both sides. In the aftermath, political pundits have weighed in, as well as experts, and a horde of Monday morning quarterbacks who will offer their "opinions" on what should have been done even without the benefit of all the facts and information coming out. This particular blog is not about those events as they are well-debated in the public arena.   This blog is also not about issues facing people of color in America in general.  This blog is about something that does keep popping up after events such as these, and it centers on how people of color should behave when interacting with law enforcement. One such topic in particular is known as "the talk" that we as people of color need to have in order to stay alive during such interactions with law enforcement.

Okay, I'm a law enforcement officer who is also a person a color. I remember getting "the talk" from my parents, but I do recall it was a matter of respect that I was to give to those in authority. So my talk also included how to interact with teachers and neighbors and anyone who would fit the role of being a person in authority. I did not believe this talk to be some inherent conversation that was unique to people of my racial background. As I have gotten older, I noticed that many of my fellow Black Americans stress on the importance of "the talk" which can include things like saying, "Yes sir/ma'am," keeping your hands visible, don't make sudden movements, comply with the officer's instructions, be careful of whom you hang out with, etc. One of the narratives that seems to parallel this conversation is that White Americans either don't have this conversation, or that they don't worry about the conversation because they know that law enforcement will give them a pass on confrontational behavior.

Somehow, this notion does not seem to make any sense. As I stated before, I am a law enforcement officer. I interact with Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle Easterners, etc. everyday, and the vast majority of ALL of these people show me respect for my authority, follow my instructions, are non-confrontational, and do all of the things we as Black folk say we should do during "the talk," and I give them the same respect in return.  But how can that be? This would mean that either Whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Middle Easterners are born with an innate knowledge of how they should interact with police, or, they also have the same talk.

When I speak to civilians and police officers alike from different racial backgrounds, ALL of them readily admit they had "the talk." What's more, the talk is the same. Surely, White Americans don't really NEED the talk, right? After all, they are not killed by the police as much as Black Americans, so they have nothing to worry about. However, the statistics don't support that notion as Whites and Hispanics take the lion's share of the number of people who are killed by police (both justifiable & unjustifiable, both armed and unarmed); just look at the Department of Justice and FBI statistics over the past decade. The issue is not that other races don't have "the talk." The issue is when the talk is had and in what context it is placed. The vast majority of Black Americans have uneventful interactions with the police every single day. They are not killed, they have no use of force used against them, and they go on about their lives. The same holds true for Whites, Hispanics, Asians, Middle Easterners, etc. So you have to ask yourself, what is different in the behavior by the people of all racial backgrounds who DO have problems? Usually, it's the people who didn't get "the talk" or chose not to follow the advice of "the talk." It's not a racial issue where one race owns the proprietary rights on "the talk" and the other races just don't understand.  Yes, there are outlier cases where absolutely horrible decisions were made by the law enforcement officer, and in those cases, the officer's actions will be condemned by those in the field, and contrary to popular belief, they face criminal consequences. But these conversations by celebrities talking about "the talk" and how it's somehow different for Black folk is a false narrative. The difference is the context and the willingness of the person to follow advice.  Here is Bryant Gumbel's take on the matter:

In the posted videos featuring Don Lemon and Bryan Gumbel, I certainly understand what they are talking about.  I respect both of these men immensely, and I also understand the context of what they saying.  I was not born a police officer and I grew up as just another Black man, and I have been stopped by the police.  When I am off-duty, other officers in other jurisdictions do not know I am an officer, so I am subject to the same treatment as any other person of color unless I choose to reveal my profession.  In all of my interactions throughout my entire life, I have never feared interactions with police, both prior to my profession and during my time as a police officer.  This is where the context comes in in "the talk."  Showing respect and acting professionally resulted in the officer treating me the same.  I also found that when dealing with other persons of authority, I was treated the same in return.  YES, there is racism in America!  YES, there will be people who are prejudiced and will treat you poorly because of the color of your skin.  YES, there are police officers who have ulterior, biased motives.  NO, you should not throw out the purpose of "the talk" to try and make a point, REGARDLESS OF YOUR RACE!!!!  In the end, no one will care, and all the world will say is, "if only he had," or "why didn't he just?"      

Just as side note, the respect for authority is not a superiority complex, it's perception complex. Think about this for a second. People whom you meet for the first time who address you as "sir/ma'am" and are non-confrontational are far likely to lower your stress and suspicion than those who are the complete opposite. The same holds true for police officers. Perhaps anyone who thinks otherwise needs to review Chris Rock's "How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By the Police."  It's satirical, I know, but there is some element of truth in comedy!  The biggest thing I can suggest to people is talk to one another, and not just people of your own racial background or likemindedness. You'll be amazed how similar we all are!

Black Lives Matter, Let's Be Honest for a Moment!

Kris Straub/Chainsawsuit

The above cartoon, drawn by Kris Straub, is pretty clever, I will admit.  It comes as a series of articles written both advocating and decrying the controversial Black Lives Matter movement has swept across the nation.  The cartoon got me thinking, is that what "All Lives Matter" people actually mean to say.  Well, the answer is maybe, but maybe not.  In Straub's cartoon, it shows someone dousing the house that is not burning, meanwhile the house that is burning is left in flames under the belief that everyone should care equally about everything at all times.  Except there is one problem with the picture as it leaves out a very important depiction.  The house that is on fire has people standing in front of it, preventing help from coming, threatening to harm the person putting out the flames, and they readily admit that once the flames are out, they are going to set it back on fire again.  By leaving out this addition, the cartoon is actually not true, but disguises itself as being a truthful metaphor for what's happening in today's society.

So what exactly am I driving at, you might be asking? Well, let's start by asking when do you normally see Black Lives Matter protest occur?  They seem to only occur when a white police officer shoots and kills a Black American.  These protests do not concern themselves with the most important of the questions which is why that seems to occur, but just the fact that it has occurred.  In disciplines such as Sociology, Public Administration, and Psychology, the "why" is the most important question.  Then the question begs, do the police just lie in wait to shoot unarmed Black men for sport?  The way the general media and Black Lives Matter portrays it, the answer would seem like "yes."  That mentality should bother the conscience of people who are watching the situation unfold.

Sheriff David Clarke, Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department (Wisconsin) chimed in on this issue and has even gone so far as to ask why do the police need to be fixed, why don't we fix society?  Like me, both Sheriff Clarke and I are black men who work in law enforcement.  I would surmise if you ask Sheriff Clarke about misdeeds in law enforcement, he would tell you that they do in fact occur, but killing black men just because the police can, is not one of them.  The question I would pose to any member of society and to any Black Lives Matter protester is, "could there be a correlation between the violent interaction between the police and potential black male suspects and the reason for the interaction in the first place?"

I turned to the FBI crime statistics for the past several years and I noticed a very disheartening trend within the Black American community.  While we make up roughly 13% of the U.S. general population, we take the lion's share of murder/homicide and violent crimes, about 52% on average (www.fbi.gov).  When you look at the stats for all the crime categories, a disproportionate number are being committed by members of the Black American community.  Okay, so the counter argument might be, "but just because a crime was committed, does not equate to a death sentence by the police."  Fair enough, but when you look at the FBI's law enforcement officers assaulted or killed stats (LEOKA), it shows that sadly, once again, black men are killing police officers at a rate outside and far above their percentage of the population.  Since 2005, in fact, Black Americans are responsible for killing 39.8% of law enforcement officers (224 of 563).  Again, I am suggesting there is a correlation.  It may be spurious as I have not had the opportunity to do a complete research paper on the subject, but there is something there.

But here is something that Black Lives Matter and the media never seem to acknowledge.  The vast MAJORITY of Black Americans each and every day have uneventful interactions with the police!  I have a correlative fact that might explain that.  People who do not violate the law, follow the instructions of police officers when detained, and do not attempt to commit violent acts against the police and society in general, do not suffer being killed by the police.  It actually is common sense.  Yes, I acknowledge that affluence, education, stratification, and institutionalization play a role, but again, we need to be honest and take some responsibility for our well-being.  So here would be something that Black Lives Matter could say to show that they truly believe black lives matter:

1. Encourage members of the black community to obey the law!
2. When detained by the police, follow their instructions.
3. If you disagree with the reason for being detained, the roadside is not the place to "make your stand."  That is what the court system is for.

Then BLM could start to demand equal treatment in areas of education spending and family planning so that young black children aren't starting life behind the eight ball.  Yes, there are a lot of things wrong with the criminal justice system in the United States, but oftentimes my fellow black men are playing a game where there is no way to win.  So don't play the game, but we in this country can ensure that the cards aren't stacked against these men either, I get that.  There are definite improvements that can be made.  However, demanding that each and every time a law enforcement officer, or only white ones, has to take deadly force action, must equate to a murder charge; that is not justice either.  There has to be accountability on both sides, and as it stands right now, the only ones being asked to be responsible is law enforcement even though they are reacting very quickly, in a constantly changing environment, to something the suspect did.  That is why the Supreme Court in Garner stated that the officer's actions had to be reasonable without the benefit of hindsight.  In that respect, we in the black community have to be reasonable in our interactions with the police.  Many years ago, Chris Rock did a parody on this subject, and while back at the time, we all thought it was pretty funny, it actually has come to pass that people are ignoring the most basic common sense rules of police interaction.   

Before I close this blog, please keep in mind that Black Americans, especially unarmed ones, still only comprise a small portion of the number of people killed by law enforcement and that the majority of us black men are killed by other Black Americans.  If we truly want to make changes, family, education, and following the rules/law might be one place to start.  I know it is much more complicated than that, but it's where we need to start to make the change.  Like the cartoon I shared at the beginning of this blog, let's not leave things out that don't fit our narrative.  Thank you for reading, and at least consider my stance on this subject.  There is quite a bit of research that needs to be done on this topic and much more than I can address in a blog.

   

Confederate Flag, Right, Wrong, or Indifferent

Fig. 1 First Confederate Flag (Stars & Bars)

Good Day Blog Readers,

I'm sure many of you have at least heard about the debate back and forth regarding the Confederate Flag and the controversy surrounding where and when it should be used.  I'm not going to try and convince anyone about how they use the flag, but I wanted to make sure that everyone is on the same page about the deeper meaning of the debate and the history surrounding the Confederate Flags.  I think many times people let personal feelings and unfounded opinions cloud what is really going on.  Two important things to point out is one, I do not believe everyone who flies a Confederate Flag is racist.  That is a silly notion.  Secondly, the image or symbolic nature of the flag does not and should not have any power over anyone who opposes it.  With that being said, let's begin.

Fig. 2 Second Confederate Flag (Stainless Banner)

Okay, Fig. 1 above right, is the first Confederate Flag known as the "Stars and Bars" that flew from about 1861 to about 1863.  It represented the original 7 states that broke away from the union at the start of the Civil War.  Fig. 2, was the second Confederate Flag designed by William T. Thompson and is known as the "Stainless Banner."  It took this design because during battle, it was hard for soldiers to tell the difference between "Old Glory" and the "Stars & Bars."  However, it had a fatal design flaw.  White flags in battle signal surrender, and during battle, raising of the Stainless Banner was often construed as surrender.  The Confederacy took a third stab at the flag and designed the "Blood Stained Banner" pictured in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 Third Confederate Flag (Blood Stained Banner)

The addition of the red stripe at the far end of the flag helped resolve the "surrender" problem while still keeping the cross design and the stainless white.  Now this is important to understand the historical context of these flags because the flag surrounded in current controversy was never an actual flag of the Confederate States of America.  It was used by regiments of the CSA Army under such units as the Army of Tennessee and was designed by William Porcher Miles in 1862.  Interestingly enough, the flag we are all debating over was

Fig. 4 Present Day "Rebel Flag"

never approved by the CSA as the official flag.
So what is all the fuss about?

As you may or may not know, on June 17, 2015, nine members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church were killed during bible study by Dylann Roof.  Roof, of course, posted images of himself displaying the "Rebel Flag" as he talked about his race war.  Minorities saw this act and the display of the flag as yet another attack on racial equality.  For many southerners, despite this despicable act, they say the "Rebel Flag" is a representation of "Southern Heritage" and most national polls seem to support the public view that the flag represents "Southern Heritage."  The problem is there are historical facts that dispute that fact and to ignore these facts whitewashes what the flag actually means.  Secondly, the debate is not about attacking "Southern Heritage," it is about what ideologies our government supports.  So we have to bring these things into perspective.

Recall that the "Rebel Flag" was designed by William Porcher Miles who, according to historical documents, was a staunch supporter of slavery seeing it as a "divine institution"in which all men are not created equally. He wanted desperately to return to the slave trade with Africa and as a U.S. House Representative, he wished to repeal any bill that would have abolished slavery. Okay, but enough about boring historical facts, what about the other Confederate Flag designer, William T. Thompson? Well, in his own words, "As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause." Or how about, "Such a flag…would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as the white mans flag." I know, those words are inflammatory, but they are what they are.

All right, let's pretend for a moment that those two men never existed, and the flag was truly designed to solely represent "Southern Heritage."  We are all still stuck with its resurgent use in the 20th century as a counter to the Civil Rights Movement.  Sen. James Strom Thurmond of South Carolina reverted to this flag flying over the  South Carolina State House in his resistance to end segregation.  Okay, never mind that, but then we are still stuck with everyone's favorite party crashers, the Ku Klux Klan, which also hijacked the "Rebel Flag" in addition to the Swastika in their quest for domination by the Aryan race.  

After all of that, the events of June 17, 2015 occurred and to many in this country, black and white alike, here we ago again.  But the issue is, the same divisive flag was proudly flying on South Carolina's government property. This prompted many to ask, with what the flag has historically meant, why is South Carolina endorsing it?  That spurred people into action to have the flag removed especially while the community mourned the loss of the nine members of the church shooting.  From that, other government entities were forced to ask themselves the same question.  "Why is a government for and by the people….ALL THE PEOPLE….flying a flag that represents the losing side of a war where the losing side thought black people to be inferior and they wanted to upkeep the slave trade?"  We were past that, weren't we?  Yes, there was more to the war than that, but that is a main sticking point.  That is why the flag was being asked to be removed.  It is not a government sanctioned flag and it symbolizes a reprehensible part of America's history that belongs in the past.  Please remove it from government/public owned property.  It is not an attack on "Southern Heritage," and if "Southern Heritage" is based on those principals, then there is a problem with "Southern Heritage."  You can't have it both ways by taking whatever good the flag represents and completely ignoring the bad.

The debate is NOT about Walmart, Amazon, Ebay, and others not selling the Confederate Flag.  These companies made their choices on what they believed is good or not good for their business.  I will admit the NASCAR removal was quite a surprise, but NASCAR is also a business that has people of many different races and backgrounds that enjoy it.  So I understand their business decision.

The Confederate Flag is not banned!  Banning the flag would mean that you could be arrested for possessing, transporting, or selling it which is not the case.  Any attempt to ban the flag should be vehemently opposed by everyone as an attack on our First Amendment right.  The government does not have First Amendment Rights, so understand the difference.  Yet, many seem to think it is banned.

And perhaps the biggest one that I see popping up a lot is that some say that removing the flag makes no sense because it does nothing to affect the status of minorities in this country.  Let me say, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON OF COLOR EVER STATED THAT NOW THAT THE FLAG IS BEING REMOVED FROM GOVERNMENT PROPERTY THAT ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS WILL GO AWAY!  That is completely absurd.  In the black community, there are issues that go deeper and are more systemic than this flag controversy.  The flag controversy is about government ideology.  Does our government sanction division, segregation, racism, or any acts of violence carried out in the name of the flag?  I would argue no.  Therefore, it is only logical the flag be removed from government property.  There is nothing else to the debate.  By the same token, I believe the whole Dukes of Hazard rerun removal and removing the Rebel Flag from confederate battle sites is way over the top.  Some have confused two issues and are trying to make a one size fits all approach which is equally wrong.  

So if you are an ardent supporter of the flag, that is fine by me and most people.  Just please understand that while it may mean one thing to you, it means something completely different to others based on historical fact and recent events.  Moreover, the government should be in the business of equality; not flying divisive symbols of our past that no longer exist.