Apparently there was another Democratic debate last night. Based on the transcript analysis by the New York Times and the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll numbers, I’ve run the numbers again. Last debate, as I blogged, I found that the amount of speaking time of each candidate was ridiculously closely correlated with their latest poll numbers at the time, to the extent that it was impossible to believe that that was not planned. (For stats people, r > .95). That is, MSNBC is skewing the elections and endowing polls (i.e. an easy news source) with more importance by giving more free exposure to the leading candidates.
Yesterday’s debate, a CNN debate, did not show quite as high a correlation (r = .73), with the latest poll numbers at the time of the debate. That’s still quite high. Obama spoke the most, although Clinton still leads by quite a bit in the polls. On the other hand, Obama spoke for more than 3 times as much time as Kucinich, the candidate who spoke the least. The correlation is still implausibly high if we believe the speaking time was intended to be allocated evenly, but perhaps it’s not so high as to believe that CNN used a formula based on poll numbers to decide speaking time for each candidate (as I believe MSNBC did).
Next time MSNBC and CNN have debates, we will start to see whether we can tell from the numbers that MSNBC and CNN have different policies for how they allocate speaking time.
Make a Suggestion
2 responses so far ↓
richard // Nov 29, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Let me present the other side of the argument here.
I think you have to remember that we (the People) decide which candidates lead
in the polls.
Allotting them proportionately more time is then (in a way) simply acquiescing to the will of the people.
“These are the guys you’re interested in, so we’ll give them more time.”
Seems natural enough to me.
Not everything has as nefarious a motive imaginable.
Joshua Tauberer // Nov 29, 2007 at 6:16 pm
That’s a fair point to consider, but it’s a testable hypothesis. Does the public actually want time allocated by the polls? As I mentioned in my first post on this, I concede that it’s reasonable to eliminate the most unlikely candidates for the sake of having a worthwhile debate, and so the public at large probably would agree up to that degree.
But let’s go to the other extreme. Let’s say it’s down to the general election debates, and one candidate is sweeping in the polls, looking at a landslide victory. How much of the public do you think would say that the debate between the two candidates should be structured with one having 50% more time than the other? I can only hope that those who are committed to a candidate would at least concede that a fair debate would give each equal time, and the ones still choosing would I think consider it most helpful for them to see equal time given to each.
The point really is, and I hope the public at large would agree to address your concern, that the point of the debate is to help us decide, and unequal allocation of time adds a bias that detracts from the point. If we didn’t want to hear from Biden, why include him in the first place?
Leave a Comment