Polling Is a Messy Business

I became interested in polls back when the first George Bush ran for President.  I had noticed how Reagan thumped Carter in 1980 after the polls said he was behind, and noticed how odd the polls looked at various times in subsequent elections.  So I started paying attention to polling agencies and tried to understand how they work.

There’s a certain mystic quality to polls, you know.  While they carefully state that polls are not predictive, polling groups well understand the influence they carry in shaping opinion as well as reporting it.  Human behavior is especially sensitive to Heisenberg’s warning that the act of observation itself changes behavior of the observed.  The idea that you can ask a few people about something and get a detailed report on what everyone is thinking, seems a bit far-fetched.  Which brings us to Statistics and the importance of getting details right.

Statistics is all about numbers, but it’s also about providing information on large amounts of information, kind of like the handle on a suitcase, it gives you a way to get a grip to handle something large.  Opinion polling is based on the very real science of extrapolating large group behavior on known demographics and, well, a certain herd mentality.  Statistics is the reason advertising works, for example.  A company finds out that people pay attention to certain sensory triggers, and they tie their product in to those things.  Credit ratings work the same way, on the empirical record that people behave in ways which are generally predictable.    

Polls enjoy a certain protection from suspicion, as well.  They publish only summaries of their results, on the claim that their details are proprietary.  This is true, except that it also means no one checks the process or integrity of most polls’ methodology.  As a result, a poll could theoretically publish whatever results it wished, manipulating numbers in reverse.   In the case of election opinion polling, the only way to know how well a poll performed is to compare its last release before an election to the actual result, which says nothing about polls released earlier in the campaign.  And boy howdy, sometimes polls earlier in a campaign are very odd. 

Having said this, I pretty much reject it.  Polls are in business to attract clients, and you don’t succeed by publishing results that could blow up on you if your employees revealed sloppy methods.  But it’s also true that sometimes polls change methods and get worse instead of better.  The problem comes down to your business model.  There are well-known polls like Gallup and Rasmussen and Harris, which have been in the business for literally decades, there are some universities and colleges which put out polls somewhat irregularly, and there are a great many small, frankly unknown polling agencies whose purpose in publishing election opinion polls seems to be in hopes of attracting future clients.  There are also the private polling firms the public never hears about, companies who perform polls for the specific and confidential use of their clients.  Both Romney and Obama use private polling firms, which not only focus on selected demographics and battleground states, but also track effectiveness of strategies and tactics.  The candidates do not disclose their internal poll results (although you may hear rumors from time to time from aides), but you can get a sense of their poll results by how confident and ambitious the candidate appears and where they go to make appearances.  This late in the race, candidates will only make appearances in states where they believe their personal appearance will be most effective.

Part of the problem of polling, aside from the small start-ups with no history which pop up every election and pretend to be just as reliable as the established polls, is laziness.  Very few of us are willing to print out and study all of the polls and their internal data to weigh the election race in context.  Most people just want to know who’s winning, so they want a nice easy-to-read scoreboard.  And that has led us to aggregation.  What’s worse, people who really should know better also buy in to aggregated summaries and sell them not only as accurate displays of the election condition, but also in some cases as valid predictors of future behavior.  Frankly, this kind of behavior is dishonest.

Statistics is a science, but since it studies human behavior certain cautions are necessary.  Aggregation bias is a well-known problem in statistical analysis, as you can see in studies by:

The National Institute of Health, regarding aggregation of group level statistics

http://www.niu.edu/rcrportal/publication/mistakes/09mistake-a.htm

The Federal Reserve Bank, regarding aggregation errors in economic behavior

http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2002/2002-024.pdf

The American Statistical Association, regarding covariance analysis and aggregation distortion

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED278678&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED278678

The problem comes from forgetting that polls use very small portions of the voter poll to ascertain opinion and trends.  Aggregation amplifies whatever bias exists in any given poll, and exacerbates error if a common assumption proves faulty.  This is why aggregation is considered an invalid practice in statistical analysis.  As much as I appreciate Real Clear Politics for presenting a one-stop place to compare and consider polling, their RCP Average is invalid as a true indicator of the election condition.

Aggregation is easy to read, though, and a lot of folks like the idea that they understand what’s going on by just reading one website’s release.  Some of these bloggers have enjoyed undeserved praise for piggy-backing off other people’s work, like Nate Silver.  Mister Silver developed a formula which basically takes published poll results, weights them according to his personal preference, aggregates the results and produces an average.  He then assumes the formula is good for a prediction of the election, which he publishes like a weather report.  Silver recently announced that despite setbacks since the start of October, President Obama still has, in his opinion, a seventy percent chance of winning.  Stop and consider that for a moment, in its emotional impact.  If the guy doing the weather on TV said there was a seventy percent chance of rain tomorrow, you’d expect rain, naturally, and possibly a heavy rain.  At the very least, you’d expect to see heavy clouds and some wind.  No one would expect bright sunshine and blue skies.  So Mister Silver’s statement is a clear warning that things are going poorly for the Romney campaign, dire and bleak.  Never mind that most of the well-established national polls (Gallup, Rasmussen, ABC News/Washington Post) not only give Romney a good chance, they actually show him winning right now.  The problem, you see, is that Mister Silver is an Obama partisan, and he allows that to flavor his reports. 

In a way, I think I should like Nate Silver more than I do.  I’m something of a numbers guy in my work, I love polls and politics, and I enjoy reading up on opinion polling in particular and can appreciate the work that goes into an analysis, especially an on-going one through a campaign lasting more than a year.  But I learned in 2008 the hard way about assumptions; after a bit of success in analyzing polls in 2004 for the Bush-Kerry race as a writer for Polipundit, I made the mistake of trusting a similar model in 2008.  I realized after the election that conditions are different for every election, and if you do not adjust for the new conditions you will make mistakes, possibly serious errors.  Silver is doing the same thing now, I think, his formula turned out great in 2008 and he thinks, why change what’s working?  The problem is, the election this year is fundamentally different than the 2008 election, to which I will return in a later post. 

The reader might counter that most polls turn out to be generally accurate (and that aggregators are therefore reliable), but that statement does not hold up to close inspection.  First, consider that the only polls measured for accuracy are the final polls, which generally come out in the last week of the campaign.  Predicting the outcome that late is like predicting the score of a football game in the last minute of the fourth quarter; it’s not really something to brag about.

And polls don’t do all that well, actually, in terms of precision.  If you take the time to go back and look at the polls’ historical error from actual results, the following average comes out:

Gallup (last 10):  3.41 points average error

Harris (Last 10):  3.63 points average error

ABC/WaPo (9 elections):  3.05 points average error

CBS/NYT (9 elections):  6.37 points average error

USA Today (7 elections):  3.86 points average error

NBC/WSJ (6 elections):  5.73 points average error

Zogby (4 elections):  2.70 points average error

Pew (4 elections):  2.40 points average error

Battleground/GWU (4 elections):  5.75 points average error

Rasmussen (3 elections):  3.40 points average error

CNN (3 elections):  2.15 points average error

Newsweek (3 elections):  5.63 points average error

Fox (3 elections):  7.10 points average error

Marist (3 elections):  4.30 points average error

IBD (3 elections):  4.43 points average error

Ipsos (2  elections):  2.70 points average error    

ARG (2 elections):   2.20 points average error

TIME (2 elections):  3.80 points average error

LA Times (2 elections):  5.00 points average error

(final election poll variance from each candidate actual Presidential election result, last ten such elections if available, data collected from online site for each poll, corroborated where possible from RCP and PollingReport.com for election year)

Given that most polls advertise a margin-of-error of about 3.5%, this data shows that of twenty national polls which published final releases before elections, eleven average actual error rates beyond their published margin of error, and two-thirds of all polls which have published final releases in six or more of the last ten Presidential elections had average error rates greater than their published margin of error.   While some polls seem to do much better in accuracy, keep in mind these are the polls with less experience in election polling, and so their perceived accuracy is possibly just a fluke.  And, as I said, these results are how the final poll performs; some of the earlier releases are more than little bit suspect in their claims.

The technical term used for the discovery of this fact, is “oops”.  But you don’t see the polls bring that up in their releases, even when the election is close enough that these actual error margins eclipse the presented results from the poll.

Desperate Ambush Attempt by Obama Fails in New York

As expected, the media is casting the Second Presidential Debate as a win for Barack Obama.  This is no surprise, not only due to the known bias in broadcast media, but also to keeping the drama alive in the election race.  Anyone saying Romney won Tuesday’s debate is essentially saying the election is over.  There’s a lot of advertising money to be made or lost on the question of when and how the election is decided, so two losses into the debate series, the media was nearly as desperate for an Obama win as Mister Obama himself.  In addition to the media environment, the location and structure of the second debate was heavily weighted in Obama’s favor.  While ostensibly designed to provide a forum for ‘undecided’ voters to ask questions from candidates in an open ‘Town Hall’ forum, the facts tell a different story – the location was in New York, a heavily pro-Democrat state, the moderator stated before the debate that she would not agree to the written format for the debate as negotiated by both candidates in advance, the moderator would know all the questions in advance and would select which questions would be asked and when and by whom, and would be in control of how much time each candidate would have to speak, and when. 

In the actual debate, the moderator’s bias was immediately evident, as she allowed Mister Obama additional time, refused to allow Mister Romney the opportunity to counter false claims by Mister Obama, failed to apply follow-up questions evenly, and overall showed an appalling partisanship in favor of Mister Obama.  Mister Obama was alternately arrogant and disingenuous, and oddly spent more time mis-characterizing Mister Romney’s plans than presenting his own.  At several points, Mister Obama ironically bemoaned Romney’s supposed lack of detail, but provided none for his own plans.  In the end, however, the Obama Camp failed for a third straight attempt, which may prove to be fatal to their dwindling re-election hopes.

I will freely admit I am biased in Mister Romney’s favor.  I also recognize that many on Obama’s side will imagine he won last night.  But that’s rather the point.  Solid supporters for each candidate cheered their man on last night, but there was no realistic expectation that those voters could be moved.  The debate was about the undecided voters, and on that focus Mister Romney won the debate.   

First, Mister Obama.  The Obama Camp radically changed their campaign strategy after the first Debate disaster, recognizing that Obama’s apparent apathy was devastating to his support from all demographic groups, and recognizing further that Romney’s credibility was skyrocketing from his Debate One performance.  This led to a much more aggressive posture and a far more negative approach to the debate.  The odd thing about this plan for the second Presidential Debate, is that this was the plan for Mister Biden in the Vice-Presidential Debate last week.  For President Obama to repeat the game plan of his Vice-President can only be taken to mean one or more of the following possibilities:

[]  Enthusiasm by Democrats fell so sharply after the first Presidential Debate, that the new tactic was meant primarily to re-energize Democrats;

[]  The Obama Camp believed in the negative strategy so much that they abandoned the entire summer campaign strategy;

[]  The Obama Camp was so unable to get their candidate on message that they simply let him do what he wants.

The polling consensus prior to the first debate was a narrow Obama lead.  Between the first Presidential Debate and the Vice-Presidential Debate, the consensus shifted to a narrow Romney lead, and after the Vice-Presidential Debate the lead for Romney increased just a little.  As a result, not only did Team Romney win both debates on the matter of voter support, they did so at both the national and battleground state level.  It would seem, then, that the negative tactics employed in the Vice-Presidential  Debate were unpopular with voters, and therefore a strange choice to repeat in the next Presidential Debate.  It is difficult to believe that Mister Obama genuinely thinks he will win using such tactics.

Next, Mister Romney.  Romney was less polished in the Second Presidential Debate, but as noted the moderator’s obvious partisan support for his opponent forced him to handle two opponents in the Debate.  Mister Romney stayed on message, largely avoided negative tactics except to point out the failure of Mister Obama’s first term, and showed credentials worthy of the office he seeks. 

Undecided voters this late in an election are looking for answers on specific issues and questions.  Likeability is a factor, but anyone still undecided just three weeks before the election is basically waiting for a specific answer to a critical question.  Historically, undecided voters weigh the incumbent’s record against the challenger’s qualifications, and discount spin meant to distract from the key data.  That means the undecided voters are not impressed with Mister Obama saying what he wants to do in a second term, and they may not be particularly interested in events perceived as one-off incidents, like the Benghazi attack or the death of Osama bin Laden.  Those just don’t move the needle for most voters in the middle. 

That means the undecided voters will be eager to hear about Romney’s credentials and Mister Obama’s criticism of them.  They already have a good idea how to count Mister Obama’s record for the first term.  They will probably ignore talk they consider a distraction from their key questions, but they will probably pay attention to – and dislike – attempts to smear the other opponent; it makes the attacker look petty and dishonest.  That’s why ‘gotcha’ video clips and sound bites won’t get much traction with undecided voters, unless the target allows them to indicate there is substance to them. 

With this considered, then, the victory by Mister Romney in the Second Presidential Debate becomes obvious.  While Mister Obama may have felt good about his performance (as he said he did after the first debate), and his aggressive style may please his core supporters, the blatant bias by the moderator and the character of some questions (really, what objective voter still wants to know about Bush eight years after his last election?) are sure to have displeased genuinely undecided voters seeking information and a few straight answers.  With Romney having gained the advantage on all major issues through the first two events, the burden last night was squarely on Mister Obama, who failed to meet the challenge.         

Ego and Error

Twelve days ago, the campaign for President of the United States underwent a major change.   Or so it seemed, as Barack Obama appeared every bit as inept and unready as he claimed his opponent to be, while Mitt Romney showed himself calm, assured and competent, clearly the more Presidential.

The subsequent polls showed Romney take the consensus lead in the polls.  Those polls which gave Obama the lead, like the most recent ABC/Washington Post, do so by giving Obama a laughable imbalance in  party affiliation.  All polls taken since the debate with any kind of realistic representation of the salient demographic indicators show Romney in the lead.

But is this a reflection of one impressive debate, or something else?  A hint can be found in last week's Vice-Presidential debate.  The media generally split on that one, but the polls didn't waver.  On the one hand, Romney's lead did not increase but it did not go away, either.  When examined carefully, both debate performances reveal fatal flaws in Obama's re-election strategy.

Let's start with the obvious; the actual performance by Obama is lousy.  Unemployment, foreign conflicts, the National Debt, the ham-handed imposition of Obamacare, any way you count it the record of Barack Obama is a failure.  The funny thing, though, is that failures sometimes get re-elected anyway.  Without running down that road, there were a number of ways Barack Obama could have won himself a second term.  Frankly, I think it's too late for him now, unless Mitt Romney completely destroys his campaign and hands the election to Obama.  There are several reasons why the impetus is too far along, including the Incumbency Effect (an incumbent generally produces election results several points below his October poll numbers, and an incumbent who does not reach 50 percent support in October polls cannot win), the Economic barometer (GDP growth below 2.5 percent in an election year favors the challenger), and the Mid-Term Election effect (Mid-Term results by party are often reflected party support in the subsequent Presidential Election).  But there are additional reasons why Romney is surging just now.

In any campaign, candidates must expect a mix of good and bad news, success and blunders, surges and pitfalls.  But Obama's campaign has not been able to communicate real conditions to the President.  Obama is so much a narcissist that he refuses to listen to bad news, which is why he followed his loss to Romney by blaming style and "being too nice", which resulted in Biden's manic behavior in the Vice-Presidential Debate. It not only failed to address critical mistakes in substance by Obama, it opens the possibility that he could very well compound his error in the next debate.  Romney was able to demonstrate competence and a presidential demeanor.  If Obama fails to recognize this is already in place, his haughty disrespect towards Romney could be seen by Independents as desperate panic or an outright inability to face facts.  If that happens, Romney's lead could become decisive with more than half a month to go to the election.

The View From Topside

Nice view up here.  Rasmussen said it’s a tie as of Monday when I started writing this, but Gallup and Pew said Romney has the lead.  All kinds of state polls are showing movement in Romney’s favor, and the commentary since the first Presidential Debate (or, if you read the New Yorker magazine and have seen their latest cover, Romney versus the Empty Chair) has also reflected a drastic opinion change in Romney’s favor.   Not surprisingly, Obama supporters reject the idea that so many people have changed their mind so quickly.  The thing is, I tend to agree with them on that particular point.  While I do think that Governor Romney is now the front-runner and I do think he has some strong momentum, I also believe that what is happening is not a change of minds for the most part, but a matter of enthusiasm.

As an example, let’s look at the most recent Pew poll.  The Pew Research Center is not as established as Gallup (no one is), but they have been around since 2004, which – sadly –is longer than a lot of polling agencies.  They call themselves a ‘nonpartisan fact tank’, which is sort of a junk phrase, but they also do a lot of opinion polling.  Anyway, Pew released a poll on September 19 showing President Obama leading Governor Romney by 8 points, and more importantly, with Obama collecting 51 percent of the vote, a critical measure with the race entering the home stretch.

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/09-19-12%20Political%20release.pdf

This is obviously great news for the Obama Camp, and very bad news for Team Romney. 

But Pew released another poll on October 8, this one showing Governor Romney leading President Obama by 4 points, 49 percent to 45 percent.  The poll indicates Obama lost six points of support while Romney gained six points, for a twelve-point swing in a single poll cycle.

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/10-8-12%20Political%20Release.pdf

This new poll is obviously great news for Team Romney, and very bad news for the Obama Camp.

But here’s the thing.  Are we really saying that one in every eight voters changed their mind because of the debate?  Sure, Romney won and looked good doing it, but the Romney supporters were already planning on voting for him, and I don’t believe huge numbers of Obama supporters decided to quit and go home, much less vote for Romney.  It could be that six percent of voters who are Independent swung from Obama to Romney, but since Independents usually make up no more than 30 percent of all voters at the highest participation level, that would mean one in every five Independent voter changed their mind because of the first debate.  Kind of hard to buy that.

I also reject the ‘conspiracy’ notion, that Pew wanted Obama to win and tweaked the results in the first poll … and apparently changed its mind after the debate in order to be on the winning side.  Polls are generally trying to be accurate, and to reflect the genuine opinion of the voters. 

So, to understand what happened, we go to the numbers.  Pew’s September 19-released poll contacted 3,019 adults nationally, of whom they determined 2,424 were Registered Voters, 2,192 were Likely Voters, and of the Registered Voters, 717 were Republicans (29.6%), 869 were Democrats (35.8%), and 757 were Independents (31.2%).   For comparison, the October 8-released poll contacted 1,511 adults nationally, of whom they determined 1,201 were Registered Voters, 1,112 were Likely Voters and of the Registered Voters, 403 were Republicans (33.6%), 396 were Democrats (33.0%), and 364 were Independents (30.3%).  That’s a +4 point change for Republicans, a -3 point change for Democrats, and a -1 point change for Independents in participation terms.  What else is interesting, is what happens if we look at support by party.   Republicans supported Romney 91-6 in the September poll, and 89-7 in the October poll, actually dropping a couple points.  Democrats supported Obama  92-6 in the September poll, and 93-5 in the October poll, gaining a point.  Independents supported Obama 44-42 in the September poll, but swung over to Romney in the October poll by the same 44-42 margin, a 4-point swing right there.  So, if the same weighting was used in both polls by party affiliation, Romney got a 1 or 2-point bounce in the polls, and that means the other 10-11 points of gain came from changes in the party affiliation weighting.   This demonstrates why the weighting of polls is so important in how results are presented.  A poll which over-weights or under-weights political participation can severely invalidate the results, in the same way that ignoring proper demographic weights for gender, age, or race can create unrealistic images. 

So what’s going on?  Is the party weighting due to bias?  I don’t think so, for that reason stated earlier that polls want to get the results right.  What happens is generally one of three things.  The Pew poll, it should be noted, apparently does not weight for party affiliation, but simply leaves the political affiliation un-weighted, so enthusiasm for a given party is reflected as well as stated support.  The problem with that point is the fact that Democrats are generally more eager to answer polls, possibly due to the fact that Republicans tend to be older than Democrats.  If this first answer is correct, the October 8 poll shows significant change because Republicans have been energized and Democrats demoralized by the debate results, but subsequent events could change that condition.

The second way polls handle party affiliation is to mirror the last Presidential election.  In 2008 Democrats represented about 39 percent of all voters, the highest level since 1996, while Republicans represented only about 32 percent of all voters (lowest since 1980).  Republicans may well argue that the 7-point disparity is unlikely to be repeated this year, but at least those polls can point to history for their basis.  An interesting variation on this is Rasmussen, which uses the 2010 election turnout results for its base.  Democrats argue that weighting is invalid because the mid-term election turnout may not be reflected in a Presidential election year, but Republicans can point to the 2010 election as the most recent historical model.  The actual election will show which of the two theories is correct this year, if either.

The third way polls weight for party affiliation is the most controversial.  Editors sometimes pick a number they like with little support beyond playing a hunch.  While this may seem to invalidate a poll, if the weighting is consistent through the year, the poll can still reflect trends and swings in opinion. 

With 27 days left in the race, some folks have already voted, many more already know how they plan to vote and won’t be swayed, and some have already decided not to vote, are too late to register, or plan to throw their vote away on the political equivalent of breaking wind just to make a bad odor in public.  Jay Cost wrote that no election is decided by October 1, which seems to run against a lot of what has been said and written this year. 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-race-has-just-begun_653404.html

According to Cost, as many as twenty-two percent of voters won’t make their mind up until after October 1, with up to seventeen percent making up their mind in the last week before the election.  This tells us that a lot of people will be watching what’s going on and making up their minds on those last, final events. 

I am a bit skeptical on that last part, though.  I do agree that there will be undecideds up to Election day, and because polls push people to at least say who they ‘lean’ towards (which I still call an undecided) I think there are more undecideds than the four-to-seven percent announced in most poll results, but I also think that people know generally where they stand and how they feel about the incumbent and challenger once the general election gets underway; they are undecided mostly because they want their preferred candidate to close the deal.  Once they make that decision, they are pretty much locked-in, even if for the sake of appearing reasonable they say they are still deciding.  This happens a lot in certain states.  What I mean is, people in places like Texas or New York, California or Utah made up their minds pretty early in the race.  And the number of true undecideds is pretty low.  In Ohio or Florida, though, even if people have decided how they will vote, they may be telling pollsters they aren’t sure, because they recognize that their state might swing the election one way or the other, and so even if they know how they plan to vote, they may back off saying so in public for fear of looking like they decided too quickly. 

Today’s Gallup tracking shows a tie now among Likely Voters, and a 5-point lead for Obama among Registered Voters.  It’s just one poll, but then again it’s Gallup, which is as good as polls get for both transparency and historical record.  His Job Approval numbers are also up in Gallup, enough to give confidence to the Obama Camp if he can hold through October.  So, as good as last week for Romney, we’re still looking at a race where all sorts of possibilities remain viable.       

Denver Crash Under Investigation

(Denver) - The NTSB declined comment this morning as they sorted through the wreckage from last night's head-on collision between President Barack Obama and his record in the Oval Office.   Witnesses reported seeing Mitt Romney at the location, and some suggested he was responsible for the collision, by directing voters' attention to the economy and national policy, forcing Obama to run directly against his own work.  A source for the NTSB, who refused to be named for this report, said that while Romney was a contributing factor, Obama's spending trajectory made such a collision inevitable.

The degree of damage from the catastrophe is still being determined, but medical experts warned that Obama's credibility could be severely diminished.  One expert said it was possible for Obama to decline to a "Biden-like coma".  Others said it was far too early to give up hope, citing free phones and soaring rhetoric being applied in large measure to reduce the pain and take the focus off hard numbers.

Chris Matthews is reported to be in seclusion, undergoing severe withdrawal symptoms.

Polls, Conspiracies, Common Sense, and Arguments

Imagine I took a poll of delegates at the 2012 GOP National Convention. Let’s say I made sure the gender, race, age, education, and other demographics apart from party affiliation were carefully matched to voter norms. Would you be happy with such a poll? If you are a Republican, maybe, but obviously not if you are a Democrat. A lot of folks would be quick to point out that Mitt Romney would pretty much crush Barack Obama in such a poll. The flip side is also obvious; if I took a poll and asked questions of only delegates at the Democrats’ convention, the results again would be pretty predictable, and by any reasonable standard invalid as a predictor of what will happen in the actual election. Yet, a lot of polls are out with very odd political weighting to them, and it’s laughable to hear the excuses made that these polls should be considered accurate with such imbalances. According to Jay Cost, there is a disparity between polls which Cost calls a “bimodal distribution”,

 http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/26/jay-cost-breaks-down-the-party-id-conundrum/

 which Cost says results in a difference in poll results which “looks to be built around how many Democrats are included in the polling samples.” I both agree and disagree with Mr. Cost. I do agree that the polls are off-kilter, but I reject the notion of conspiracies on that count. Polls depend on accuracy for their reputation, so either they really believe they have it right, or a whole bunch of them will be making major changes between now and Election Day. Before I go into those polls, I should be clear that I believe Romney will win, for the following general reasons. First, the economy and overall national condition is such that I do not believe Democrats will have the kind of numbers they enjoyed in 2008. In fact, a USA Today article from last December warned that both Democrats and Republicans had suffered declines while Independents grew, but noted that Democrats losses were significantly more than two times Republican losses. Democrats might still hold an edge in affiliation, but it would be in decline, not growing.

 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/voters-political-parties/52171688/1

An August article in Politico found that Democrat losses in voter registration are TEN TIMES those of Republicans.

 http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/08/dem-registration-down-in-key-states-132150.html

 Here’s the thing. Voters can choose to stay home or they can choose to vote, but the ceiling depends on getting registered. While the Democrats were in great shape as a plurality in 2008, they simply don’t have the stuff to build the same level of turn-out this year. The careful reader will note, then, that if Republicans stayed at about the same level and the Democrats dropped, then the Independents will be a huge, possibly critical factor in this election. This is the second reason why Romney will win. Despite overall poll numbers favoring Obama, Rasmussen, Gallup, and Battleground all show Romney leading in Independent support. Narrow, but clear. The third reason is the incumbency rule. Back in 1989, Nick Panagakis noted that in 127 out of 155 measurable election races, the proclaimed ‘undecideds’ broke heavily for the challenger. As a result, a close race is considered bad news for the incumbent.

 http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm

 At RCP, Sean Trende said the problem for an incumbent below 50 percent could be more serious, even if he is leading in the polls. Note also that he wrote this back in 2010, long before he could have known where Obama would be in the polls.

 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/10/12/how_to_understand_the_incumbent_rule.html

 Taken in total, then, Romney has a deeper base of support than the poll weighting reflects, he has small but significant leads in Independent voter support, and Obama’s weak support up to now indicates there is a faction of undecideds who, historically, will pull the lever for Romney more than Obama by something between four-to-one and seven-to-one. Romney wins. But that doesn’t answer why the polls show Obama ahead, especially if – as I have said – there is no conspiracy. That brings us back to how polls work. Michael Barone used to work as a pollster, and wrote an interesting article on polling last week.

 http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-when-it-comes-to-polls-readers-beware/article/2509360#.UGtLJpjBGf9

 The following is the essence I took from his article: First, back in 1997 about 36 percent of the people contacted agreed to be polled. Pew says that response rate is down to 9 percent. It means that if everything else is equal, it’s four times as hard to get your respondent pool. It’s not hard to see that such a drastic change in voter behavior can affect the character of poll results. Next, polls were originally conducted face to face and in some places still are (most notably in exit polling). That practice was always the most expensive and difficult method, and some questions have come up about insuring that proper methods are followed, so this has generally been replaced by telephone polling. Telephone polling has come under some criticism, since so many people today don’t use landline phones, and by law cell phones cannot be machine-dialed, a major part of the Random-Digit-Dialing (or RDD) system which has been the industry norm for a generation. A number of polls have begun to mix online and cell phone polls with landline results, but there is no empirical support to show that mixing such methods does not invalidate the results. Statisticians are pretty picky about what constitutes a valid sample, and tossing respondents in willy-nilly any way you can get them just does not pass the smell test. This brings us back to the business of polling. While they want to get the numbers right, pollsters also want very much to bring in the Next Big Thing. You don’t see it in the published numbers, but a lot of the pollsters are playing around with ways to get more responses from a broader range of the public. The problem is the inherent demographics in the different contact methods. Cell phone users, for example, tend to be younger and more urban than landline phone owners, which trends to a heavier portion of democrats. Also, phones in general tend to urban responses more than suburban, due to lifestyle differences. As for computer polls, the simple fact that the respondents in such polls approach the pollster rather than wait to be approached is a major deviation from nominal behavior, and as such represent a red flag in terms of representing voters at large.

 To put it another way, if I am at home and my phone rings from someone I don’t know, I will probably answer anyway, unless I am in the middle of something. If my cell rings and I don’t recognize the number, I am not answering because I AM usually in the middle of something, like work or driving. So even though I have both a landline and cell phone, I won’t respond at all to a cell phone interview while I may do so at my home. The norms simply have not been established and therefore any mixed-methodology poll is simply not valid as an indicator of state or national opinion.

 Another thing to keep in mind is the different value of the polling agencies. I may disagree with one or another of the big names, but Gallup, Rasmussen, Pew and so on are well known and established. The state polls for this year? Seriously, what do you know about groups like Public Policy Polling (PPP), Gravis Marketing, WeAskAmerica, and so on? The fact is, many of the groups doing state polling this year were not around in 2004 or even 2008, so there’s no way to know how well they are doing for accuracy. The next thing to notice, is that while the big national polling groups are putting polls out every week or so, many of the state polling groups only put a poll out more than a month after the last one, making it difficult to track trends within a specific poll. RCP and other media get lazy and just toss all the results together, figuring the aggregate will be accurate, but that’s statistically invalid. Don’t just take my word for it, go look up the American Association for Public Opinion Research. If you look into their code of ethics, for example, you will notice that they expect their members to be clear about how they conduct their research, to correct distortions of fact or data, and to clearly show their methodology. Frankly, few public polling groups come close to that standard in actual practice.

 http://www.aapor.org/Home.htm

 Most people would not know the name, but polling took a large step forward with the creation of the exit poll by Warren Mitofsky, who worked with the Census Bureau then later CBS News. By the late 1960s, Mitofsky had established a format to query voters as they left the polls, which has become the standard ever since. It’s significant to note that Mitofsky himself observed a “rather consistent pattern in the presidential contests toward overstating the Democrat’s share of the vote”.

 http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/public-perspective/ppscan/42/42019.pdf

It’s important to observe that Mitofsky did not blame the overstatement of Democrat support on a conspiracy or deliberate attempt to deceive, but in his opinion the phenomenon is “a difference in response rates” between candidates. Mitofsky noted that age and other demographics affect response rates by voters. In summary, we should start any look at the polls with a reminder that polls are always, to some degree, wrong. They are influenced by assumptions made, not only by the polling groups but also by the respondents themselves. Conspiracy theories should be treated with a generous dose of skepticism, but the reader should pay attention to the track record of past polls, not only at the end right before the election, but earlier in the campaign. 

With that in mind, here is a quick look at the salient comparisons (all poll results from Gallup): Since 1950, only two Democrats have been elected as President then stood for re-election; Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1996. But the Democrat running for President representing the incumbent party has run in four additional elections; Adlai Stevenson in 1952, Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and Al Gore in 2000. This gives us six elections for examination.

 In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower led Adlai Stevenson wire to wire in the polls. The early September poll showed Ike ahead 47-39, October showed a 53-41 lead, and the final poll was 51-49 for Eisenhower, indicating a tight race. The actual results were 55-45 Eisenhower, better than two of the three months of polling.

 In 1964, LBJ led Goldwater wire to wire in the polls. The early September poll showed LBJ ahead 65-29, October showed a 62-32 lead, and the final poll was 64-36 for Johnson. The actual results were 61-39 Johnson, an easy win but closer than the polls expected.

 In 1968, Nixon and Humphrey went back and forth, with Wallace’s 3rd-party effort confusing things. The September poll showed Nixon ahead 43-31, it was 44-29 Nixon in October, and the final poll tightened up to a 43-42 lead for Nixon. The actual results in 1968 were 44-43 Nixon, so the final poll was right but the earlier ones were off.

 In 1980, President Carter appeared to be surviving the bad economy and Middle East crisis. He held a narrow 39-38 lead over Reagan in September, the two were tied in October, and Reagan took a tight 1-point lead in the final poll. But the actual result, 51-41 Reagan, showed the polls were just plain wrong.

 In 1996, Bill Clinton led Bob Dole wire to wire in the polls. Clinton held a 53-36 lead in September, a 57-32 lead in October, and the final poll had Clinton ahead 52-41. The actual results, again, showed a tighter race than the polls predicted. While Clinton’s 49-41 win was not a nail-biter, the results showed, once again, that the polls continued to favor the Democrat more than was actually the case.

 In 2000, the polls seem to have accurately reflected a tight race. George Bush led Al Gore 46-45 in September, the race was tied at 45 in early October, and the final poll had Bush ahead 48-46. The final 48-48 virtual tie (Gore a smidge over 48% Bush a smidge below 48%) appears to show the polls were right.

So, only one of the elections played out the way it appeared in even the October polls. Just something to keep in mind as you read press releases saying it’s already decided.

According to Gallup, Romney Should Win

Like a lot of folks, I follow opinion polls. Unlike a lot of people, I remember what I learned in my Statistics classes. This means that I try not to make the most common mistakes which happen when folks read and discuss polls. I have examined historical trends and the relevant vectors of this election in the Gallup poll, and find significant evidence that the Republicans’ ticket of Romney & Ryan will defeat the Democrats’ ticket of Obama & Biden. First, some points about the polls. Political opinion polls are useful indicators of the public mood, but there are a number of common errors in their consideration. One of the most common mistakes is aggregation; Aggregation is a mistake because different polls use different methodologies, often slight in variation but distinct in effect. One poll may consult ‘Likely Voters’ while another asks ‘Registered Voters’ (while another may just ask ‘Adults’ and different polls may have different standards for determining who is a ‘Likely Voter’), polls differ in weighting demographic samples, party affiliation, and other significant vectors. Statistics is only valid if consistent methods are used, and aggregating results from different polls invalidates conclusions by mixing methods. A way to understand this would be if a patient needs to lose weight. He weighs himself on his home scale and it reads 240 pounds. At his doctor’s office, however, the scale reads 243 pounds. If you believe the doctor’s scale is more accurate than his home scale that’s fine, but let’s say the same patient exercises a bit more and watches his diet a little better. If his home scale tells him he now weighs 235, while we may expect the doctor’s scale to be different we would expect to see the same amount of weight loss on that scale. Similarly, a more effective way to read opinion polls is not to compare Poll A to Poll B, but to note trends in each poll over time, or look at one poll in detail, considering historical behavior as well as current statements. In other words, a political opinion poll should be considered valid if that poll uses reasonable and consistent methodology, shows how it reaches its results, and is willing to report its history against actual election results. At this time, the only national opinion poll which meets all three conditions at a high level of veracity is the Gallup Organization. Other polls may well use consistent methodology, but most will only publish detailed demographics for ‘premium’ customers, and few have even been in business for more than a decade, let alone since the FDR Administration. What’s more, the Gallup people quite openly publish their track record, mistakes and goofs along with their successes, which is not only unique but generates strong credibility for Gallup. Frankly, I’ve been watching and evaluating polls since 2000 in as much detail as I can, and no one else comes close to Gallup for reliability. So, for this essay I am considering the available information from Gallup. So, let’s start with today’s numbers. The good news for President Obama is that Gallup shows him with a 1 point lead over Governor Romney, 47% to 46%. http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx But President Obama’s Job Approval is down to 43%. That number is a big problem for Obama, so let’s start there. Gallup lists the historical track record of Presidential Job Approval, and this can be compared to election results. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/presidential-approval-center.aspx There have been sixteen Presidential elections since World War 2, of which ten featured a sitting President on the ticket. Gallup’s record shows that no Job Approval poll was taken for Truman between July and October of 1948, so that limits us to consider the nine remaining elections: 1956: Labor Day Approval 68%, Election 57.8% (-10.2%); 1964*: Labor Day Approval 74%, Election 61.3% (-12.7%); 1972: Labor Day Approval 56%, Election 61.8% (+5.8%); 1976: Labor Day Approval 45%, Election 48.1% (+3.1%); 1980*: Labor Day Approval 32%, Election 41.0% (+9.0%); 1984: Labor Day Approval 54%, Election 59.2% (+5.2%); 1992: Labor Day Approval 39%, Election 37.7% (-1.3%); 1996*: Labor Day Approval 60%, Election 49.2% (-10.8%); 2004: Labor Day Approval 49%, Election 50.7% (+1.7%) (* Democrat incumbent) Of those nine elections, the incumbent had a 1.1% loss between his Labor Day Job Approval and the Election Results (indicating Obama could finish with just 41.9% of the Popular Vote), but in the three elections with a Democrat President and a Labor Day Job Approval rating, the incumbent lost 4.8% between the Job Approval and the Election Results. If that last trends holds true this year, President Obama may finish with less than forty percent of the Popular Vote. The reason I do not think this likely, is because only three elections are on record with a Democrat Incumbent, too few to establish a reliable statistical sample. Nonetheless, President Obama’s poor Job Approval as of today is a bad sign for his election results. Gallup also publishes the poll results for the Presidential elections it has covered. In these elections, the September 1 poll results may be compared to the actual election results, as a means to determine how accurate those polls are in predicting outcome and the resolution of undecided voters. The record of polls from the relevant elections can be found here: gallup.com/poll/9442/gallup-presidential-election-trialheat-trends-19362004.aspx There are fifteen Presidential elections after the World War 2, for which a late August or early September poll was taken which could be said to represent the Labor Day sentiment. Of those fifteen polls, the Democrat candidate gained an average 1.6% from September to the election, while the Republican candidate gained an average 4.2%. Matched to Gallup’s present polling, this would project a 50.2% to 48.6% Romney victory. When only elections with a Democrat incumbent are considered, the change from Labor Day polling to the election is a 0.5% loss for the Democrat, and a 7.7% gain for the Republican challenger. Clearly, is accurate this trend would project a decisive win for Romney. All of this may seem tenuous, but for two salient factors still to be considered. First, all elections depend in large part on the enthusiasm of the party base. It’s no wild guess to expect that Republicans will vote for Romney, or that Democrats will vote for Obama. The questions, then, come down to how independents will vote, and how many Republicans and Democrats show up at the polls. In 2008, strong Democrat enthusiasm for Obama coupled with lukewarm Republican support for McCain, created a clear Democrat advantage at the polls, which produced a clear majority in the election. In 2004, both parties showed strong energy which kept the election close; Gallup’s final poll in 2004 showed a 49-49 tie. With this in mind, consider the following article from Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/156524/Voter-Engagement-Down-Slightly-Last-Two-Elections.aspx The article shows a lead for Republican energy over the Democrats, especially when asking who is following the election “very closely”. Next, consider the question of the undecided voters. Gallup’s poll reflects a seven percent undecided portion, a number not only well beyond both the statistical margin of error and the margin between the two candidates, but consistent with most presidential elections at this point in the election. Of the nine elections with a sitting President as candidate, six had undecided numbers between six and seven percent. It is an important consideration, then, to see what happened with those voters. Over the six elections with comparable undecided portions, the Republican took fifteen times as many voters as the Democrat (an average gain of 3.0% against a Democrat gain of 0.2%). When all nine are considered, the advantage grows to a Republican average gain 4.5%, versus a Democrat gain of 0.3%. Again, this favors Romney in this election. But why should Romney claim more of the undecided voters than Obama? The answer comes from the three kinds of efforts a candidate must make in an election. A candidate for President must do three things, ignoring none of them: 1. Build his brand 2. Defend his brand against his opponent’s attacks 3. Attack his opponent’s brand To see how this plays out, consider 2004 and 2008. In 2004, Bush was able to run on his record, while Kerry had to establish his identity for voters. This gave Bush an initial advantage he was able to ride to re-election. In 2008, however, neither Obama nor McCain had an executive record on which to run, so the decision came down to creating an attractive identity, where Obama’s eloquence made the difference. This year, Obama will be judged on his record, against Romney’s image as a potential successor. As noted before, most Democrats and Republicans will have already decided to back their party’s candidate, leaving only a few Democrats and Republicans, along with the Independents, to hand out the remaining votes. Obama has enjoyed support above 48% only once, and has spent most of the General Election locked in at 47%. Frankly, the only way Obama can significantly increase his numbers would be for Romney to commit some blunder that seriously damaged his numbers and led to voters making late choice changes. This is what happened in 2008, when Sarah Palin’s misstatements created doubts about McCain’s judgment, resulting in nearly a ten-point loss of support in a couple weeks, with Obama the happy beneficiary. The problem for Obama this year, is two-fold: First, Obama’s camp has to deal with mis-statements by both the President and his vice-president. Second, Romney’s choice of Ryan created an issues-focused team that may not be the most exciting in memory, but which is going to be focused and clear. In short, the voters know all about Obama and Biden, but some are still learning about Romney and Ryan, creating opportunity to the Republicans to gain support beyond what they have now. At this time, the numbers suggest Romney is in a much stronger strategic position.

American Dominance And Its Effect on Business Management

Looking through my traffic results, I see there is renewed interest in the school rankings for Online MBAs. That tells me it’s time to get back to work and prepare the 2012 list, but it also reminds me to discuss the importance of such schools. Obviously, people go to school to earn degrees that make them more desirable to employers, for better positions and higher pay, but the decision should also be made in recognition of becoming much more effective at our work.

I’ve been reading George Friedman’s work, “The Next 100 Years”, which includes his opinion that the United States will dominate the century, not only because of our military and geopolitical standing, but also because of our business. That’s important for us, because it means that even if you want to become effective in international business, you have to first master the fundamentals of American business. The Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree, therefore, is not just a key to senior management posts, but is also a critical tool in helping your business gain long-term competitive advantage.

So, how does American dominance translate to your own career? First off, consider that (using Friedman’s data) the U.S. has about 4 percent of the world’s population, but creates 26 percent of all good and services, and 26 percent of the world’s GDP. The U.S. is far and away the world’s largest country for industrial production, is still one of the world’s largest energy producers, and is under-populated by global standards. Friedman says that an economy consists of land, labor, and capital, and on all three counts the U.S. is in very strong condition.

Now, it is true that the credit rating of the United States took a hit last year; as I work with credit analysis in my job, this is a point which must be counted with a lot of weight. But in context, always in context. The credit rating downgrade came from the behavior of the federal government, not the nation as a whole. When President Obama said the U.S. was and would always be a “triple-A” nation, he was correct – but he was also ducking the abysmal lack of responsibility by the federal government. The impact of the credit downgrade, then, comes in two parts. First, no matter how well an individual business is run, that business will be subject to penalties and disadvantages according to how it’s home country runs its policies and pays its own debts. That is tied to the second part; whenever a government messes up, the people will have to pay for the repairs and clean-up, and usually governments do this by punishing corporations, on the lie that penalizing large businesses which employ many people will somehow spare people the cost. History proves rather the opposite, but few politicians will ever admit this, especially since so few politicians have actually worked in or run a private-sector business. In short, success will always be desirable but great success will certainly make you a target for government powers seeking to get someone else to pay for their own blunders. As a result, major corporations will of necessity have to staff their teams with tax professionals able to address the sometimes ridiculous demands from government. This in no means that a company should evade taxes or seek to avoid paying an appropriate amount. In addition to the fact that government tax authorities have vast resources to pursue and punish cheats, the history of business also shows that paying too little also brings a cost in brand recognition and loss of goodwill. The point, though, is that paying too much in taxes does not improve the brand or make customers like you better; quite the opposite. Paying too much in taxes invariably forces a company to raise its prices, harming competitive advantage, and paying too much in taxes just makes your executives look stupid. Also, I should not need to mention that the government is far from eager to refund overpaid taxes, especially when a company does not realize its error.

Coming back to our own focus of interest, managers exist to get things done. Knowing that many companies are multi-national now, the globalization question is pertinent, but also must be folded into the acknowledgement of American dominance. By that I mean the understanding that American business practices are generally accepted worldwide as a standard, to the point that many elite businessmen come to U.S. universities and send their children here to learn business management. It means that Codes of Conduct and Mission Statements will generally have an American flavor to them, even in China and Russia, Brazil and India. It means that the exemplars of business excellence will continue to have names like Exxon Mobil, Kraft, and AT&T. Part of it comes from the long history of American business success, part from the dominance of U.S. business school doctrine, and part from the sheer optimism and energy of American strategy. For the foreseeable future, if you want to succeed globally, think American.

So how to do so as a manager? There are a lot of companies with poor management, for simple but foolish reasons. One example is the practice dubbed the Peter Principle, which promotes people who do a given job to a level above it, until they reach a level they cannot handle. The obvious correction for that is to peer-review managers and include regular training and refreshers for each tier of authority. Another common problem is allowing managers to build silos, preventing cooperation and also denying employees advancement opportunities through other departments and shutting down critical feedback for fear of losing image to executives. The correction there is a more active HR presence, especially by creating career paths for employees to encourage development and moral investment in the company future. Also, managers can help themselves by making sure their staff have access to opportunities. Rather than hurting the manager’s position, acting as mentor and providing support for promotion helps the manager nurture relationships outside his own group and department, not only be helping employees advance in the company, but also providing a talent resource for other managers. In this way the company thrives, inter-department cooperation is excellent, employees see proof of career opportunity and the manager who makes it happen gains trust and support from his team. A manager exists to make things work, and to do so more effectively. Sometimes that means seeking efficiency, but more often it means you need a leader with practical experience who knows from his own work what will and will not produce the desired results. Therefore, the goal should be to seek finding such people as managers, and to be such people ourselves.

A Thief in Amber (6th draft - still really rough )

Some people are hard to kill. I don’t mean the moral decision to kill, but the difficulty in getting someone to die, who is stubbornly opposed to the idea. Some people are hard to kill because they are physically tough, some have one of those spirits that refuses to quit, and some are just plain durable.

And some spirits exist for the fight.

It was in the early days, before all the betrayals and family intrigues … OK, we always had those going on, but this was back in the days when we still imagined that we played by the rules. You couldn’t attempt to murder a sibling then, without at least feigning innocence, and alliance with genocidal maniacs was only allowed if said monsters were friends of Oberon.

So, when word got out that someone or something was making its way through the halls of Castle Amber at night, killing members of the staff and generally hurting the castle’s reputation for fine dining and keeping folks safe from threats to their safety, the family decided it was time to take matters in hand. And, being expected to take the lead, I did so.

Oberon, as he commonly did, was traveling and away from Amber. Caine and Gerard were at sea and therefore also unavailable. Dierdre and Llewellen on a diplomatic mission for the Golden Circle, Brand, Random and Eric were out of the city for reasons not known to anyone else in the family, or if known not shared with me. That, of course, was also a reason for me to take charge; it would gall Eric no end if I could resolve things before he even heard about them … and give me no end of amusement if I could find a way to suggest he was somehow responsible for the problem. I was in those years when I was trying to show up everyone else, and convinced I looked good doing it. So it was that four princes and two princesses gathered for dinner, as we often did when we wanted to discuss issues of importance, and to imagine ourselves civilized.

The food was fine. The conversation, however, was wholly unsatisfying. It soon became apparent that none of us knew what was really going on, had any idea who or what was behind the attacks, and no one wanted to appear as helpless as we all felt.

After dinner, we all went to the library for drinks, and a second try at strategy. That fell apart as soon we chose our drinks. I watched as we chose different drinks, then different seats. Hell, we weren’t even looking at each other. I tried logic, first sitting with Benedict, who usually presented the best plan for dealing with any threat to Amber, but Benedict was even less talkative than usual. I followed with Julian, who was still angry with me for a prior disagreement, and he refused to even acknowledge my presence.

And so it went until I came to Fiona.

I knew something was about, when she smiled at my approach. Fiona and I never shared amusements or ideals, so a smile from her could only come at my cost. It also struck as strange that she seemed to be enjoying the present crisis. Was she its instigator, or if not, what was the source of her pleasure in this moment? I chose a drink, a seat, and a gambit.

“Hello Fiona,” I said. “You couldn’t just kill your enemies in a duel, like anyone else in the family?”

Fiona glared at me for a moment, then that smile returned as she realized – all too quickly – that I was just trying to draw her out.

“You play at things you do not understand, Corwin,” she answered. “As usual.

“I have no interest in your word games, and I must say I disapprove of your manners, and their lack.”

“I am not playing a game here” I protested, “but hunting the cause and source of our present threat. It is an elusive bird, truth, one which seems to be hidden by at least one of our princesses.”

Fiona smirked and replied, “Whereas wit is a bird that eludes the hand of rather too many princes.”

I shrugged. “Your disapproval concerns me even less than usual, Fi. All things considered.”

She tossed her head, red hair like a fall of flame. “Yet, perhaps it should. All things considered.”

I did things with my own eyebrows, emptied my glass, swung my boots down from the table, and headed for the door.

She chuckled, behind me.

I stopped, refrained from turning, and waited. Fiona could never resist showing the rest of us that she was a step ahead. Or pretending to be.

“You are wearing your blade,” she said. “Good.”

I went out, uttering no clever comments. With at least three murderous ghosts stalking Castle Amber, the time for such things was past.’

Hours passed, as I waited with blade drawn and senses wary, sitting in the hallway outside a row of rooms where I thought an appearance most likely by one or more of our homicidal specters.

I guessed wrong. The most dangerous thing to pass my way that night was an odor wafting from Julian’s room. I could pretend it was some feral scent from our nocturnal attackers, but I am sure it was simply the unwashed aroma of a pair of his dogs. In any case, I saw no spirits floating about, encountered no need to use my weapon, and generally felt like I was wasting my time.

Until I heard Flora scream. Down another hall, and far from my chosen station. Naturally. Or un-naturally. Whatever.

I felt damn foolish as I ran towards Flora’s room, hoping my missed guess would not be a costly mistake.

Fortunately, the volume of Flora’s shouts was not matched by actual peril. That is, Flora was not a passive screamer; when assailed by spirits coming at her, as she claimed, from within the walls, she not only cried for help but began throwing things at her attackers. It was hard to tell if any of them was some effective weapon, or the sheer volume of makeup, jewelry, hair care items and mirrors had thwarted their aggression. For all I knew, Flora had surprised them as much as they surprised her. There was no way to be sure. For the moment, we all relaxed in the discovery that our disembodied attackers seemed able to make mistakes, and we felt more confident that we ourselves were perhaps immune to their threat.

Then Bleys found Julian, more than half-dead in his quarters. Julian did not appear for breakfast, and Bleys was the first to check his rooms. I began to wonder why I had not heard anything from my vigilance post, and why Julian’s dogs had done nothing to defend him.

Also, for some reason Julian had not worn his armor the previous night. That cost him. He had been attacked from behind, as was evident by the burn marks on his back. He had fought off his attackers, but his arms, back, and legs were badly burned. I wished I could ask Julian what he had seen, and how he had fought off his assailants, but he was in a coma from his injuries, or the same thing for practical purposes. Benedict saw to his wounds and set a guard to door, with instructions to call him the instant Julian awoke – or anything appeared that might be the spirit murderers coming to finish the job.

I was not friendly with Julian, but an attack on family trumped personal arguments. Besides, just as I stood to gain from Eric’s humiliation if I could solve a mystery he was not around to handle, so too I would suffer my own humiliation if I could not resolve the problem right in front of me – and if a brother prince died on my watch, especially one I was not close to, I could count on Eric making me pay for it. And Father had made it clear that he counted fratricide as unforgivable. Failing to protect a brother was guilt by omission, and I knew that no defense I could present would clear me unless Julian lived. And I resolved the mystery and destroyed the threat.

I spoke to Benedict again, and – while cryptic – his comments included suggestions on where I might try my next vigil, and when I might expect to meet my foes.

It was very late, or rather early, before one of the walls opened in a place where it should not have done, and something that was both silver and shadow joined me.

Grayswandir felt good in my hand as I put down what I was finished drinking anyway, and waited.

Patience, they say, is a chiefly a virtue for statues, but I’d made more than my share of mistakes, thus far, and blood is hell to get out of good rugs.

Came a whisper, out of darkness. “Corwin, is it time?”

A fight for my life, I expected. Temporal confusion from the spooks, I have to admit, I did not see coming.

“No, go back to sleep,” I tried. OK, not a brilliant strategy, but I was tired and didn’t expect the question anyway.

There was a moment of silence, then the forms began to take shape. I expected something, I don’t know, human-like and perhaps demonic. These were, after all, undead spirits seeking to kill the living. Nor was I wrong.

Not exactly.

The attackers swirled into the room like sentient fog, and quickly surrounded me. I suddenly realized something was behind me, taking more substantial shape, and – I felt dread rush up my spine – preparing to strike me the same it had attacked Julian.

Something like lightning flashed, and surprised me. Mostly because the lightning came from inside the room … from Grayswandir.

I jumped to my feet, swinging up Grayswandir with one arm as I threw the book behind me into the – face? – of my posterior assailant. I heard the book smack into something, which swore as if hurt, and I pivoted, putting my back against the wall while swinging my sword into a guard position. Then I stopped.

That was a mistake.

The spirits, once the sword, stopped moving, resumed their attack, and I felt a crackle of something hot shoot past my head, striking the wall hard as if a crossbow bolt. Something else, like a burning lasso, wrapped my boots and tried to trip me. I hopped reflexively, brought my sword up again and swung it about me as if trying to burn cobwebs with a torch.

And shadows fled before me, and I was alone.

My book was on the floor, blackened. Damn. I watched lightning flicker and wondered if I would ever know what I fought, or why. Family politics seemed as tiresome as ever.

Three ghosts, Benedict had said, and had been on the brink of saying more ere his face had smoothed and he’d turned away.

Which meant he’d recognized the one he’d seen.

So had the lamplighter, before the ghost that slew him caught up with him and burned his skull bare, from within.

Coln had died, before that, and one of the cooks. Seven maids, or more by now, since.

Then they started on us. Flora had almost fallen to one, and then Julian. Almost.

We’re tough meat, we of Amber.’

Speaking of meat, I found myself famished. Deciding between preparing for a second round with the spooks, alerting the rest of the family to my attack, and getting an early breakfast, the stomach spoke with the greatest authority. Besides, I was somehow sure the attack for the night was done, and I needed to think through what had just happened before I spoke to anyone else. If one of us was behind the attacks, I had no intention of giving out thoughts on how to make sure I was properly killed next time.

I made my way to the kitchen and found it empty, as I hoped it would be. A half-dozen eggs, some cheese, ham and the appropriate spices produced a passable omelet, which I ate with coffee I made while I thought over the attack. I’m a good enough cook, but the quality of thoughts I considered diminished my appetite a bit.

I realized that I had to share my encounter, with at least one person. The attacks on Flora, then Julian so close afterwards showed that anyone could be next, and I had to help protect the innocent. If only I could be sure none among us was the guilty …

I decided on Benedict. He had shared the plan to catch out the spirits, so I already owed him a report on the attack for that reason. Also, he was the least likely to try a sneak attack on any of us – and if he had, his victims would not have survived. No, this was not Benedict’s trick, whatever it was.

I found him sitting with Julian. Julian remained still and lifeless, to all appearances. Enough to make his usual loquacity and stiff behavior seem positive ebullient. Benedict was not much more enthusiastic. I think I knew why. Julian was not so strong as some of us, but a prince of Amber should not be laid low this easily by anything. He seemed not to be resting, so much as lying helpless. That could be any one of us, even Benedict, and I could see that in Benedict’s thin, grim face.

“No change, Corwin,” said Benedict, as I entered the bedroom.

“So I see,” I answered. “But I have news for you.”

I handed Benedict the scorched book from my encounter as he rose from his seat. He looked at it, then met my eyes with his own.

“You encountered them, then?” he asked.

I nodded.

“Yes, but unlike you, I did not recognize any of them” I said, watching for a reaction to my observation. But Benedict remained solemn and still, as was his usual mood, even in happier times.

I waited for him to speak, but Benedict simply held my gaze, and after a moment. I continued.

“Yes, I was attacked,” I said. “Where you said they would likely be, and only an hour or so after the time you predicted. Which makes me curious, of course, how you knew …?”

I somehow expected Benedict to smile at being prescient, but he remained solemn. I also expected him to provide more helpful information, but I was wrong on that count as well.

“What do you know about this, Corwin?” asked Benedict, his left hand casually resting on the hilt of a dagger he had on his belt. There was no menace in his tone, but Benedict was clear in his meaning.

“Of the attacks? Nothing to speak of, Benedict.” I replied. “I told you my thoughts the last time we spoke, and I am trying to free us from who or whatever is attacking us.”

“Convenient, though,” remarked Benedict, “that you were the closest to Julian of us all, and yet you saw and heard nothing when he was attacked.”

“I know,” I protested, “and you know I would have arranged an alibi if I were going to attack Julian. Like, say, being away from Amber during the attacks?”

Benedict shook his head in irritation.

“Don’t start that stupid game again, of plots and intrigue, Corwin.”

“I won’t,” I replied, “as long as you agree to stop accusing me of being behind the attacks I’m trying to stop.”

Benedict sighed.

“All right,” he agreed. “But you were attacked, yourself, yet you have not yet told me about it.”

So I did. Including my reluctance to trust the full story to anyone in our family who might be the plotter behind the ghosts.

Benedict sighed again.

“I hate to agree with you on this, Corwin” he said, “but I sense that these attacks are part of something larger.

“And until we find a way to stop it, our danger will only grow.”

“So how do you think you escaped –” Benedict stopped and glanced down at Julian’s unmoving figure.

“Grayswandir” I said simply. “They’re afraid of it, for some reason.”

I remembered something just then.

“And I think Fiona knows they are afraid of it.” I continued. “The evening before Flora and Julian were attacked, she commented on my blade.”

Benedict grimly nodded.
“Go speak to Fiona” he said. We rose together, and he stopped for a moment in thought.

“Be direct,” he advised, “She will think she’s ahead of us, and she might be, but she might lose some of her nerve if you give her reason to think she could have missed something important.

“Good luck, Corwin” said Benedict. “Call me on my trump if you need me, but no matter what, be careful.

“Your blade may help protect you from these ghosts, but you still have to find the hand behind the spirit.” With that, Benedict turned his attention back to Julian.

But Fiona had anticipated more than my fight with the ghosts. Her room was empty, but she left a note in a sealed envelope addressed to me.

Of course, being Fiona, she had put a spell on the envelope which prevented anyone from opening it without saying the right phrase. I tried the normal and predictable phrases I knew she had used in the past to goad brothers and sisters, and since it was addressed to me I included ones she had taunted me with, like ‘Fiona is wise, Corwin tells lies’, that kind of thing. A tired and juvenile game, but Fiona liked to play that kind of thing often.

But this time there were no such games. Fiona had laughed the last time we spoke, but it seemed her mood had changed by the time she wrote her note. I called up Benedict on his trump and explained the situation. He had no advice except to tell me to keep trying.

I kept at it for more than an hour, then threw down the envelope muttering, “I give up”.

The seal appeared and broke on the envelope. I seized it and pulled out the note.

‘Corwin, hello’ began the note. ‘That you are reading this proves either that I am a great fool and feared for no good cause, or that you are as strong as I believed … or as lucky.

‘I have left the Eternal City for the present, because the forces you fight are as unpredictable as they are strong. I know them well enough to give you information, and well enough to flee them while they present a threat to us all. My craft and skills are useless as weapons against them. You, however, have the means to resolve the matter, and sufficient luck that I trust you will survive. I have bet much on your success.’

I smiled grimly at Fiona’s confidence in betting my life on the matter.

‘Trust your sword but not your brothers’, the note continued, and I chuckled at Fiona repeating such a well-known maxim among us, ‘except one whose sword suits the need even better than your own. Ask him nicely …’

I stopped and pondered for a moment who the hell Fiona could mean, then went back to the last part of the note.
‘… and strike you both one step to the LEFT of where you normally aim. Strike twice, but not at yourself.

‘Good luck, Corwin.’

If I did not know her better, that last line would have made me wonder about Fiona’s state of mind. I handed the note to Benedict, rather than have to read those instructions out loud.

Benedict read the note twice, or else slowly, then looked me in the eye.

“She wrote this for you, Corwin. Any idea how she knew you’d be the one to find it?”

“None.” I replied. “Anymore than how she knew you’d be here.”

“She wrote nothing of me” protested Benedict.

“I think she did” I said. “That line about a sword better-suited than my own. With Eric and Brand not here, she has to have meant you.”

Benedict paused in thought for a moment, then nodded sharply.

“Actually, Corwin, she might know my weapons better than I do – at least one of them. I know of a blade which might help here, but I am surprised that Fiona would know of it.”

“She seems to know a lot more than she is revealing,” I commented . “Is that blade of your accessible?”

“Oddly, yes” said Benedict. “Fiona asked about it just last week, when all of this was still largely unknown for the threat it has become.

“It makes me wonder how she considered the threat,” he pondered. “As much as I hate to cast suspicion, Corwin, this point concerns me.”

“I also wonder,” I agreed, careful not to go further with my thoughts. I could not help but wonder, though, if my sister had not started something she found she could not control.

Benedict stopped to Julian’s door, said a few words and handed something small to the guards he had posted. Then he strode away, ostensibly to collect the blade he mentioned.

As I stood in the hall thinking what to do next, I heard a noise, and realized Julian was stirring. As I went to his doorway, one guard moved to stop me but the other waved him away, saying Benedict had cleared me.

“But no one else,” I heard him warn, as I entered Julian’s room.

Julian was conscious, and aware of his injuries. Every other word seemed an oath as he took stock of his condition. He attempted to get out of bed, then quickly thought better of that idea. As he settled back into bed, Julian noticed me for the first time.

“Here to gloat?” he inquired.

“Not at all,” I assured him. “I’m glad you’re going to be OK.”

Julian groaned.

“After I can move without searing pain, I might come to share that opinion,” he muttered. “For now I count myself glad to have survived the experience.”

“What can you tell me?,” I asked, deciding not to mention my own attack.

Julian opened his mouth, then closed it.

“I am not sure I am ready to discuss that,” he said.

“Even with lives at risk?” I countered.

“Even so,” said Julian. He held my gaze for a few moments, then closed his eyes and sighed.

“Look, Corwin,” said Julian, “I can’t say I like you, and I have reason to be wary of who may be behind all this.

“I am especially vulnerable just now, even with Benedict’s protection.”

“What if I can help?” I asked.

“You don’t know what you are saying,” retorted Julian. “I can hold my own against any man, I warrant, but if you had faced what I had to face, you would better understand what you are against.”

“But he has,” broke in Benedict, who had returned to the room. “This is one reason I trust him in this.”

“I see no injuries on Corwin” responded Julian. “Convenient, don’t you think, that our brother here could escape unscathed, the spirits which have killed many and almost killed me.”

“Fiona supports Corwin,” answered Benedict.

Julian stared at Benedict, then shook his head.

“No offense, Benedict, but it would mean more to me to hear that from Fiona herself.”

“She is not here,” answered Benedict, “but she left a note for Corwin, and I have read it. Fiona trusts Corwin.”

Julian barked a short, harsh laugh.

“Fiona trusts no one, brother – surely you know that by now.”

“In this,” returned Benedict, “she does.”

Julian said nothing for a few moments, and Benedict and I stood by as well rather than break into his thoughts. Julian stared holes into me with his cold, blue eyes, but I held my silence, as did Benedict.

“One thing,” said Julian, when he was ready to speak again, “I have to know, is just how Corwin faced these ghosts and is no worse for the encounter, yet the ghosts remain.”

“The same reason,” broke in Benedict before I could answer, “that I faced them myself early on, yet could not resolve the matter then.

“These are not honorable enemies, to take risk along with opportunity, but more on the level of jackals, striking when they have the chance, but fleeing if the moment turns against them.”

Julian peered at Benedict with renewed suspicion.

“I heard that this happened,” he said, “but disbelieved it because I know you are more efficient, than to leave an enemy standing after the fight.”

Benedict shrugged.

“You have seen how they move, how they attack.” he reminded Julian. “If we knew their lair, I would attack right now.

“But we lack enough information, partly -” Benedict stopped and looked at me pointedly before turning back to Julian – “partly because we have not been open enough with each other about what we have encountered.”

Julian looked uncomfortable, Benedict looked concerned, and I tried my best to hide my confusion. All three of us had been attacked, but I could not imagine what I knew that I had not told to Benedict. That implied that Benedict believed that I and Julian knew something about the matter that we had kept private, and that he had withheld that same information from the family but believed Julian and I were in on his secret.

Julian stared hard at Benedict.

“Are you saying that we should tell the rest of the family that Osric and Finndo have come back to haunt us?” demanded Julian.

Oh, my. Julian’s question threw a switch in my mind and turned on a light. One of my attackers had looked like family, and now I thought on it could well have been the form of the late Osric. Come to that, Finndo was fond of using a crossbow, and the shot taken at me in our brief contest had sounded like a bolt hitting the wall.

Benedict looked uneasily at the door.

“If they have, then they are truly ghosts,” he said. “I saw them die, many years ago.”

Benedict seemed about to say more, but stopped himself. Julian and I looked at each other, then Julian said to Benedict, “If we are to be open, I should hope you would also choose to share what you know, brother.”

Benedict sighed.

“It’s not really relevant, and I have never shared what happened in that war.”

He turned away from us, as if to leave, but stopped, still facing away.

“If I come to believe that the way Osric and Finndo died is important to resolving this situation, then I will tell you directly.

“For now, I can only ask you to trust my judgment, that their appearance means something else.”

Again Julian and I looked at each other. Neither of us was happy about it, but Benedict, aside from Gerard, was the most trustworthy of us, and in any case neither Julian nor I could do much to compel Benedict to share his secrets. Damning, though, that we were once again at an impasse.

For some reason, there was no attack that night. Of course, we had no sleep, since we could not know we would be left alone, and by morning we were ragged and ill-tempered. Benedict had suggested that Flora leave the palace for a time, which was received with ill grace. But since the suggestion came from Benedict, she agreed to take up residence temporarily in a chateau near Arden. Bleys and I agreed to meet after breakfast with Benedict and Julian, to give ourselves the illusion of planning and action, though I still had little idea how we should proceed.

Julian was healing well, I saw, and looked better rested than the rest of us. Benedict seemed to be thinking the same thing, as I caught him make a small, wry, grin, as he took his seat next to Julian’s bed.

“Well, Julian,” began Bleys, “It looks as if you are most fit of us at the moment.

“Are you ready for battle, then?”

Julian did not smile at Bleys’ quip, but silently reached to his left where, concealed by a blanket, he had a loaded crossbow ready.

“Brother, those look to be silver” remarked Benedict.

“Aye,” answered Julian softly. “All things considered, we may need this much and more.”

“We may have something more,” I suggested. Julian looked up at me, and I looked pointedly at Benedict. Benedict said nothing for a moment, as if thinking a decision through, then nodded and said “Perhaps we do. I take it, Corwin, you mean the Scythe of Scissus?”

“I think I do,” I replied. “We’re never going to win, just waiting on them to come to us.

“So, once brother Julian is up to it, I suggest the four of us hunt down the three of them.”

“But to do that,” said Julian, “we have to know how to find them.”

“I have an idea how we can do that,” I answered, staring hard at Bleys. Bleys looked surprised for a moment, then glanced away.

“Corwin, a word in private, if you will,” he asked.

Benedict and Julian were surprisingly agreeable to this request, probably because I surprised them by implying we could find our attackers. Bleys and I exited the room and made our way down the hall to a parlor with no one nearby. I gestured to a seat then sat at the same time as Bleys. I then waited for him to speak first.

He did not want to, I could see, hoping I would reveal something, but since Bleys had asked for the conference, the weight was on him and we both knew it. The question, hanging in the air, was how much did I know, and how much did Bleys believe he could keep hidden?

“How did you know?” Bleys finally ventured.

“For one thing,” I answered, “you are the only one of us here who has not yet been attacked.

“For another, you and Fiona clearly knew more than you let on.

“So, the decision to be made,” I said sternly, “is whose side you are on.”
“Damn it Corwin,” yelled Bleys, “that’s a rotten thing to suggest-”

“But true, near as I can tell,” I retorted. “If you are with us, Bleys, it is time to carry your weight. You know how to find these specters, and our survival may well depend on us hunting them down before they hunt us down again.”

Bleys and I stared at each other for a long time, before he dropped his gaze to the floor. He then waited some more, either trying to decide what he could conceal, or how to explain what he knew. Either way, I knew Bleys was, as always, putting himself first in priority.

“You understand the concept of the Ouija Board?” he asked. I nodded.

“Well, some of us –” Bleys stopped as if he expected me to ask who was involved, but I said nothing – “some of us began to wonder if you could do the same thing with Trumps.”

“You don’t need a spirit guide to contact people through the Trumps” I said.

“You do if they are dead,” answered Bleys. And I suddenly understood.

“You son of a bitch,” I muttered. “You called up Osric and Findo, didn’t you?

“That’s why we keep seeing them.

“So what did you say that made them angry?”

“Well …” Bleys hesitated, “at first they seemed happy that we remembered them. But they shortly became angry with us, especially when their master became involved.”

“Their master?” I inquired, though it rang a bell. There had been three of them, and one certainly seemed to direct and lead the others.

“So what’s their beef?” I asked Bleys. “They weren’t exactly speaking to me when they attacked, just the banal bit of trying to kill me.

“I’m pretty sure I never said or did anything to offend or provoke our departed predecessor siblings.”

Bleys nodded. “It’s the influence of their master,” he confirmed.

“And who is that?” I demanded.

“I don’t know his name,” protested Bleys, “but he seems to have known Oberon … as an enemy. And he poisoned the minds and spirit of Osric and Finndo against him, and against us as well.”
“How did you learn this?” I asked, “And why did you not want to speak in front of Benedict and Julian?”

“Because of Benedict,” answered Bleys. “They really hate him, and I think he has been their target all along, once they realized they could not get to Oberon.”

“They can’t get to Oberon?” I repeated. “Why not?”

“They are limited to the castle grounds,” answered Bleys. “The magic that brought them here has limits. They cannot leave the castle grounds, they must kill or harm to gain power, and they fear silver and the early powers.”

Bleys gaze fell to Grayswandir as he said that last part.

“So my sword can protect me?” I asked.

“Only at night,” warned Bleys. “You’d need Brand’s blade to be protected during the day.

“Fortunately, the specters prefer to attack at night.”

“Fortunately?” I asked him, thinking of the earlier victims.

“For our purposes, yes” answered Bleys coldly.


[ to be continued …]