I really just haven’t been getting NEARLY enough attention lately ― and I get that it’s hard for people to give me the amount of attention I deserve ― so hey, blog is back. Look forward to lots of this.
“There’s a lot of you guys!” a representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said as the umpteenth woman approached him. He had been standing there for at least an hour by that point. His job? To decline the over one-hundred women asking for entrance to the broadcast of the Priesthood Session of General Conference.
The conference itself was held across the street at the Church’s Conference Center, but women and male supporters associated with the “Ordain Women” movement collected in the stand-by line at the Church’s Tabernacle. Between 5:00 and 5:45 P.M., male members were allowed to walk directly into the building while women were stopped at the door.
Over the past year the Church has made some significant changes regarding General Conference that seemed to be in response to protests from some Mormon women, including publicly streaming the Priesthood Session on TV and the internet and allowing women to give the benedictions and invocations of regular conference sessions. The policy of priesthood-session attendance being exclusively male, however, was clearly not an issue they were willing to budge on.
“I’m sorry, this session is for men only,” the church representative said countless times on Saturday evening, referring women to the Church’s website where the session was being streamed live. “This is a gathering only for men.” “Sorry, this is the standby line for men.” “This session is intended for the priesthood only.” He forwarded any further questions to the many full-time missionaries on Temple Square.
When the Tabernacle doors closed at 5:45, dozens of women still waiting in line were disappointed that they did not get the chance to be politely turned away. The large group then collected near the Tabernacle and sang the hymn “I Am a Child of God” before leaving Temple Square (video below).
Asked why they wanted to attend the Priesthood Session, one woman told us, “Because I am an active, faithful Mormon woman, and I sincerely desire to listen to the prophet, and it was a real blow to have men and boys walking by me as they were permitted to walk in and I was not.”
Meanwhile outside of the Conference Center, a pair of Mormon women opposing the “Ordain Women” movement held up signs saying, “I don’t need the priesthood to be equal to my husband.” Asked what they thought of the women trying to attend the Priesthood Session, one of them said, “I don’t think they understand the doctrine very well.”
From the trip last year to the haunted “pump-house” in Benjamin, Utah, near Spanish Fork. Definitely creepy but not sure why it has the reputation of being a pump-house, just sort of seemed like a regular house. With ghosts.
Everyone loves a good ultimatum. It’s your awesome, hardcore way of saying, “Hey, I’m doing something dramatic.” And people dig that.
See, all good relationships are built on ultimatums. Your boyfriend is taking too long to propose? Give him an ultimatum. Random blonde girl isn’t sure if she wants to date you exclusively? Give her an ultimatum. You don’t have to wait around for other people and their lazy apathetic decision making anymore. Today’s the day that you can take back control of your life.
And the best part is when the deadline passes and he/she decided not to do what you wanted, you can just decide that you were bluffing anyway. Win-win.
Romney’s chief campaign strategist Stuart Stevens, who has kept his head low since his campaign’s loss on November 6, penned an op-ed in the Washington Post today: “Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.”
Nobody liked Romney except voters. What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Mitt Romney. He bested the competition in debates, and though he was behind almost every candidate in the primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.
In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than the Republican Party did. He trounced Barack Obama in debate. He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.
On Nov. 6, Mitt Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters under 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 41/2 million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.
The Obama organization ran a great campaign. In my world, the definition of the better campaign is the one that wins.
But having been involved in three presidential races, two that we won closely and one that we lost fairly closely, I know enough to know that we weren’t brilliant because Florida went our way in 2000 or enough Ohioans stuck with us in 2004. Nor are we idiots because we came a little more than 320,000 votes short of winning the Electoral College in 2012. Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed, and I would hope it’s not seen as an excuse to show disrespect for a good man who fought hard for values we admire.
Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right. When Mitt Romney stood on stage with Barack Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz- bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas versus fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.
On Nov. 6, that wasn’t enough to win. But it was enough to make us proud and to build on for the future.
Stevens was the subject of criticism from politicians, pundits, and occasionally fellow staff members for much of the election, and he was often the center of any rumors of campaign infighting.
In an interview with Politico‘s Mike Allen, Jim Messina, the 2012 Obama campaign’s manager, revealed that his team believed that former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who also served as President Obama’s Ambassador to China, would likely have been a tougher general election opponent than Mitt Romney.
“Um, hmm, that’s a good question,” Messina said when Allen asked him which GOP candidate he believed would have had the best chance of beating Obama. “Look, I think we were honest with our concerns about [Jon] Huntsman. I think Huntsman would have been a very tough general election candidate. And as someone who helped manage his confirmation for the Chinese ambassador, I can tell you, you know, he’s a good guy, we look at his profile in a general election and thought he would be difficult.”
When Allen suggested that Obama’s team chose Huntsman as the ambassador to China in order to take him off the “chess board,” Messina responded, “No, I thought he was a committed American who would serve our country well, and he did.”
Abby Huntsman Livingston, Huntsman’s daughter who campaigned for her father before and during the Republican primaries, told the Salt Lake Tribune Tuesday that it was great to hear “confirmation” from the Obama campaign about her father’s appeal.
“My dad is a principled, thoughtful and experienced leader ready to tackle the challenges of the 21st century,” Abby Livingston said. “In fact, many of the ideas he spoke to during the primaries, Republicans now recognize as a message more in line with a majority of Americans.”
In 2009, senior Obama adviser David Plouffe expressed concern over a potential Huntsman candidacy, with reporter Nikki Schwab describing Plouffe as “a wee bit queasy” over the possibility. “I think the one person in that party who might be a potential presidential candidate is Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah,” said Plouffe at the time. “I think he’s really out there and speaking a lot of truth about the direction of the party.”
Huntsman’s brief presidential campaign ended on January 16, 2012, when he dropped out of the race after placing third in the New Hampshire primary behind Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. After ending his candidacy, Huntsman tepidly endorsed Romney, who eventually became the party’s nominee but was defeated by President Obama in the general election.
Huntsman’s name was briefly rumored as a possible replacement for Hillary Clinton as President Obama’s Secretary of State. Huntsman currently sits on the boards of several private companies, including Ford Motor Company, and has said he has not ruled out the possibility of running again for public office.
Huntsman also served as the U.S. Ambassador to Singapore from 1992-1993 under President George H. W. Bush, at the time the youngest U.S. ambassador the nation had appointed in over a century.
In a post-election statement whose purpose seemed to be to explain why Gallup was wrong about the election outcome, Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport included what can only be interpreted as a dig at the New York Times‘ Nate Silver and predicted analyses like Silver’s could result in less polling in future cycles:
It’s not easy nor cheap to conduct traditional random sample polls. It’s much easier, cheaper, and mostly less risky to focus on aggregating and analyzing others’ polls. Organizations that traditionally go to the expense and effort to conduct individual polls could, in theory, decide to put their efforts into aggregation and statistical analyses of other people’s polls in the next election cycle and cut out their own polling. If many organizations make this seemingly rational decision, we could quickly be in a situation in which there are fewer and fewer polls left to aggregate and put into statistical models. Many individual rational decisions could result in a loss for the collective interest of those interested in public opinion. This will develop into a significant issue for the industry going forward.
For his part, Nate Silver identified Gallup as one of the worst polling firms of the election, calculating their polls to have been biased towards Mitt Romney by 7.2% on average.
In an interview with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) admits he’s open to running for president in 2016.
Asked directly whether he was going to run for president in 2016, Paul responded, “You know, I want to be part of the national debate. I think it’s a little too soon to talk about it, who’s gonna run and who’s not gonna run, and to tell you the truth I don’t know what will come. Am I interested in thinking about that? Yes.”
“You’re thinking about running for president?” Karl followed up.
“Yeah,” Paul said. “But am I someone that’s gonna make the decision, am I ready to make the decision now, no.”
“But there’s a real chance we’ll see a Rand Paul for President,” Karl asked, “carrying that mantle of libertarian conservatism?”
“We’ll see what happens,” Paul said, smiling. “Too early to tell.”
“Usually when people say that it’s almost a declaration of candidacy,” Karl said, and Paul nodded and laughed.
“Well, you know,” Paul responded, “I am different than some in that I’m not gonna deny that I’m interested.”
Paul went on to name some things he believed needed to change about the Republican party.
“I’m not gonna that I think we have to go a different direction because we are – we’re not winning, we’re just not winning,” Paul said. “We’re getting an ever dwindling percentage of the Hispanic vote. We need to let people know — Hispanics in particular — we’re not putting you on a bus and shipping you home.”
But Paul emphasized that he was still on the side the “hardcore immigration people” when it came to border security. “I will insist that border security’s first,” Paul said, “but I’m also not gonna rule out that we can’t figure out an eventual way if you’ve been living here for ten or twenty years that you can’t become like the rest of us.”
Aside from Hispanics, Paul said the Republican party also needs to do more to reach out to young voters. One way, Paul says, is to soften the rhetoric on marijuana. “We should tell young people, I’m not in favor of you smoking pot, but if you get caught smoking pot, I don’t want to put you in jail for twenty years.” Paul went on to say that states such as Washington and Colorado, which recently passed controversial laws legalizing recreational marijuana, should absolutely have that right.
Regarding working with Democrats in the Senate, Paul pledged again that he would not compromise on taxes and would not vote for any bill that included an increase in taxes.
by Trevor Antley and Calvin Roberts.
[Update: The election has been called, and the winner of Ohio was President Barack Obama. Our forecast, as we noted was very possible, turned out to be incorrect. While the problem with the model can’t be verified until after full election results come in, it is most likely that the margins assumed for election day voters in Ohio were much closer than we assumed (assumptions which were based on an aggregate of three of the most recent Ohio polls). Higher-than-expected turnout among African-Americans and youth voters evidenced in exit polls seem to have boosted Obama’s election day margins.]
[Update 2: Our model was correct. The variables were that turnout was lower-than-expected (below 2008 turnout), and that the polls were slightly wrong regarding Romney’s margin over Obama with election day voters (it was slightly less than the number we used for our projection). Had we aggregated all of the polls and not the final three, as other statisticians suggested, the model would have shown Obama’s victory. Hats off to Nate Silver.]
Forecast: Mitt Romney Will Likely Win Ohio
Abstract: Actual reported early voting data requires that early voting will represent no more than 32% of total vote in Ohio, while virtually every poll was weighted for early voting to occupy ~35-40% of total votes cast. The smaller-than-expected number of early votes means one of two things: 1) 2012 will see historically low voter turnout in Ohio; or 2) Mitt Romney has a much better chance at Ohio than polls assumed.
Late Monday night the Ohio Secretary of State released the “final” early voting results from Ohio’s counties. The results got the attention — and slight consternation — of the New York Times’ Nate Silver. Dave Wasserman kindly put the data into a spreadsheet here, which tabulates early voting results by county and compares that data to early voting results from 2008. Wasserman’s spreadsheet also notes Kerry’s 2004 margins and Obama’s 2008 margins, allowing one to effectively deduce the partisan-leanings of each county.
In a discussion on Twitter, Silver and Wasserman focused largely on the surprise changes in turnout in many of Ohio’s counties. While total early voting in Ohio only increased by 2.44% from 2008, early voting in counties that voted heavily for Kerry/Obama declined 4.1% while counties that voted heavily Bush/McCain increased their early voting by a shocking 14.39%. Wasserman, while still predicting an Obama victory, suggested that trend meant a tighter race in Ohio than expected and suggested it might undercut Nate Silver’s famous forecast. Nate Silver’s response: “I’ll stick with the 538 forecast in OH. I disagree that the early voting data there provides much reason to doubt the polls.”
Seemingly overlooked by Silver, however, during the discussion of county-by-county results was the simple number of total reported early votes: a meager 1,787,346. As stated above, this number shows a 2.44% increase in early voting from 2008 — but the number is still surprisingly low. Virtually every Ohio poll this cycle was weighted on the basis that early voting would occupy a massive chunk of the total Ohio vote. Rasmussen’s final poll ceded 40% of the total vote to early voters (EVs). PPP gave EV’s a more reasonable 35%. The Columbus Dispatch calculated early voting to take up an astounding 47% of the total Ohio vote. Almost every other Ohio poll seems to have weighted early voting between 35% and 45% of the total vote.
The reported early voting numbers, however, show that virtually every single Ohio poll overestimated the amount of early votes cast. If early voting is calculated at 1,787,346, in order for total voter turnout to rival 2004 numbers, early voting cannot occupy more than 32% of the total votes cast — and even in that scenario, that high of a percentage means that total voter turnout will be lower than it was in 2008. In order for turnout to match 2008 levels, early voting can only account for 31% of total votes cast.
The next important piece of data is what the polls consistently report: Obama leads by huge margins among early voters but trails Romney among those who say they will vote on election day. This inverse in voting segments is why the proportion of early votes in the total votes — and that virtually every poll overestimated this proportion — is so tantamount. In most polls (which usually only have Obama leading by a small margin, although some give him a more comfortable ~+5%), lowering the percentage of early votes in the polling sample means lowering Obama’s lead drastically. And when Obama’s lead is only one or two percentage points, that can mean handing the election to Mitt Romney.
Our forecast is based largely on the reported margins between Romney and Obama among early voters and election day voters as reported by the Columbus Dispatch, Rasmussen, and other polls (all polling data considered is represented in the graphic below). The Columbus Dispatch gives Obama +15% among early voters; Rasmussen gives him a much wider 23%. Other polls for Ohio EVs: CNN/Opinion Research, Obama +28; Gravis Marketing, Obama +13; PPP, Obama +21. For our forecast we assumed a more conservative Obama +18 among EVs, averaging Rasmussen and the Columbus Dispatch.
In 2008 Obama won 58% of early voting against John McCain, who had virtually no get-out-the-vote infrastructure in Ohio; our model, giving Obama a 18% lead, again assumes he will win that 58% of early voters despite the fact that Mitt Romney is putting forth a much more competitive get-out-the-vote campaign and disregarding the GOP-leaning trend in early voting results of individual Ohio counties. When one considers the results from individual Ohio counties this cycle, Obama’s actual margin among EVs may actually be much lower (although without specific partisan data, it’s also possible that Obama’s margins have actually increased — although this seems extraordinarily more unlikely). But because this is impossible to determine without actual breakdowns of the early vote, which are not yet available, those implications are not included in this model.
In determining the margin among election day voters, the same polls were considered. For election day voters, Rasmussen has Romney +15; Columbus Dispatch, Romney +11; and CNN/Opinion Research, Romney +13. PPP and Gravis Marketing both had Romney’s election day margins at a much smaller +3. For our forecast, we assume Romney’s election day voter margins at 13%, an average of the first three polls. The consistency and disparity between the first three and the latter two polls made it difficult to average them since margins of error do not explain such a clear discrepancy between the two groups.
In this scenario — which seems to be supported by the majority of polls and early voting trends (but is notably not supported by all polls, as seen in the previous paragraph) — Romney should win Ohio. Based on these assumptions — which in turn are based on a combination of polling data and the state’s actual reported early vote — if early voting accounts for 32% of the vote (a very conservative number which would place total voter turnout slightly below that of 2004), Romney wins by a whopping 50.9% to Obama’s 47.8%. The higher voter turnout is — and therefore the lower the percentage of early votes in total votes — the higher Romney’s margin becomes.
In this scenario, even if we assume our model’s margins between Obama and Romney among early voters and election day voters are somehow skewed in Romney’s favor, Romney still has padding that those margins could be reduced and he still wins. If early voting is only 31% of the total vote — putting Ohio’s total vote at just above 2008 levels — Romney has incredibly more wiggle room.
The lower-than-anticipated turnout among early voters suggests the Obama campaign’s lead in Ohio was largely hot air. And this does not even seriously consider the county-by-county early voting results, which appear to be even more damaging to Obama.
Reasons Why This Projection May Turn Out to be Wrong
- In the case that the final early voting numbers reported by the Ohio secretary of state are incorrect and the final early voting results will include statistically significant additions, obviously this projection will have no meaning.
- As seen above, some of the polling data used in the projection (such as Romney’s margin among election day voters) is supported by several independent polling organizations but not by some others. If it turns out that the fewer polls’ results were right, then obviously our entire model is skewed too heavily towards Romney.
- Some have raised the possibility that effects from Hurricane Sandy stifled early voting in the final days and these early voters will simply vote for Obama on election day, increasing his election day margins beyond what polls indicated. In this scenario the polls are essentially still correct; Obama’s early voting margin was simply reallocated to his election day margin. There is no solid data to show that this is the case, but it is certainly possible.
- There is always the chance that the government and electorate will decide simply to defer to Nate Silver’s forecast and forget this whole voting nonsense. Since our forecast is based largely on actual votes, not subjectively weighted aggregates of polls, this would make our projection essentially meaningless.
Normally when BYU students throw fits about something, I’m all over it. But frankly I just missed this one. I don’t know what happened. Anyway, below I’ve put together a brief chronology of the world-rocking protests that have shook BYU’s campus over the past few weeks:
August 29, 2012 — The LDS church releases a statement on saying that “the Church does not prohibit the use of caffeine” and that the faith’s health-code reference to “hot drinks” “does not go beyond (tea and coffee).”
August 30, 2012 — The LDS Church’s official OK to caffeine receives national media attention. The Salt Lake Tribune publishes an article titled, “OK Mormons, drink up — Coke and Pepsi are OK.”
August 30, 2012 — BYU student Skyler Thiot creates a “BYU for Caffeine” Facebook page for his marketing class.
August 30, 2012 — The LDS Church removes the statement saying that “the Church does not prohibit the use of caffeine” and softens the wording in the released statement to say, “the church revelation spelling out health practices … does not mention the use of caffeine.”
August 30, 2012 — BYU Spokeswoman Carri Jenkins tells the Salt Lake Tribune that BYU does not serve caffeinated beverages because there hasn’t “been a demand for it.” The ban on caffeinated sodas is “not a university or church decision but made by dining services, based on what our customers want.”
August 31, 2012 — Washington Post: “It’s Official: Coke and Pepsi are OK for Mormons.”
September 2, 2012 — The Facebook page “Petition to BYU Dining Services for DR Pepper and Other Sinless Drinks” is created.
September 6, 2012 — The Facebook page “BYU Against Caffeine” is created. Its mantra: “Let’s keep BYU the way it’s always been, caffeine free.” On September 16 the page had only gathered 56 likes.
September 7, 2012 — Skyler Thiot tells FOX 13, “When I started this Facebook page, I started getting people posting how counterproductive this was to the good of the church, how this was a terrible thing. I didn’t really understand, especially since we’re a week removed from the church saying caffeine is not against the Word of Wisdom.”
September 8, 2012 — Josh Belnap creates the Change.org Petition “Brigham Young University: Please offer caffeinated beverages on campus and at venues.” By September 16 the petition has received 965 signatures.
September 11, 2012 — BYU’s Daily Universe: “‘No Demand’ for Caffeine at BYU?”
September 13, 2012 — Thiot shuts down the “BYU for Caffeine” Facebook page due to negative reactions. The page had received more than 2,300 likes.
September 14, 2012 — Another BYU student (likely Seth Howard) creates a second “BYU for Caffeine” Facebook page.
September 14, 2012 — BYU students, led by Seth Howard, plan a caffeine “protest” in Brigham Square where they would give away caffeinated beverages to passing students. Howard and his followers gave away around 50 cans of soda in three minutes before being asked to leave campus by BYU police.