2012/01/02

Tsai will get at least 47% votes -- UDN Editorial

Observers have been highly confused by polls for the upcoming 2012 presidential election --- blue media claims that Ma keeps leading by a margin around 2~8%, and pro-green media say 50-50, which will likely be translated, according to past experiences, into that Tsai's the winner by a margin as large as 10~15%.

Oddly, the United Daily News (UDN), one of the can't-be-bluer KMT propaganda-like media, published an editorial today, claiming that Tsai will get at least 47%. Their reasoning, in fact, indicated that the 47% is a bit underestimated:

The premise of this framework is that Tsai gets 47% votes. Two references support this idea:

1. Frank Hsieh got 42% in 2008, and the momentum of DPP now is stronger than the DPP in 2008, and support to Tsai is also stronger than the support to Hsieh in 2008. So Tsai's votes will go up from 42%;

2. Chen Shui-bian got 51.11% in 2004. Although it was interfered by the 319 shooting, but whichever you look at it, it shows that the DPP has the potential to get 50% support of the voters. Now the momentum of DPP is stronger than that in 2004, and Tsai is better than Chen, therefore Tsai has the potential of approaching 50%.

Based on these two references, it's convincing to argue that Tsai can get 47% of the votes.

So what's going on here ? Do they suddenly come to sense and realize that the momentum of DPP is un-ignorable this time ? How do they explain those polls they did, that Tsai was around 33% ?


Polls by UDN on 2012 President Election
DateTsaiMaSoong
2011/11/27
35
41
10
2011/12/ 3
32
39
10
2011/12/10
33
40
10
2011/12/12
35
42
10
2011/12/17
33
41
10

This editorial from the UDN seems to bn an admission that:

(1) Blue polls always underestimate green candidates by 10~15% (47-33 = 14%). But this is certainly not new. A famous pro-blue writer Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) said in an article that :

正因為綠色群眾較不表態,懂選舉的人都知道,國民黨要贏,投票前半年,他們必須領先至少15%,投票前3個月至少要領先10%
Because green supporters are more likely not to display their voting behaviors, whoever knows about the election knows that, the KMT must lead by at least 15% and 10%, half year and 3 months before the election, respectively.

See another admission in a video by a TV commentator who is deep-dark-black blue.

(2) Green supporters DO NOT display any stronger willingness to tell the truth in polls than ever, a point what many observers ( example ) claims without support of substantial evidence. In a response to the above article cited, I wrote:

Many people claim that (that the green supporters are more willing to tell the truth in polls this year), but none can provide anything to back that up other than pure speculation. Such speculation most probably came from a sense that the green supporters are higher in moral this year, as seen in new report or TV or any campaign activities.
That sense is correct. However, converting that observation directly into green’s willingness to provide faithful answer during polls conducted by pro-blue media is a serious mistake. Many green netters I saw on forums reported how they intentionally told poll calls that they want to vote for Ma.
The blue poll center knew this very well, too. Here is a paragraph in a recent interview of the vice manager of ChinaTimes poll center, conducted by a journalist (?) from China, posted on 12/27/2012 :
【对我们来说,一般加权之后,绿营会上升,因为考虑到愿意接受中时访问的可能是蓝营较多,绿营的可能直接把电话挂了。
To us (China Times), the green support rate generally will go up after weighting. Because we considered that blue supporters are most probably more willing to take polls conducted by China Times. The green supporters might just hang up the phone.】
访中时民调
Yes they did take that into considerations and make weighting outta it. But, they refused to publicize how much adjustment they made:
【在民调数据之后要进行加权,但是加权数不会公布。
After we took the polls, the data need to be weighted, but we won’t reveal how much we adjusted 】
From all sources, “more pan-green supporters were willing to express their preferences” seems to be nothing but a rumor that many took as a fact.

In the mean time, less than 2 weeks before the voting, the xFuture has been predicting that Tsai lead Ma by 6~ 12% for 4 weeks ...




UDN's Editorial:

選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文

【聯合報╱社論】
2012.01.02 03:10 am

有人說,「選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文」,宋楚瑜揚言提告;然而,「選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文」,已是昭然若揭的事實。

這是以數字推演出來的結論。一般的說法是:若以蔡英文的得票率為四十七%當做準據,則馬英九若要贏蔡英文,就至少必須得票四十八%。四十七加四十八,餘下的空間只有百分之五;也就是說,在此一架構下,宋楚瑜的得票若超過百分之五,馬必落選。

此一架構的假設前提是蔡英文得票四十七%。有兩個參考點,可以支持此項假設。一、謝長廷在二○○八得票約四十二%,而此時民進黨的氣勢勝二○○八的民進黨,此時蔡的聲勢勝二○○八的謝,因此蔡英文的得票至少可從四十二%起跳。二、陳水扁在二○○四年得票五十‧一一%,當年雖有三一九槍擊案影響,但無論如何皆顯示民進黨有得票近五十%的潛力;而此時民進黨的氣勢勝二○○四年,此時的蔡勝二○○四的扁,因此蔡的得票率亦有向五十%趨近的實力。從這兩個參數作出蔡英文得票四十七%的推論,具有說服力。

如前所述,在這個架構下,宋若得票超過五%,馬即落選。那麼,宋的得票會不會有五%呢?答案是有可能。因為,五%就是六十五萬票,若以全國一萬五千個票匭來計算,只要宋楚瑜在每一個票匭開出四十幾票,就能達到那個票數,怎謂沒有可能?

也就是說,宋要拿到五%選票,從統計的常態分布來看,是有可能的(他在二○○六台北市長選舉得票四‧一四%);反過來說,如果宋楚瑜拿不到五%,則那種選民的表現所透露的對世局國情的深刻成熟思考,才是統計學及社會學上的異態,反而可以令人驚異不置。

此次選舉唯一可以確切預言之事,就是宋楚瑜絕對不會當選。因為,仍以蔡得票四十七%為準據,宋若要當選,須獲四十八%選票,也就是要將馬壓至五%以下;但如今宋的民調在六至七%徘徊,其看好率則在一%以下,甚至有時低至○‧一%。宋之絕對不會當選,是當然與必然之理,亦為宋楚瑜自己心知肚明之事。

此時宋能拉到的選票,絕對大多數應是泛藍的選票。因為,宋標舉的是極統觀點,不可能有泛綠選民把票投給宋;所以,宋拉到的每一張泛藍選票,都會造成使馬落選的壓力,亦將成為使蔡當選的助力。因此,選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文,這個論點可謂理所當然,毫無疑問。

問題在於:宋楚瑜執意倒馬挺蔡,卻陷於自我矛盾之中。宋楚瑜的中心觀點仍在國憲認同與兩岸政策,他公開肯定馬的ECFA是「重大努力」,又公開指蔡之否定九二共識「後果嚴重」;倘若這是宋的真信仰,他卻要拉下「重大努力」的馬,而要拉上「後果嚴重」的蔡,這豈不是自相矛盾?

沒有人比宋楚瑜更知道他絕對不會當選,也很少人比宋楚瑜更知道蔡英文若當選,將在國憲認同及兩岸關係上發生的「嚴重後果」。有人問起「五%生死門」的問題,宋楚瑜說:「重要的不是五%,而是誰能不讓台灣趴下去!」但是,宋楚瑜如今正在做的事,就是要拚命拉下馬英九,將台灣綁在蔡英文的台獨戰車上,親眼目送台灣就這樣趴下去!

宋楚瑜如果有一丁點為國為民的不忍之念,即使他有千般百般的私仇私恨,也沒有理由裹惑五%的選民與他一起去製造「嚴重的後果」,「讓台灣趴下去」。宋楚瑜明明知道他自己是在摧毀國脈傷害台灣,但那些迄今仍支持他的泛藍選民,尚以為是在伸張正義救國家;那些泛藍選民難道知道:宋楚瑜現在要利用他們去做的,其實是等於要他們扶助蔡英文做中華民國總統?

選情緊繃,間不容髮。除非蔡英文可衝破五十%過半選票,或蔡英文的選票低於四十五%;否則,宋楚瑜的得票高低必定是馬英九能否當選的決定性因素。一%十三萬票,莫說五%是生死門,一%都可能決定馬蔡二人的生死。

宋楚瑜必須說明的是,「棄馬保台」難道就是他的救國方略?他說,現在如果不選了,「連人都做不成了」;但當他在一月十四日若與蔡英文共同實現了「棄馬保台」的台獨大業,莫說「人做不成」,當他揹上「汪精衛/吳三桂」的罵名,恐怕另日也無顏見他那為捍衛中華民國而浴血苦戰的亡父宋達於地下了!

非「讚」不可!歡迎加入udn粉絲團,新聞你HOLD住!
【2012/01/02 聯合報】@ http://udn.com/

全文網址: 選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文 | 社論 | 意見評論 | 聯合新聞網 http://udn.com/NEWS/OPINION/OPI1/6818432.shtml#ixzz1iH3HmaUC

6 comments:

Tim Maddog [2/1/12 15:30] said...

Thanks for posting this!

Just last night, I heard a caller to New Taiwan Go, Go, Go (新台灣加油) say that because of the KMT's White Terror her relatives are still afraid to admit to telephone pollsters that they support the DPP.

Also yesterday, as my wife was trying to make sure certain relatives would not vote for Ma Ying-jeou, her mother got very nervous that other relatives nearby (relatives who support the KMT) would hear. I hope the fear doesn't follow her all the way to the ballot box.

The "martial law mentality" is still a very real issue among many Taiwanese, and I've seen it displayed many times.

Tim Maddog

Tommy [2/1/12 23:14] said...

Another thing I have heard recently, both in a cable released through Wikileaks and through yesterday's TT story that discussed the latest poll by Taiwan Thinktank, is that green voters tend to have more blue-collar voters among them. Since telephone surveys typically call the home phone, and since those surveys are often conducted at times of the day when blue-collar laborers are not likely to be at home, many of the telephone surveys in Taiwan do not account for a large number of green voters.

Echo, I hope you are right. However, I am more inclined to be cautious for the time being. First of all, almost two weeks remain. Tsai needs to get through those two weeks with a lot of positive campaigning and without major controversies. Second, I agree with Michael Turton in thinking that there will be a lot of vote buying and that, potentially, there might be vote manipulation (although this is only a hunch). Third, it is unquestionable that there are more voters who vote KMT than who vote DPP in general. This doesn't mean that the DPP cannot win. It does mean that, if blue voters can be mobilized, Ma might still win convincingly. Fourth, even the UDN really doesn't have a clue. It sounds as if they know that their polls are biased, but, apart from that, they are just picking a plausible number out of the air. Even that number guarantees nothing. If Tsai got 47 percent and Soong got 5 percent, Ma could still get reelected with 48 percent of the vote. So what UDN is really saying is, "this is a close election."

Really, all we know is that Tsai is almost certainly doing much better than Hsieh did four years ago. But, with Hsieh, the baseline was set pretty low.

Taiwan Echo [3/1/12 00:19] said...

Thanks for the info, Tim and Tommy.

@Tommy,

Yea hopefully the DPP won't come up with something outstanding during these two wks. The release of CSB for his mom-in-law's funeral might excite some extreme TIers to try to grab some attention. This probably is now the only hope for Ma.

Your other comments make sense. But note this: In all the polls they did, Soong maintained at 10%. UDN is promoting Ma. So they would underestimate Soog's percentage, too. So logical deduction would be that Soong is in fact higher than 10%. So their "smell" based on an assumption that Soong is <5% is probably an illusion.

As for the vote buying, it is now an official business, handing out money bluntly by the government in bright daylight:

馬英九到場的場合,國民黨立委候選人穿著候選夾克一起出席,其他黨派候選人則被禁止,並由公家發百元禮券給參加民眾,像這樣還不算是賄選嗎?

現在台灣賄選已經升級,公然又政府公開發錢了?

公帑150萬助選? 馬中和出席活動 人人領百元禮券


It was in an official-run gathering, in which:

1) Ma Ying-jeou attended, with the KMT's local legislator candidates wearing campaign jackets, standing in front of people;

2) Candidates other then the KMT's were NOT allowed to enter;

3) The organization handed out cash coupon to EVERY CITIZEN attended.

Taiwan Echo [3/1/12 00:38] said...

One more thing about the official vote buying --- we talked about how the KMT would use the party earning to buy votes. Now, it has been upgraded. The KMT government is now using tax payer's money to buy your vote.

Michael Fagan [8/1/12 22:21] said...

Taiwan Echo,

I'd be somewhat curious to know what you made of Abian's funeral speech. He was speaking in Taiwanese, and there seems to be some difference of opinion as to whether his remarks have electoral significance or not.

Taiwan Echo [9/1/12 00:11] said...

Interesting question, Michael.

To my understanding, a funeral speech should have focused on the person who died --- anything outstanding, any achievement, anything memorable .... OF THE DEAD PERSON. Abian's funeral speech seems to focus on himself, makes me wonder who died.