Fiendish ThingyFiendish Thingy's Journal
NH is an open primary, anyone can request a Republican ballot, and vote for Haley. (Biden isnt on the NH Dem ballot as the primary isnt sanctioned by the party)
Not sure about the rules for the SC primary that follows soon after NH, but there might be enough time to change registration.
If Haley wins both NH and SC, it would create a seismic shift in the narrative, probably causing all others besides Trump to drop out, and dramatically increasing her support and fundraising.
The funny thing is, because the current narrative assumes Trump will win easily, that may actually suppress turnout of Trump supporters (primaries typically have much lower turnout than the general anyways).
Am I crazy thinking it would only take a relatively small amount of Dem votes for Haley, say 50,000 in NH, and maybe 100,000 in SC for her to win both primaries? (Ill have to research turnout in recent primaries)
In Vanity Fair:
For every piece that is directly about polling, like one from Politico proclaiming the polls keep getting worse for Biden, there are others based on the suppositions gleaned from poll results, such The Washington Post examining Trumps improved image. Even pieces downplaying some headline-grabbing polls as the wrong ones, may seize on others to make a point.
The odd thing about media polls is that they are reported as a newsworthy event, but this kind of event happens only when a newsroom decides its time for oneand when it has the money, NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen wrote in an email.
Polls may fall into the category of pseudo-events, a term coined in 1962 by Daniel J. Boorstin and defined as something that planted primarily (not always exclusively) for the immediate purpose of being reported or reproduced. Just like polls, a pseudo-events relation to the underlying reality of the situation is ambiguous. (This idea was recently discussed by on John Dickerson on Slates Political Gabfest episode on polling episode). In this way, a poll may be more like a press conference, something that is created to shape a narrative.
Rosen has been out front this presidential election cycle with an organizing principle for journalists: Not the odds, but the stakes. The focus, he argues, should be not who has what chances of winning, but the consequences for American democracy. Placing too much emphasis on polls can shift the political conversation from critical reporting about whats happeningsuch as the impact of Bidens administrations policies or Trumps authoritarian plans for a second termto predictions about what may happen a year later.
More at link.
Diary by a former professional pollster:
Up to a point. But from what is leaking out of polling organizations now, that point has long been passed. According to an insider who made a comment here some months ago, now its basically ALL weighting. They try to line up the results according to a predetermined idea of what would likely be said by a truly random sample, by aligning as many demographic factors as they can with an abstract idea of how those measurements would line up in the real world.
Yet they can have less and less idea, as time goes by, of how the population actually falls according to any of these factors. There are no real base lines. They can say, We dont have enough Catholics, or We have too many people with college degrees, and then try to align the results accordingly. Yet they are further and further from actually knowing how many Catholics there really are, or even how many people with college degrees live in given areas. On some factors they can try to align with the most recent Federal Census, but thats extremely limited because the Census no longer collects any more than the most basic, meager information. On other possibly relevant factors theres no data at all. In fact its reached the point where its not actually possible to know about many factors that might be relevantnew ones that have cropped up. Its just too long now since there was any reliable base data.
So they may try to correct for a multitude of factors, without having any sort of base-line for those factors. Then on top of that, according to the person who wrote that comment, theres a final hand-waving stage where they say in effect, That just doesnt look right, and try to adjust the figures until it does.
(Scroll down to before convention nominations)
At least one poll showed Obama losing to Romney by 6 points, and several other by smaller margins.
In addition, several polls showed Obama losing to Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and Herman Cain.
Just a heads up to those with highly flammable follicles that Morning Consult has just published a poll of seven swing states showing Biden losing to Trump in 5 out of 7 states, by an average of four points.
Many issues with this poll, first of which is a troubling lack of transparency on the sample:
Notice whats left out? No mention of the samples weighting of R vs D (although they did disclose there were about 1300 Independent voters, IIRC. And weighting by 2020 vote? Who does that? Wouldnt that leave out young voters who werent eligible to vote in 2020? (PS MOE for each state was 3-4 points)
Stinkier than a fish market on a hot August day
For the masochists, heres a link (must be a subscriber to see cross tabs and detailed methodology):
Heres a more balanced and contextual examination :
Mods: since the focus of this video is the role of social media in the dramatic increase of misinformation as a result of the Hamas-Israel crisis, and not the crisis itself, it didnt seem appropriate for the Israel/Palestine forum, and more appropriate for this one.
Apologies if I have erred.
Digby cuts and pastes an excellent perspective from veteran Dem strategist Simon Rosenberg.
Too much to summarize, and lots of supporting links to click on at link; I encourage everyone to click and read this entire spirit boosting article (and the supporting links, if youre not familiar with the data Rosenbergs assertions are based on), and paste the paragraph that made you smile the most.
P.S. Rosenberg suggests that Dems could get up to 55% of the popular vote in 2024 (average for Dems in past 4 elections is 51%). The odds of losing the electoral college with 55% of the popular vote is something like less than 5%, maybe even lower.
UPDATE: it is lower. If, as Rosenberg projects, Biden hits 55%, and Trump maxes out at 45%, the odds of Biden losing the electoral college drop to less than 1%.
Are you smiling yet? 😁
But there are reasons campaign professionals tend to wave off early surveys, which have notoriously overstated threats to incumbents. Heres why pollsters and strategists we spoke to say theyre not panicking yet.
There is no campaign. Every time you see a poll showing Bidens approval in the 30s, mentally add an asterisk that says before Democrats spend $1 billion.
This isnt so much about a prohibitive spending advantage (Republicans will have money too), but about what that money goes towards. In this case, its a message that so far has worked for Democrats in real-life conditions.
In the midterms, postmortems found that Democrats performed poorly in noncompetitive contests, but they won big in highly contested, swing state races where they could devote millions to ads on issues like abortion, drug prices, and entitlements while painting their opponents as MAGA extremists. The same formula has held up well in off-year elections since then, including a blowout judicial race in Wisconsin centered on abortion rights and gerrymandering.
Much more at link:
Excellent update and summary:
In a bid to keep the Special Grand Jurys recommendations secret in January, Fani Willis said the charging decisions were imminent. Since then, however, the regular Fulton County grand juries that would have to charge Trump and others have been churning out indictments for more ordinary crimes. According to Andrew Fleischman, there are 18,000 pending felony cases in Fulton County, many of them being held pre-indictment. Like some of the delays in the January 6 investigation, this backlog stems in part from COVID restrictions.
But it wasnt just that backlog that has delayed charges against Trump. In March, Willis asked Christina Bobb for an interview (who refused). It may be that, after reading Bobbs January 6 Committee testimony (transcripts of which were only released after the Fulton Special Grand Jury expired), Willis discovered that, while Bobb claimed to have been uninvolved in the crimes in Georgia, she testified that she and, at least two dozen others, over at least two rooms, sat in on Trumps call to Brad Raffensperger, and we all thought it was totally fine. On top of discovering that there were up to 24 witnesses who might be willing to misrepresent the call at trial, this may have caught Rudy Giuliani in a lie. After it became public, Rudy amended his interrogatories in Ruby Freemans lawsuit to reflect some involvement in the call as well. Someone recently claimed to me that Willis case is open and shut. But its not open and shut if there were 24 unknown witnesses involved.
More famously, according to a letter seeking to disqualify an attorney representing most of the fake electors, Willis has been spending recent weeks interviewing fake electors and telling them, allegedly for the first time, that they could get immunity deals if they testified against other Republicans. Friday, one of the fake electors who also accessed voting machine data on January 7, joined Trumps effort to undercut Willis authority, represented by a new attorney. All of which suggests that Willis is spending time not just making charging decisions, but making sure she can win the case.
Profile InformationMember since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 11:00 AM
Number of posts: 14,322
- 2023 (15)
- 2022 (31)
- 2021 (24)
- 2020 (12)
- 2018 (1)
- July (1)
- 2017 (3)
- 2016 (1)
- December (1)
- 2013 (1)
- March (1)
- 2012 (1)
- May (1)