US Elections - From Russia with Love

[Fez]

For people who really like polls, here's an interesting piece by the pollsters at Reuters.

Basically, Reuters was curious why their polls in late June/early July were showing such larger leads for Clinton than any of the other top pollsters (often in the +12 to +15 range) and how they could then be showing a tied race after the RNC; which would suggest a much larger bounce than anybody else.

What they found was that what made their polls different from the other ones was that, in addition to the candidates (they do a Trump vs. Clinton poll, and a Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein poll), they included a 'Neither/Other' option. The other top pollsters included an 'Other' option, but the word 'Neither' wasn't there. For the past few weeks, in addition to the polls they've released, they've also been conducting polls that only have the 'Other' option; and they found that the word 'Neither' was causing Trump's numbers on average to be 3 to 5 points lower than they should and Clinton's numbers on average to be 2 to 4 points lower than they should be. Although the effect was bigger for Trump pre-RNC and bigger for Clinton post-RNC.

As a result, going forward they will only be conducting polls that include 'Other' and not have the 'Neither.' Looking back, they now estimate that rather than the race being tied over the weekend they think it was actually still Clinton +4, and while they don't know exactly where Trump stood in late June/early July it was definitely closer than they thought and was probably in the Clinton +7 to +9 range.

Interesting how different a single word can make things.

[Shryke]

11 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

That was definitely very moving - an exception to an otherwise dull night. Although the power of the speech was not because the father was a good speaker. He wasn't. He did have a compelling story and the overwhelming support of the crowd, though. 

One one of the most interesting (and perhaps concerning) things about the DNC was  how the Democrats are trying to position themselves as the party of national security and muscular foreign policy. Some of the speeches given at the DNC sound like they could have been written by the Project for the New American Century. Some of the delegates on the floor have been very vocal in their opposition to these speakers (Leon Panetta was practically booed off the stage).

I think it may have been a real missed opportunity for Sanders not have had really any foreign policy platform during the primary. His economic positions forced the Clinton camp to make some serious compromises on those issues, but the total lack of pushback on Clinton's foreign policy agenda has swung the Democrats far to the right on this issue. 

You are completely missing what's going on here. This isn't about Clinton's foreign policy agenda, it's about trying to reposition the Democratic party as the party of patriotism and america is awesome and we will defend american interests and all that. All of which are things that have for the last at least many decades been associated with the right and the GOP in the public consciousness.

But Trump has essentially vacated that ground and so the Democrats are trying to change the narrative and also peel off Republicans uncomfortable with Trump. Or at least get them to stay home or vote third party. That's why you have Bloomberg up there giving an endorsement despite his limited appeal to the Democratic base. That's why you've got Obama saying shit like "Donald Trump is neither a Republican nor a conservative" despite the first part of that being clearly false, as demonstrated by the primary.

There's no change in policy stances from the Democratic Party norm, it's all a change in presentation.

[alguien]

21 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

That was definitely very moving - an exception to an otherwise dull night. Although the power of the speech was not because the father was a good speaker. He wasn't. He did have a compelling story and the overwhelming support of the crowd, though. 

Fair point. Though I've watched better delivery, his story, especially when he took out his copy of the constitution, was an effectively compelling bit of of political theater. 

Quote

 

One one of the most interesting (and perhaps concerning) things about the DNC was  how the Democrats are trying to position themselves as the party of national security and muscular foreign policy. Some of the speeches given at the DNC sound like they could have been written by the Project for the New American Century. Some of the delegates on the floor have been very vocal in their opposition to these speakers (Leon Panetta was practically booed off the stage).

I think it may have been a real missed opportunity for Sanders not have had really any foreign policy platform during the primary. His economic positions forced the Clinton camp to make some serious compromises on those issues, but the total lack of pushback on Clinton's foreign policy agenda has swung the Democrats far to the right on this issue. 

 

Hadn't thought about this. It is a little concerning, because it's one of the areas I'm most critical of Hillary Clinton (saying "well, at least she's not a neocon" isn't quite good enough, IMO), and while it seemed the Sanders contingent was moderately successful in achieving some buy-in for their domestic agenda, I haven't seen any major adjustments from Clinton's platform foreign policy-wise. 

[BloodRider]

9 minutes ago, Fez said:

For people who really like polls, here's an interesting piece by the pollsters at Reuters.

Basically, Reuters was curious why their polls in late June/early July were showing such larger leads for Clinton than any of the other top pollsters (often in the +12 to +15 range) and how they could then be showing a tied race after the RNC; which would suggest a much larger bounce than anybody else.

What they found was that what made their polls different from the other ones was that, in addition to the candidates (they do a Trump vs. Clinton poll, and a Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein poll), they included a 'Neither/Other' option. The other top pollsters included an 'Other' option, but the word 'Neither' wasn't there. For the past few weeks, in addition to the polls they've released, they've also been conducting polls that only have the 'Other' option; and they found that the word 'Neither' was causing Trump's numbers on average to be 3 to 5 points lower than they should and Clinton's numbers on average to be 2 to 4 points lower than they should be. Although the effect was bigger for Trump pre-RNC and bigger for Clinton post-RNC.

As a result, going forward they will only be conducting polls that include 'Other' and not have the 'Neither.' Looking back, they now estimate that rather than the race being tied over the weekend they think it was actually still Clinton +4, and while they don't know exactly where Trump stood in late June/early July it was definitely closer than they thought and was probably in the Clinton +7 to +9 range.

Interesting how different a single word can make things.

I wonder what Nate Silver will say about this.

[Ormond]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

For people who really like polls, here's an interesting piece by the pollsters at Reuters.

Basically, Reuters was curious why their polls in late June/early July were showing such larger leads for Clinton than any of the other top pollsters (often in the +12 to +15 range) and how they could then be showing a tied race after the RNC; which would suggest a much larger bounce than anybody else.

What they found was that what made their polls different from the other ones was that, in addition to the candidates (they do a Trump vs. Clinton poll, and a Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein poll), they included a 'Neither/Other' option. The other top pollsters included an 'Other' option, but the word 'Neither' wasn't there. For the past few weeks, in addition to the polls they've released, they've also been conducting polls that only have the 'Other' option; and they found that the word 'Neither' was causing Trump's numbers on average to be 3 to 5 points lower than they should and Clinton's numbers on average to be 2 to 4 points lower than they should be. Although the effect was bigger for Trump pre-RNC and bigger for Clinton post-RNC.

As a result, going forward they will only be conducting polls that include 'Other' and not have the 'Neither.' Looking back, they now estimate that rather than the race being tied over the weekend they think it was actually still Clinton +4, and while they don't know exactly where Trump stood in late June/early July it was definitely closer than they thought and was probably in the Clinton +7 to +9 range.

Interesting how different a single word can make things.

What a marvelous example of the power of "wording effects" in polling! Subtle changes like this indeed are much more important than most people realize -- though I wonder if somehow the people who say "neither" could be much less likely to actually go to the polls in November. 

[sologdin]

33 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I think it may have been a real missed opportunity for Sanders not have had really any foreign policy platform during the primary. His economic positions forced the Clinton camp to make some serious compromises on those issues, but the total lack of pushback on Clinton's foreign policy agenda has swung the Democrats far to the right on this issue. 

is that a rightwing position? left internationalism has usually included an interventionist component.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

30 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I think it may have been a real missed opportunity for Sanders not have had really any foreign policy platform during the primary. His economic positions forced the Clinton camp to make some serious compromises on those issues, but the total lack of pushback on Clinton's foreign policy agenda has swung the Democrats far to the right on this issue. 

You wouldn't contribute any of that positioning to Trump's  ridiculous posturing? 

"They're afraid to even use the term Radical Islamic Terrorist".

 "He doesn't get it or he gets it better than anyone understands. It's one of the other. And either one is unacceptable." 

[Fez]

10 minutes ago, Ormond said:

What a marvelous example of the power of "wording effects" in polling! Subtle changes like this indeed are much more important than most people realize -- though I wonder if somehow the people who say "neither" could be much less likely to actually go to the polls in November. 

Its possible. I think Reuters was already using a likely voter screen to try to address that; but that could obviously be not calibrated properly.

It's also interesting that Reuters says they've used the 'Neither/Other' construction for the past several election cycles and never encountered a bias like this before. They don't really discuss what might be different about this cycle, but I have to think its due to the much higher unfavorables that Trump and Clinton have compared to previous nominees.

[S John]

39 minutes ago, alguien said:

Hadn't thought about this. It is a little concerning, because it's one of the areas I'm most critical of Hillary Clinton (saying "well, at least she's not a neocon" isn't quite good enough, IMO), and while it seemed the Sanders contingent was moderately successful in achieving some buy-in for their domestic agenda, I haven't seen any major adjustments from Clinton's platform foreign policy-wise. 

No doubt Clinton is probably more hawkish than I would prefer BUT I reckon the strategy last night wasn't to appeal only to democrats and liberals.  At this point the Sanders folks are 90% in the tank for Hillary and your standard left center-left people were never going to vote for Trump anyway.  

I think last night was about Republicans.  They beat the patriotic drum, the flag was everywhere, talked about killing bin laden, had parents of fallen military personnel.  The vibe was damn near pre-insanity Republican and I have no problem with that considering the circumstances.  I think it's pretty smart.  

Maybe I am just an optimist but I do not believe for one second that all republicans are batshit crazy.  Reluctance about Trump on the right is a well-known phenomena.  If Clinton can just reel in some of them that should be a massive help.  Even have seen some conservative media giving the DNC props for their superior tone.  

Truth is that nobody knows what the hell Trump is going to do if he wins.  And it could very likely be horrible.  I think even most Republicans would have to admit that Trump is an unknown and potentially volatile candidate.  But we have already survived 8 years of a Clinton White House.  And it was prosperous time.  I don't think things are anywhere near bad enough to merit an unknown alternative vs. a known quantity.  If sensible republicans are being honest, they know a Clinton win will not destroy this country.

If I were a sane Republican I'd be thinking that maybe losing to Clinton this round isn't the worst thing.  They'll probably still hold the house and senate, and they are free to give her the same treatment they gave Obama by obstructing and discrediting for 4 solid years.  In the meantime, they groom a god damn acceptable candidate in the next 4 years.  Seriously, if I were an R I'd be thinking 'punt'.  Punt this one and try for better field position for the next drive.  Live to fight another day.  If Trump wins and is (predictably) a disaster, you risk losing a whole generation of voters and getting completely swept out of Washington in 2020.  

I don't think a solid number of Republican defections (or maybe just stay-at-homes) are out of the question.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Revisiting Trump's "joke" regarding having the Russians release Hillary's missing emails...This is how you make a Russians assist my campaign chances joke.

 Start at 7:15

 

 

[alguien]

5 minutes ago, S John said:

No doubt Clinton is probably more hawkish than I would prefer BUT I reckon the strategy last night wasn't to appeal only to democrats and liberals.  At this point the Sanders folks are 90% in the tank for Hillary and your standard left center-left people were never going to vote for Trump anyway.  

I think last night was about Republicans.  They beat the patriotic drum, the flag was everywhere, talked about killing bin laden, had parents of fallen military personnel.  The vibe was damn near pre-insanity Republican and I have no problem with that considering the circumstances.  I think it's pretty smart.  

Maybe I am just an optimist but I do not believe for one second that all republicans are batshit crazy.  Reluctance about Trump on the right is a well-known phenomena.  If Clinton can just reel in some of them that should be a massive help.  Even have seen some conservative media giving the DNC props for their superior tone.  

Truth is that nobody knows what the hell Trump is going to do if he wins.  And it could very likely be horrible.  I think even most Republicans would have to admit that Trump is an unknown and potentially volatile candidate.  But we have already survived 8 years of a Clinton White House.  And it was prosperous time.  I don't think things are anywhere near bad enough to merit an unknown alternative vs. a known quantity.  If sensible republicans are being honest, they know a Clinton win will not destroy this country.

If I were a sane Republican I'd be thinking that maybe losing to Clinton this round isn't the worst thing.  They'll probably still hold the house and senate, and they are free to give her the same treatment they gave Obama by obstructing and discrediting for 4 solid years.  In the meantime, they groom a god damn acceptable candidate in the next 4 years.  Seriously, if I were an R I'd be thinking 'punt'.  Punt this one and try for better field position for the next drive.  Live to fight another day.  If Trump wins and is (predictably) a disaster, you risk losing a whole generation of voters and getting completely swept out of Washington in 2020.  

I don't think a solid number of Republican defections (or maybe just stay-at-homes) are out of the question.  

Pretty much agree with all of this, but I wanted to let you know that I'll be trying out your metaphor with some members from my giant, Irish Catholic family who are Eisenhower Republicans (you're correct, the sane kind do exist) and despise Trump. Some of them have are on the fence about voting for Clinton, and as they all love football, this might a good metaphor to push them toward doing so. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Most pollsters dont switch to a likely voter screen till August/September. I imagine they are quite a bit more unreliable before that. Many a times (at least in recent years) the polls show an uptick for Republicans because of this switch, but this year who knows.

[Jace, Extat]

7 hours ago, Inigima said:

Sorry, what?

Like X-ray said, you can't handle my comic genius.

[S John]

17 minutes ago, alguien said:

Pretty much agree with all of this, but I wanted to let you know that I'll be trying out your metaphor with some members from my giant, Irish Catholic family who are Eisenhower Republicans (you're correct, the sane kind do exist) and despise Trump. Some of them have are on the fence about voting for Clinton, and as they all love football, this might a good metaphor to push them toward doing so. 

Hope it works!

[Swordfish]

21 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Well, with a Trump presidency chances are good said senate will also be in Republican hands, and it's not like the democrats can block it or refuse to hear it. But yes, I suppose a 'silver lining' is that we could have a massively deadlocked government for the next 4 years and have something like a SC of 5-6 people. Yay?

I'd love to see the size of the court increase significantly.

I think what we are seeing right now is a clear indicator that there is a weakness in our check and balance system when the executive branch (and by executive branch, of course I mean the major party machines and their masters) and the legislative  (see also parties/masters) have this much influence over it.

Raise it to 25 and let's move on.  it's fundamentally wrong to em that this is an issue in presidential elections.

 

[Shryke]

As long as the court wields significant political power and as long as nominees actions are predictable to various degrees based on the party nominating them, SCOTUS nominations will be a big deal electorally. That's what it comes down to in the end.

It doesn't matter if there's 100 people on the court, if they get to decide who gets an abortion and who doesn't and that result is based on their political beliefs, who is on that court is gonna matter at the ballot box.

[Swordfish]

20 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 

Oh yes, those "good ole days" when your cohort didn't have to think or care about race, gender, sexuality, etc because those populations were still fighting to have their voices heard and taken seriously...

If you posses only a hammer, everything begins to resemble a nail......

 

18 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

 

Love that show.  Actually jsut re watched it recently and it's still great.

15 hours ago, Triskan said:

Wow, Jill Stein is a contemptible fool.

Boy, Chelsea's talk was weak.  Hillary is doing pretty well now though.

So...  Now that Sanders has been cowed, the leftist hit squad has moved on to Stein?   Good times.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Swordfish said:

I Love that show.  Actually just re watched it recently and it's still great.

 It's a fantastic show, way ahead of its' time. I have to imagine that Meathead and Arch would have some epic exchanges in regards to this election.

[Swordfish]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 It's a fantastic show, way ahead of its' time. I have to imagine that Meathead and Arch would have some epic exchanges in regards to this election.

No doubt!

Meathead would definitely be a berniebro.

 

 

[Fragile Bird]

Holy shit.  Ann Coulter.

She compares the Mothers of the Movement to ISIS terrorists in a column entitled "When Do the Mothers of ISIS Speak?" and says the only thing noteworthy Michael Brown's mother's done in life is raise a hoodlum, and then in a tweet dismisses Khizr Khan as "an angry Muslim with a thick accent like Fareed Zacaria".

Way to go, put a fine face on modern Republicans!