US Politics: holding our breath waiting to see what happens next

[Sci-2]

On 11/11/2020 at 9:12 PM, Jaxom 1974 said:

Truth. 

If Bernie wants to see his agenda ever get moved forward, he really needs to go away and let his heirs and acolytes take the reins. 

Hard to buy an extra house if he does that though...

[Martell Spy]

Alito's politically charged address draws heat
The Supreme Court justice warned that not only is freedom of belief under threat, but freedom of expression is as well.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/13/alito-speech-religious-freedom-436412

Quote

 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered an unusually inflammatory public speech Thursday night, starkly warning about the threats he contends religious believers face from advocates for gay and abortion rights, as well as public officials responding to the coronavirus pandemic.

Speaking to a virtual conference of conservative lawyers, the George W. Bush appointee made no direct comment on the recent election, the political crisis relating to President Donald Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his defeat or litigation on the issue pending at the Supreme Court.

However, Alito didn’t hold back on other controversial subjects, even suggesting that the pressure Christians face surrounding their religious beliefs is akin to the strictures the U.S. placed on Germany and Japan after World War II.

“Is our country going to follow that course?” Alito asked. “For many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom. It’s often just an excuse for bigotry and can’t be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed. ... The question we face is whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate people with unpopular religious beliefs.”

Alito argued that some recent Supreme Court decisions, including the landmark ruling upholding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, fueled intolerance to those who believe marriage should be limited to unions between one man and one woman.

“Until very recently, that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now, it’s considered bigotry,” he said.

 

 

[Castellan]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

Only if there is a good porn shop nearby.

He might end up with his briefcase at Supreme Sports or something.

[Castellan]

So I have only just read that one possible reason for Trump's sackings is suspected to be to get rid of people who would obstruct his desire to withdraw all US service men and women from Afghanistan - an election promise.

..... another reason could be part of his plan to claim the election was illegal and claim back the presidency with military forces (mad but its what Qanon supporters think was going to happen - Trump would use the army to get rid of the Democrat child eaters

... Just to use troops against 'mobs of communists occupying cities' as he wanted in the first place and Esper called it off. I am not up on whether there are any viable 'mobs' left to pick on but I don't suppose reality matters

 

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Biden signals Wall Street crackdown with transition picks
News of the appointments buoyed the hopes of progressives who have been skeptical about whether Biden would try to rein in Wall Street.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/12/biden-transition-wall-street-crackdown-436366

 

Unless he can do these things by executive order it's all for show, for at least the next 2 years. And he didn't get elected for banking reform, so if that's a hill he chooses to fight for then expect him to bleed support. Though, I kind of have no idea what he actually did get elected FOR, all I am sure about is that he got elected for NOT being Trump. The actual policy mandate the country has voted for is kind of not clear. They aren't giving the Democrats the senate, it'll be 50/50 at best, and they only let the Democrats have a razor thin majority in the House. I don't think that is a sign that they want sweeping progressive reforms, even thought it's exactly what they need.

[Gorn]

The one pollster who got the results right, Ann Seltzer in Iowa, explains why others got it wrong:

Quote

Mary Harris: In your polls, you use random digit dialing for landline and cell, you ask people how they’re going to vote, and you adjust the data to make it reflect the population of the place you’re polling—and that’s it. You say that you try not to bake in any assumptions, especially about past behavior. Do you think that’s where some pollsters get tripped up?

Ann Selzer: So one of the thoughts I’ve had about Florida in particular is that there might have been pollsters who took a look at their numbers and thought, This isn’t the outcome I was expecting, as they delved into some of the crosstabs, perhaps with the Latino community, perhaps with the African American community, and they may have done some additional adjusting. We would never do that. We would not think that we know better what’s going to happen in the future except what our data will reveal to us. I’m not there trying to figure out, well, do I expect the turnout among non-college-educated white men to be up or down compared to last year? That’s a judgment call. I worked with a colleague, he kept saying to me, “You’ve got to figure out the size and shape of the electorate.” And I go, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” You know, there’s just a complete disconnect of him thinking he can outthink the future and my position of saying, “I don’t think I can do that. I think I can be in a best position to see the future when my data shows it to me.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/iowa-election-polls-ann-selzer.htmlhttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/iowa-election-polls-ann-selzer.html

Basically, other pollsters were seeing data that said that Republicans would have a high turnout and that an unexpectedly large percentage of minorities would vote for Trump, but they would say "that can't be right" and adjust the data to their expectations.

The interview also some interesting things about what Democrats got wrong with their strategy - basically, focusing too much on early voting and not enough on Election Day voters.

[The Anti-Targ]

Looking at the House map, it appears Arizona is the only state outside of those in the North East that is geographically majority Democrat. Not that land area ultimately matters, but it's an interesting bit of trivia to me.

It's so strange that pollsters would think that data showing higher support for Trump among minorities must be wrong. It shows they are getting into social science not pure science. You follow the data, and when the data yields an unexpected result you repeat the sample, and if that gives the same result you think about adjusting your expectations, and then you take another sample, and if they also tells you the same thing as the first, then you definitely adjust your expectations. And then you take another sample, and if that matches your original expectations, you go "huh", but you don't disregard the previous samples. What you do is take another sample.

[mormont]

25 minutes ago, Gorn said:

The one pollster who got the results right, Ann Seltzer in Iowa, explains why others got it wrong:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/iowa-election-polls-ann-selzer.htmlhttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/iowa-election-polls-ann-selzer.html

Basically, other pollsters were seeing data that said that Republicans would have a high turnout and that an unexpectedly large percentage of minorities would vote for Trump, but they would say "that can't be right" and adjust the data to their expectations.

The interview also some interesting things about what Democrats got wrong with their strategy - basically, focusing too much on early voting and not enough on Election Day voters.

I think you're overstating here.

First, the pollster interviewed suggests that what you described 'might' be what happened. Based on that, you're stating it as a fact that this is what actually happened? The same is true of her remarks about Democrat strategy, which she admits are 'speculation' and just her own sense of what happened.

Second, overall in that interview the pollster interviewed qualifies all of her comments about polling and other pollsters. She says 'all I can say is that it [her method] worked for me': 'I do want to say that the idea that the polling industry needs a reckoning—this is a sentence that doesn’t make that much sense to me': and so on.

[Gorn]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I think you're overstating here.

First, the pollster interviewed suggests that what you described 'might' be what happened. Based on that, you're stating it as a fact that this is what actually happened? The same is true of her remarks about Democrat strategy, which she admits are 'speculation' and just her own sense of what happened.

Second, overall in that interview the pollster interviewed qualifies all of her comments about polling and other pollsters. She says 'all I can say is that it [her method] worked for me': 'I do want to say that the idea that the polling industry needs a reckoning—this is a sentence that doesn’t make that much sense to me': and so on.

Well, we know for a fact that most pollsters compensate for the low rate of responses by trying to model the electorate that will turn out (based on race, age, education and other factors), and weighing the responses according to that. Selzer's method is specific in that she doesn't do that, and only weighs the responses based on population in a given area. We also know for a fact that "poll herding" is a well-known problem in the field, and that some pollsters will quietly adjust their weighing in order not to be outliers.

Since the polls were obviously badly mistaken, and since the Democratic strategy obviously failed in several swing states and key Senate races, her theory sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Alito's politically charged address draws heat
The Supreme Court justice warned that not only is freedom of belief under threat, but freedom of expression is as well.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/13/alito-speech-religious-freedom-436412

 

@Ser Scot A Ellison,

But judges don't bring their own prejudices to the bench.................................

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

@Tywin et al. - second ex was indeed always of the opinion that a shotgun was the best home defense. 

I have a few hand me down hunting rifles and a pistol that probably doesn't work. Even before the pandemic I had meant to get one that does and a shotgun, but alas, it's a super low priority and perhaps that was a mistake. Shamefully I've always wanted this one because of Jurassic Park, and even worse, I really have always wanted this, and yes technically correct or not, it's an assault rifle, because of a video game.

Quote

I personally say it’s my nicely honed and well-polished machete, but we do all have our biases. 

I find polishing a machete easier than cleaning any firearm, as I use the same Wenol All-Metal polish to clean the machete, the silver, and the airplane propeller.

I guess I know what you favorite movie is.

And a katana is better.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Looking at the House map, it appears Arizona is the only state outside of those in the North East that is geographically majority Democrat. Not that land area ultimately matters, but it's an interesting bit of trivia to me.

It's so strange that pollsters would think that data showing higher support for Trump among minorities must be wrong. It shows they are getting into social science not pure science. You follow the data, and when the data yields an unexpected result you repeat the sample, and if that gives the same result you think about adjusting your expectations, and then you take another sample, and if they also tells you the same thing as the first, then you definitely adjust your expectations. And then you take another sample, and if that matches your original expectations, you go "huh", but you don't disregard the previous samples. What you do is take another sample.

Empiricism!  For the win!

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Gorn said:

Basically, other pollsters were seeing data that said that Republicans would have a high turnout and that an unexpectedly large percentage of minorities would vote for Trump, but they would say "that can't be right" and adjust the data to their expectations.

No, this is not what Selzer said.  What she said is after getting their results other pollsters would make further adjustments to the turnout data to align with their model/expectations of demographic turnout.  First, importantly, this is adjusting for turnout of demographics, not preference within that turnout.  If anyone's doing the latter then they shouldn't be polling (and Selzer is definitely not suggesting anyone did).  Second, whether you adjust the data to align with your turnout model or not is a difficult decision, but it doesn't inherently make Selzer's method right or the alternative method wrong. The bottomline is, Selzer already has a turnout model before running a poll - as does everyone else - the only difference she's suggesting may make her method more accurate is she trusts it. 

As the interviewer states in the question you quoted, Selzer "adjust the data to make it reflect the population of the place you’re polling."  That's all anybody is doing, it just so happens that Selzer appears to be the best at it in Iowa (and she's a pretty great pollster in general).  And especially the last two cycles she's been considerably better than pretty much all other pollsters in Iowa.  Lotsa people discounted her final poll because it didn't look like everyone else's.  She ended up being right and obviously just because her's was an outlier doesn't it mean it should have been discounted (and wasn't by people in the industry wherein she enjoys widespread respect).  But still, Selzer's been wrong before and will be wrong in the future, that's just the nature of a professional pollster.

The one thing Selzer mentioned in that interview that should be done by every commercial pollster (and is done by almost everyone, btw, when "polls"/studies are published for academic purposes) is being transparent about their methodology.  It would be much easier post-hoc to identify errors and patterns of errors if this was done.  But that won't happen so long as commercial firms are competing with each other.

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's so strange that pollsters would think that data showing higher support for Trump among minorities must be wrong.

Again, this is not what pollsters did.  In fact there was plenty of talk of Trump gaining with latinx and even black voters before the election because that's what the polls were showing.  It's simply the extent of Trump's gains in certain subsets of the latinx population were much larger than the polls showed - including Trump's own polls.

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You follow the data, and when the data yields an unexpected result you repeat the sample, and if that gives the same result you think about adjusting your expectations, and then you take another sample, and if they also tells you the same thing as the first, then you definitely adjust your expectations. And then you take another sample, and if that matches your original expectations, you go "huh", but you don't disregard the previous samples. What you do is take another sample.

Uh, yeah, this is exactly what pollsters try to do.  The issue is it's much easier said than done to simply "take another sample."  Running a poll - or 'one sample' - is costly.  Obviously commercial firms run many throughout the course of the campaign, but are the differences due to the expectations of your model being more accurate (or more inaccurate) or is it because there are shifts in that sample's tendencies to turnout?  Making that determination is quite difficult, and why, yes, polling is social science not "hard" science.

Bottomline, and what Selzer intimated throughout that interview, polling is not as accurate as the American public seems to expect or assume it should be.  And it never is going to be due to the minuscule response rate - even if a firm could afford some type of "big data" project that would cost a ridiculous sum, you couldn't get that many people to respond to a survey.  There's always gonna be a polling error of around 3-4, and it looks this cycle's error is going to be slightly above average.  There's also going to be higher error with swing state polling compared to national polling simply due to the fact they are swing states - shifts in turnout and preferences are inherently more volatile and thus more difficult to capture.

It's entirely up to the media and the American public whether they want to accept this reality, or want to entirely ignore polls altogether.  But I expect both will simply shit on pollsters for awhile, then go back to overestimating their accuracy as the next election approaches, then shit on the pollsters for any results that they got wrong all over again.  That's one thing I can predict without a poll.

Finally, the hilarious thing about all this is the public reaction to polls obviously would not be nearly as critical if we simply got the results like a regular election.  The freakout on election night plainly prompted the visceral reaction - even though pollsters and even the media were anticipating the "red mirage" for months.  At the presidential level, the polls did incredibly well in "calling" the winner, which usually is all the public cares about.  Other than Florida and to a lesser extent North Carolina, people would be talking about how the polls got every other state right.

[Morpheus]

6 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Alito's politically charged address draws heat
The Supreme Court justice warned that not only is freedom of belief under threat, but freedom of expression is as well.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/13/alito-speech-religious-freedom-436412

 

Please, Mr. Corona, do us this one solid.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@Ser Scot A Ellison,

But judges don't bring their own prejudices to the bench.................................

They’re not supposed to.  I’ve never said “they don’t”.  

If you are in a State job and refusing to do your job because of your religious predilections your remedy is to resign.  You do not have the authority to impose your faith upon anyone else or refuse to do your job because of your religious beliefs.  Allowing agent’s of the State to do that is a violation of the establishment clause.

Alito’s wrong.  I suspect Roberts with Gorsuch will place Alito in the Minority.  We’ll find out how Barrett rules soon enough.

It is time for 10 year terms or a retirement age for Supreme Court Justices.  Let the retired Justices sit on panel if a Justice is out sick, on vacation, or has recused themselves.  

How much less likely would litigants be to bring BS cases in the hopes of getting to the Supremes if they cannot predict what panel of the Supremes will hear their case?

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is time for 10 year terms or a retirement age for Supreme Court Justices.  Let the retired Justices sit on panel if a Justice is out sick, on vacation, or has recused themselves.  

How much less likely would litigants be to bring BS cases in the hopes of getting to the Supremes if they cannot predict what panel of the Supremes will hear their case?

You could also do this by drastically increasing the size of the SC and randomizing panels to hear any given case, with an en banc hearing still available in special cases - basically how a number of circuit courts do this.  Plus, by simply expanding a court you evade the constitutional questions of term limits or a retirement age.

[Maltaran]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Looking at the House map, it appears Arizona is the only state outside of those in the North East that is geographically majority Democrat. Not that land area ultimately matters, but it's an interesting bit of trivia to me.

 

I’m guessing that’s the Navajo Nation

[maarsen]

9 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Bah. He just wants to be loved! Karebear!

Better to be healthy. Kalebear. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

You could also do this by drastically increasing the size of the SC and randomizing panels to hear any given case, with an en banc hearing still available in special cases - basically how a number of circuit courts do this.  Plus, by simply expanding a court you evade the constitutional questions of term limits or a retirement age.

Indeed.  

[Soylent Brown]

10 hours ago, Killjoybear said:

That's an incredibly shitty name suggestion. Do better, y'all. 

How about Kalbear Total Landscaping?