And yet another example of how pundits use polls for pleasuring themselves more than anything else: an entire substack post to speculate about what various polls might mean that concludes that they almost certainly mean nothing.
What if every piece about polling was replaced with pieces analyzing our antiquated voting methods and how we could actually give people the option to express their full preferences on election day, which would also, incidentally, make polling much more important and realistic, since we would be polling people’s ranked choices instead of just one.
Well, there you go again, being all reasonable and shit. The purpose of candidate polling is almost entirely masturbatory on the part of the media — the world’s easiest story to write or film outside of the weather and the police blotter, and it creates the appearance of reporting on public affairs while actually just turning a fraught and often brittle statistical exercise into weeks and weeks of opinion shaping without having to actually talk to anyone other than people who are paid to talk to you and be nice to you and get you to see things their way. The entire enterprise of polling candidate politics has become a scam almost as bad as Madame Esmerelda’s fortune reading tent at the carnival. By filling the media space, poll fixation drives issues out of view, which is where corporate media likes them.
Yeah! I'm not really seeing any of Hong's supporters raising a ruckus over her loss. folks seem focused on what's important...And unless I missed something, Hong hasn't pulled a Katie Porter over the loss, so that's a good look as well...Add to it the very honorable concessions and well wishes the Stevens and McMorrow gave to El Sayed after his win
This playing nice during the primaries in SUCH contentious times is encouraging
I'm expecting a ripple and maybe a few surprise wins here and there, but not nearly enough to flip the house. Much less the Senate. Then the inevitable “progressives did this” blame cycle will start and by 2028 any remaining Democrats will nominate Liz Cheney for president or some shit.
Even if it does...then what? Yes, it will thwart MAGA for a time, which I understand is the most important goal right now. But if Dems want to be *successful*, they can't treat the current moment as a simple aberration, like Biden tried to do, when the voting populace was having none of it. With good reason too! "Blue waves" haven't saved us from Republican extremism for the past 45 years! I hope, if they win, Dems learn the hard lessons they have been very reluctant to if they don't want to stare down existential elections for the next 50 years.
Stephen- You are absolutely correct. It gives me little comfort when I see Texas polls for the Senate tied at 47-47. I felt much better seeing Talarico ahead 51-48 and 51-49. And while no poll is always 100% accurate it would appear today that Sharrod Brown is well positioned going into the stretch run, as a number of polls have shown him above 50%.
Now it will come time for FUD to be thrown about Crowley as we pivot to the general. The job is not done, and everything we've seen shows that it *matters* when Democrats are in office.
But of course, people need an excuse...any tiny one will do...to vote for the unreconstructed party. So let's make sure that we have the best chance of victory and everyone go vote!
Also, FPTP is a really shitty way to vote, and beyond even its myriad first order deficiencies, it makes polling for 3+ candidates highly unpredictable for the simple reason that it never cares about who their second or third choice is.
So when you have a 6-9 person race like this and candidates start dropping out, polls can’t capture the late movement.
Addendum: So there’s no need to go inventing deeper epicycles to explain “What This Means” RE the factional war; the simplest explanation — “This is a degenerate [in the math sense] outcome of FPTP being a morally degenerate voting system” — is plenty enough to explain the whole thing.
That’s why we shouldn’t take too much comfort in our candidate having any lead where they’re not breaking 50% in a two way race—and a corollary to that is the hyperventilating over a candidate we oppose having awful approval ratings (eg “look, McConnell is at 40% approval in deep red Kentucky! Donate to our liberal college professor opponent who can win over the 60% who do not approve!”). It’s worth delving into WHY those swingers don’t approve (turns out a lot of conservatives hated Mitch McConnell for not being nasty enough to Democrats and sure won’t vote for Professor Woke).
Have Democrats put much thought into why so many late breaking undecideds broke for Trump? Might be useful analysis, more so than focus grouping egg price messaging.
We are taking that same mindset with Trump as well. This isn't 2018. He may have a dismal approval rating but that doesn't translate into a 67% approval for anything that opposes him. Democrats' overall approval is *even worse*, after all.
"Undecideds" just want the attention and enjoy goosing polls. These are just people who honestly don't care at all; the problems of people who are not them don't really matter. And frankly given the baseline of a lot of Americans, that movement towards a 34x felonious conman sex predator was a great middle finger to queers, Black people, and women with "danger hair" and pronouns who annoy them by not being accessible.
That’s been Trump’s strength. He appeals to the not very political types who nevertheless are driven by resentment and love celebrity and entertainment. They’ll sit out most elections but with him on the ballot, they show up.
Yeah, a lot of voters are genuinely not plugged into what’s happening into late in the election. The irony is that many Democrats will bemoan the apparent ignorance of this voters while objecting to any legislation that might make it harder for them to vote. Irregular voters are not usually highly informed and politically obsessed
"Have Democrats put much thought into why so many late breaking undecideds broke for Trump?"
That is the very question I wanted to have answered. I have long had a theory (unsupported by any factual evidence) that so-called Undecided voters are usually Republicans who don't want to admit it out loud. My theory also applies to those who call themselves Independents, although that group also includes the purity ponies who will never find a party to their liking.
That might be some of it, but generally right wingers have no problem admitting how they’ll vote (though they might lie to themselves as to WHY they vote that way). I think there’s also just a lot of people who are tuned out, and don’t typically even vote, but sometimes can be brought out if prodded. And Trump had a real way to prod such people because he’s a celebrity and entertainer.
I can corroborate that idea, at least a bit. My family is as MAGA as it gets, but they're listed as independent. I asked about that when I was really young and my mom said it was so we wouldn't get so many junk fundraising letters.
Noah Berlatsky has a nice complement piece on the subject of polls
https://substack.com/inbox/post/211756062?redirect=app-store-no-desktop&inbox=true&triedRedirect=true
And yet another example of how pundits use polls for pleasuring themselves more than anything else: an entire substack post to speculate about what various polls might mean that concludes that they almost certainly mean nothing.
https://substack.com/inbox/post/211954448?redirect=app-store-no-desktop&inbox=true&triedRedirect=true
What if every piece about polling was replaced with pieces analyzing our antiquated voting methods and how we could actually give people the option to express their full preferences on election day, which would also, incidentally, make polling much more important and realistic, since we would be polling people’s ranked choices instead of just one.
Like this:
https://substack.com/inbox/post/211958367?redirect=app-store-no-desktop&inbox=true&triedRedirect=true
Well, there you go again, being all reasonable and shit. The purpose of candidate polling is almost entirely masturbatory on the part of the media — the world’s easiest story to write or film outside of the weather and the police blotter, and it creates the appearance of reporting on public affairs while actually just turning a fraught and often brittle statistical exercise into weeks and weeks of opinion shaping without having to actually talk to anyone other than people who are paid to talk to you and be nice to you and get you to see things their way. The entire enterprise of polling candidate politics has become a scam almost as bad as Madame Esmerelda’s fortune reading tent at the carnival. By filling the media space, poll fixation drives issues out of view, which is where corporate media likes them.
Hard pass on polling period!
catch ya on the flipside!
Gotta admit that I was rooting for Hong but Crowley seems like a good guy.
Yeah! I'm not really seeing any of Hong's supporters raising a ruckus over her loss. folks seem focused on what's important...And unless I missed something, Hong hasn't pulled a Katie Porter over the loss, so that's a good look as well...Add to it the very honorable concessions and well wishes the Stevens and McMorrow gave to El Sayed after his win
This playing nice during the primaries in SUCH contentious times is encouraging
Yeah... even now I can't really shake the feeling that American voters learned nothing and the predicted blue wave won't appear.
I'm expecting a ripple and maybe a few surprise wins here and there, but not nearly enough to flip the house. Much less the Senate. Then the inevitable “progressives did this” blame cycle will start and by 2028 any remaining Democrats will nominate Liz Cheney for president or some shit.
Even if it does...then what? Yes, it will thwart MAGA for a time, which I understand is the most important goal right now. But if Dems want to be *successful*, they can't treat the current moment as a simple aberration, like Biden tried to do, when the voting populace was having none of it. With good reason too! "Blue waves" haven't saved us from Republican extremism for the past 45 years! I hope, if they win, Dems learn the hard lessons they have been very reluctant to if they don't want to stare down existential elections for the next 50 years.
Stephen- You are absolutely correct. It gives me little comfort when I see Texas polls for the Senate tied at 47-47. I felt much better seeing Talarico ahead 51-48 and 51-49. And while no poll is always 100% accurate it would appear today that Sharrod Brown is well positioned going into the stretch run, as a number of polls have shown him above 50%.
Now it will come time for FUD to be thrown about Crowley as we pivot to the general. The job is not done, and everything we've seen shows that it *matters* when Democrats are in office.
But of course, people need an excuse...any tiny one will do...to vote for the unreconstructed party. So let's make sure that we have the best chance of victory and everyone go vote!
Black person sneezes
"Indepentents”: RADICAL WOKE, MUST VOTE REPUBLICAN TO SAVE MURICA.
A lesbian yawns somewhere
“Indepentents”: CRT CRT CRT LEFTIST SOCIALISMS
A Trans woman breathes
“Indepentents”: LIBERAL COMMIE FASCISTS! GIVE ICE NUKES TO SAVE OUR CHILDREN FROM THE GROOMERS!!!!!!?1!1!!!!!1!111111!!!!!0NE
Also, FPTP is a really shitty way to vote, and beyond even its myriad first order deficiencies, it makes polling for 3+ candidates highly unpredictable for the simple reason that it never cares about who their second or third choice is.
So when you have a 6-9 person race like this and candidates start dropping out, polls can’t capture the late movement.
Addendum: So there’s no need to go inventing deeper epicycles to explain “What This Means” RE the factional war; the simplest explanation — “This is a degenerate [in the math sense] outcome of FPTP being a morally degenerate voting system” — is plenty enough to explain the whole thing.
That’s why we shouldn’t take too much comfort in our candidate having any lead where they’re not breaking 50% in a two way race—and a corollary to that is the hyperventilating over a candidate we oppose having awful approval ratings (eg “look, McConnell is at 40% approval in deep red Kentucky! Donate to our liberal college professor opponent who can win over the 60% who do not approve!”). It’s worth delving into WHY those swingers don’t approve (turns out a lot of conservatives hated Mitch McConnell for not being nasty enough to Democrats and sure won’t vote for Professor Woke).
Have Democrats put much thought into why so many late breaking undecideds broke for Trump? Might be useful analysis, more so than focus grouping egg price messaging.
We are taking that same mindset with Trump as well. This isn't 2018. He may have a dismal approval rating but that doesn't translate into a 67% approval for anything that opposes him. Democrats' overall approval is *even worse*, after all.
Yep—lots of people just pissed at everyone and while many will vote, it’s hard to predict who will just tune out.
"Undecideds" just want the attention and enjoy goosing polls. These are just people who honestly don't care at all; the problems of people who are not them don't really matter. And frankly given the baseline of a lot of Americans, that movement towards a 34x felonious conman sex predator was a great middle finger to queers, Black people, and women with "danger hair" and pronouns who annoy them by not being accessible.
That’s been Trump’s strength. He appeals to the not very political types who nevertheless are driven by resentment and love celebrity and entertainment. They’ll sit out most elections but with him on the ballot, they show up.
Yes, he is the true heir to Obama as far as irregular voter turnout
I think you are giving them too much credit for mendaciousness when most of them pay almost no attention until the first week in November.
Yeah, a lot of voters are genuinely not plugged into what’s happening into late in the election. The irony is that many Democrats will bemoan the apparent ignorance of this voters while objecting to any legislation that might make it harder for them to vote. Irregular voters are not usually highly informed and politically obsessed
"Have Democrats put much thought into why so many late breaking undecideds broke for Trump?"
That is the very question I wanted to have answered. I have long had a theory (unsupported by any factual evidence) that so-called Undecided voters are usually Republicans who don't want to admit it out loud. My theory also applies to those who call themselves Independents, although that group also includes the purity ponies who will never find a party to their liking.
That might be some of it, but generally right wingers have no problem admitting how they’ll vote (though they might lie to themselves as to WHY they vote that way). I think there’s also just a lot of people who are tuned out, and don’t typically even vote, but sometimes can be brought out if prodded. And Trump had a real way to prod such people because he’s a celebrity and entertainer.
I can corroborate that idea, at least a bit. My family is as MAGA as it gets, but they're listed as independent. I asked about that when I was really young and my mom said it was so we wouldn't get so many junk fundraising letters.
I'm a registered independent who has never once voted GOP, although I have voted for the occasional Green and write-in candidate.
You must live in an open primary state?
I do, yes.
"Polls are often misleading, especially when they are only superficially reported."
Considering how the legacy media has been taken over by corporatists, it's no surprise that their reporting is superficial.
It's superficial whenever it isn't skewed against anyone to the left of hitler. Then it gets plenty of attention and analysis.
That's why I always say, damn the polls, let's go vote.