There are a few ways to talk about a debate, but let's start with the basics: Hillary Clinton won this debate. Donald Trump held his own for about 20 minutes, and then fell apart as Clinton steadily laid traps for him and watched him walk into them. She didn't knock anything out of the park — no home runs — but debates are such that planning, preparation and practice show results.
Numbers
One thing I watch is interruptions: It means you feel you're losing, so you have to interject. And that means Trump lost. By many counts, Trump interrupted her three times more often (51 to 17) over the course of the night. By my count (I followed the transcript and the video) is 46 interruptions to 8, but I'm also not counting interruptions by the two candidates of poor Lester Holt. In which case, add roughly 15-20 to Trump and another 5-10 to Clinton.
Speaking time can go either way. Think about it like football: Sometimes the winning team controls the clock, but other times, if they are scoring easily, the losing team has more time of possession. But by speaking time, Trump had the advantage, talking for roughly 5 minutes more than Clinton in the debate.
I also look to the use of "filler words." The best example is "very." It is an adverb that journalists never use because it means nothing: When you say something is "very X," how much more X is it? One report said that Trump used the word "very" 57 times in the debate. They are wrong. He used it 71 times. Clinton used it 12 times. (Lester Holt used it 6 times, mostly saying "Very quickly.")
Reactions
You can also tell who lost by who's complaining.
Donald Trump blamed the microphone for his performance in Monday night's debate, though no one seemed to notice any problems during the debate. Immediately after the debate, he thought Lester Holt did well, but then blamed Holt the next morning for bringing up the birther issue (true) and the housing lawsuit (not true... Clinton brought that up) while not bringing up Benghazi (true) or the email scandal (not true... Clinton answered that one directly). He also complained about Holt not bringing up the Clinton Foundation scandal, but if Holt brought that up, he'd have to equally dive into the Trump Foundation scandal, so that's a wash to me.
Trump has doubled down on his arguments about former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. Clinton said he called her Miss Piggy and made fun of her Latina heritage as an example of his tendency to belittle women based on their looks. Trump went on Fox News (twice!) and said things to the effect of "Well, she really did gain weight." Which is... not a defense, really. Further, when Clinton cited his use of looks-based terms for women "pigs, slobs and dogs," he brought up Rosie O'Donnell and said "I think everybody would agree that she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her." Let's set aside whether Machado was an angel way back when (some dispute, but there's no question she's been productive since then). Let's set aside if Rosie O'Donnell said mean things to him. If your defense to "You judged someone on their looks" is "Yeah, well, she deserves it," that doesn't mean you're innocent. It's a middle school argument.
Facts
It's amazing how few people understand the role of journalists. Rudy Giuliani, a man who has lost almost all of the goodwill he built up, said: "If I were Donald Trump, I wouldn't participate in another debate unless I was promised that a journalist would act like a journalist and not an incorrect, ignorant fact checker." 1) Most fact checkers found plenty of false statements with what Donald Trump said. 2) What does Rudy Giuliani think a journalist should do, if not fact check? 3) He's calling facts incorrect and ignorant. Sigh...
Anyway, Donald Trump pretended to be his own fact checker on Monday night. Multiple times he interrupted to say if something was wrong, or that he did/did not say something. All told, I counted 11 times the two candidates clashed with interruptions over a verifiable fact. One of those times, Clinton was wrong (She did call TPP the "gold standard."). However, seven of those times, Trump would interject that something was wrong when it was not (I'm not going to list all seven). Three other clashes are rather in the eye of the beholder.
The links above will take you to fact-checking sites. You can also check out Politifact (15 graded statements by Clinton, with 12 rating mostly true/true and 1 mostly false/false v. 16 graded statements by Trump, with 5 mostly true/true, and 8 false/mostly false) or the Washington Post (10 false statements by Trump, 0 for Clinton. 2 true statements for Trump, 6 for Clinton).
Breakdown
Let's start with Clinton. As noted, she used facts more often, and she interrupted less. That's good, since she's already carrying the burden of many people's latent sexism (don't sound "shrill," don't sound "nagging," etc.). But there were some faults. She can be wooden and rehearsed, and some of the lines didn't come off all that well. For example, when she started to talk about economics, she said "what I call 'Trumped-up trickle-down.'" It's lame and she shouldn't have bothered. During the first quarter of the debate, when most observers say Trump did well, it was also because she was on the defensive about trade deals and both her husband and Obama's policies. Early on, when Trump would say something wrong, she'd send people to her website for fact checking rather than do it herself. That's equally lame and sends the signal of "Let my aides tell you why I'm right." There were several times when Trump was reeling and she could have landed a haymaker, but she went into a canned response instead. This shows she knew what she wanted to say, but maybe that she wasn't prepared for the in-the-moment battles. She was fine and had a few good moments, but it wasn't like she was the Babe Ruth of the debate.
However, she laid a ton of traps for Trump, and he walked into most of them. The first was when she needled him with two sentences about the $14 million-dollar loan that started Trump's business. He spent the first paragraph of his time responding to that, calling it "very small." Then she brought up his remarks about profiting off the economy's decline and that climate change is a Chinese hoax, causing him to interrupt and falsely claim he didn't say that. She brought up the "Trump loophole," a lame attack that nonetheless caused him to interrupt multiple times and be admonished by Lester Holt. She listed the reasons he might not want to release his tax returns, causing him to interrupt and inadvertently admit to not paying federal taxes. She needled him for not paying contractors what they've charged him, and he said they probably didn't do a good job, then — a tacit admission of guilt. She brought up the lawsuit from the 1970s, He spent a paragraph and a half arguing it. She brought up his Vladimir Putin praise, and he interrupted. She brought up Trump's support of the Iraq invasion, and he couldn't help but interject three "wrongs," despite its accuracy. She referenced Trump talking about Iranian sailors taunting Americans, and he interrupted her instead of waiting to rebut. She quoted his stance on nuclear weapons, to get him defending that. She brought up Alicia Machado, which drove him mad. Clinton has a tell when it comes to these things, like a bad poker player. If she uses "Donald," it's a trap. In all but one of the things in this paragraph, she used the term "Donald" when she said it. He cannot stand to be challenged directly.
As I said at the beginning, I think Trump did a good job in the first 25 minutes. He was the aggressor, and she was on the defensive. Trade deals are a weak subject for her, and you can tell she doesn't have a great response. He seemed to be on topic and tough until the 24:41 mark. He was hitting her hard about being a career politician, and she turned to prepared responses nearly every time.
This is where the wheels start to fall off. At that point, she makes her one non-rehearsed joke of the night, that she'd be blamed for everything (and gets laughter from the audience), then calls him crazy. He goes on an interruption spree before they both start to get back on track. The next question is about his tax returns, and he responds for a little while before Holt notes that the IRS says he's free to release the tax returns. Trump then says, "... and in a way, I should be complaining. But I'm not even complaining." He's praising himself for not complaining about being audited while he's complaining about being audited. Clinton then gets a few minutes to respond, and she lists possible reasons for not releasing his returns, which prompts the "That makes me smart" line. When the subject turns to her emails, and she falls on her sword about it, Trump only spends a few sentences piling on before going back to defend how rich he is, then explaining he's not doing that to brag, then talking about how the infrastructure is falling apart and "we've become a third-world country." (Seriously? I want our infrastructure improved, too, but a third-world country? Please.) Clinton then keeps the focus on him not paying taxes, bringing up his company stiffing its contractors and turning that around about his ideas on using that for the national debt. He is being challenged and can't stand it, interrupting with "wrong." When he gets a turn, he pumps up his business before talking about his hotels and that the national economy should be as easy as his hotels. The segment ends at the 40 minute mark and they switch to talking about race. It was a disastrous 15-minute segment for him.
The race segment helped get Trump back on message, but it also isn't solid ground for him. He was on the defensive about stop-and-frisk being unconstitutional (it is) and his birther statements. In those situations, he went on for several minutes without Clinton responding as he flailed for an answer. The strangest part of this segment was he attempted to deny accusations that he's been accused of racist things by talking about how he opened a hotel in the "tough community" of Palm Beach, Fla., and he didn't discriminate against black people or Muslims. His argument on why he wasn't a racist boiled down to praising himself for opening a non-discriminatory hotel.
The next segment was on security, and the first question was on cybersecurity, which did 68-year-old Clinton and 70-year-old Trump no favors. They didn't know what they were talking about. The topic turns to ISIS, and they both give nice answers sticking to their guns. This part of the debate was typical debate fodder until Holt correctly points out Trump supported the war in Iraq before it began. That sets off Trump again. He gets mad. It's a remarkable five-minute stretch in which Clinton says only seven words and lets Trump hang himself by his own noose. From 73:30 to 78:22, the only time Clinton speaks is to say that they've already covered the issue. During that time, he praises himself for prompting NATO to do something they'd already announced doing, gets into a fight over whether he supported the war in Iraq, says that people should call his supporter Sean Hannity to back him up, gets laughed at by the audience (!) for saying he has a better temperament than her, then accuses her of getting angry at the AFL-CIO (for which there is no verification other than him). When Clinton finally gets a chance to speak, she gives a little shoulder shimmy that signals "I know I've got this." As she answers, she needles him some more and he can't help but argue, and he loses an exchange ("That line's getting old." "But it's a good one."). The topic moves to nuclear weapons, and Trump can't keep on a train of thought. Clinton's response is standard fare.
The next question, on Clinton having the presidential look, is a lesson in backpedaling. He says yes, but also she doesn't have stamina. She gives a killer answer about traveling the globe and testifying before Congress. Sensing she's got him on stamina, he moves to experience — yes, she's got it, but it's bad. So when he gets cornered on looks, he moves to stamina. When he gets cornered on stamina, it's about experience. She calls him out for the first part, then brings up Alicia Machado, and he falls for the bait.
One final thing on the debate: At the very end, Trump praised himself for not being "inappropriate" and "not nice" to Clinton about (as he revealed in post-debate interviews) her husband's affairs. His son and campaign manager equally praised him for having the courage not to say something like that. You don't get credit for not bringing up something you're bringing up, as if you also aren't a philanderer. It's like saying "I'm brave for not calling you an [insert name here]."
Clinton's ceiling is low. She doesn't like to go for the jugular and prefers to let her opponent make a mistake. Maybe some day she'll have a debate opponent that won't make a mistake and it won't be enough. But that wasn't Monday. Monday, Trump more than bit himself in the rear, and the polls are are starting to show it.
Gary Johnson's Aleppo moment
Chris Matthews asked Gary Johnson to name a foreign leader he respected. Johnson's VP pick Bill Weld tossed out recently deceased former Israeli PM Shimon Peres. Matthews sticks with living foreign leaders and presses Johnson. Johnson demurs. Matthews brings up countries, perhaps prompting Johnson: Canada, Mexico, Africa, Southeast Asia? Johnson realizes he can't at the 25 second mark and admits to having "an Aleppo moment." Matthews presses again. Johnson brings up "the former President of Mexico." Matthews: "Which one?" Pause. Johnson's VP Bill Weld bails him out by naming Vicente Fox before answering Angela Merkel himself. A day later, Johnson's doubled down on it in a tweet. It's frankly embarrassing.
Look, I understand if you don't like Clinton or think Trump's frightening. But if you think Gary Johnson's a better alternative than either of those two when he a) can't name the major city in Syria in which we're fighting and b) can't name a single foreign leader he respects, you're not voting for someone you think will be a good president, you're voting third party out of spite.
Election Update
Presidential
Pre-debate, it was a toss-up. Post-debate, most national polls show a 3-5 point lead for Clinton. She's had a few good state polls in Florida and North Carolina since the debate. Polls post-debate show a solid 6-point lead for Clinton in Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia. Pre-debate, I was going to move Colorado to toss-up, but post-debate keeps it blue. The one new poll of Arizona and Iowa shows a Clinton lead, but I don't trust the source, so I will wait for more before I make a move with them. Most pollsters took the weekend off because of the debate, so we don't have much new yet. No changes. Toss-up states: Florida and North Carolina. States to watch: Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado. Electoral College: 272 Clinton, 222 Trump, 270 to win.
Senate
While there haven't been a lot of presidential polls, there have been several Senate polls. Several polls of Pennsylvania show either a 1-point lead for GOP Sen. Toomey or a 4-point lead for Democrat challenger McGinty. I think the edge is for McGinty, but it stays toss-up for now. North Carolina's had several polls, and it's bizarre: In one, the GOP candidate leads by 16; another has a 9-point Democrat lead; and others show a tight race. New Hampshire polls show either a tie or a small Democrat lead. New Hampshire moves to No Clue. No Clue: North Carolina, Missouri, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. Outlook: +2 Democrat, not enough for a majority.
Summary Judgments
This blog has passed the 2,000 views mark. That isn't a huge number, but it means I have some persistent readers. Thank you for your dedication, your patience and your loyalty. It means a lot to me. • • • Here's an example of why I think Fox News is biased. On their main page, the morning after the debate, the second link on the page is about how online polls found Trump won the debate while "the media" declared Clinton won. Their own anchors touted that "polls say [Trump won]" after the debate. However, clicking on the link or hearing which polls they mentioned shows the truth: These are not scientific polls, they're on Republican web sites (Drudge Report, Breitbart, etc.) and they allow for multiple voting. CNN had a scientific poll of 500+ independent voters. They found Clinton won the debate by a 62-27 percent margin. Look, this was so bad that Fox News itself had to issue a warning to its hosts: Only reference scientific polls from reputable sources. • • • I honestly didn't notice Donald Trump's sniffles, but many others did. But Howard Dean went too far in questioning if Trump uses cocaine. That's the sort of over-the-top thing that needs to stop. • • • I accidentally went a week without running, but I ran 2.75 miles yesterday. That's the sort of thing that makes me feel really good about the race on Oct. 9. It's a 5K, rest, 3K. I'm excited. • • • Roland had his back turned to his daycare teacher this week. "Roland, are you putting something in your mouth?" "Yeah." "What is it?" "My boogers." At least he's honest.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Thursday, September 22, 2016
The Promised Electoral College Breakdown
It's rare that I agree with what Karl Rove says, but he was exactly right about his analysis of the Electoral College recently. In short, Clinton has the advantage in the Electoral College.
First, let's address which states are not at all important to this analysis: AK, HI, CA, NY, OR, WA, ID, MT, NM, OK, KS, NE (with one electoral college vote set aside), ND, SD, TX, AR, LA, IL, KY, TN, AL, MS, WV, MN, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, ME (with one electoral college vote set aside). These states are not close and we won't spend time entertaining what-ifs. So this is our baseline: 200 electoral college votes for Clinton, 147 for Trump. 270 needed to win (a tie would send it to the House, who would almost assuredly pick Trump).
Would Take Something Really Bad for Trump To Lose
• Utah has a lot of Mormons, and Trump is underperforming there. But when I say "underperforming," that's the same case as Kansas and Texas: Doing worse than an average GOP candidate should, but still winning by high single-digits.
• Missouri used to be a swing state, but it's become reliably right-leaning now. I think Missouri could be won in a democratic landslide, but it's becoming more and more obvious that won't happen.
Electoral College: 200 Clinton, 163 Trump
Would Take A Bigger Turnout/Landslide For One Side to Win
• Georgia may one day go blue — it's becoming a more diverse state, and minorities tend to vote democratic. It'll probably switch in the next 20 years. But it's not there yet.
• Pennsylvania is diverse, but it's also moving more to the right. It's the political opposite of Georgia — it's not there yet. They've not voted GOP since 1988, and I don't see that changing this year, especially not with recent polling data.
• Wisconsin is one of the targets for Trump, but I'm not sure it's a great pick. Although it's a mostly rural, Rust Belt state (Milwaukee excepted), it also hasn't voted for a Republican for president since before I was born. I doubt it changes.
• Arizona looked close in the aftermath of the DNC, but it's another Georgia, I think: Moving more democratic/more diverse because of the Hispanic population, but not there yet.
• Virginia is the last state in this category. It's been getting more and more diverse, and it has reached a point where this is a very likely blue state. Unlike Georgia and Arizona, it's already hit the tipping point. It went for Obama twice, and I don't see that switching.
Electoral College: 243 Clinton, Trump 190
Closer, but Would Be Surprising To Switch
• Michigan is another Trump target, but polls haven't been going his way. In his best days, he's tied, but he's never been ahead. It's key for Clinton to hold Michigan, because it makes it easier for her to get over the 270 mark with almost any combination of remaining states.
• New Hampshire is good Trump territory, based on the primaries. However, it's not great based on polling. It's huge on ground game (advantage: Clinton) and Trump hasn't led in any poll since just after the RNC. It's close, but it's probably blue and inches Clinton closer to the finish line.
Electoral College: 263 Clinton, Trump 190
Remaining Possibilities
So here are the states that remain: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and the sole electoral votes in Nebraska and Maine. That's 85 electoral votes left. Trump cannot lose Ohio, Florida, Colorado or North Carolina, or it's over — they each have more than 7 electoral college votes and would put Clinton over the edge. This is the clearest I can make it: Trump has to sweep every true toss-up to win.
Clinton can still win even if she loses all of those biggest prizes. She would only have to win either Iowa or Nevada, plus pick up the electoral college vote in Maine or Nebraska and she'd win.
But if the election were today, Trump could actually pull it out. He's leading in Iowa and is probably ahead in Ohio. I think Trump will pick up the electoral votes in Nebraska AND Maine. For the sake of simplicity, let's give him all of those. He'd still need some luck.
Colorado wouldn't seem like a Trump state, but Trump's had the occasional good poll (albeit the most recent was not good for him). North Carolina, Nevada and Florida are all neck-and-neck and could go either way. In fact, two Florida polls released mid-week show Clinton with a small lead.
If I were calling it today, I'd say Clinton takes two of North Carolina, Colorado and Florida. Heck, she might even take just Colorado and clinch it. But here's one weird, frightening possibility: If Trump takes Iowa and Ohio and the sole electoral votes in Nebraska and Maine, then wins North Carolina, Colorado and Florida while Clinton takes Nevada, that's.... 269-269. Heaven help us if that's the case.
Tulsa Has A Problem
Terence Crutcher had his hands up, walking toward his stalled car in the middle of a Tulsa road. He was 40 years old. He was black. He was unarmed. He was shot and killed. I've watched the video, and I agree with the Tulsa Police Chief: This was "disturbing." The Tulsa Police Chief called the Department of Justice. The Tulsa Police Chief has promised justice.
However, he's got a problem on his hands. This was a white officer shooting an unarmed black man. While the officer said she wasn't having cooperation from Crutcher, the video shows otherwise. The officer had her gun trained on him as he walked away from her and toward his car with his hands up. Further, even away from the obvious footage, there's the question of subtle racism being done in the helicopter, which shot some of the footage. One of the officers in the helicopter said Crutcher "looked like a big bad dude." Crutcher's car was stalled in the middle of the road, and this helicopter policeman had already profiled him.
But this isn't Tulsa's first problem with African-Americans. My wife grew up in the Tulsa metro and was not taught the story of... well, it depends on how you want to describe it. Wikipedia, for one, simultaneously calls it the Tulsa Race Riots and the Tulsa Race Massacre. The latter is probably more accurate. On Memorial Day Weekend in 1921, a black man was (almost assuredly) falsely accused of rape. A white-owned paper (probably) drummed up plans to lynch him, and a group of black people armed themselves and went off to prevent the lynching. A short gun battle ensued after white people armed themselves against the black people. Then the massacre began. Thousands of whites stormed the "Black Wall Street/Little Africa" in a one-sided rout. They burned nearly 1,300 homes and 200 businesses. They destroyed a hospital and a junior high school. Airplanes dropped flaming balls of turpentine and (possibly) dynamite. Fire stations didn't sound and sat there quietly. Roughly 6,000 black people were arrested (!) and illegally held at what were effectively internment centers. Officially, 35 black people were killed, though it's widely assumed that number is low, with most estimating 50-300 black people were killed. The Tulsa Race Riots stole the modern equivalent of $30 million in black-created wealth. The Tulsa Chamber of Commerce even tried to conspire to prevent the black community from rebuilding. And no one teaches that history. It has been swept under the rug.
In April of last year, a 73-year-old white deputy reserve officer (not a cop, but a deputized civilian) for Tulsa County mistook his Taser for a gun and shot and killed Eric Harris. The deputy reserve was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to four years in prison.
Tulsa is still quite segregated. I could describe it with numbers, anecdotes or more, but let's save the ink: It's still very segregated. White people in Tulsa will say that they'd never be racist, and they don't see people any differently, but they'd also say they'd never go to North Tulsa. Tulsa will probably treat the Terence Crutcher incident like the Tulsa Race Massacre, the Eric Harris incident, and the ongoing housing disparity: Sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist. Tulsa's rug is getting awfully lumpy.
Election Update
OK, the above stuff was plenty, so I'll cut to the chase.
President
Nevada leans Trump right now, but it's pretty close. It's a pink state. Colorado had a few outlier polls showing a Trump lead, but others show a 9-10 point Clinton lead. It might be one to watch, but it stays blue for now. I'm going ahead and turning Ohio red for now. Clinton's had a few good polls there, but for the most part, polls show a Trump lead. Same with Iowa. Same with Maine's second district electoral vote. North Carolina is too close to call. This week's polls have been good for Clinton in Florida, but it's still a toss-up. Nevada, Ohio, Maine's second district and Iowa go red. Toss-up states: Florida, North Carolina and Nebraska's second district. States to watch: Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, and Nevada. Electoral College: 272 Clinton, 222 Trump, 270 to win.
Senate
Four new polls in North Carolina show a tie, two leads for the Democrat and one lead for the Republican. It moves back to "No Clue." I think Heck has the advantage in Nevada, though it's still within striking distance for the Democrat. While I wasn't watching, my own state became a battleground. A new poll of Missouri showed Jason Kander with a 2-point lead over incumbent GOP Sen. Roy Blunt. I'll move it to No Clue for now, but I still think Blunt has an edge. North Carolina and Missouri move to No Clue. Nevada moves red. No Clue: North Carolina, Missouri and Pennsylvania. Outlook +2 Democrats, not enough for a majority.
Summary Judgments
Wow. George H.W. Bush will vote for Hillary Clinton this year. Why is Trump as close as he is? How are people convinced by Donald Trump? I don't get it. • • • Let's call someone a mastermind after their team has won a title, please. • • • I thought this segment by Trevor Noah on the Daily Show was really good. He explains why we might have unwilling bias and makes a good point about being exposed to people of different backgrounds. • • • We all know female black widow spiders eat the male after mating. However, the male black widows are developing a possible counter to that measure. Nature is fascinating. • • • Speaking of fascinating nature, there was recent confirmation of the longest lightning bolt ever recorded. It spanned 200 miles from near Tulsa to near the Texas Panhandle! • • • I finally signed up for my race. It's the National World War I Museum and Memorial 8K Double. you have 1:15 to finish a 5K. After the end of that time, you run another 3K. I'm intrigued and want to have some fun. It'll also serve as an end to this year's running season for me and finish Homecoming Week. • • • This weekend marks the first of two trips to Oklahoma in the next month for us. That means several hours in the car with 2-year-olds. And when we get back, we start potty training. Did all my hair just turn gray at once in fear?
First, let's address which states are not at all important to this analysis: AK, HI, CA, NY, OR, WA, ID, MT, NM, OK, KS, NE (with one electoral college vote set aside), ND, SD, TX, AR, LA, IL, KY, TN, AL, MS, WV, MN, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, ME (with one electoral college vote set aside). These states are not close and we won't spend time entertaining what-ifs. So this is our baseline: 200 electoral college votes for Clinton, 147 for Trump. 270 needed to win (a tie would send it to the House, who would almost assuredly pick Trump).
Would Take Something Really Bad for Trump To Lose
• Utah has a lot of Mormons, and Trump is underperforming there. But when I say "underperforming," that's the same case as Kansas and Texas: Doing worse than an average GOP candidate should, but still winning by high single-digits.
• Missouri used to be a swing state, but it's become reliably right-leaning now. I think Missouri could be won in a democratic landslide, but it's becoming more and more obvious that won't happen.
Electoral College: 200 Clinton, 163 Trump
Would Take A Bigger Turnout/Landslide For One Side to Win
• Georgia may one day go blue — it's becoming a more diverse state, and minorities tend to vote democratic. It'll probably switch in the next 20 years. But it's not there yet.
• Pennsylvania is diverse, but it's also moving more to the right. It's the political opposite of Georgia — it's not there yet. They've not voted GOP since 1988, and I don't see that changing this year, especially not with recent polling data.
• Wisconsin is one of the targets for Trump, but I'm not sure it's a great pick. Although it's a mostly rural, Rust Belt state (Milwaukee excepted), it also hasn't voted for a Republican for president since before I was born. I doubt it changes.
• Arizona looked close in the aftermath of the DNC, but it's another Georgia, I think: Moving more democratic/more diverse because of the Hispanic population, but not there yet.
• Virginia is the last state in this category. It's been getting more and more diverse, and it has reached a point where this is a very likely blue state. Unlike Georgia and Arizona, it's already hit the tipping point. It went for Obama twice, and I don't see that switching.
Electoral College: 243 Clinton, Trump 190
Closer, but Would Be Surprising To Switch
• Michigan is another Trump target, but polls haven't been going his way. In his best days, he's tied, but he's never been ahead. It's key for Clinton to hold Michigan, because it makes it easier for her to get over the 270 mark with almost any combination of remaining states.
• New Hampshire is good Trump territory, based on the primaries. However, it's not great based on polling. It's huge on ground game (advantage: Clinton) and Trump hasn't led in any poll since just after the RNC. It's close, but it's probably blue and inches Clinton closer to the finish line.
Electoral College: 263 Clinton, Trump 190
Remaining Possibilities
So here are the states that remain: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and the sole electoral votes in Nebraska and Maine. That's 85 electoral votes left. Trump cannot lose Ohio, Florida, Colorado or North Carolina, or it's over — they each have more than 7 electoral college votes and would put Clinton over the edge. This is the clearest I can make it: Trump has to sweep every true toss-up to win.
Clinton can still win even if she loses all of those biggest prizes. She would only have to win either Iowa or Nevada, plus pick up the electoral college vote in Maine or Nebraska and she'd win.
But if the election were today, Trump could actually pull it out. He's leading in Iowa and is probably ahead in Ohio. I think Trump will pick up the electoral votes in Nebraska AND Maine. For the sake of simplicity, let's give him all of those. He'd still need some luck.
Colorado wouldn't seem like a Trump state, but Trump's had the occasional good poll (albeit the most recent was not good for him). North Carolina, Nevada and Florida are all neck-and-neck and could go either way. In fact, two Florida polls released mid-week show Clinton with a small lead.
If I were calling it today, I'd say Clinton takes two of North Carolina, Colorado and Florida. Heck, she might even take just Colorado and clinch it. But here's one weird, frightening possibility: If Trump takes Iowa and Ohio and the sole electoral votes in Nebraska and Maine, then wins North Carolina, Colorado and Florida while Clinton takes Nevada, that's.... 269-269. Heaven help us if that's the case.
Tulsa Has A Problem
Terence Crutcher had his hands up, walking toward his stalled car in the middle of a Tulsa road. He was 40 years old. He was black. He was unarmed. He was shot and killed. I've watched the video, and I agree with the Tulsa Police Chief: This was "disturbing." The Tulsa Police Chief called the Department of Justice. The Tulsa Police Chief has promised justice.
However, he's got a problem on his hands. This was a white officer shooting an unarmed black man. While the officer said she wasn't having cooperation from Crutcher, the video shows otherwise. The officer had her gun trained on him as he walked away from her and toward his car with his hands up. Further, even away from the obvious footage, there's the question of subtle racism being done in the helicopter, which shot some of the footage. One of the officers in the helicopter said Crutcher "looked like a big bad dude." Crutcher's car was stalled in the middle of the road, and this helicopter policeman had already profiled him.
But this isn't Tulsa's first problem with African-Americans. My wife grew up in the Tulsa metro and was not taught the story of... well, it depends on how you want to describe it. Wikipedia, for one, simultaneously calls it the Tulsa Race Riots and the Tulsa Race Massacre. The latter is probably more accurate. On Memorial Day Weekend in 1921, a black man was (almost assuredly) falsely accused of rape. A white-owned paper (probably) drummed up plans to lynch him, and a group of black people armed themselves and went off to prevent the lynching. A short gun battle ensued after white people armed themselves against the black people. Then the massacre began. Thousands of whites stormed the "Black Wall Street/Little Africa" in a one-sided rout. They burned nearly 1,300 homes and 200 businesses. They destroyed a hospital and a junior high school. Airplanes dropped flaming balls of turpentine and (possibly) dynamite. Fire stations didn't sound and sat there quietly. Roughly 6,000 black people were arrested (!) and illegally held at what were effectively internment centers. Officially, 35 black people were killed, though it's widely assumed that number is low, with most estimating 50-300 black people were killed. The Tulsa Race Riots stole the modern equivalent of $30 million in black-created wealth. The Tulsa Chamber of Commerce even tried to conspire to prevent the black community from rebuilding. And no one teaches that history. It has been swept under the rug.
In April of last year, a 73-year-old white deputy reserve officer (not a cop, but a deputized civilian) for Tulsa County mistook his Taser for a gun and shot and killed Eric Harris. The deputy reserve was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to four years in prison.
Tulsa is still quite segregated. I could describe it with numbers, anecdotes or more, but let's save the ink: It's still very segregated. White people in Tulsa will say that they'd never be racist, and they don't see people any differently, but they'd also say they'd never go to North Tulsa. Tulsa will probably treat the Terence Crutcher incident like the Tulsa Race Massacre, the Eric Harris incident, and the ongoing housing disparity: Sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist. Tulsa's rug is getting awfully lumpy.
Election Update
OK, the above stuff was plenty, so I'll cut to the chase.
President
Nevada leans Trump right now, but it's pretty close. It's a pink state. Colorado had a few outlier polls showing a Trump lead, but others show a 9-10 point Clinton lead. It might be one to watch, but it stays blue for now. I'm going ahead and turning Ohio red for now. Clinton's had a few good polls there, but for the most part, polls show a Trump lead. Same with Iowa. Same with Maine's second district electoral vote. North Carolina is too close to call. This week's polls have been good for Clinton in Florida, but it's still a toss-up. Nevada, Ohio, Maine's second district and Iowa go red. Toss-up states: Florida, North Carolina and Nebraska's second district. States to watch: Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, and Nevada. Electoral College: 272 Clinton, 222 Trump, 270 to win.
Senate
Four new polls in North Carolina show a tie, two leads for the Democrat and one lead for the Republican. It moves back to "No Clue." I think Heck has the advantage in Nevada, though it's still within striking distance for the Democrat. While I wasn't watching, my own state became a battleground. A new poll of Missouri showed Jason Kander with a 2-point lead over incumbent GOP Sen. Roy Blunt. I'll move it to No Clue for now, but I still think Blunt has an edge. North Carolina and Missouri move to No Clue. Nevada moves red. No Clue: North Carolina, Missouri and Pennsylvania. Outlook +2 Democrats, not enough for a majority.
Summary Judgments
Wow. George H.W. Bush will vote for Hillary Clinton this year. Why is Trump as close as he is? How are people convinced by Donald Trump? I don't get it. • • • Let's call someone a mastermind after their team has won a title, please. • • • I thought this segment by Trevor Noah on the Daily Show was really good. He explains why we might have unwilling bias and makes a good point about being exposed to people of different backgrounds. • • • We all know female black widow spiders eat the male after mating. However, the male black widows are developing a possible counter to that measure. Nature is fascinating. • • • Speaking of fascinating nature, there was recent confirmation of the longest lightning bolt ever recorded. It spanned 200 miles from near Tulsa to near the Texas Panhandle! • • • I finally signed up for my race. It's the National World War I Museum and Memorial 8K Double. you have 1:15 to finish a 5K. After the end of that time, you run another 3K. I'm intrigued and want to have some fun. It'll also serve as an end to this year's running season for me and finish Homecoming Week. • • • This weekend marks the first of two trips to Oklahoma in the next month for us. That means several hours in the car with 2-year-olds. And when we get back, we start potty training. Did all my hair just turn gray at once in fear?
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Hillary's Biggest Problem
You wouldn't know it, but Hillary Clinton has a demographic advantage in the election. She has had a lead in most national polls (until very recently), and she has leads in enough states to likely secure the electoral college. So why does it seem like she's doing so poorly?
The answer is that the Trump campaign — and credit goes to his new campaign chair, Kellyanne Conway, for toning his rhetoric down — has been playing on Clinton's turf rather than the other way around. Rather than the media/public reacting to what Trump has said, Clinton has been playing defense about her health, the "basket of deplorables" line (see below) and the Clinton Foundation. Those are all distractions, I believe, but they are all spokes off the central wheel for Clinton.
And the central issue for Clinton is she's a private person, and we don't like that. When she feels threatened or attacked, she "circles the wagons," according to a friend, and closes rank. She keeps quiet and tries to keep things private, and the public wants answers. My long-held statement stands: when answers aren't apparent, the public fills in our own answers. Once we've made our own answers, when we get answers, we doubt them because we've already filled in the blanks in our minds. We speculate, we assume, and we often assume the worst.
On one hand, Clinton's position is kind of understandable. When she was First Lady, every word she said was scrutinized by the biggest media frenzy in my lifetime with the Lewinsky/impeachment stuff. She's faced down several investigations in which her records were searched with a fine-toothed comb, yet they found nothing. Every time she coughs, people want to know the real story, and aren't satisfied. The only answer that would satisfy is that she's secretly hiding something, I guess. So it's understandable that such scrutiny would lead to being more closed-off.
But the reaction to Clinton's privacy is an accusation of "crookedness" and "liar." We don't know everything about the Clinton Foundation's relation to her time as Secretary of State, so surely something must be nefarious. We don't know everything about her health, so surely she must be hiding something. We don't know everything about her emails (she deleted some!), so surely there must be something terrible hidden in them. We don't know if she's hiding a medical condition, so surely she must be hiding something. It's this sort of hypothetical what-if that drives the narrative.
Hillary Clinton's biggest problem is she's overprotective when it comes to anything that might be scrutinized. And that creates speculation, doubt and fear.
But she is in a campaign against an opponent. And that opponent has said worse things multiple times more than she has. He has also not revealed his tax returns nor revealed a detailed health report (She's at least released her tax returns and has met the health report standards of previous candidates, while his health report is lacking.). He has called people of color terrible things. He has mocked people with disabilities. He has gone after a Gold Star family. He has crafted his own history of events covered by reporters. Here is my point: Hillary Clinton is held to a politician's standard while Donald Trump is held to a reality show standard. She's struggling to meet a politician's standard while he is succeeding at being entertaining, even if he has no idea about what to do if he were elected.
'Basket of Deplorables'
This was supposedly a big mistake by Hillary Clinton this weekend. If you see the quote in context, it makes a world of difference. She said there are two categories of Trump voters: 1) Half are in the "basket of deplorables" — racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic. They're gaining a voice through Trump, but they're ultimately not people you can reason with. 2) People who feel let down by the government, the economy, and feel abandoned by politicians. These people should be understood and empathized with, she said.
The reactions have been confusing to me. I haven't seen anyone deny that Trump attracts a certain amount of those "deplorable" people. Mike Pence said that Trump supporters are "not a basket of anything," which is a weird response and kind of misses the point. He then said that Trump supporters are everyday Americans, which doesn't deny that they can also be racist, xenophobic, etc. There is plenty of documented evidence, polls and otherwise, to suggest that a certain percentage of his supporters are those things. So as far as I can tell, it's not a matter of if Trump has attracted these "deplorable" folks, the issue has really been about what percentage of his support comes from them, which is a wholly different discussion. Further, I've seen some people projecting themselves into the "basket of deplorables," which is another weird response. "Hey, Hillary! Are you talking about me?!?" If you're not racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic, she's not talking about you. Why are you mad? I'm honestly confused about what the problem is with what she said. This article even goes so far as to agree with her thesis (a certain percentage of Trump voters are racist, xenophobic, etc.) while denouncing her because she's going to need to represent those interests, too. I just don't understand that argument, which can be summed this way: The racist/bigoted/Islamophobic/etc. people aren't going anywhere, so don't insult them! Surely LBJ and Abraham Lincoln should have worked with the racists instead of making the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act! I am waiting to see why this got so much attention.
This Week in Horrifying Things Trump Has Said
Bragging that Trump Tower was the new tallest building in Lower Manhattan literally hours after 9/11 happened
Host: You have one of the landmark buildings down in the financial district, 40 Wall Street. Did you have any damage? What's happening down there?
Trump: 40 Wall Street actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was actually, before the World Trade Center, was the tallest. And then, when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest. And now it's the tallest.
Election Update
The tightening that I've been marking for a few weeks seemed to stop for a bit, then the pneumonia hit over the weekend for Clinton, and her numbers slid a bit more. With the campaign now with less than 10 weeks to go (thankfully), I'm lowering my standards a bit for whether a state is red, blue or toss-up (though it doesn't make much difference this week). Next week, I'll take an in-depth look at the electoral college, and pathways to victory.
Presidential
The best polls of Georgia show it's a close race. They also have unanimously shown a Trump lead, albeit small. It moves red. Nevada and Florida are neck and neck. Ohio had three good polls this week, showing a 7-point Clinton lead, and then two showing a 5-point Trump lead. Arizona's polls consistently show a Trump lead, but it's also been consistently under 3 points. It stays red for now. Iowa remains super-close, but I'd give a slight edge to Trump. North Carolina is super-close, but I'd give Clinton a slight edge. Michigan had more polls that show it's staying blue. Same with Pennsylvania and Virginia. Non-Ipsos polls show Wisconsin's not close, neither is New Hampshire. Georgia swings red. Toss-up states: Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Florida, North Carolina, both Nebraska and Maine's 2nd electoral district. States on the watch list: Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona. Electoral college: 272 Clinton, 190 Trump, 270 to win.
Senate
There's been more movement in the Senate races. It was a bounce back week for GOP candidates. Another poll shows a decent lead for Burr in North Carolina. Two good polls of New Hampshire show a lead for Ayotte there. Nevada remains within two points, with an edge to the Republican, Joe Heck. Pennsylvania has had two polls showing a one-point race, so it's in "No Clue" status. I am feeling more confident in calling Indiana blue after a recent poll there. New Hampshire and North Carolina swing red. Pennsylvania moves to No Clue. No Clue: Nevada and Pennsylvania. Current outlook +3 Democrat, not enough for a majority.
Summary Judgments
The Galapagos Tortoise only had two males left in the wild 50 years ago, so they borrowed the San Diego Zoo's tortoise, Diego. There are now 2,000 tortoises in Galapagos, and Diego has fathered 40 percent of them. • • • If you can't stand the heat, blame the fire. • • • I went for a 2.5 mile run today. It didn't go great, in that I walked about 1/4-1/2 mile. But I'm still on track for the next 5K on Oct. 9, which I still need to sign up for, now that I think about it. • • • Evie sang most of the ABCs yesterday. Roland knows most of "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star." But dare you try to join in and help them out? They will shout "NO!" • • • Roland is in a toddler bed now, too. The pitter-patter of little feet waking up in the morning is cute right now. Like everything children do, give it some time of being done at inappropriate times and I'm sure I'll find it annoying at some point.
The answer is that the Trump campaign — and credit goes to his new campaign chair, Kellyanne Conway, for toning his rhetoric down — has been playing on Clinton's turf rather than the other way around. Rather than the media/public reacting to what Trump has said, Clinton has been playing defense about her health, the "basket of deplorables" line (see below) and the Clinton Foundation. Those are all distractions, I believe, but they are all spokes off the central wheel for Clinton.
And the central issue for Clinton is she's a private person, and we don't like that. When she feels threatened or attacked, she "circles the wagons," according to a friend, and closes rank. She keeps quiet and tries to keep things private, and the public wants answers. My long-held statement stands: when answers aren't apparent, the public fills in our own answers. Once we've made our own answers, when we get answers, we doubt them because we've already filled in the blanks in our minds. We speculate, we assume, and we often assume the worst.
On one hand, Clinton's position is kind of understandable. When she was First Lady, every word she said was scrutinized by the biggest media frenzy in my lifetime with the Lewinsky/impeachment stuff. She's faced down several investigations in which her records were searched with a fine-toothed comb, yet they found nothing. Every time she coughs, people want to know the real story, and aren't satisfied. The only answer that would satisfy is that she's secretly hiding something, I guess. So it's understandable that such scrutiny would lead to being more closed-off.
But the reaction to Clinton's privacy is an accusation of "crookedness" and "liar." We don't know everything about the Clinton Foundation's relation to her time as Secretary of State, so surely something must be nefarious. We don't know everything about her health, so surely she must be hiding something. We don't know everything about her emails (she deleted some!), so surely there must be something terrible hidden in them. We don't know if she's hiding a medical condition, so surely she must be hiding something. It's this sort of hypothetical what-if that drives the narrative.
Hillary Clinton's biggest problem is she's overprotective when it comes to anything that might be scrutinized. And that creates speculation, doubt and fear.
But she is in a campaign against an opponent. And that opponent has said worse things multiple times more than she has. He has also not revealed his tax returns nor revealed a detailed health report (She's at least released her tax returns and has met the health report standards of previous candidates, while his health report is lacking.). He has called people of color terrible things. He has mocked people with disabilities. He has gone after a Gold Star family. He has crafted his own history of events covered by reporters. Here is my point: Hillary Clinton is held to a politician's standard while Donald Trump is held to a reality show standard. She's struggling to meet a politician's standard while he is succeeding at being entertaining, even if he has no idea about what to do if he were elected.
'Basket of Deplorables'
This was supposedly a big mistake by Hillary Clinton this weekend. If you see the quote in context, it makes a world of difference. She said there are two categories of Trump voters: 1) Half are in the "basket of deplorables" — racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic. They're gaining a voice through Trump, but they're ultimately not people you can reason with. 2) People who feel let down by the government, the economy, and feel abandoned by politicians. These people should be understood and empathized with, she said.
The reactions have been confusing to me. I haven't seen anyone deny that Trump attracts a certain amount of those "deplorable" people. Mike Pence said that Trump supporters are "not a basket of anything," which is a weird response and kind of misses the point. He then said that Trump supporters are everyday Americans, which doesn't deny that they can also be racist, xenophobic, etc. There is plenty of documented evidence, polls and otherwise, to suggest that a certain percentage of his supporters are those things. So as far as I can tell, it's not a matter of if Trump has attracted these "deplorable" folks, the issue has really been about what percentage of his support comes from them, which is a wholly different discussion. Further, I've seen some people projecting themselves into the "basket of deplorables," which is another weird response. "Hey, Hillary! Are you talking about me?!?" If you're not racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic, she's not talking about you. Why are you mad? I'm honestly confused about what the problem is with what she said. This article even goes so far as to agree with her thesis (a certain percentage of Trump voters are racist, xenophobic, etc.) while denouncing her because she's going to need to represent those interests, too. I just don't understand that argument, which can be summed this way: The racist/bigoted/Islamophobic/etc. people aren't going anywhere, so don't insult them! Surely LBJ and Abraham Lincoln should have worked with the racists instead of making the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act! I am waiting to see why this got so much attention.
This Week in Horrifying Things Trump Has Said
Bragging that Trump Tower was the new tallest building in Lower Manhattan literally hours after 9/11 happened
Host: You have one of the landmark buildings down in the financial district, 40 Wall Street. Did you have any damage? What's happening down there?
Trump: 40 Wall Street actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was actually, before the World Trade Center, was the tallest. And then, when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest. And now it's the tallest.
Election Update
The tightening that I've been marking for a few weeks seemed to stop for a bit, then the pneumonia hit over the weekend for Clinton, and her numbers slid a bit more. With the campaign now with less than 10 weeks to go (thankfully), I'm lowering my standards a bit for whether a state is red, blue or toss-up (though it doesn't make much difference this week). Next week, I'll take an in-depth look at the electoral college, and pathways to victory.
Presidential
The best polls of Georgia show it's a close race. They also have unanimously shown a Trump lead, albeit small. It moves red. Nevada and Florida are neck and neck. Ohio had three good polls this week, showing a 7-point Clinton lead, and then two showing a 5-point Trump lead. Arizona's polls consistently show a Trump lead, but it's also been consistently under 3 points. It stays red for now. Iowa remains super-close, but I'd give a slight edge to Trump. North Carolina is super-close, but I'd give Clinton a slight edge. Michigan had more polls that show it's staying blue. Same with Pennsylvania and Virginia. Non-Ipsos polls show Wisconsin's not close, neither is New Hampshire. Georgia swings red. Toss-up states: Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Florida, North Carolina, both Nebraska and Maine's 2nd electoral district. States on the watch list: Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona. Electoral college: 272 Clinton, 190 Trump, 270 to win.
Senate
There's been more movement in the Senate races. It was a bounce back week for GOP candidates. Another poll shows a decent lead for Burr in North Carolina. Two good polls of New Hampshire show a lead for Ayotte there. Nevada remains within two points, with an edge to the Republican, Joe Heck. Pennsylvania has had two polls showing a one-point race, so it's in "No Clue" status. I am feeling more confident in calling Indiana blue after a recent poll there. New Hampshire and North Carolina swing red. Pennsylvania moves to No Clue. No Clue: Nevada and Pennsylvania. Current outlook +3 Democrat, not enough for a majority.
Summary Judgments
The Galapagos Tortoise only had two males left in the wild 50 years ago, so they borrowed the San Diego Zoo's tortoise, Diego. There are now 2,000 tortoises in Galapagos, and Diego has fathered 40 percent of them. • • • If you can't stand the heat, blame the fire. • • • I went for a 2.5 mile run today. It didn't go great, in that I walked about 1/4-1/2 mile. But I'm still on track for the next 5K on Oct. 9, which I still need to sign up for, now that I think about it. • • • Evie sang most of the ABCs yesterday. Roland knows most of "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star." But dare you try to join in and help them out? They will shout "NO!" • • • Roland is in a toddler bed now, too. The pitter-patter of little feet waking up in the morning is cute right now. Like everything children do, give it some time of being done at inappropriate times and I'm sure I'll find it annoying at some point.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
We Need To Talk About Ipsos
Ipsos is one of the most prolific pollsters out there. They do a lot of polls. But I'm starting to see separations from them and other pollsters. And I'm not sure what it means, but let me explain why I'm confused.
The problem is sample size. In every one of the polls I'm about to mention, Ipsos was either the lowest or among the lowest sample size. In most states, they polled half or 1/3 fewer people than the next closest poll.
Take New Hampshire. RealClearPolitics (which does not use Ipsos) has the race at about an 8-point Clinton advantage using an average of the polls. FiveThirtyEight (which includes Ipsos) has three polls by Ipsos in the last 10: One showed a huge Trump lead, and the other showed a one-point lead for each candidate. But every other poll showed Clinton with at least a 5-point lead. Further, the Ipsos sample size (how many people they interviewed) was the smallest at about 130-160 people. The next lowest is 417 people.
In Arizona, the sample size is half of the next smallest pollster, but they're in line with others. In Iowa, they're half the sample size of the next smallest pollster, but nearly a third of most pollsters in the state. They are somewhere in the middle of Iowa polls.
It works both ways for the candidates, though. In Florida polls, they're tied for the smallest sample size, but were 3 of the 4 best polls in the last month for Clinton. In North Carolina, they've got half the sample size of others, but also two of the three best Clinton polls. But in Georgia, the sample size is 1/3 smaller than the next, but they're more pro-Trump lately than others. And in Texas, the Ipsos polls are the most favorable for Trump.
If you listen to Ipsos, the Upper Midwest is close. Of the last 10 polls of Michigan and Wisconsin, two of the three smallest sample sizes were by Ipsos, and those are two of the three best Trump polls of that state — the only ones showing him with a lead.
There's one further complication: Ipsos changed its methodology just before the conventions. They removed the word "Neither" from their choices, so it's now Clinton, Trump or "Other," which used to say "Neither/Other." This was to be more consistent with other poll firms, but I don't know what that means for most of these polls, since they're all from after that switch.
So here's what that means to me: Either Ipsos is right, and the Upper Midwest is suddenly in trouble for Clinton, or Ipsos is wrong and she's in the same place she was about three weeks ago. The small sample size is a concern, but I'm also confused as to whether that's good for Trump (Florida and North Carolina are closer than they appear) or for Clinton (Georgia is in play, and maybe even Texas (!) ). Either way, I'll need evidence from someone other than Ipsos in order to change my mind about a state.
The Muddiness of Political Contributions
Part of the problem for Hillary Clinton is that of perception. "Crooked Hillary" and the word "scandal" get thrown about if it's deserving or not. For instance, at the end of the day, I haven't seen anything alarming about the Clinton Foundation. At worst, there was a $5 million donation by one country to the foundation in a time of negotiations, but that's ultimately a charitable organization. We're saying that Hillary (who gets no salary or compensation from the Clinton Foundation) because of a country's charitable giving? That's a lot of risk for no reward for her.
As NBC News pointed out, there's more proverbial "smoke" in Florida, where Attorney General Pam Bondi met in person with Donald Trump for a political contribution. Weeks later, she announces she's considering joining a lawsuit against Trump University, but hadn't decided yet. Four days later, she gets a donation of $25,000 from the Trump Foundation. Soon thereafter, she decides not to join the lawsuit. Trump later hosts a fundraiser for her. That's more of a direct benefit/quid pro quo than a charitable donation. I thought this quote was choice: "Two things can be true: One, the Clinton Foundation has deserved legitimate scrutiny. Two, the Trump donation to Bondi... is a much clearer case of pay-to-play."
Third Party Woes
In exhibit A of Why Andrew Doesn't Take Third Parties Seriously, there was a "Commander-in-Chief Forum" yesterday. Both major candidates got about 30 minutes to answer questions. From what I've read, Clinton struggled with questions about her emails and Trump was praising Putin, calling the military weak and describing a return to war crimes. None of these are particularly surprising, since it's within our existing expectations of the two.
But the biggest shocker was when Gary Johnson got a lesser spotlight, but still a national interview on MSNBC. I have to reprint this, because the exchange is equal parts shocking and funny.
Host: What would you do if you were elected about Aleppo?
Johnson: About?
Host: Aleppo.
*Pause*
Johnson: And what is Aleppo?
Host: You're kidding.
Johnson: No.
Host: Aleppo is in Syria. It's the epicenter of the refugee crisis.
Johnson: OK. Got it. With regard to Syria, I do think it is a mess.
A few questions later, another host was incredulous at his answer. He asked something like "Don't you think a person running for president should at least know what Aleppo is and where it is?" Johnson responded "No, I do understand Aleppo." as part of a longer answer. I don't expect a President to know more than me on everything. I'm pretty good at Game of Thrones trivia, geography and a few other things. But those aren't useful in running for president. If you're running for president, you'd better know the subject of major issues. Aleppo is a major issue, and apparently I know more about it than Gary Johnson.
Election Update
We'll see if the Commander-in-Chief forum changes anything here. I think Trump came off a bit worse than Clinton, in that it's really hard to imagine him with nuclear codes. Still, the national race is closer, if still a slight edge to Clinton. FiveThirtyEight noted an interesting trend to pay attention to in polls: Registered voter registered voter polls have had better results in swing states for Clinton than "likely voters."
Presidential
Ohio had a close new poll, but it was Ipsos, so I doubt its accuracy. As mentioned, Florida looks more like Clinton territory if you included Ipsos. If you don't, it's a 1-2 point race either way. Virginia had a few polls out with the appearance of a close race, but a closer look shows it's not that close to being a toss-up. More polls show Pennsylvania is firmly blue, as I called about a long time ago. I already mentioned my Ipsos issues with Wisconsin and Michigan. Iowa is really close. Clinton has an edge in Nevada that hasn't gone away, but it's small. Missouri's polls are consistent: It's voting for Trump (That said, the best recent poll for Trump is by... Ipsos). There hasn't been a great poll of Arizona recently. But the ones that have been taken are consistent: They're red. Missouri swings red. Arizona swings red. Toss-up states: Ohio, Arizona, Iowa, Nevada, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina. States on the watch list: Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida,
Senate
Not that many polls have come out, but here's the latest. New Hampshire's latest poll shows Ayotte with a slight lead, so that's back in the "No Clue" section. Two polls in North Carolina show a lead for each candidate, so that's back in the "No Clue" section. Another poll showed Pennsylvania tied, but I don't see enough from that one poll to change the category, especially in a "blue" state. New Hampshire and North Carolina move to No Clue. No Clue: Nevada, North Carolina, New Hampshire. Current outlook +4 Democrat, not enough for a majority.
Summary Judgments
In the only legal outcome you should have expected, Gretchen Carlson settled her lawsuit with Fox News over sexual harassment by Roger Ailes. Reports are she got $20 million, and we'll never hear the details about what she's alleging beyond that. • • • There are people who believe Hillary should have been jailed for her email scandal (which I believe was wrong, but not illegal). You go to jail when you give classified material to those outside the government. She had a private email server, which she used to communicate with those in and out of the government, but no one has alleged she sent classified material or gave it to anyone unauthorized. Further, I give you two counterpoints. The FBI director has said that the case was "not even close" to being prosecuted. The other is this detailed analysis by Mother Jones (so take it with a grain or three of left-leaning salt), which goes more in-depth than most stories on the subject I've read. The long and short of it is that the more I read about the details of this scandal, the more I wonder what the scandal is even about anymore. But I saw a clip of a focus group in Ohio talking about the previously mentioned commander in chief forum. One guy had this to say, which is apt: "When she's talking about the emails, she sounds more like the President's lawyer than the President." • • • I ran for two miles on Sunday, and am now on track for the next race. Only problem: I haven't signed up for that race yet. I need to get on that, since it's a month away. • • • The kids have been really difficult lately. But even in that frustration, there have been moments of happiness. The kids love their "Pack-Packs" that we got them for their birthday. Roland has been singing parts of "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" lately. Evie was heard counting to 20 one day last week, which shocked us both.
The problem is sample size. In every one of the polls I'm about to mention, Ipsos was either the lowest or among the lowest sample size. In most states, they polled half or 1/3 fewer people than the next closest poll.
Take New Hampshire. RealClearPolitics (which does not use Ipsos) has the race at about an 8-point Clinton advantage using an average of the polls. FiveThirtyEight (which includes Ipsos) has three polls by Ipsos in the last 10: One showed a huge Trump lead, and the other showed a one-point lead for each candidate. But every other poll showed Clinton with at least a 5-point lead. Further, the Ipsos sample size (how many people they interviewed) was the smallest at about 130-160 people. The next lowest is 417 people.
In Arizona, the sample size is half of the next smallest pollster, but they're in line with others. In Iowa, they're half the sample size of the next smallest pollster, but nearly a third of most pollsters in the state. They are somewhere in the middle of Iowa polls.
It works both ways for the candidates, though. In Florida polls, they're tied for the smallest sample size, but were 3 of the 4 best polls in the last month for Clinton. In North Carolina, they've got half the sample size of others, but also two of the three best Clinton polls. But in Georgia, the sample size is 1/3 smaller than the next, but they're more pro-Trump lately than others. And in Texas, the Ipsos polls are the most favorable for Trump.
If you listen to Ipsos, the Upper Midwest is close. Of the last 10 polls of Michigan and Wisconsin, two of the three smallest sample sizes were by Ipsos, and those are two of the three best Trump polls of that state — the only ones showing him with a lead.
There's one further complication: Ipsos changed its methodology just before the conventions. They removed the word "Neither" from their choices, so it's now Clinton, Trump or "Other," which used to say "Neither/Other." This was to be more consistent with other poll firms, but I don't know what that means for most of these polls, since they're all from after that switch.
So here's what that means to me: Either Ipsos is right, and the Upper Midwest is suddenly in trouble for Clinton, or Ipsos is wrong and she's in the same place she was about three weeks ago. The small sample size is a concern, but I'm also confused as to whether that's good for Trump (Florida and North Carolina are closer than they appear) or for Clinton (Georgia is in play, and maybe even Texas (!) ). Either way, I'll need evidence from someone other than Ipsos in order to change my mind about a state.
The Muddiness of Political Contributions
Part of the problem for Hillary Clinton is that of perception. "Crooked Hillary" and the word "scandal" get thrown about if it's deserving or not. For instance, at the end of the day, I haven't seen anything alarming about the Clinton Foundation. At worst, there was a $5 million donation by one country to the foundation in a time of negotiations, but that's ultimately a charitable organization. We're saying that Hillary (who gets no salary or compensation from the Clinton Foundation) because of a country's charitable giving? That's a lot of risk for no reward for her.
As NBC News pointed out, there's more proverbial "smoke" in Florida, where Attorney General Pam Bondi met in person with Donald Trump for a political contribution. Weeks later, she announces she's considering joining a lawsuit against Trump University, but hadn't decided yet. Four days later, she gets a donation of $25,000 from the Trump Foundation. Soon thereafter, she decides not to join the lawsuit. Trump later hosts a fundraiser for her. That's more of a direct benefit/quid pro quo than a charitable donation. I thought this quote was choice: "Two things can be true: One, the Clinton Foundation has deserved legitimate scrutiny. Two, the Trump donation to Bondi... is a much clearer case of pay-to-play."
Third Party Woes
In exhibit A of Why Andrew Doesn't Take Third Parties Seriously, there was a "Commander-in-Chief Forum" yesterday. Both major candidates got about 30 minutes to answer questions. From what I've read, Clinton struggled with questions about her emails and Trump was praising Putin, calling the military weak and describing a return to war crimes. None of these are particularly surprising, since it's within our existing expectations of the two.
But the biggest shocker was when Gary Johnson got a lesser spotlight, but still a national interview on MSNBC. I have to reprint this, because the exchange is equal parts shocking and funny.
Host: What would you do if you were elected about Aleppo?
Johnson: About?
Host: Aleppo.
*Pause*
Johnson: And what is Aleppo?
Host: You're kidding.
Johnson: No.
Host: Aleppo is in Syria. It's the epicenter of the refugee crisis.
Johnson: OK. Got it. With regard to Syria, I do think it is a mess.
A few questions later, another host was incredulous at his answer. He asked something like "Don't you think a person running for president should at least know what Aleppo is and where it is?" Johnson responded "No, I do understand Aleppo." as part of a longer answer. I don't expect a President to know more than me on everything. I'm pretty good at Game of Thrones trivia, geography and a few other things. But those aren't useful in running for president. If you're running for president, you'd better know the subject of major issues. Aleppo is a major issue, and apparently I know more about it than Gary Johnson.
Election Update
We'll see if the Commander-in-Chief forum changes anything here. I think Trump came off a bit worse than Clinton, in that it's really hard to imagine him with nuclear codes. Still, the national race is closer, if still a slight edge to Clinton. FiveThirtyEight noted an interesting trend to pay attention to in polls: Registered voter registered voter polls have had better results in swing states for Clinton than "likely voters."
Presidential
Ohio had a close new poll, but it was Ipsos, so I doubt its accuracy. As mentioned, Florida looks more like Clinton territory if you included Ipsos. If you don't, it's a 1-2 point race either way. Virginia had a few polls out with the appearance of a close race, but a closer look shows it's not that close to being a toss-up. More polls show Pennsylvania is firmly blue, as I called about a long time ago. I already mentioned my Ipsos issues with Wisconsin and Michigan. Iowa is really close. Clinton has an edge in Nevada that hasn't gone away, but it's small. Missouri's polls are consistent: It's voting for Trump (That said, the best recent poll for Trump is by... Ipsos). There hasn't been a great poll of Arizona recently. But the ones that have been taken are consistent: They're red. Missouri swings red. Arizona swings red. Toss-up states: Ohio, Arizona, Iowa, Nevada, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina. States on the watch list: Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida,
Senate
Not that many polls have come out, but here's the latest. New Hampshire's latest poll shows Ayotte with a slight lead, so that's back in the "No Clue" section. Two polls in North Carolina show a lead for each candidate, so that's back in the "No Clue" section. Another poll showed Pennsylvania tied, but I don't see enough from that one poll to change the category, especially in a "blue" state. New Hampshire and North Carolina move to No Clue. No Clue: Nevada, North Carolina, New Hampshire. Current outlook +4 Democrat, not enough for a majority.
Summary Judgments
In the only legal outcome you should have expected, Gretchen Carlson settled her lawsuit with Fox News over sexual harassment by Roger Ailes. Reports are she got $20 million, and we'll never hear the details about what she's alleging beyond that. • • • There are people who believe Hillary should have been jailed for her email scandal (which I believe was wrong, but not illegal). You go to jail when you give classified material to those outside the government. She had a private email server, which she used to communicate with those in and out of the government, but no one has alleged she sent classified material or gave it to anyone unauthorized. Further, I give you two counterpoints. The FBI director has said that the case was "not even close" to being prosecuted. The other is this detailed analysis by Mother Jones (so take it with a grain or three of left-leaning salt), which goes more in-depth than most stories on the subject I've read. The long and short of it is that the more I read about the details of this scandal, the more I wonder what the scandal is even about anymore. But I saw a clip of a focus group in Ohio talking about the previously mentioned commander in chief forum. One guy had this to say, which is apt: "When she's talking about the emails, she sounds more like the President's lawyer than the President." • • • I ran for two miles on Sunday, and am now on track for the next race. Only problem: I haven't signed up for that race yet. I need to get on that, since it's a month away. • • • The kids have been really difficult lately. But even in that frustration, there have been moments of happiness. The kids love their "Pack-Packs" that we got them for their birthday. Roland has been singing parts of "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" lately. Evie was heard counting to 20 one day last week, which shocked us both.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
On Colin Kaepernick and National Anthem Sitting
This week, we saw Colin Kaepernick, QB of the San Francisco 49ers, choose not to stand during the national anthem. There have been a lot of HOT TAKES (read: shoot-from-the-hip opinions... this is the best example of a scattershot, incoherent HOT TAKE on the subject) from people about him. I originally planned to write a takedown of the dumb opinions I've seen and heard, but I've decided those hot takes (like a Ben Carson quote that I've seen on Facebook that drew some of my ire) aren't worth my time. If those opinions were so poorly thought out that they didn't understand the implications of what they're saying, then they don't deserve taking the time to rip them apart.
Instead, I want to point out three great, nuanced views I've heard/read about the subject, each of which I largely agree with.
First, there's Sportscenter anchor Stan Verrett, who has a unique history: His father fought in WWII, but felt plenty of racial discrimination upon his return. His minute-long speech was quite powerful. I thought his view was the best I've read/seen.
Then there was The Big Lead's Kyle Koster, which is less about the merits of Kaepernick's arguments and more about how bold a decision it is for an athlete to do what he did.
Finally, there's this army veteran, who disagreed with Kaepernick's means while simultaneously understanding his intention. I find myself starting to disagree with him more, but his use of clear logic made me find this to be a worthy read.
On a personal note, I see a few other points that I think should be made.
First, just because the flag means something to you doesn't mean it can't mean something different to someone else. Many of the people who are angry at Kaepernick are angry because they feel he is demeaning the military. He made very clear in his comments that he loves the military and means no disrespect to them, and that his actions were not in any way directed at them. (Which doesn't necessarily mean they can't be interpreted that way, but knowing his reasoning and explanation should mean something, right?) Just because flag/anthem means military to you doesn't mean it has to for everyone. Sports Illustrated called this projecting what the flag means to you upon Colin Kaepernick.
Second, we can't just ignore things/people anymore. Everything has to be analyzed, and reacted to, and reactions to those reactions. Colin Kaepernick didn't make some big action — rather, it was his inaction that prompted the controversy. We could have, as a society, just said there are other issues that take bigger prominence and ignored it. I miss just ignoring people.
There are some that say Colin Kaepernick may lose his job over this. That has yet to be determined, but let me note right here that he's not losing his job because of this issue. He's lost his job because he's been playing poorly over the last few years. His on-the-field play has dropped, and that's why he may not be the starting QB.
Election Update
The race is closer than it was, and I think it's because Trump did a good job not saying anything too out of line. The polls that have come out do not include his immigration speech last night, which was the first out-of-line speech I've seen from him in a few weeks. GOP Latinos have started officially dropping their support of him after that speech, and I wonder how much (or if) that will affect the polls.
Presidential
For now, though, he's narrowed the gap. Although I switched Missouri to toss-up last week, if Trump gets another week of the polls he's had recently, I'll switch it back to red. South Carolina continues to puzzle me. One poll had Trump up by 9 percent. Two other polls had the race tied. It feels that race is closer than pundits believe, but it still leans red right now. I'm really close to turning Florida blue instead of toss-up, but I can't do it quite yet. Ohio and Arizona are basically inverses: Clinton has led in nearly every poll of Ohio, but it's close, with Trump doing the same in Arizona. No changes yet. Toss-up states: Ohio, Arizona, Nevada, Iowa, Georgia, Missouri, Florida and North Carolina. States close to moving categories: Missouri, South Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Arizona.
Senate
The polls and pundits I read have generally given the edge to Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire over incumbent GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte. Three polls show her with a lead. Polls indicate a slight lead for Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania against incumbent GOP senator Pat Toomey, as well as for incumbent N.C. GOP senator Richard Burr. N.H. leaning blue (+1 Dems). N.C. leaning red. Pa. leaning blue (+1 Dems). No clue: Nevada. Current outlook: Democrats gain the Senate majority (with a Clinton win, of course) with +5 seats.
Summary Judgments
Do you like photos? Do you like nature? Then take a look at the finalists for the best nature photos of the year. They're incredible. • • • NFL networks have been hiring former referees to analyze tough ref calls, particularly replay reviews. Fox's Mike Pereira is great at this. CBS recently let go of their referee analyst, Mike Carey. They claimed it was because us viewers didn't give him enough time, but whenever he came on last year, I instantly muted him. Yes, the fans didn't like him, but that's because he didn't seem to understand how to referee or which rules applied. He was not the expert CBS claimed him to be. • • • I've been running more lately. Today I ran my first 2-mile run since the 5K race back in June. I came home and told Alyson, "I just ran two miles. I did it, but I feel terrible now." She said, "You should be proud. I sat in bed while you were gone." Guess I shouldn't expect her to go running with me any time soon, eh? • • • Evie has a new habit. When her nose is itchy, or even has the slightest of snot, she stops anything she is doing and says, "Boogers." That is Mom/Dad's signal to get a tissue, at which point she'll go play again. Debilitated by boogers. It's a hard life being 2.
Instead, I want to point out three great, nuanced views I've heard/read about the subject, each of which I largely agree with.
First, there's Sportscenter anchor Stan Verrett, who has a unique history: His father fought in WWII, but felt plenty of racial discrimination upon his return. His minute-long speech was quite powerful. I thought his view was the best I've read/seen.
Then there was The Big Lead's Kyle Koster, which is less about the merits of Kaepernick's arguments and more about how bold a decision it is for an athlete to do what he did.
Finally, there's this army veteran, who disagreed with Kaepernick's means while simultaneously understanding his intention. I find myself starting to disagree with him more, but his use of clear logic made me find this to be a worthy read.
On a personal note, I see a few other points that I think should be made.
First, just because the flag means something to you doesn't mean it can't mean something different to someone else. Many of the people who are angry at Kaepernick are angry because they feel he is demeaning the military. He made very clear in his comments that he loves the military and means no disrespect to them, and that his actions were not in any way directed at them. (Which doesn't necessarily mean they can't be interpreted that way, but knowing his reasoning and explanation should mean something, right?) Just because flag/anthem means military to you doesn't mean it has to for everyone. Sports Illustrated called this projecting what the flag means to you upon Colin Kaepernick.
Second, we can't just ignore things/people anymore. Everything has to be analyzed, and reacted to, and reactions to those reactions. Colin Kaepernick didn't make some big action — rather, it was his inaction that prompted the controversy. We could have, as a society, just said there are other issues that take bigger prominence and ignored it. I miss just ignoring people.
There are some that say Colin Kaepernick may lose his job over this. That has yet to be determined, but let me note right here that he's not losing his job because of this issue. He's lost his job because he's been playing poorly over the last few years. His on-the-field play has dropped, and that's why he may not be the starting QB.
Election Update
The race is closer than it was, and I think it's because Trump did a good job not saying anything too out of line. The polls that have come out do not include his immigration speech last night, which was the first out-of-line speech I've seen from him in a few weeks. GOP Latinos have started officially dropping their support of him after that speech, and I wonder how much (or if) that will affect the polls.
Presidential
For now, though, he's narrowed the gap. Although I switched Missouri to toss-up last week, if Trump gets another week of the polls he's had recently, I'll switch it back to red. South Carolina continues to puzzle me. One poll had Trump up by 9 percent. Two other polls had the race tied. It feels that race is closer than pundits believe, but it still leans red right now. I'm really close to turning Florida blue instead of toss-up, but I can't do it quite yet. Ohio and Arizona are basically inverses: Clinton has led in nearly every poll of Ohio, but it's close, with Trump doing the same in Arizona. No changes yet. Toss-up states: Ohio, Arizona, Nevada, Iowa, Georgia, Missouri, Florida and North Carolina. States close to moving categories: Missouri, South Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Arizona.
Senate
The polls and pundits I read have generally given the edge to Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire over incumbent GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte. Three polls show her with a lead. Polls indicate a slight lead for Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania against incumbent GOP senator Pat Toomey, as well as for incumbent N.C. GOP senator Richard Burr. N.H. leaning blue (+1 Dems). N.C. leaning red. Pa. leaning blue (+1 Dems). No clue: Nevada. Current outlook: Democrats gain the Senate majority (with a Clinton win, of course) with +5 seats.
Summary Judgments
Do you like photos? Do you like nature? Then take a look at the finalists for the best nature photos of the year. They're incredible. • • • NFL networks have been hiring former referees to analyze tough ref calls, particularly replay reviews. Fox's Mike Pereira is great at this. CBS recently let go of their referee analyst, Mike Carey. They claimed it was because us viewers didn't give him enough time, but whenever he came on last year, I instantly muted him. Yes, the fans didn't like him, but that's because he didn't seem to understand how to referee or which rules applied. He was not the expert CBS claimed him to be. • • • I've been running more lately. Today I ran my first 2-mile run since the 5K race back in June. I came home and told Alyson, "I just ran two miles. I did it, but I feel terrible now." She said, "You should be proud. I sat in bed while you were gone." Guess I shouldn't expect her to go running with me any time soon, eh? • • • Evie has a new habit. When her nose is itchy, or even has the slightest of snot, she stops anything she is doing and says, "Boogers." That is Mom/Dad's signal to get a tissue, at which point she'll go play again. Debilitated by boogers. It's a hard life being 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)