« Saudi Arabia is our most worthless "ally." | Main | Diazepam? »

08 August 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Romney believed his secret internal polls. The aggregated, public polling nailed the Electoral College. Nate Silver, e.g., correctly called 51 out of 51 states (D.C. counts). A couple of astrophysicists got 50/51 just using the medians of the final 3 polls in each state:
Nate Silver messed up his predictions about the 2016 GOP primary because he couldn't believe that Trump was going to win and he second-guessed his own data.


Unsure whether the following linked piece may be of interest to your Committee, Colonel Lang, so no problem for me if you decide it is worthless and don't post:



Dead right, different clue. A security expert by the name of Spoonamore describes it in a series of youtubies exactly as you say. Spoonamore is/was American Express’s go-to guy for security.

Spoonamore said that only a paper ballot is secure and suggested the right way to vote was at a bank. Have the tellers and security guy’s stay late to count; tellers are used to counting paper. Citizens could congregate within the bank to verify the vote. Spoonamore said it would be cheaper and more accurate than what we have now.



HRC is worse



JJ, who gave him the task? Did that come out of the DNC?

Mark Gaughan

Thanks for the link. (very interesting) My conversation with the plotter tech started out with me saying that electronic voting machines are not secure and can be tampered with. He then explained that they're secure. It had been a while since I had read about these machines, so he got me thinking that maybe they are now secure. I put my comment out there to get responses like yours. Thanks again!

Christopher Fay

Obama gave OWS a little time, a few months, to see whether it could be turned into a democrat astroturf wing similar to the Tea Party for republicans at that time. When it became apparent OWS people weren't going to be 'Bama supporters, Obama and the government shut it down.

Christopher Fay

Half the people at Hillary rallies are on the pay roll.


CBS Early Morning Show is throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Trump.
Ex "acting" DCA Morell spewing hawkish attitude which is hard to stomach. Charlie Rose....well he is Charlie Rose!


Didn't everyone botch the Republican primary forecasts? Nate Silver did do a post-mortem about what he got right and what he got wrong about the primaries: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/

Mr. Sliver is using his lessons learned moving forward.

"It’s a reminder that we live in an uncertain world and that both rigor and humility are needed when trying to make sense of it." --- Nate Silver.

Christopher Fay

Will Evan just shiven off some republican votes that would have gone to Hillary?


The Trump that showed up in Detroit on 8 Aug managed to show a bit of discipline. He studiously ignored the hecklers, he did not engage with them at any level, and he kept on message. If Trump can avoid the distractions and self-inflicted harm the polls should narrow again (IMHO).

Eric Newhill


Here is a good break out of party affiliation proportions: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Any poll that is to be taken seriously should tell you in the methodology section the % D to R to Ind. If it doesn't generally conform to what appears at the link, then the poll is no good. So far the polls that have Clinton way ahead have been no good.

Of important note - and a wild card when it comes to these polls; Independents are the largest single affiliation in the country these days. However, if asked how they lean with regards to the traditional D or R parties, they are about evenly split. There is a lot of opportunity for mischief in the polls by selecting atypical Independents that lean more heavily, proportionally, to either D or R.


A Republican polling organization, Susquehanna Polling and Research, shows Clinton +10 in Pennsylvania. NBC has a new poll today with Clinton +10 nationally.
But there are still 90 news cycles before election day.

Mark Gaughan

Will Trump's appointees help overturn the Citizens United decision?


At the beginning of 2009, Tim Kaine replaced John Dean as the head of the DNC. He favored the idea, along with a bunch of other Democrat party alphas, to instead of continuing with the 50-State Strategy to shift to trying to only selectively "flip" seats, and basically only those for national office.

Dean's general idea was that, unless you started to consistently put in an appearance in every state and advocated for policies in tune with Democrat sensibilities, you will never give yourself a realistic chance of gaining political agency in so-called irrevocably Red states. Crucially, the focus in Dean's plan was NOT strictly on national offices, but also on local, and state offices. In some states, this was indeed truly a lost cause; but in others, it was yielding results. To my mind, and to those of others, allowing a total wipe-out of Democrat state senators and representatives, and an essentially unobstructed path to the governorship for Republicans would guarantee that things would only get worse for Democrat chances when the decennial census provided a golden opportunity for gerrymandering in heavily Republican states. Voting districts would be contrived in such a way as to construct "safe" Republican seats on a massive scale, while Democrat voters would be "red-lined" into ghettos. And so it proved to be once any genuine challenge on the state level was abandoned by the DNC under the rule of Kaine.

To my way of viewing the situation, this was an almost explicit acknowledgement that challenges on the basis of principled policies were out the window, to be replaced by a mere division of spoils between the two wings of the Uniparty, which realistically would not be disadvantaged by this at all. Rather the contrary, as unchallenged fealty to its underlying policy goals would be reinforced, and the anti-democratic tendencies of the political culture would be massively reinforced. The Uniparty is another name for the Borg, an agglomeration of corporatists, globalists, and in general a vast unchallenged swamp of NeoLiberalism; i.e., an inverted totalitarianism run by the "credentialed" for the "credentialed".

The original populist revolts against the consolidation and hyper-empowerment of the Borg have all been subverted and/or crushed: the original Tea Party overwhelmed by the Koch-funded astroturf Tea Partiers, and brought to heel to serve the interests of the Republican wing of the Uniparty (as observed by poster Christopher Fay); the disarticulation of OWS when (as also noted by Mr. Fay), it proved unsuitable to be transformed into an astroturf organization serving the Democrat wing of the Uniparty through a nationally-coordinated police suppression; the Sanders movement, done down by a combination of media neglect and mockery, and the active connivance of the DNC (as clearly seen in the recent leaks); Trump's winning of the Republican nomination being greeted with the full power of both wings of the Uniparty deployed against this movement.

So it appears to this poster, anyway. But YMMV.



methodology matters.


Maybe you should gather in a circle and start a fire. Sing some songs. Maybe that will help. Or, maybe hire a shaman to perform a Trump dance.



Did you even read what he said or is your idiocy on autopilot?


I believe the Donald dismissed this cohort as a bunch of "failed Washington elites", which when looking at most of their track records, appears to be a largely accurate assessment, this list being a veritable Who's Who of Foreign Policy F*&% Ups. I'm not so sure that the crowd responsible for the Iraq War is going to have a great deal of sway with undecided voters, and they sure as shit aren't going to peel off any already-committed Trump voters. Moreover, this simply codifies the notion that Hillary is the war candidate of choice for the Neo-Con establishment. Love War? Vote for Hillary!


I'm quoting facts. Mr. Newhill is spouting nonsense. Does he honestly think the folks who have been doing survey research for decades don't think about sampling? To a first approximation, that is what people in survey research think about. Does he think that a survey organization run by Republicans is chosing samples to make Clinton look good? Why would they do that? Tinfoil-worthy.

Eric Newhill

sigh....so you just believe anything you are told by an "official" source and you chose to not think for yourself. The perfect Democrat.

You are not considering - refusing to consider, actually - the pollsters are either deliberately lying to you (why is open for speculation) or are just sloppy. Since, as you point out, they are experts, I opt for the former.

However, in fairness, there are reasons for releasing sloppy work other than lying or lack of skill. For example, Rs may be at work when the calls are made, while Ds are more likely to not be and are available to answer the phone. Rs may tend to have unlisted phone numbers (both have proven to be true in studies the past). There is pressure to get these polls out the door and get paid. Some of the sampling issues are very difficult or impossible to resolve. Do you think a company that makes its profit getting surveys out the door is going to stop doing them b/c they can't get it right without investing considerably more resources into the process? No, they go with what they have. The media is sloppy for not ready the methodology section and commenting on it. So are you. Plus most people are statistically ignorant and a good story means more to them than good solid data.

I'll bet you haven't even looked at the links I sent that show the proportion of D to R in the general population and then taken the time to read the polls you love to quote and compare the proportion of D to R in them.

This is really simple. It doesn't take expertise. It is common sense. I could give you my credentials (which include having passed actuarial exams and working in a field where I apply those skills every day where 100s of $millions are dependent on my analysis), but that's just, you know, crazy statistical stuff and I'm probably lying; something that Nate Silver or other corporate shills in the polling industry would never do. Right?

Enjoy your bubble.

Seamus Padraig

Or Gary Johnson.

Seamus Padraig

Ahhh! The old Clinton body-count just a keeps on growing ...

Eric Newhill

A final thought - Given your "reasoning", how is it that anything goes wrong in this world? With all the experts running things we should have achieved utopia.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad