zenpundit.com

[ by Charles Cameron — surrealism in electoral candidates’ declarations ]
.

I’m glad I was up and alert at 4.30 am Pacific time today, and could catch these two screen-grabs of candidates for the Presidency in 2020 — a wonderful DoubleQuote in chyron confusion:

**

Who’s this?

Okay, then who’s this?

**

Both screen-grabs are from Morning Joe on MSNBC.

It may be hard for the electorate to tell some of the 2020 candidates apart.

[ by Charles Cameron — Not just Putin, Zuckerberg, remember? ]
.

We’ve all been forcibly reminded of Russian attempts to influence the US electoral system — but have we forgotten Facebook?

Sources:

Weisburd, Watts & Berger, WOTR, Trolling for Trump, 2016

Micah Sifry, Mother Jones, Facebook Wants You to Vote on Tuesday, 2014

[ by Charles Cameron — Ginsberg, McCartney & Philip Glass! ]
.

I’m not a huge Ginsberg fan, but this seems like a wholesome follow up to yesterdays post 6,000 years and still together — written by Ginsberg in the run up to the United States presidential election of 1996, and touching on several themes of continuing interest today.

You can follow along the text here, and read-all-about-it in ‘The Ballad of the Skeletons’: Allen Ginsberg’s 1996 Collaboration with Philip Glass and Paul McCartney.

Hey, I’m not a great fan of McCartney either, but the pair of them together seems like an oxymoron.

[ by Charles Cameron — not a weatherman myself, though I do appreciate Bob Dylan ]
.

Is what I suggest here ridiculous, or important but largely overlooked, or well known and in general background awareness? What say you? I just want to air the topic..

**

There’s a lot of talk about swing voters, right? A Brookings Institution chapter, What Exactly Is a Swing Voter? Definition and Measurement runs to 31 pages and 27 footnotes explaining the concept, but I think there’s one swing vote they may be missing.

I came to this conclusion after pondering the whole question of margins of error in polls. It’s generally accepted that polls have margins of error, often in the mid-single digits. Margins of error call forth interesting analytics, too — see this graphic and accompanying comment from Pew, 5 key things to know about the margin of error in election polls:

For example, in the accompanying graphic, a hypothetical Poll A shows the Republican candidate with 48% support. A plus or minus 3 percentage point margin of error would mean that 48% Republican support is within the range of what we would expect if the true level of support in the full population lies somewhere 3 points in either direction – i.e., between 45% and 51%.

Even a relatively small margins of error can be enough to encourage misreading an upcoming election result, but the margin of error I’m thinking of is in the range of 35% of undecideds. Let’s call it the weathervane vote.

**

Consider this quote from Theodore H. White’s The Making of the President, 1960:

The weather was clear all across Massachusetts and New England, perfect for voting as far as the crest of the Alleghenies. But from Michigan through Illinois and the Northern Plains states it was cloudy: rain in Detroit and Chicago, light snow falling in some states on the approaches of the Rockies. The South was enjoying magnificently balmy weather which ran north as far as the Ohio River; so, too, was the entire Pacific Coast. The weather and the year’s efforts were to call out the greatest free vote in the history of this or any other country.

That’s also the epigraph to another piece of learned disquisition — and yes, I love (envy, mock) academics — The Republicans Should Pray for Rain: Weather, Turnout, and Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections. That’s from The Journal of Politics, Vol. 69, No. 3, August 2007, pp. 649–663.

Parasols or umbrellas?

**

But my figure of 35%?

First, let me admit i’m not exactly clear on the distinctions or overlaps between swing voters and undecideds, so I may be adding my own margin of error by conflating the two — but my 35% comes from a 2012 piece titled Bad Weather on Election Day? Many Won’t Vote. I think my favorite bullet point therein was this:

In bad weather, Mitt Romney supporters are more likely to vote.

Their lead paragraph gives me my 35% figure:

Among those who plan to vote this year, 35 percent of undecided voters say that inclement weather conditions would have a “moderate to significant” impact on whether they make it to the polls on Election Day on Tuesday, Nov. 6.

Don’t ask the the margin of error on that particular poll, though, the good folks at Weather.com failed to say.

**

My favorite weathervane to date:

Bottom line: If 35% of the swing vote hinges on which way the wind blows, I’m prone to thinking the weather may well have the deciding vote in this here election.

Hat-tip for pointing me to the 35% piece: rockin’ andee baker.

[ by Charles Cameron — the only virtue I can see in this darkness is that the light contrasts with it ]
.

I find this frankly horrifying:

Sold at Trump rally at Regent U pic.twitter.com/NB57JJlQHV

— Peter Montgomery (@petemont) October 22, 2016

This, at a supposedly Christian university?

Feh.

**

Mark you, I think targeting an individual — any individual –in this way is very different from targeting contested seats in an election. I can understand both Democrats and Republicans using the imagery of targets or cross-hairs to suggest where they’d like their supporters to get active, get out the vote and win seats..

I said as much in On sneers, smears, and mutual sniping:

Neither “targetting” political adversaries nor “having them in your crosshairs” equates to killing or there would have been a whole lot more attempted assassinations — just the one was bad enough.

Have some proportion, people.

**

However, as an inveterate DoubleTweeter I have to say that pinning targets or cross-hairs on individual leaders in highly charged political disputes speaks a wholly different language, and presents a far higher threat level, than targeting districts on an electoral map:

Similar images from Israel before Rabin's assassination in 1995: Netanyahu also fostered environment of hatred @cjwerleman @petemont pic.twitter.com/yZN85dT3If

— The Post Doc wanter (@derridalicious) October 22, 2016

**

For the record, I find this no less offensive: