Currently, I'm reminded of the Kansas polling, which showed a close race on the abortion question. Women's health rights trounced the bad guys bigly. I posted a substack note yesterday reminding folks of the abortion referendum states, which include Montana, where Tester is said to be on the ropes but is most probably not. But it's not just abortion referendum states where women will flood the ballot boxes.
Women will save us again, but we men need to keep pushing hard against the male tendency to not want to vote for women for whatever weird reason they may have. If women lose, we all lose.
Jessica Craven at CWCW said she door knocked yesterday and spoke to a Republican woman who was voting for Harris but then Republican all the way down the rest of the ballot. They had to explain to her that the President couldn't just make an Executive Decision or whatever and bring back abortion rights, that it had to go thru both houses of Congress first. It took her a few minutes to fully understand what they were telling her, and not because she was dumb, but simply because she wasn't well versed in how our government works and how laws are made and passed.
This morning, the NYT opinion piece is trying to gaslight us into believing that minorities are now embracing Trump because of his class! David Leonhardt provided all kinds of fake statistics claiming that a more diverse population is good for Republicans. Yeah, sure. Everybody is ignoring the hate and the insanity of Trump, especially targeted minorities he wants to deport immediately. It's just nuts.
Seems like the more criticism the Times gets, the more the sanewashers double down there. I do think there's a conflict in the newsroom between the profiteers and the real journalists, which is reflected in the occasional article, but the profiteers appear to have won. I suspect that we'll see a few NY Times journalists signing up on Substack after the election.
Meanwhile, I've been forced to cancel my subscription. I'm finally just too fed up.
Same here, Lynn. I had enough of WAPO's both sides, normalization of Trump and holding Kamala Harris to a standard they've NEVER applied to Trump. Basta!
This is my second cancellation of the Times. I'm pretty weak-kneed, obviously, because last time they lured me back with some crazy deal that papers run like a dollar a month or some such thing. That won't happen again.
I stopped subscribing to WAPO almost the very minute Bezos bought it.
The corporate media have help. Steve Schmidt breathlessly 'reported' over the weekend that relations are strained between the campaign and the Biden White House. I can't help but think that is most likely the same wing of the White House that spent 3.5 years doing their best to convince the public that Kamala was too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time. The circular firing squad lives!
I know a lot of people who bought that hook, line and sinker. I saw her in action in SF when I lived there, so I knew better, although I have to admit to some surprise on just how much she's grown into the position. She had a thankless job as veep, and she's acting so presidential that you'd think she has done this for ten years.
I'm sick of that a**hole Schmidt. He can F off. What happened to "pass the torch". What a jerk, he acted like he invented the term. As if....after Hillary lost I said she will pass the torch to Kamala Harris. Schmidt is no Demo either. He was in Bernie's sick misogynist mess of a campaign that brought Hillary's numbers down. He kept lying & lying about Bernie's chances. He NEVER had a chance. His base is really only 4-5% of the electorate & it was mostly outside of the Dem party. Dems never liked him & were never going to accept him. He never told the truth about how he didn't have enough support to win a National election.
I’m not convinced that there are any "real journalists" left at the nytimes. Their coverage of this campaign has been truly despicable. I will NEVER again believe anything the CORPORATE-OWNED MEDIA puts out unless I see it with my own eyes.
No disagreement on all capping "corporate-owned." That's the crux of the problem, but it always has been since the days of Hearst. Nothing really different there since almost the first newspapers opened their doors.
But there's definitely conflict. Here are two recent articles that support this conclusion.
This refers to a NY Times story that reports on the Times doing a comprehensive review on Trump's speeches and inability to articulate. I'm surprised the Times' reporter's editors ran the story being talked about here:
I get the frustration, but I'm not a fan of blanket statements because then we lose out on stuff like this. Luckily, this information is all available even after cancelling our subscription, which is the only way I know of to show our displeasure.
In the meantime, though, we should keep track of those Times journalists who are trying in the face of impossible odds to get their stories out.
There is no doubt that the NYT throws a bone to the Dems every once in a while. But the discussion is more nuanced and relates to the day to day coverage as well as the tenow of that coverage. To EVER suggest that Trump is a legitimate candidate in any way, or that Kamala is not BY COMPARISON, is the problem. We have an unprecedented campaign here with a lying criminal running with zero policy proposals (except the ones he's not talking about --2025 Project) and racist, harrassing, bullying rhetoric versus an earnest serious candidate who is imperfect (like any candidate for anything ever). There is no normal about Trump, yet they too often speak about him as if he is.
Agreed on that. They should never, ever treat Trump like a legit candidate. None of the news media should. Trump should not be polling more than 5-10% even in poorly produced polls. That's why I say the sanewashers/profiteers won the internal battle.
I agree it's all BS. I mean how can you explain the fact that almost everyday, the put Trump's name or picture on their front page pretending to be criticizing him but really and truly selling him.
Yes, but how? The only way I can think of is organically. Dropping subscriptions, boycotting advertisers, supporting indie journalists, substackers, and the like. Contributing to ProPublica, a non profit. Etc. I don’t see a way to do it by government fiat.
We get our newspapers back the old-fashioned way : start them. There is no rule that says large, for-profit corporations are the only news outlet. The anonymous, giant paper is a creation of the late 20th century. They destroyed newspapers by their demand for enormous increases in annual profitability, and by turning papers into bland messes of shredded paper.
What if we were to return to the local papers that still exist in small commmunities (and regularly take home Pulitzers). No need to invest ib printins presses and other huge expenses. Citizens can follow 'their' paper's politics and causes (such as rebuilding a zoo.) You can have the working stiff's paper, and the wanna-be bosses paper. Recreating a vibrant social dialogue isn't that hard..not when your news outlet respects the provider.
There are wordle adjacent games (I ran across one the other day that is just about identical so am waiting for them to be sued), and I haven't tried lately, but you used to be able to get it via your private browser. The only thing you lose is the cumulative stats.
I've even regrettably canceled my games subscription. Not another penny for Sulzberger. Better it go to Democratic coffers to destroy MAGA and Make America Truly What We All Know It Can Be!
I cancelled my NYT subscription months ago but still get The Morning, which has links to the free word games. I saw the article this morning, said a few choice words, and flipped right past it.
I only use the free stuff. The Morning is kind of a free teaser, you can’t read any in depth article without a subscription so I’ve just kept it as I don’t pay for it
Well, that, too. Another friend of yours, Linda, earlier said there was room in the boat (of nyt unsubscribers) and I just wanted you to know I’m saving a seat for you! 😉 We can talk of our mutual fondness for Jamelle Bouie.
That sounds fun. Although I enjoy writing about history, Mr. Bouie has more history stored on the edge of his fingernail than I will ever have inside my brain.
Hmmm I think the profiteers are the ones losing, because the numbers don't lie. They're losing members & money everyday because of their pathetic writing & platforming of a fascist. The misogyny is also glaring. I don't even want to use them as a reference.
The NYT did their poll last week with Harris +4 and an oversample of Black and Hispanic voters so they could publish additional "polls" and write articles on them that focused on those voters. The results: Trump at 15% with Black voters (he got 11% in 2020) and 37% with Hispanic voters (he got 32% in 2020). Kamala was way down from Biden's numbers with both, but that's more a reflection of late-deciding voters than actual weakness. The NYT write-ups, though, claimed that it was MASSIVE WEAKNESS WITH MINORITIES, which of course was the whole point of doing the poll.
BTW - those "oversamples" still were still small relative to a true large sample poll - about 600 Black voters an 900 Hispanic voters, compared with, say, the 3,000 that UnidosUS had in their poll of the Hispanic population. On the Hispanic side, they're also still plagued by an inability to sample adequately for Spanish-speaking households - 18% in this case, which is better than they were doing earlier in the year but still falls far short of a realistic number, which is somewhere north of 30%. Unidos, with a much larger, much more representative sample, found Trump/Vance at 29%, not 37%.
I tend to think the number is closer to 30 percent Latino support for Trump based on the wider sample polling that includes Spanish language households.
I really want to say that, but the Telemundo poll and 32% in 2020 give me pause (there have also been some other large sample polls of Hispanics and the 29% from UnidosUS is the lowest). I guess it's less than 37%, but more than 30%, right around where he was last time.
Also worth noting that not every battleground has enough Hispanic voters for this to even matter. GA, MI, WI have very few, while AZ and NV obviously have many.
Bottom line: Nate Cohn's poll had Harris at 44% with White voters, a number last attained by Bill Clinton in 1996 and with which she's virtually guaranteed a 6+ point win. Where's the article about that?
He's in a battle royale among prognosticators with people like Simon Rosenberg, Tom Bonier, Nate Silver, etc., trying to prove that polls are predictive when they are not, and that elections are probabilistic events, when they are not.
My personal opinion, from even before he rode the golden escalator that Trump is all bluff - an NO CLASS. Having a golden toilet does not spell class, it means you have gaudy taste. Having money doesn't mean you have class, it's how you are a person acts, and treats those who can do nothing for him.
Also, Nate Cohn banging hard on the latest Times/Siena poll showing more "tightening" and a tRump "uptick", and how this is really relevant. He's in his own polling bubble, and won't be deterred by evidence elsewhere that the Harris vote is undercounted.
As far as I can tell, Allan Lichtman has not changed his 13 Keys methodology where he predicts a win for Kamala; and he has a 90% accuracy record since 1984 for POTUS elections.
Was it class to hold a rally in a former manure farm close to the Coachella Music venue and pay for buses to take people from parking 5 miles to the area (holds 15,000) but after the PR photos, not bother to pay for buses to return them. They were passing out from heatstroke in the desert. And they are mad at the Mayor of Coachella 🙄.
They're talking about economic class, but that's mostly fake, too, and a lot of it stolen from federal funds. Their anger is always misdirected. I just don't believe there are that many of them and their numbers are dwindling.
I have a friend who as soon as it was announced Biden was out and Harris was the candidate she immediately posted she would never vote for Harris. After being called out by numerous friends and siting things like "his policies" she told me that she has "many immigrant" friends and every one of them supports trump because of his policies. I read yesterday in HCR's post that Stephen Miller was talking about starting a denaturalization project. I sooooo want to just ask her if her immigrant friends are still all about his policies but I won't because she will just continue to tell me Harris' are worse (SMH)
🤣🤣 When are the NYT going to understand that they're dead to us? We don't care what lies they write. They've been in the tank for Trump since 2015. Minorities are not embracing Trump. Now there are some Hispanic men that are misogynistic that might delude themselves with that, but they're signing their own death certificate if they do that.
Here's a quote from the article: "For most Americans, race is a less significant political force than many progressives believe it is — and economic class is more significant."
Thanks for this post, Jay! It's critical for people to know we're being MANIPULATED! By the same people who brought us the great 'Red Wave' in 2022.
Last Friday Rick Wilson had this take in his Friday Brief:
"Don’t drink the poison.
In the next 20+ days, you’ll be offered poison many, many times. It will come from the Trump campaign, the mainstream media, fellow Democrats, and friends and family.
The poison, in this case, will be that of electoral despair. The purpose of negative campaigning is never to change a mind or to alter a vote. The purpose of negative campaigning is to suppress votes and force you into a cognitive frame where staying home seems like a valuable and viable alternative to political engagement.
I am voting tomorrow at a less than convenient location. In my state, early voting consists of 2 phases. The first 2 weeks is at the county clerk’s office, M-F 8-5, no easy place to park. Then 2 weeks before the election, the locations expand to churches, fair grounds, etc with better hours and easily accessible parking.
Usually I go in phase 2. This year I am braving the logistical challenges of phase 1 BECAUSE I am having surgery next week. In the unlikely event that something happens, I want my vote done and dusted. And counted.
Thanks for this Jay. I suspected as much and your confirmation has helped my anxiety subside. And I know the next few weeks will be unbearable, so I'm limiting what I read.
Yes, the anxiety is high. And the texts from all the different PACs, groups, etc it’s something I’ve never experienced before. AND I remember as far back as JFK’s campaign when I was in grade school! The shame game is so unfair!! I’ve given much more than I really could have/should have but I’ve mailed my ballot & it’s been acknowledged as received & counted. (Thank you CA). I have to delete these texts that could make you crazy and only read trusted sources on Substack. Thank you Jay and Simon R!!
Just gonna put this out there: In-person early voting starts in NC on Thursday. I'm feeling very optimistic about our chances here. If you can, vote on Day One whenever that is in your state. The sooner you vote, the sooner you get off the GOTV lists and allow the campaign to move on to lower propensity voters. WE'VE GOT THIS, FOLKS! WHEN WE VOTE....WE WIN!
Awesome! Smart move driving it to the recorder's office, too. That's what we did with our mail-in-ballots in 2020. After the fear tactics thrown out there by Louis DeJoy, we weren't taking any chances. Most states also have a tracking system so you can see when your ballot arrives and is officially counted. Here's your virtual I VOTED EARLY VOTED sticker!
I have received my California ballot, and will be filling it out soon. Then I will drop it into the nearest Ballot Drop Box; not relying on USPS, even tho postage is prepaid. All Democrat, all down the ballot.
I am obligated to share this everywhere I can because I suffer from SEVERE 2016 PTSD and this article helped alleviate my anxiety by 95%. It shows that Harris/Walz has a 66%+ chance of winning AND it also explains the many errors of mainstream polls:
All of this to say that if everyone works as hard to elect Harris/Walz the upcoming three weeks as they have done so far the past 2.5 months, I believe Harris/Wals will win by a landslide.
In other words, KEEP GOING!!! 💙💙💙💙💙 #HarrisWalz is easily the most extraordinary campaign I have seen in my lifetime
Another observation about polls right now: even the "good ones" are mostly bunk. Many reputable independent pollsters have found Trump leading 18-29, particularly in state polls. None poll adequately in Spanish (the NYT/Siena poll of Arizona polled 2% of Hispanic voters in Spanish. IN ARIZONA). Most assume a balanced electorate D-R, when only one electorate in the past 40 years has not been D+ (2004).
But maybe most importantly (relative to yesterday in particular): Very few polls weight accurately for race. White voters have made up 2-4% less of the electorate each successive year since 2000, with Hispanic voters making up more and more. The 2020 electorate was 67% white, with 2024 likely to be 64% or 65%. Yet the NBC poll has locked its sample to 72% or 73% white since 2016, including yesterday's. CBS? 71%. NBC, in particular, seems to do this so they can longitudinally compare results over a decade-plus span with a consistent racial makeup, but when the poll is only ever used to write NBC articles about who is leading elections it's an absurd decision that makes their poll useless garbage.
Here's the bottom line: the 2024 electorate will probably be something like 65/13/15 W/B/H. Harris has more or less met Biden's numbers in large-sample polls of minorities - no big gains for Trump. Since Biden won by nearly 5 points, Harris should win by at least that if she gets the same numbers with White voters, with any losses with the minorities cancelled out by their increased prominence (this is Simon Rosenberg's first really famous observation, btw - from many years ago).
But here's the thing: she probably won't get Biden's numbers with White voters. He got 41%. I've been reading a lot of crosstabs, and I've barely ever seen her below 42% (and every poll is a large-sample poll of White voters). NBC has her at 42%. CBS has her at 43%. She's very, very likely to end up with 41-44% of the White vote. Without doing any math, you can guess that she does substantially better than a 4.7% win as you climb through that range. The NYT shouldn't be talking about Harris' "weakness with minorities", it should be talking about Trump's weakness with White people.
I think it's also important to factor in the chaos goblins historical behavior when it comes to polling.
He really likes to point to polls that favor him, even if his flunkeys have to produce "polls" that are completely untethered from reality. He'll then apply his trademark hyperbole, claiming that all the polling shows him leading by huge (yuge) margins.
Then, when he inevitably loses, as actual voters participate in democracy, he'll point back at the perceived inevitability of his bs polling, that really he should have won. Not just won but won "in a landslide" by nearly putin like margins.
Thus, he claims, cheating occurred on a biblical scale.
He did this in 2020, to the detriment of the country.
Hell, he even claimed in 2016 that he should have won the states he didn't.
For people like me who read Simon Rosenberg all the time and follow Tom Bonier as well, Joe Trippi is another smart bad-poll debunker. You might want to to introduce your readers to Target Early, Tom B's webpage for reporting early-voting totals. That was one of Tom and Simon's primary metrics for predicting that a Red Wave in 2022 was unlikely. The numbers are shaping up well there, too.
Congratulations on your new bundle of joy and KUTGW.
Jay, I've seen these polls and have some questions about Trump's apparent improvement. So I asked myself "How does he compare to Harris with women? with college educated whites? with Hispanic voters? with younger voters? with urban voters?" As I go down the list of socio-ecomonic, racial, ethnic, and geographic markers I dont' see much left for TFG except rural/suburban white men.
If Trump's team really believed the polls they wouldn't be putting on the full court press to depress turnout and "cleanse" voter rolls in GA, PA, AZ, etc.
Looking forward to tomorrow's Big Picture post.
Currently, I'm reminded of the Kansas polling, which showed a close race on the abortion question. Women's health rights trounced the bad guys bigly. I posted a substack note yesterday reminding folks of the abortion referendum states, which include Montana, where Tester is said to be on the ropes but is most probably not. But it's not just abortion referendum states where women will flood the ballot boxes.
Women will save us again, but we men need to keep pushing hard against the male tendency to not want to vote for women for whatever weird reason they may have. If women lose, we all lose.
We need a landslide. This is achievable.
I would love a landslide of course. But I’ll settle for a win.
Ditto.
His opponent is well funded too. Fingers crossed🤞
I agree. I fail to understand why a voter would choose abortion rights then turn around and vote against Tester.
Are they really going to shoot themselves in the foot? His opponent has openly said he’s against choice.
C’mon Montana.
It doesn’t make sense to us but perhaps they think they can have it both ways.
Or they simply don't understand the connection.
Jessica Craven at CWCW said she door knocked yesterday and spoke to a Republican woman who was voting for Harris but then Republican all the way down the rest of the ballot. They had to explain to her that the President couldn't just make an Executive Decision or whatever and bring back abortion rights, that it had to go thru both houses of Congress first. It took her a few minutes to fully understand what they were telling her, and not because she was dumb, but simply because she wasn't well versed in how our government works and how laws are made and passed.
There is a truly disturbing amount of this. I apparently wasn't looking when we decided to stop teaching civics in this country.
This makes sense. Thanks.
Let the Blue Tsunami begin!!!
This morning, the NYT opinion piece is trying to gaslight us into believing that minorities are now embracing Trump because of his class! David Leonhardt provided all kinds of fake statistics claiming that a more diverse population is good for Republicans. Yeah, sure. Everybody is ignoring the hate and the insanity of Trump, especially targeted minorities he wants to deport immediately. It's just nuts.
Seems like the more criticism the Times gets, the more the sanewashers double down there. I do think there's a conflict in the newsroom between the profiteers and the real journalists, which is reflected in the occasional article, but the profiteers appear to have won. I suspect that we'll see a few NY Times journalists signing up on Substack after the election.
Meanwhile, I've been forced to cancel my subscription. I'm finally just too fed up.
We will make room in the boat. Many people have cancelled subscriptions to not only the NYT, but WaPo as well.
Corporate journalism has jumped the shark it seems.
I canceled WAPO months ago. The both sides BS finally got to me. And having maga nut job Hugh Hewitt on retainer
was beyond the pale.
TFG generates Benjamin’s and that’s all they care about and to hell with our democracy.
Same here, Lynn. I had enough of WAPO's both sides, normalization of Trump and holding Kamala Harris to a standard they've NEVER applied to Trump. Basta!
This is my second cancellation of the Times. I'm pretty weak-kneed, obviously, because last time they lured me back with some crazy deal that papers run like a dollar a month or some such thing. That won't happen again.
I stopped subscribing to WAPO almost the very minute Bezos bought it.
Not weak-kneed. You managed to vote against their bias in a way they pay attention to twice!
Yes, as bad as the NYT is, they at least try to put on an occasional masking article, but the WaPo seems even more unrelentingly anti-dem to me.
Musk also began as a bit more egalitarian. The more drugs he consumed, the more unhinged he became. I don’t know what Bezos’ excuse is.
I cancelled both months ago. I was getting them online for $1.00 a week (the Times; not sure what WaPo cost). I don’t miss them.
The corporate media have help. Steve Schmidt breathlessly 'reported' over the weekend that relations are strained between the campaign and the Biden White House. I can't help but think that is most likely the same wing of the White House that spent 3.5 years doing their best to convince the public that Kamala was too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time. The circular firing squad lives!
I know a lot of people who bought that hook, line and sinker. I saw her in action in SF when I lived there, so I knew better, although I have to admit to some surprise on just how much she's grown into the position. She had a thankless job as veep, and she's acting so presidential that you'd think she has done this for ten years.
I have become more and more tired of Steve Schmidt.
Me also. I find him to be an alarmist and I don’t need any more anxiety.
Steve Schmidt IS a Republican leaning strategist, so that doesn't surprise.
He's a plain old fashioned rabid Republican who isn't in the Trump cult. Remember that he was one if those who brought us Sarah Palin.
So not a Trumpian but on the lunatic fringe. 😂
I'm sick of that a**hole Schmidt. He can F off. What happened to "pass the torch". What a jerk, he acted like he invented the term. As if....after Hillary lost I said she will pass the torch to Kamala Harris. Schmidt is no Demo either. He was in Bernie's sick misogynist mess of a campaign that brought Hillary's numbers down. He kept lying & lying about Bernie's chances. He NEVER had a chance. His base is really only 4-5% of the electorate & it was mostly outside of the Dem party. Dems never liked him & were never going to accept him. He never told the truth about how he didn't have enough support to win a National election.
It's too bad about WaPo, since we like Jonathan Caperhart.
I like NY Times' Jamelle Bouie. I look forward to his Substack when he finally bolts the Times in frustration.
Or maybe the shark has jumped them; I cancelled both. Now to cancel all the newsletters that lead to subscription solicitations…
Yes, me.
I’m not convinced that there are any "real journalists" left at the nytimes. Their coverage of this campaign has been truly despicable. I will NEVER again believe anything the CORPORATE-OWNED MEDIA puts out unless I see it with my own eyes.
No disagreement on all capping "corporate-owned." That's the crux of the problem, but it always has been since the days of Hearst. Nothing really different there since almost the first newspapers opened their doors.
But there's definitely conflict. Here are two recent articles that support this conclusion.
This refers to a NY Times story that reports on the Times doing a comprehensive review on Trump's speeches and inability to articulate. I'm surprised the Times' reporter's editors ran the story being talked about here:
https://criticalread.substack.com/p/new-york-times-opens-the-media-floodgates
Then there is this one discussing the Times doing some hard digging on the possibly illegal Musk/PAC/Trump connection:
https://meidasnews.com/news/new-york-times-report-shows-coordination-between-twitter-and-trump-campaign
I get the frustration, but I'm not a fan of blanket statements because then we lose out on stuff like this. Luckily, this information is all available even after cancelling our subscription, which is the only way I know of to show our displeasure.
In the meantime, though, we should keep track of those Times journalists who are trying in the face of impossible odds to get their stories out.
There is no doubt that the NYT throws a bone to the Dems every once in a while. But the discussion is more nuanced and relates to the day to day coverage as well as the tenow of that coverage. To EVER suggest that Trump is a legitimate candidate in any way, or that Kamala is not BY COMPARISON, is the problem. We have an unprecedented campaign here with a lying criminal running with zero policy proposals (except the ones he's not talking about --2025 Project) and racist, harrassing, bullying rhetoric versus an earnest serious candidate who is imperfect (like any candidate for anything ever). There is no normal about Trump, yet they too often speak about him as if he is.
Agreed on that. They should never, ever treat Trump like a legit candidate. None of the news media should. Trump should not be polling more than 5-10% even in poorly produced polls. That's why I say the sanewashers/profiteers won the internal battle.
That Trump no longer calls it “the failing New York Times” is a signal that he views it as his ally, which it most certainly is.
I believe they are only issuing a few stories designed to fake us into believing they have some sort of objectivity. But it’s clearly BULLSHIT.
I agree it's all BS. I mean how can you explain the fact that almost everyday, the put Trump's name or picture on their front page pretending to be criticizing him but really and truly selling him.
We need to break up the Media Monopoly.
Yes, but how? The only way I can think of is organically. Dropping subscriptions, boycotting advertisers, supporting indie journalists, substackers, and the like. Contributing to ProPublica, a non profit. Etc. I don’t see a way to do it by government fiat.
We get our newspapers back the old-fashioned way : start them. There is no rule that says large, for-profit corporations are the only news outlet. The anonymous, giant paper is a creation of the late 20th century. They destroyed newspapers by their demand for enormous increases in annual profitability, and by turning papers into bland messes of shredded paper.
What if we were to return to the local papers that still exist in small commmunities (and regularly take home Pulitzers). No need to invest ib printins presses and other huge expenses. Citizens can follow 'their' paper's politics and causes (such as rebuilding a zoo.) You can have the working stiff's paper, and the wanna-be bosses paper. Recreating a vibrant social dialogue isn't that hard..not when your news outlet respects the provider.
And I am also seriouslying considering canceling my weekend subscriptions as I cannot in good conscience continue to pay for Trump's Megaphone
Maybe we need a “Boycott Wordle” movement.
Now you're going too far.
:-)
That's literally the only thing I'll "read" at the NYT. I canceled my games subscription, so I just deal with the ads.
There are wordle adjacent games (I ran across one the other day that is just about identical so am waiting for them to be sued), and I haven't tried lately, but you used to be able to get it via your private browser. The only thing you lose is the cumulative stats.
I've even regrettably canceled my games subscription. Not another penny for Sulzberger. Better it go to Democratic coffers to destroy MAGA and Make America Truly What We All Know It Can Be!
I cancelled my NYT subscription months ago but still get The Morning, which has links to the free word games. I saw the article this morning, said a few choice words, and flipped right past it.
You can play the free games on the NYT Games app every day. I canceled 18 months ago and recently canceled games too.
I only play the free ones, not giving them a penny.
I’m now playing mahjong solitaire for free.
Some days I miss the 🐝. But not much.
There's a free Wordle app at the App Store. I'm not sure it's the same as the NYT's but it's the same game.
I only use the free stuff. The Morning is kind of a free teaser, you can’t read any in depth article without a subscription so I’ve just kept it as I don’t pay for it
I’ve saved you a seat!
Wait, where is this seat you speak of? At Kamala's victory party? :-)
Well, that, too. Another friend of yours, Linda, earlier said there was room in the boat (of nyt unsubscribers) and I just wanted you to know I’m saving a seat for you! 😉 We can talk of our mutual fondness for Jamelle Bouie.
That sounds fun. Although I enjoy writing about history, Mr. Bouie has more history stored on the edge of his fingernail than I will ever have inside my brain.
Hear, hear..!
Hmmm I think the profiteers are the ones losing, because the numbers don't lie. They're losing members & money everyday because of their pathetic writing & platforming of a fascist. The misogyny is also glaring. I don't even want to use them as a reference.
The NYT did their poll last week with Harris +4 and an oversample of Black and Hispanic voters so they could publish additional "polls" and write articles on them that focused on those voters. The results: Trump at 15% with Black voters (he got 11% in 2020) and 37% with Hispanic voters (he got 32% in 2020). Kamala was way down from Biden's numbers with both, but that's more a reflection of late-deciding voters than actual weakness. The NYT write-ups, though, claimed that it was MASSIVE WEAKNESS WITH MINORITIES, which of course was the whole point of doing the poll.
BTW - those "oversamples" still were still small relative to a true large sample poll - about 600 Black voters an 900 Hispanic voters, compared with, say, the 3,000 that UnidosUS had in their poll of the Hispanic population. On the Hispanic side, they're also still plagued by an inability to sample adequately for Spanish-speaking households - 18% in this case, which is better than they were doing earlier in the year but still falls far short of a realistic number, which is somewhere north of 30%. Unidos, with a much larger, much more representative sample, found Trump/Vance at 29%, not 37%.
I tend to think the number is closer to 30 percent Latino support for Trump based on the wider sample polling that includes Spanish language households.
I really want to say that, but the Telemundo poll and 32% in 2020 give me pause (there have also been some other large sample polls of Hispanics and the 29% from UnidosUS is the lowest). I guess it's less than 37%, but more than 30%, right around where he was last time.
Also worth noting that not every battleground has enough Hispanic voters for this to even matter. GA, MI, WI have very few, while AZ and NV obviously have many.
Bottom line: Nate Cohn's poll had Harris at 44% with White voters, a number last attained by Bill Clinton in 1996 and with which she's virtually guaranteed a 6+ point win. Where's the article about that?
I blame Nate Cohn. I don't mind naming names here. He's the guy in charge of NY Times polls. I don't know what his motives are, but he's just awful.
He's in a battle royale among prognosticators with people like Simon Rosenberg, Tom Bonier, Nate Silver, etc., trying to prove that polls are predictive when they are not, and that elections are probabilistic events, when they are not.
Thank you! That statement should be on a chyron every time a media outlet reports on polls: 🚨🚨POLLS NOT PREDICTIVE!!🚨🚨
I find it hard to imagine that a Black woman is doing worse with Blacks than Biden, sexism notwithstanding. That's just ridiculous.
My personal opinion, from even before he rode the golden escalator that Trump is all bluff - an NO CLASS. Having a golden toilet does not spell class, it means you have gaudy taste. Having money doesn't mean you have class, it's how you are a person acts, and treats those who can do nothing for him.
Came to make a comment about this very thing! It's so infuriating!!
Also, Nate Cohn banging hard on the latest Times/Siena poll showing more "tightening" and a tRump "uptick", and how this is really relevant. He's in his own polling bubble, and won't be deterred by evidence elsewhere that the Harris vote is undercounted.
A lot of chin scratching and navel gazing over something that is most likely fundamentally off, but I guess I will tell.
As far as I can tell, Allan Lichtman has not changed his 13 Keys methodology where he predicts a win for Kamala; and he has a 90% accuracy record since 1984 for POTUS elections.
Was it class to hold a rally in a former manure farm close to the Coachella Music venue and pay for buses to take people from parking 5 miles to the area (holds 15,000) but after the PR photos, not bother to pay for buses to return them. They were passing out from heatstroke in the desert. And they are mad at the Mayor of Coachella 🙄.
They're talking about economic class, but that's mostly fake, too, and a lot of it stolen from federal funds. Their anger is always misdirected. I just don't believe there are that many of them and their numbers are dwindling.
I have a friend who as soon as it was announced Biden was out and Harris was the candidate she immediately posted she would never vote for Harris. After being called out by numerous friends and siting things like "his policies" she told me that she has "many immigrant" friends and every one of them supports trump because of his policies. I read yesterday in HCR's post that Stephen Miller was talking about starting a denaturalization project. I sooooo want to just ask her if her immigrant friends are still all about his policies but I won't because she will just continue to tell me Harris' are worse (SMH)
Unfortunately some people are irredeemable. We need to focus on the ones that aren't.
🤣🤣 When are the NYT going to understand that they're dead to us? We don't care what lies they write. They've been in the tank for Trump since 2015. Minorities are not embracing Trump. Now there are some Hispanic men that are misogynistic that might delude themselves with that, but they're signing their own death certificate if they do that.
Jean,please define "class" in this context. That word raises all sorts of questions! Thanks!
Here's a quote from the article: "For most Americans, race is a less significant political force than many progressives believe it is — and economic class is more significant."
Thanks for this post, Jay! It's critical for people to know we're being MANIPULATED! By the same people who brought us the great 'Red Wave' in 2022.
Last Friday Rick Wilson had this take in his Friday Brief:
"Don’t drink the poison.
In the next 20+ days, you’ll be offered poison many, many times. It will come from the Trump campaign, the mainstream media, fellow Democrats, and friends and family.
The poison, in this case, will be that of electoral despair. The purpose of negative campaigning is never to change a mind or to alter a vote. The purpose of negative campaigning is to suppress votes and force you into a cognitive frame where staying home seems like a valuable and viable alternative to political engagement.
Don’t drink the poison."
If we show up, we win. When we show up we win.
I am voting tomorrow at a less than convenient location. In my state, early voting consists of 2 phases. The first 2 weeks is at the county clerk’s office, M-F 8-5, no easy place to park. Then 2 weeks before the election, the locations expand to churches, fair grounds, etc with better hours and easily accessible parking.
Usually I go in phase 2. This year I am braving the logistical challenges of phase 1 BECAUSE I am having surgery next week. In the unlikely event that something happens, I want my vote done and dusted. And counted.
Good for you!!!
Be well Sky 777. Thank you!
Thanks for this Jay. I suspected as much and your confirmation has helped my anxiety subside. And I know the next few weeks will be unbearable, so I'm limiting what I read.
Yes, the anxiety is high. And the texts from all the different PACs, groups, etc it’s something I’ve never experienced before. AND I remember as far back as JFK’s campaign when I was in grade school! The shame game is so unfair!! I’ve given much more than I really could have/should have but I’ve mailed my ballot & it’s been acknowledged as received & counted. (Thank you CA). I have to delete these texts that could make you crazy and only read trusted sources on Substack. Thank you Jay and Simon R!!
Same here…limiting what I read.
Just gonna put this out there: In-person early voting starts in NC on Thursday. I'm feeling very optimistic about our chances here. If you can, vote on Day One whenever that is in your state. The sooner you vote, the sooner you get off the GOTV lists and allow the campaign to move on to lower propensity voters. WE'VE GOT THIS, FOLKS! WHEN WE VOTE....WE WIN!
I got my AZ ballot Friday afternoon late. I am driving it to the county recorder’s office this
morning. 💙
Awesome! Smart move driving it to the recorder's office, too. That's what we did with our mail-in-ballots in 2020. After the fear tactics thrown out there by Louis DeJoy, we weren't taking any chances. Most states also have a tracking system so you can see when your ballot arrives and is officially counted. Here's your virtual I VOTED EARLY VOTED sticker!
I have received my California ballot, and will be filling it out soon. Then I will drop it into the nearest Ballot Drop Box; not relying on USPS, even tho postage is prepaid. All Democrat, all down the ballot.
We did ours last week. We've already been notified that our ballots have been counted.
We have Ballox Trax here too. I like knowing my ballot has been received and counted!
Isn't it great? California does a wonderful job.
YES! Thank you, Linda!
Ugghh, it's nerve-wracking. Three weeks, folks! Three. Weeks. If ever there was a time to come to the aid of your country, surely it is now.
Thanks for this, Jay. Blood pressure going back down now...
Thank you for helping us see through the noise!
I am obligated to share this everywhere I can because I suffer from SEVERE 2016 PTSD and this article helped alleviate my anxiety by 95%. It shows that Harris/Walz has a 66%+ chance of winning AND it also explains the many errors of mainstream polls:
All of this to say that if everyone works as hard to elect Harris/Walz the upcoming three weeks as they have done so far the past 2.5 months, I believe Harris/Wals will win by a landslide.
In other words, KEEP GOING!!! 💙💙💙💙💙 #HarrisWalz is easily the most extraordinary campaign I have seen in my lifetime
https://substack.com/home/post/p-149982547?source=queue
Thank you for this. I have days when I get SO ANXIOUS about this election and the country's future!
Another observation about polls right now: even the "good ones" are mostly bunk. Many reputable independent pollsters have found Trump leading 18-29, particularly in state polls. None poll adequately in Spanish (the NYT/Siena poll of Arizona polled 2% of Hispanic voters in Spanish. IN ARIZONA). Most assume a balanced electorate D-R, when only one electorate in the past 40 years has not been D+ (2004).
But maybe most importantly (relative to yesterday in particular): Very few polls weight accurately for race. White voters have made up 2-4% less of the electorate each successive year since 2000, with Hispanic voters making up more and more. The 2020 electorate was 67% white, with 2024 likely to be 64% or 65%. Yet the NBC poll has locked its sample to 72% or 73% white since 2016, including yesterday's. CBS? 71%. NBC, in particular, seems to do this so they can longitudinally compare results over a decade-plus span with a consistent racial makeup, but when the poll is only ever used to write NBC articles about who is leading elections it's an absurd decision that makes their poll useless garbage.
Here's the bottom line: the 2024 electorate will probably be something like 65/13/15 W/B/H. Harris has more or less met Biden's numbers in large-sample polls of minorities - no big gains for Trump. Since Biden won by nearly 5 points, Harris should win by at least that if she gets the same numbers with White voters, with any losses with the minorities cancelled out by their increased prominence (this is Simon Rosenberg's first really famous observation, btw - from many years ago).
But here's the thing: she probably won't get Biden's numbers with White voters. He got 41%. I've been reading a lot of crosstabs, and I've barely ever seen her below 42% (and every poll is a large-sample poll of White voters). NBC has her at 42%. CBS has her at 43%. She's very, very likely to end up with 41-44% of the White vote. Without doing any math, you can guess that she does substantially better than a 4.7% win as you climb through that range. The NYT shouldn't be talking about Harris' "weakness with minorities", it should be talking about Trump's weakness with White people.
I agree that the biggest problem with pollsters is their assumptions about the make-up of the electorate.
I really find it hard to believe that trump is leading by 6 in AZ, with Gallego well ahead of Lake and the abortion measure with 58% support.
I think it's also important to factor in the chaos goblins historical behavior when it comes to polling.
He really likes to point to polls that favor him, even if his flunkeys have to produce "polls" that are completely untethered from reality. He'll then apply his trademark hyperbole, claiming that all the polling shows him leading by huge (yuge) margins.
Then, when he inevitably loses, as actual voters participate in democracy, he'll point back at the perceived inevitability of his bs polling, that really he should have won. Not just won but won "in a landslide" by nearly putin like margins.
Thus, he claims, cheating occurred on a biblical scale.
He did this in 2020, to the detriment of the country.
Hell, he even claimed in 2016 that he should have won the states he didn't.
For people like me who read Simon Rosenberg all the time and follow Tom Bonier as well, Joe Trippi is another smart bad-poll debunker. You might want to to introduce your readers to Target Early, Tom B's webpage for reporting early-voting totals. That was one of Tom and Simon's primary metrics for predicting that a Red Wave in 2022 was unlikely. The numbers are shaping up well there, too.
Congratulations on your new bundle of joy and KUTGW.
Simon’s Hopium Chronicles too - here on Substack
Jay, I've seen these polls and have some questions about Trump's apparent improvement. So I asked myself "How does he compare to Harris with women? with college educated whites? with Hispanic voters? with younger voters? with urban voters?" As I go down the list of socio-ecomonic, racial, ethnic, and geographic markers I dont' see much left for TFG except rural/suburban white men.
If Trump's team really believed the polls they wouldn't be putting on the full court press to depress turnout and "cleanse" voter rolls in GA, PA, AZ, etc.