More about polls and statistics; Aileen Cannon commentary

A post at r/fivethirtyeight discusses why some recent polls were wrong and why the election in 2024 is uncertain. The uncertainty mostly boils down to poll data indicating that 17.4% of poll respondents are still undecided or supporting 3rd party candidates. 

It was brought to my attention yesterday just how different the 2020 and 2024 presidential polling averages are.

On this day in 2020, Biden and Trump were polling nationally at 50.3% and 41.2% respectively, a 9.1 point difference. By comparison, today Trump is leading 42.5% to 40.1%, a 2.4 point difference.

What's most interesting to me are that at this point in 2020, only 8.5% of poll respondents were undecided or supporting 3rd party candidates, compared with 17.4% of poll respondents this cycle. In other words, more than twice as many respondents in 2024 haven't made up their minds yet with the vast majority of them seemingly up for grabs.

This introduces a large degree of uncertainty that I don't see getting discussed much all things considered. In fact, the high degree of undecideds/third party support closely mirrors that of the 2016 election, when Clinton was leading Trump 41% to 37.7%, a 3.3 point difference, with 21.3% of respondents undecided or supporting 3rd party candidates. Hell, even the number of poll respondents supporting the leading 3rd party candidates (Johnson in 2016 and RFK in 2024) are extremely similar at 9.3% and 9% respectively on July 16th. It's worth noting that in the end, Johnson only brought home 3.28% and 3rd party candidates altogether captured just 5.73% of votes cast.

It's also probably worth noting that Trump's top share of the vote in national polling in 2024 has been 43.1% (on March 29th) compared with 45.6% on March 6, 2020 and 38.3% on June 8, 2016. Obviously the biggest difference from 2020 is that Biden is polling at just 40.1% compared with 50.3% on this day in 2020, but it is interesting that this support hasn't gone to Trump, it's gone to undecideds and RFK, which means those votes are arguably up for grabs and/or that many might reluctantly return to Biden if or when he becomes the nominee. How that ~17% share of 3rd party/undecideds break over the next few months will 100% decide the election's outcome.

What really struck me is these comments from a commenter to that post:

Again, I think this introduces a high degree of uncertainty that many aren't taking into account. Keep in mind, this is the exact same reason why the polls were so off in 2016.

By election day 2016, Trump was down by 3.9% nationally with 13.5% of poll respondents still undecided or supporting 3rd party candidates. Trump picked up 4.3% of them and Clinton 2.5%, bringing Clinton's popular vote margin down to just 2.1%, which wasn't enough to put her over the finish line.

And yet, we have models this cycle suggesting that Trump has a more than 80% chance of winning 3.5 months from election day, because he's up by a little over 2 points nationally with more than 17% undecided/3rd party.

Sure doesn't feel like many pollsters and pundits learned the right lessons from 2016.

That strikes me as good news for Biden or whoever winds up running against DJT. The daily analysis at The Hill currently has DJT with a 56% chance of winning, but that would probably increase if the assassination attempt gives him more sympathy and support. We won't know that for a few more days as polling starts to reflect what effect, if any, the deranged nutjob with a gun is going to have on the outcome.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

That subreddit posted a ranking of the top 277 polling sources, plus a slew of others below those at the top. What surprised me was that Gallup ranked 35th and Pew Research Center ranked 40th. The top 11 are shown below.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

The Atlantic published an opinion about the judge that dismissed the Mar-A-Lago case in Florida against DJT:

Judge Cannon Has Gotten It Completely Wrong

In dismissing the classified-documents case, she is ignoring both practical history and legal precedent

Judge Aileen Cannon, a Donald Trump appointee, has dismissed the criminal charges against the former president. On the merits, her opinion is a poor one, ignoring history and precedent. It will almost certainly be reversed on appeal. Even so, her actions will surely delay Trump’s trial and may even prevent it completely, should Trump return to power and dismiss the case before a verdict is reached. For these reasons alone, her decision is certainly notable.

But Cannon’s opinion is even more significant for what it says systematically about the American judiciary and its increasing hubris. Donald Trump is famous for saying that he “alone can fix” the nation. Judges now routinely say that they “alone” know what the law is or should be. Cannon is just the latest, perhaps most egregious, example.

The legal issue in question was the validity of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment by the attorney general. Cannon determined that the appointment was invalid because, in her view, no statutory authority existed for the attorney general to create such an officer. According to her, Smith was an “inferior officer” whose appointment could be approved only if there was specific statutory authority; absent that authority (as she characterized it), the appointment was unconstitutional.

One could write a volume about how wrong Cannon’s analysis is, and no doubt many will do so (including Smith on his inevitable appeal to the Eleventh Circuit). On the statutory merits, for example, the law allows the “Attorney General [to] appoint officials … to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States [and] to conduct such other investigations regarding official matters under the control of the Department of Justice and the Department of State as may be directed by the Attorney General.” This clear language is discarded by Cannon on the borderline-frivolous ground that Smith is sometimes called an “officer” of the Justice Department rather than an “official.”

As to precedent, during the investigation of Richard Nixon, the Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged the power of the attorney general: “Under the authority of Art. II, § 2, Congress has vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States Government … It has also vested in him the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties.”

Cannon casually tosses that off as dicta—statements of the Court not necessary to the Court’s decision. She’s wrong; the special prosecutor’s authority to subpoena Nixon was at issue, and the authority was dependent on prosecutors’ very existence. But even if she were correct, it takes significant hubris to disregard the Supreme Court when you are a lower-court judge.

Maybe what Cannon did has little or nothing to do with hubris. With hubris, you don’t realize your own failings. But in my humble opinion, Cannon knows exactly what she is doing. She consistently throws out existing precedent whenever it serves Trump. She has an agenda to delay, delay delay. When the law or precedent is against that agenda, she rules against against it. 

Cannon used the Mar-A-Lago stolen documents case to block other judges from scheduling proceedings in other Trump cases. That slowed everything by months. Maybe she wants to be removed from the case because she does not have the experience to actually try it, but that imputes good faith. I do not believe she governs** in good faith. Maybe she tread water until it was a good time for her to do something that would get her removed in a way that was good for her and DJT. But at this point, I am unsure if she will be removed from the case or whether it will even matter. If DJT is re-elected he will order the DoJ to drop the case about as soon as he is sworn into office. That will be the end of it.

** I used govern intentionally, instead of judging. She is a radical authoritarian Republican partisan, not a judge.

About statistics in opinion polls

Over at r/fivethirtyeight, there is an explanation of statistics in poll data. There will be a quiz .

So I feel like some people have been using the concept of the "margin of error" in polling quite the wrong way. Namely some people have started to simply treat any result within the margin of error as functionally equivalent. That Trump+3 and Biden+3 are both the same if the margin of error is 3.46.

Now I honestly think this is a totally understandable mistake to make, both because American statistics education isn't great but also unhelpful words like "statistical ties" give people the wrong impression. 

What the margin of error actually allows us to do is estimate the probability distribution of the true values - that is to say what the "actual number" should be. To illustrate this, I've created two visualizations:

Here is the probability of the "True Numbers" if Biden lead 40-37

And here is the probability of the "True Numbers" if Trump lead 40-37

Notice the substantial difference between these distributions. The overlapping areas represent the chance that the candidate who's behind in the poll might actually be leading in reality. The non-overlapping areas show the likelihood that the poll leader is truly ahead.

In the both of the polls the overlapping area is about 30%. This means that saying "Trump+3 and Biden+3 are both within the 3.46% margin of error, so they're basically 50/50 in both polls" is incorrect.

A more accurate interpretation would be: If the poll shows Biden+3, there's about a 70% chance Biden is truly ahead. If it shows Trump+3, there's only about a 30% chance Biden is actually leading. This demonstrates how even small leads within the margin of error can still be quite meaningful.

A peanut in the gallery commented:

A more accurate interpretation would be: If the poll shows Biden+3, there’s about a 70% chance Biden is truly ahead. If it shows Trump+3, there’s only about a 30% chance Biden is actually leading. This demonstrates how even small leads within the margin of error can still be quite meaningful.

Yeah, but only if the sample population is reflective of the total population. One of the biggest issues with political polling is actually getting a representative sample since we don’t know with 100% certainty what population will actually show up on Election Day. I suppose that’s a bit pedantic but the margin of error doesn’t really account for an inaccurate sample population, which is more likely to be where the source of error in political polling is coming from.

Got it? Me neither. Quiz time!

The election is a horse race.

He fell in the butter…

My Dutch husband tells me that’s a saying in Holland:

meaning, someone is just that lucky. Everything tends to go his way.

I can’t help but think of Trump in exactly that way.  Off the top of my head, take a look at what’s happened of late:

• $454 million bond case has been temporarily reduced on appeal to $175 million
• Supreme Court gives immunity to former presidents for “official acts”
• Biden “loses it” at a highly publicized debate, coming across as a doddering old man on the verge of senility, putting the Dem Party in crisis mode
• Guilty verdict in Trump’s Hush Money trial gets delayed punishment (so-called in September, but don’t hold your breath)
• Trump survives an assassination attempt by one-inch
• Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Trump Classified Documents case
• Republicans get first crack at showcasing their convention, with cheering and adoring crowds
• Flip-flopper J.D. "Trump is America's Hitler" Vance gets the VP nod

What am I forgetting?

Yes, the butter is coming fast and furious these days, for one Mr. Trump.

Question: Have you ever seen a luckier sob than DJT?  Or is he deserving of his butter-coating? What is it about Trump that people find attractive?  Explain it to me like I’m a 5-year-old.  Because I(really)DGI.

(by Primal “TDS” Soup)

Effectiveness of the big lie; Social media impacts; Trump judge protects Trump; Initial fallout

Some authoritarians are quite intelligent and insightful about human nature. Consider this quote, for example:

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

That is probably at least part of why the big lie works so well for DJT.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Especially since DJT came on the scene in 2015-2016, the toxic influence of social media on politics and democracy has been increasingly researched. This Q&A came out of ongoing curiosity about the current state of research about social media dark arts. Perplexity describes it like this.  

Q: On balance is American social media more politically divisive and disinforming than uniting and informing?

A: American social media appears to be more politically divisive and disinforming than uniting and informing. Here are the key points supporting this conclusion:

1. The United States is an outlier in its negative perception of social media's impact on democracy. Only 34% of U.S. adults think social media has been good for democracy, while 64% say it has had a bad impact.

2. Americans are consistently among the most negative in their assessments of how social media has affected politics and society. For example, 79% of Americans believe social media has made people more divided in their political opinions, the highest percentage among 19 countries surveyed.

3. 69% of Americans say social media has made people less civil in how they talk about politics, again the highest share among the nations studied.

4. Experts have concluded that the use of social media contributes to partisan animosity in the U.S. A group of 15 researchers summarized the scholarly consensus, stating that social media companies have played an influential role in political discourse, intensifying political sectarianism.

5. While social media may not be the main driver of polarization, researchers posit that it is often a key facilitator.

6. Social media algorithms and business models have been shown to exacerbate outrage and anger, and social media has been found to help recruit and provide platforms to extremists.

However, it's important to note that the research on this topic is not entirely conclusive:

1. Some studies have found that staying off social media platforms like Facebook can reduce polarization on policy issues, but not necessarily on party identity.

2. Recent landmark studies involving tens of thousands of Facebook and Instagram accounts found that social media algorithms did not affect users' polarization.

3. The problem may not be social media alone, but the country's entire media system. A literature review found that media in general was likely increasing ideological and affective polarization.

4. Most Americans do not use social media to discuss politics, as politics is a very incidental part of life for many people.

In conclusion, while the evidence suggests that American social media tends to be more politically divisive and disinforming, the issue is complex and multifaceted. Social media's role in polarization should be considered alongside other factors contributing to the current political climate in the United States.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Trump judge Aileen Cannon, a/k/a/ Loose Cannon  Aileen, has dismissed the entire Mar-A-Lago stolen documents federal lawsuit against DJT. The dismissal was not on immunity grounds, but instead on grounds of Jack Smith as special prosecutor being unconstitutionally funded. His investigation and prosecution now simply vanishes into thin air. We have to wait for another year or two while appeals play out. DJT has been protected by his corrupt judge.   

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday tossed former President Trump’s criminal charges accusing him of mishandling classified information, ruling that special counsel Jack Smith was not lawfully appointed.

The ruling hands a major victory to Trump, marking the first time one of his four criminal cases has been dismissed entirely.

Cannon ruled that no federal law authorized Smith’s appointment.

“The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers,” Cannon wrote in a 93-page ruling.

“The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers.”

Cannon said that, after “careful study,” she determined that no legal statute grants an attorney general authority to appoint a federal officer with the “kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith.”

The rule of law takes another major hit from American radical right authoritarians. The enemy is in our midst, not some foreign invaders like Mexican rapists and drug dealers. The enemy is the kleptocratic dictator DJT, and his kleptocratic, authoritarian, Republican Party. Both are thoroughly morally rotted.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

A bit of initial fallout from the assassination attempt: Trump’s chances of winning have spiked to roughly 70 percent from 60 percent before the shooting attempt at betting site Polymarket. 

Poll analyst Nate Silver comments: 

It’s fine to say “I refuse to speculate” — but does that mean you think the consensus is misguided? Personally, I have no basis to think the consensus is wrong here. You can get cute if you like and try to draw historical analogies, like to the assassination attempts against Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 or Ronald Reagan in 1981 (which produced a sharp but short-lived boost in his approval ratings). But I think that’s barking somewhat up the wrong tree. In the present moment, this at the very least makes Trump much more sympathetic and undermines the implicit premise of the Biden campaign to restore order and stability to America,

There are, however, two major sources of uncertainty. One is whether the Trump campaign will take the high road or the low road. In rare possession of the moral highground, will Trump ask the nation to come together? Or, like one of his potential VP picks, Senator J.D.Vance of Ohio, will he plunge us further into darkness, blaming his political opponents for the attempt on his life? The high road is probably the more electorally rewarding course, believe it or not, especially given that Trump was winning to begin with. But candidates with authoritarian tendencies can obviously seize on moments like these also.

Do leopards change their spots?

It seems we are in store for a kinder, gentler Trump.  News reports are saying “he” has “rewritten” his speech with the motive of “bringing the country together.”

Link to article here.

What he’s saying: “This is a chance to bring the whole country, even the whole world, together,” Trump told the Examiner.

• The speech will be a lot different, a lot different than it would’ve been two days ago,” he said.

• “It is a chance to bring the country together. I was given that chance.”  

1. Do you believe it, that his goal is to "bring the country together?"

2. Is he just having a momentary bout of a “significant negative emotional experience,” something I always cite as a game-changer, with this weekend's assassination attempt on his life?  And in reality, this [kinder, gentler feeling] too shall pass?

3. What do you make of this new and improved DJT?  Are you buying it?  Should we “Give peace a chance?”

(by PrimalSoup)

Regarding support for political violence

A NYT article discusses support for political violence in the US:

A nationwide poll last month found that 10 percent of those surveyed said the “use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.”

Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago who has studied American attitudes toward political violence since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob, conducted a nationwide poll on the topic last month. It found that 10 percent of those surveyed said that the “use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.” A third of those who gave that answer also said they owned a gun.

Seven percent of those surveyed said they “support force to restore Trump to the presidency.” Half of them said they owned guns.

The shooting at Mr. Trump’s rally “is a consequence of such significant support for political violence in our country,” Mr. Pape wrote in an email. “Indeed, significant lone wolf attacks motivated by political violence have been growing for years in the United States, against members of Congress from both parties as well as federal officials and national leaders.”

Other studies on political violence have also found small but not insignificant numbers of Americans who support the idea of using violence to advance political ideas.

In October, the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, published a report that found nearly 14 percent of those surveyed strongly agreed that there would be a civil war in the United States in the next few years.

Nearly 8 percent of respondents to the study said they believed there would be a situation in the next few years where political violence would be justified and were intending to arm themselves.

One can wonder if the assassination attempt yesterday is going to influence some people into adopting a more pro-violence mindset. That seems to be more likely than not. 

One can also wonder if people who anticipate a coming civil war wind up being a factor in that actually happening. At this point, civil war still seems quite unlikely to me, maybe ~3% chance within the next 2 years and ~1% in the following 2 years. But, one recent poll indicated that 41% of likely U.S. voters believed the United States is likely to experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years, including 16% who considered that very likely.

At the least, a lot of people are thinking about major political violence.