Understood, and agreed.

So you’re suggesting we should apathize with these people.

If someone wants to deep dive with these groups to understand them, then fine do that, report that but the minute they start empathizing, there’s a problem. They’re killers, believers in turning parts of the human race into subhumans so they kill and reason their way out of murder. You do not empathize with that kind of position even if you want to know where they went to high school and whether or not they had luck with finding a job.

Sorry everyone, I keep forgetting to include a link to this when responding to Nesrie.

Well no. That’s why empathy and sympathy are different words.

Sympathy is not sharing; that’s expressing sorrow, compassion or even pity for someone’s experience not actually sharing it.

I am aware of your continued disdain. There is no need to keep expressing it.

The Hill, today: Poll finds sharp swing in opposition to impeachment among independents

OMG, let’s find out about this “sharp swing.” It must be a doozy!

The latest national poll from Emerson College finds 45 percent oppose impeaching President Trump, against 43 percent who support it. That’s a 6-point swing in support from October, when 48 percent of voters supported impeachment and only 44 percent opposed.

… Except, hold on, no, that’s not a “six point swing” in opposition to impeachment. According to the just quoted numbers, opposition to impeachment rose by … one percentage point (44% to 45%). What apparently changed is support for impeachment, which changed from 48% in the first poll to 43% in the second (note that even this is not a six point change.)

No doubt that must mean that “Don’t know” or “No response” increased from 7% to 13% (but neither the Hill article nor the Emerson polling press release bothers to tell us what this third residual category is, exactly.)

What The Hill seems to be talking about to get a swing of six points is the difference between the “oppose” number and the “support” number.

If by chance you wanted to talk about the arithmetic difference in these situations, you should always use the word “net.” For example, “favorability” for a candidate is the straight percentage of people saying they view a candidate favorably. “Net favorability” is that value minus the percentage who view the candidate unfavorably. These are very different concepts, which is why they have different names! (E.g. national favorabilty for Trump is 42.3%. But Trump’s net favorability is -11.8%, vastly different.)

Does this poll show a major, dramatic shift in attitudes? No, not necessarily. The poll (and the poll before it, to which it is being compared) has a margin of error of 3%, meaning there’s a 95% chance the values measured by the poll are within 3 percentage points of their true value in the population.

Imagine this as a possibility: the true values for “support,” “oppose,” and “don’t know” are 45.5%, 44.5%, and 10% respectively, and that those values have not changed since October. That possibility is indeed within the margin of error for both polls.

But “New poll shows public opinion more uncertain about impeachment, or possibly unchanged” makes a crappy headline. And since The Hill skews towards Trump (they had conspiracy theorist John Solomon on their payroll as a legit reporter) they turn a change in “don’t know” to a major upswing in opposition to impeachment.

Not a good look.

EVERYONE IS IN DISARRAY


Disarray is the new array.

Ohnoes*

And now … for the rest of the story - the pollster cited in this “news” article:

Firehouse Strategies Firehouse Strategies is a public relations consulting firm headquartered in Washington, DC. It was founded in 2016 by Republican strategists Terry Sullivan, Alex Conant, and Will Holley, who served on Senator Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign.

From their website:

WHAT WE DO Firehouse Strategies is a full-service public affairs firm that focuses on delivering targeted persuasion campaigns for a wide variety of corporate clients

*Not linking to Newsweek. Their entire business model now relies on “clicks” (which I suppose is true for most media these days, but they are especially egregious.) Google “what happened to Newsweek.” Here’s a taste:

Their first story is supposed to be filed by 9am, and before it can be written, the story must be pitched to an editor over Slack in the form of a headline. In theory, these headlines appeal both to a reader and to Google’s algorithms, but in practice the algorithm takes precedence. Editors sometimes suggest more viral headlines, or pitch headlines themselves using Google Trends or Chartbeat. (Lack of knowledge on a topic doesn’t stop them from assigning stories, which has led to Newsweek wrongly declaring that Japanese citizens want to go to war with North Korea and incorrectly reporting that the girlfriend of Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock was a polygamist.)

Ya know what? On some level I welcome this. Democrats should be fucking terrified.

You can relax when Trump leaves office.

You know what? Nah, you can’t relax then either. You need to be terrified all the time, now that you’ve seen what can happen. All of this shit was enabled by the Democrats resting on their laurels in 2010, which let the GOP start dominating politics at the state level, which gave them the power to then dominate politics at the federal level.

Folks need to go out and vote, every single time, even if they aren’t super jazzed about having a cool candidate. Sometimes you just gotta support doing the boring shit.

OTOH, it contributes to a narrative that trump is inevitable and a normal, electable* candidate.

(By the way, it’s not Democrats that should be terrified, it’s any sane person regardless of where they might fall on the political spectrum. Being terrified shouldn’t be the result of intentionally misleading coverage though. I mean, I’m terrified, but it’s not because of partisan polling data.)

(*Edit: Yes he’s electable since, well, he got elected. But in any rational universe he shouldn’t be.)

I’m all for maintaining a healthy level of paranoia that Trump may get reelected unless we work very hard to stop him. However, the shit Newsweek is pulling (and I’ve been increasingly baffled the stuff I’ve read there so it’s nice to have an explanation of why) is just wrong. Accuracy matters, period.

This is kind of a low-key “Wow” moment:

Sinclair appears to be getting off the train. I’m sure the higher ups maintain the same editorial/political views, but apparently local TV can’t sustain the advertising numbers to compete with FOX News national product.

I’m troubled by what they might consider investigative journalism.

Breitbart Truthseekers.

Good. I can go back to watching our local (Seattle) KOMO news again. Bad enough their parent company (ABC) is owned by Disney, the Trump/Russian propaganda segment (Bottom Line with Boris) was just too much.

I feel like the NoVA Sinclair station (WJLA) was sort of embarassed to run those segments. We watch a lot of the news on there and I only saw that run once, near the end of the 5 PM hour. And I swear the guy introducing it looked like he was only doing it because he was ordered to.

Was this a real thing?

Oh my God it is.
This guy is so bad. He sounds like a kid in Jr high doing school news. It’s so amateurish. It’s like he’s reading a teleprompter, but can barely read. He was paid for this? In money?