Friday, August 18, 2023

Thursday Tweets -- There is no K in 'Kenya' [deferred because a certain company sucks]

Guess what. If you start a post in HTML view while embedding you tweets, then switch to compose view to edit, rearrange, and add comments, then switch back to HTML to add one more tweet, be careful not to hit control-z, because it will undo everything you did in compose and you can't control-y it back.

Let's start with the best show on Twitter... its owner trying to get out of fight club with some portion of his dignity.


 

I suspect that Elon was hoping that Zuckerberg would play along and let him off the hook, but Zuck had apparently had enough.

So Musk is in "somebody hold me back" mode.  


 In a quote tweet of this Walter Isaacson post, New York Times Pitchbot commented "One of America’s most respected journalists."

 Blogger does strange things so just in case it decides to crop the tweets image, here's the original.


Elsewhere in the world of the site formerly known as Twitter.




Seguing to another member of the PayPal mafia,


And bigger news.




Jeff Gerth is the same credulous, ignorant, ill-informed hack who brought us Whitewater. The NYT created him. It is poetic justice for them to now know how he treats his subjects.




"Shock and outrage over the fall of Roe v. Wade has faded as confusion has spread, deflating Democrats’ hopes that the issue could carry them to victory"




"Oops, I made a mistake" doesn't entirely set things right for helping bring the country to the verge of fascism.

 

Because when you're defending your decision to spend big money addressing climate change, the last thing you want people talking about is climate change.



I'm a little more bullish on RD than Frum, but it is amazing how the consensus has shifted.


Normally, it's not the defendant who has the option of 'moving on'



Basically, Dean Phillips just wants attention.


We've said before that Loeb has been feeding his considerable reputation into the woodchipper. Now he's found the best network for it.

The Internet Archive does good, important work, particularly as preservationists. I give them money. You should too.


Adventures in AI





Notes from academia.



And in closing...
Posted by at 2 comments:

Thursday, August 17, 2023

Reposted because Disney is actually spending serious money on an Emmy campaign for a show that 47 people saw

 [And because Blogger just ate the post I had just finished.]



Thursday, February 16, 2023

If a TV show runs in the city and nobody sees it...

When I came across this article from New York Magazine (technically the Cut, but you know what I mean) on on Fleishman Is in Trouble, I had originally intended to do a post making fun of the many passages like this.

Since leaving New York, Beth has found herself in tears at least once a week. She makes $300,000 a year — more than she’s ever earned in her life — but she’s running out of minutes in the day to squeeze out more dollars. “How do I make the $700,000 that I’m going to need to send her to private school or do the renovation in the attic so I can turn it into the master suite so I can have a tub and so I can have one thing I enjoy in my life?” she says. Her takeaway from the show: “Both avenues are shit. You can stay in New York and climb, climb, climb and never get where you need to go and give yourself a nervous breakdown, or you can move to the suburbs and be like, Who the fuck are these pod people? Neither seems great. Is the secret to it all that we have to just choose a lane and embrace it?” 

The national press, particularly publications with "New York" somewhere in their name), never tire of telling us about the financial and emotional hardships faced by the bottom half of the top one percent. By the standards of the genre, the NYM piece lacks the hilarious budgeting assumptions explaining how a middle class couple can find it hard to scrape by on $300,000 or the stunning cluelessness of a Bret Stephens who thinks a couple in SF making $400,000 are lucky to manage a Camry, still it's hard to beat lines like "so I can have one thing I enjoy in my life." 

But as I started to read up on Fleishman, I started thinking this story might fit better with another long running thread.

The series has gotten a ton of coverage...


... which means (and I apologize for disillusioning some of our less worldly readers) Disney is spending a ton on PR. The streaming industry runs on hype and easy to promote awards bait play a big role.



Whenever you're reading about these shows, the first question you should ask is "how many people are actually watching. (The second question is "who owns the IP?"). It's often difficult to find out -- streaming services are secretive about these numbers -- but FlixPatrol is probably as good as we'll get. Here's their list of Hulu shows ranked by viewership for 2022.

For a sense of what is popular, here are the top 20. (check out number 5)

1.         Family Guy    
2.         P-Valley    
3.         The Kardashians
4.         Power Book IV: Force    
5.         General Hospital    
6.         Law & Order: Special Victims Unit     
7.         Bob's Burgers     
8.         Power Book III: Raising Kanan     
9.         House of the Dragon
10.       The Chi     
11.       Euphoria
12.       Power Book II: Ghost    
13.       9-1-1    
14.       Love Island     
15.       Only Murders in the Building
16.       Grey's Anatomy     
17.       Abbott Elementary     
18.       The Patient
19.       The Good Doctor    
20.       This Is Us     

 If you go down the list (or use control-F), you find FIiT at 97 out of 119.



Though we can't say exactly how many viewers it takes to get to position 97, we can be pretty sure it's a very small number by TV standards. You almost have to wonder... If you took all the people who wrote articles about Fleishman Is in Trouble, and all the people quoted in those pieces, is it possible you'd have a majority of people who actually watched the show?


 

Posted by at 2 comments:

Wednesday, August 16, 2023

Both sides is like a religion

This is Joseph.

I had mistaken Mark liking Ken White for liking Josh Barro (easy to do, they both do the same podcast). After some mild editorial correction, I think we agree on his latest substack article struck as being a very odd way of thinking. 
When Hunter’s plea deal first came out, Ken White and I discussed it on Serious Trouble, and Ken’s take was that the deal was pretty lenient for Hunter. While not out of the realm of possible plea agreements for a similar alleged offense, Ken said that a misdemeanor plea for failing to pay the amount of taxes at issue in Hunter’s case would normally result in a recommendation for several months in jail, rather than the probationary sentence the government recommended.

Regardless of why prosecutors were initially willing to make this deal — and keeping in mind the possibility that they were willing because the deal was never intended to be as sweet as it looked, because prosecutors intended to reserve the right to prosecute Hunter for other crimes like violating the Foreign Agents’ Registration Act — I think it would be good for the country to see a child of the president go on trial for evading taxes. At a time when a former president is multiply indicted and his company has already been convicted of tax crimes, such a trial would serve as a useful reminder that nobody in either party is above facing the law, and that even the president’s son can go to prison.

So there are two sets of charges.  One, is a gun charge based on a law that has just been ruled unconstitutional by the 5th circuit of appeals. Now, perhaps this will be reversed, but recent Supreme court precedent does not makes this the strongest of charges. The tax charges are rarely charged and failing to pay taxes due to financial issues is hardly a major crime. The plea agreement looks good if you include the firearms charge but pretty reasonable if you include two tax misdemeanors, where proving intent is likely to be hard. 

Now, proving intent was hard with Former President Trump looked hard too, bit recent discoveries of evidence like calling Pence "too honest" and bragging the he could have declassified information but did not really change the narrative here. I will still be surprised by a conviction in the documents case, or any conviction at all, really, but I see how one might meet this burden here. Perhaps they have similar statements from Hunter Biden. 

But these seem like very different issues. In one case, the addict relative of a prominent person gets a special prosecutor for what looks like tax misdemeanors. In the other, it is the former politician themselves with so many charges it is hard to keep them all straight. It isn't like this is Joe Biden, Obama, Clinton, or Pelosi -- no member of the Democratic leadership is involved. 

Besides, it is not a case where optics should be the issue. The issue is whether justice is being served and it seems like the opposite of fair given the speed and intensity of the charging decisions versus the  gravity of the crimes. 

That said, I do think a trial makes the most sense here. The charges have a lot of uphill battle associated with them and the ambiguity seems clear cut for a trial to resolve. But the special prosecutor piece is just strange. How many special prosecutors do you think are appointed for minor tax crimes? 

In this case I agree with Elie Mystal that this was perhaps not the optimal approach and that maybe this is a lot of high profile government resources for very minor crimes. Mark added this helpful point of context as well, which really does bring out the absurdity of it all:



Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, August 15, 2023

$259.71

Streaming has been a case study in bubbles and hype. There was an wave of scripted productions, everyone was talking about being part of the next big thing, and huge checks were bouncing around. Unfortunately, almost all of that money went to the studios, the producers, a few stars, and a handful of big name directors. Almost none of it made it to the rest of the actors, the writers (except for writer/producers who own a stake in their series), and the other creative people behind the movies and shows. 

I can hear some of you in the back of the room saying "just another day in Hollywood," but while it's true that all these things have happened before, the streaming era has taken all of them to unprecedented level. The production budgets, the tens of billions for marketing/PR, the credulity of the press, the fanciful accounting and earnings projections, the magnitude of the astronomical paychecks and the disparity with all the other paychecks.  

 

Ethan Drogin writing for the LA Times.
In America, unprecedented success begets unprecedented wealth. When Michael Jordan wins six championships or Mark Zuckerberg invents social media, they earn billions.

And not only them but also their teammates — the people whose contributions weren’t just meaningful but necessary. In success, they get paid, too.

But not in Hollywood. Here, when you write for a show that becomes an unprecedented success, there is no such windfall. There is only a check for $259.71.

It doesn’t matter whether the show you helped build generates 3.1 billion viewing minutes in one week across Netflix and NBCUniversal’s Peacock, setting a Nielsen record. It doesn’t matter whether said show constitutes 40% of Netflix’s Top 10.

$259.71: That’s how much the “Suits” episode I wrote, “Identity Crisis,” earned last quarter in streaming residuals. All together, NBCUniversal paid the six original “Suits” writers less than $3,000 last quarter to stream our 11 Season 1 episodes on two platforms.

Another important piece of context. As we've mentioned before, while the streaming "originals" generate almost all of the hype and consume all but a sliver of those tens of billions allotted for marketing/PR, viewers on streaming services spend most of their time watching old network shows like NCIS, Seinfeld, and Friends. Some basic cable shows like Suits also get great numbers.

Often the streaming industry operates under an insane loss leader model where the money-losing products meant to bring them in the door cost so much they drive the companies deep into debt. It's talent like Drogin that actually drives viewership.


Posted by at No comments:

Monday, August 14, 2023

The New York Times' new Trump narrative certainly is a conversation starter

Today's headline story. How Trump Benefits From an Indictment Effect by all the usual suspects (a.k.a. Jonathan Swan, Ruth Igielnik, Shane Goldmacher, Maggie Haberman) starts out OK, but a few paragraphs in hits a really bad patch, one of those infuriatingly flawed and self-serving arguments that will pick at you until you put it all down.

I tweeted the offending passage with a short thread and was planning on writing a post this evening...

 [The "flattering segments" link to the same Tampa Bay Times article we quoted in our post a year ago.]



... but the thread sparked a discussion that covered all the points I wanted to make, probably in a more interesting way. Here are some highlights.


[The process definitely started before November 2022, but otherwise yeah.]


Posted by at No comments:

Friday, August 11, 2023

Deferred Thursday Tweets -- come for the politics, stay for the cow

Apparently, we've gone from being the most skeptical about DeSantis's chances to being... not exactly the least , but a bit reluctant to say it's all over. I wouldn't give him good odds of getting the nomination, but this is black swan season and compared to not-Trump candidates like Ramaswamy, he may still be the leper with the most fingers.







Wait till they find out about Chaucer.




Matthew Yglesias has been showing up on our radar quite a bit recently, and not in a good way.












Like small children when you laugh at their attention getting devices.




















Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, August 10, 2023

It is virtually impossible to have a productive debate with someone who believes one of the points of contention is absolutely and axiomatically true.

 From YIMBYs keep winning by Matt Yglesias

But the core YIMBY thesis that quantitative restrictions on housing production are costly to the economy and harmful to society is true. The upshot of this is that a lot of smart, highly engaged people want to express negative sentiments about YIMBYism that don’t involve directly contradicting the core YIMBY thesis since they are too smart to deny its veracity. The result is a lot of tone-policing and concern-trolling where people express the idea that YIMBYs are doing this or that wrong, ideas that normally amount to “I wish you’d be less focused on your goal” or “I wish you’d do more to align yourself with my camp in the polarization dynamic.” 

The tragedy of YIMBYists is that they are right most of the time about most things, but most of them (almost all of them writing for publications like the NYT, Vox and the Atlantic) think like Yglesias. If he had given us something here, some qualifier, some acknowledgement of complexity of housing, city planning and development, then we would have some common ground to build on.

Yes. restrictions on housing tend to bad in general, but there are exceptions, and the school of YIMBYism that currently dominates the press has arguably been on the wrong side of at least some of them.There are cases where lifting restrictions causes serious ecological damage, imposes disproportionate costs on the poor and people of color, actually increases commuting distances, encourages development in areas that will soon be targets of managed retreat, can lead to weaker fire safety rules, and has other unintended consequences. It's also possible that the focus on market based solutions can drown out arguments for other approaches.

Here's a relevant thread.

Yes, YIMBYs can be worse than NIMBYs -- the opening round of the West Coast Stat Views cage match 

Yes, YIMBYs can be worse than NIMBYs Part II -- Peeing in the River

Yes, YIMBYs can be worse than NIMBYs Part III -- When an overly appealing narrative hooks up with fatally misaligned market forces, the results are always ugly. 

Did the NIMBYs of San Francisco and Santa Monica improve the California housing crisis?

A primer for New Yorkers who want to explain California housing to Californians

A couple of curious things about Fresno

Does building where the prices are highest always reduce average commute times?


It's entirely possible that all these arguments are overblown and we should just do what the NYT NIMBYs say, (particularly in Canada where things are really bad) but deciding on the right policy is far more difficult when the side with the dominant voice in the debate won't even allow for the possibility that the other side might have a point.


Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, August 9, 2023

When it comes to politics, there's almost no real data journalism, just narratives and drunkards' lamp-posts*

* "They use statistics like a drunkard uses a lamp-post, not for illumination but for support."   **

Actual data journalism, where the story comes from the numbers and the journalist tries to explain what they're saying, is the exception in political reporting. What we generally get is narrative journalism where the data serves strictly as a drunkard's lamp-posts. Two recent examples, the first from the NYT.

[This picks up directly from Friday's post, so if you missed that you might want to go back and get caught up before proceeding.]

A year ago, the political press was all abuzz about how badly Trump was doing and how great DeSantis was doing. Their primary evidence was a poll that had the former president leading the governor 49 -- 25. Recently, the same crowd was abuzz over a new poll which had Trump over DeSantis, 54 -- 17.

 In absolute terms, this is not that much of a change. Trump improved by five points; DeSantis dropped by eight, but somehow when journalists, often the same journalists, analyzed these two polls, they managed to come to almost completely opposite conclusions. 49 meant that Trump was imploding, he was effectively out of the game, it was all over but the shouting. 54 meant that Trump was triumphant, he had the nomination wrapped up, it was again all over but the shouting.

 As we pointed out at the time, that 49-25 didn't actually look very good for DeSantis. By the same token, the 54-17 doesn't look as bad for the governor as everyone seems to think. After months of pretty much being the only rival that Trump has been focusing on, despite blistering attacks, DeSantis remains securely in the beauty pageant runner-up slot. If for any reason the pageant winner is unable to fulfill her duties as Miss GOP, the first runner up will step into the job. Since there is a real chance that for reasons of health or incarceration, Trump might drop out or be forced out, this is not a bad place for Ron to be. 

When you add in a rally round the flag effect that may or may not be fleeting, the polls haven't actually shifted that much but they are being used to serve a completely different narrative. Keep in mind, in 2021 and 2022, at least after January 6th, the general consensus was that Trump was effectively dead in the water. Even if you had put aside his legal troubles, he was now branded a loser and conventional wisdom had it that his loyal cult would now start to abandon him. Around the same time, the Rupert Murdoch empire with considerable help from the establishment media of the New York Times, Politico, Slate, etc decided that Ron DeSantis was the perfect choice to replace Trump as a far-right but still conventional candidate. There were a few voices in the wilderness such as Michael Hiltzik of the LA Times pointing out the flaws in this line of reasoning, but they were almost entirely ignored. Now things are different.

Print the narrative. When the narrative changes, print the new narrative.

Perhaps the mother of all modern political narratives is Dems in disarray. We could find countless examples of bad data analysis supporting this one from the pages of the New York Times, but it is hard to beat this recent example from Politico. Emphasis added.

By Jessica Piper [Sam Stein contributed to this report.]

One of the best online fundraising days for Democrats this year was the day of Joe Biden’s campaign launch — but even that day’s haul was meager compared to his campaign kickoff four years ago.

That’s among the findings of an analysis of fundraising for the first half of the year through ActBlue, the party’s primary donation processor. Small-dollar giving at the federal level totaled $312 million in the first half of 2023 — a drop-off of more than $30 million compared to this point in the 2020 cycle. The platform also had 32 percent fewer donors in the second quarter this year compared to four years prior, although its total fundraising increased slightly due to several factors, including more recurring donors and greater giving to non-federal groups.

How do you go from a slight increase to a a full-bore the-sky-is-falling story about a funding catastrophe? You employ those two old standbys of data cooking, arbitrarily limited range and comparing to a spike. In this case, the tip off is "federal." If you look at the big picture, fundraising is going pretty well. If you only look at the federal level, there is a drop, but only because the situation four years ago was completely different.

Think back to 2019. We were in the middle of perhaps the most wide open democratic primary in living memory. There were at that point over 20 reasonably serious competitors, all of whom were aggressively fundraising. 

This pretty much explains the "massive" hit. The money that was going to the primary has now shifted to places like Wisconsin where it can do the most good. If the journalists were following the data, the narrative would be "dems in array."

 Print the narrative.

 

** The original analogy goes all the way back to A. E. Housman who was talking about manuscripts rather than statistics. That isn't relevant to this post but is too cool to leave out.

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, August 8, 2023

"Congress is too credulous on UFOs "

If you're looking for a good brief overview of the UAP (UFO) hearings, this CNN piece by Jason Colavito is an excellent choice. Colavito has been on this beat for years, doing grounded, well-researched, and appropriately skeptical work.

On Wednesday, former military intelligence officer and so-called UFO “whistleblower” David Grusch testified to a House Oversight subcommittee that he had heard from other unnamed officials that the US government has a secret program to recover and reverse engineer non-human spacecraft.

...

In a statement after the hearing, the Pentagon disputed Grusch’s testimony and emphasized that it has found no evidence of crashed saucer programs or space aliens. We can’t entirely rule out the possibility that Grusch discovered something real. Certainly, pilots see things in the sky they don’t understand. It’s also very likely that the Pentagon isn’t completely transparent about all of its advanced aerospace programs. The trouble is that Grusch’s stories are, in all likelihood, not evidence of non-human activity.

...

These stories have circulated in UFO circles since the 1940s. Declassified documents show that during the Cold War, the government repeatedly recovered items first reported as UFOs that in fact were meteors, industrial waste, hoaxed objects and human-made technology. So there were “crash retrievals” — just not of alien ships.

...

For the past several years, Grusch has been working alongside a network of government-adjacent UFO believers (many now working for defense contractors or UFO think tanks) who have been sources in stories about flying saucers and dead aliens across the media and in the halls of Congress. You might have seen some of them on cable UFO shows like “The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch,” in which a former Pentagon UFO analyst who served on the task force that helped write the government’s 2021 UFO report now leads a reality TV crew hunting harmful, disembodied quantum “hitchhiker” entities, one of which he claims attached itself to him. It would be funny, except that the Pentagon regularly employs believers in space ghosts and Congress listens to them.

Eric W. Davis, a physicist and longtime UFO researcher, briefed the Pentagon and Congress on the same supposed crash retrieval programs a couple years back. None of the evidence he or Grusch provided over the past few years, however, has been enough to convince Congress — as credulous as some members have been — that aliens are here. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who has helped lead the charge in Congress for UFO research, recently told The Los Angeles Times that she hadn’t seen definitive evidence of aliens.

One complaint: the quantum hitchhikers are nowhere near the craziest thing the Skinwalker crowd believes in.

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, August 7, 2023

We've got more UFO content coming so I thought I'd set the mood

The Invaders was a 60s sci-fi show from Quinn Martin created by the great exploitation auteur, Larry Cohen. It was sort of a mash-up of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and QM's recently completed the Fugitive.


 

Tom Nichols (yeah, that Tom Nichols) recently wrote an appreciation of MeTV's late night line-up and here's what he had to say about The Invaders.

The Irwin Allen festival is a truckload of cheese (except on the Land of the Giants planet, where it wouldn’t be enough for one hors d’oeuvre). But at 5 a.m., you have the opportunity to catch up on one of the greatest science-fiction programs ever made, a paranoid thriller from the Quinn Martin factory: The Invaders.

The Invaders took the idea of a lone person spotting aliens out in the boondocks, but then asked: What if that one person, instead of being some idiot out fishing in a swamp, was actually a really smart and brave professional and he wasn’t going to take no for an answer when telling his story?

They cast the very intense Roy Thinnes as the hero, architect David Vincent. The show had a real air of menace, not least because the invaders were indistinguishable from humans, but also because they had some scary tech, including a little gizmo that could kill you without a trace by inducing a heart attack. Over the course of the series, David starts gaining the upper hand, even at one point saving a town by negotiating a truce with the invaders. This was pretty intelligent stuff and it’s a shame the show never had a proper finale.


Posted by at No comments:

Friday, August 4, 2023

(Almost) one year ago at the blog -- what the NYT was saying about DeSantis twelve months ago

 But first, what they're saying now...

Trump Crushing DeSantis and GOP Rivals, Times/Siena Poll Finds
    by Shane Goldmacher


The twice-indicted former president leads across nearly every category and region, as primary voters wave off concerns about his escalating legal jeopardy.

Former President Donald J. Trump is dominating his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, leading his nearest challenger, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, by a landslide 37 percentage points nationally among the likely Republican primary electorate, according to the first New York Times/Siena College poll of the 2024 campaign.

Mr. Trump held decisive advantages across almost every demographic group and region and in every ideological wing of the party, the survey found, as Republican voters waved away concerns about his escalating legal jeopardy. He led by wide margins among men and women, younger and older voters, moderates and conservatives, those who went to college and those who didn’t, and in cities, suburbs and rural areas.

The poll shows that some of Mr. DeSantis’s central campaign arguments — that he is more electable than Mr. Trump, and that he would govern more effectively — have so far failed to break through. Even Republicans motivated by the type of issues that have fueled Mr. DeSantis’s rise, such as fighting “radical woke ideology,” favored the former president.

Overall, Mr. Trump led Mr. DeSantis 54 percent to 17 percent. No other candidate topped 3 percent support in the poll.

Below those lopsided top-line figures were other ominous signs for Mr. DeSantis. He performed his weakest among some of the Republican Party’s biggest and most influential constituencies. He earned only 9 percent support among voters at least 65 years old and 13 percent of those without a college degree. Republicans who described themselves as “very conservative” favored Mr. Trump by a 50-point margin, 65 percent to 15 percent.

Other NYT headlines from just the past few days include phrases like "With DeSantis Reeling," "As His Campaign Craters," "A Reeling DeSantis." (Apparently, they like that word.)

The paper's political analysts feel that 17% is a poor showing for a candidate, and I would be the first to agree. I do, however, feel compelled to point out that this is the same team who thought 25% was really impressive.

 

Wednesday, August 24, 2022

I shouldn't have to say this but a 49-25 poll is not good news for the 25 (and it gets worse)

First off, the decision of the New York Times to even conduct a presidential poll more than two years before the election is irresponsible and bad for for Democracy. It distracts from important conversations and, since the data are largely worthless,  its main function is to introduce noise into the conventional wisdom. 

 But while the data are not worth wasting any time analyzing, the analysis in the NYT piece by Michael C. Bender is worth talking about, and I don't mean that in a good way. This represents a disturbing throwback to the wishful analytics of the second half of 2015, showing that many data journalists and the publications that employ them have learned nothing in the past seven years.

Back in the early (and not so early) days of the last Republican primary, 538, the Upshot, and pretty much everyone else in the business were competing to see who could come up with the best argument for why being consistently ahead in the polls was actually bad news for Trump. These arguments, as we pointed out at the time, were laughably bad.

Just as being ahead in the polls was not bad for Trump in 2015, the results of this poll (to the extent that they have any meaning) are not bad for Trump in 2022. When elections approach, parties tend to converge on whoever has the clear plurality, and 49% is a big plurality, particularly when a large part of it consists of people who are personally loyal to Trump rather than to the GOP. On top of that, 53% of self-identified Republicans had a "very favorable" opinion of the former president and 27% were "somewhat favorable."

80% favorable is a good number.

Politically, this is a time of tumult, and all predictions at this point are little more than educated guesses, but given the losses and scandals Trump had seen by the time this poll was taken, his support was remarkably solid, which is the opposite of how Bender spun it.

And it gets worse

Here's the headline and the beginning of Bender's piece. [emphasis added.]

Half of G.O.P. Voters Ready to Leave Trump Behind, Poll Finds

Far from consolidating his support, the former president appears weakened in his party, especially with younger and college-educated Republicans. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is the most popular alternative.

By focusing on political payback inside his party instead of tending to wounds opened by his alarming attempts to cling to power after his 2020 defeat, Mr. Trump appears to have only deepened fault lines among Republicans during his yearlong revenge tour. A clear majority of primary voters under 35 years old, 64 percent, as well as 65 percent of those with at least a college degree — a leading indicator of political preferences inside the donor class — told pollsters they would vote against Mr. Trump in a presidential primary.

Notice the phrase "GOP voters." That 49% refers to the respondents who said they thought they would vote in the Republican primary. Among that group, those who identified as Republicans went for Trump over DeSantis 56% to 21%.

If we're talking about who is likely to be nominated (which is, as mentioned before, an incredibly stupid and irresponsible question to be asking more than a year before the election), people who say they are going to vote in the primary are a reasonable group to focus on, but they cannot be used interchangeably with Republicans, which is exactly what Bender does.

While we're on the subject, this was a survey of 849 registered voters, so when we limit ourselves to those who said they were going to vote in the Republican primary then start slicing and dicing that, we are building big conclusions on a foundation of very small numbers.



And it gets worse. [Emphasis added]

While about one-fourth of Republicans said they didn’t know enough to have an opinion about Mr. DeSantis, he was well-liked by those who did. Among those who voted for Mr. Trump in 2020, 44 percent said they had a very favorable opinion of Mr. DeSantis — similar to the 46 percent who said the same about Mr. Trump.

Should Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Trump face off in a primary, the poll suggested that support from Fox News could prove crucial: Mr. Trump held a 62 percent to 26 percent advantage over Mr. DeSantis among Fox News viewers, while the gap between the two Floridians was 16 points closer among Republicans who mainly receive their news from another source.

Here's a fun bit of context. Fox has been maxing out its support of DeSantis for years now.

Steve Contorno writing for the Tampa Bay Times

(from August of 2021):

The details of this staged news event were captured in four months of emails between Fox and DeSantis’ office, obtained by the Tampa Bay Times through a records request. The correspondences, which totaled 1,250 pages, lay bare how DeSantis has wielded the country’s largest conservative megaphone and show a striking effort by Fox to inflate the Republican’s profile.

From the week of the 2020 election through February [2021], the network asked DeSantis to appear on its airwaves 113 times, or nearly once a day. Sometimes, the requests came in bunches — four, five, even six emails in a matter of hours from producers who punctuated their overtures with flattery. (“The governor spoke wonderfully at CPAC,” one producer wrote in March.)

There are few surprises when DeSantis goes live with Fox. “Exclusive” events like Jan. 22 are carefully crafted with guidance from DeSantis’ team. Topics, talking points and even graphics are shared in advance.

Once, a Fox producer offered to let DeSantis pick the subject matter if he agreed to come on.

If I were DeSantis's campaign manager, this poll would scare the shit out of me. Fox has pushed him to a degree unprecedented for a politician at that stage of his career. He has also gotten tremendous (and appallingly credulous) coverage from the mainstream press, but he just doesn't register. I know political scientists and data journalists don't like to talk about things like personality, let alone charisma, but for whatever reason, DeSantis has not made much of an impression.

It's possible cataclysmic events (of which we're seeing a definite uptick) will hand the Florida governor the nomination or maybe even the presidency, but if this poll had any meaning, it would be bad new for him and good news for Trump.

And it gets worse.

This wasn't just an article based on worthless data sliced ridiculously thin wishfully analyzed to get conclusions completely at odds with the actual numbers; this was an influential and widely cited article based on worthless data sliced ridiculously thin wishfully analyzed to get conclusions completely at odds with the actual numbers. It instantly became a fan favorite among political journalists.

The article was published on July 12th and immediately became part of the conventional wisdom. A little less than a month later, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago, and the "Republicans are moving on from Trump" voices suddenly grew quieter, as even the highest ranking party members responded with unhinged accusations and threats of retribution. Though the pundits desperately wanted to believe otherwise, they  had to acknowledge that the GOP still belongs to Donald Trump.

 

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)