Election 2016

How Slate and Deadspin Are Voting

There are no Trump supporters in sight, but not everyone backs Clinton.

|

Two more publications have revealed how their staffers plan to vote: Slate, which has been showing its ballots since 2000, and Deadspin, which joined in this year. That brings the number of outlets that do this—or at least the number I'm aware of—to four. (Here at Reason we published our quadrennial voting forum last month. The American Conservative posted its participants' preferences last week.)

No one familiar with Slate will be surprised to hear that Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite over there. Only two Slaters dissented: Evan Urquhart is voting for the Green Party's Jill Stein, and Rachael Larimore is writing in Evan McMullin. (There are also three nonvoters. They're sitting it out for the Slatest possible reason: They're Canadian.) Slate broke up the monotony a bit by also asking about how people voted in the primary. Clinton won there too, but not quite as overwhelmingly: Nine backed Bernie Sanders and three were for John Kasich, with varying levels of sincerity. Here is John Swansburg's explanation for his Kasich vote:

In 2008, I felt the Democratic Party had two strong candidates in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, so before the New York primary I registered as a Republican simply for the joy of voting against Rudolph Giuliani. (I voted for John McCain.) Having lived my entire voting life in solidly blue states, this vote against Giuliani remains my greatest contribution to American democracy, one that has been further burnished by Giuliani's horrid role in the 2016 campaign as Donald Trump's hype man. I never bothered switching my party affiliation after 2008, mainly because I enjoy the quizzical looks I get from Park Slope poll workers when I tell them I'm a Republican. This year, however, my quadrennial meddling in the affairs of the GOP left me in a bit of a pickle when primary day came around. The New York ballot I was issued did not allow for a write-in candidate, so I was forced to hold my nose and cast a vote for John Kasich, a man I hold in no regard but who felt like the closest thing to a Donald Trump protest vote. (It was between Kasich and a meaningless vote for a zombie Jeb Bush.)

Deadspin, meanwhile, leads off its forum with Drew Magary's brief comment: "I am voting for Clinton, which makes me the most conservative staffer on this goddamn site." Second is Billy Haisley: "Voting's for squares." And that pretty much sums it up: The staff is divided between Clinton and Nobody, with one Clintonite stressing that he'll be voting for her on the Working Families line rather than as a Democrat. (If you don't know what that means, read this.) One man, Kevin Draper, says he's heading to the polls to vote for D.C. statehood; in the presidential race he'll "write in Piggy Poop Balls or something."

Bonus link: At the risk of bringing show-us-your-votes into too-much-information territory, here's a rundown of my preferences in presidential races going back to when I was a toddler. That account stops in 2012, so for the record: This year I have continued my habit of voting for the lesser evil, by which I mean the Libertarian Party.

NEXT: Time to start taking political ignorance seriously

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Imagine my surprise.

  2. At the risk of bringing show-us-your-votes into too-much-information territory, here’s a rundown of my preferences in presidential races going back to when I was a toddler.

    Upon review, I’ve decided that it was all downhill after ’72.

  3. Two more publications have revealed how its staffers plan to vote

    SRSLY?

    1. Subtle implication of Groupthink. Jesse’s always one step ahead of us.

    2. SRSLY?

      Sorry. One of those I-didn’t-finish-rewriting-the-sentence things. It’s fixed now.

      1. You should have just changed it to “it’s” out of spite.

  4. There are no Trump supporters in sight, but not everyone backs Clinton.

    I’m sure some of them are backing Stein,

  5. FWIW (which may not be much), 538 has FL, NC, and NV going to Clinton by >5% differential. That doesn’t totally surprise me but it’s a significant swing from even yesterday. Which probably just reinforces that they are “toss ups” as far as predictability is concerned.

    1. I’ll take action from anyone who thinks Fl will go to Hillary >5%. No limit.

      1. I may not have stated that correctly. I think they are saying that she has a 55 to 45 chance of winning FL, but that does not mean she will win it with 55% of the popular vote.

        I’m honestly a bit embarrassed that I’ve been checking 538 with some frequency. It’s absurd that they give probabilities with 0.1% precision and only contributes to the fetishism of data and predictive modeling in areas where it really isn’t appropriate. Do as I say, not as I do.

        1. It’s absurd that they give probabilities with 0.1% precision and only contributes to the fetishism of data and predictive modeling in areas where it really isn’t appropriate.

          It is weird, because Nate Silver obviously (when you read his analyses) understands probability. But then again, if you were really saying one in eight, but wanted to publish it as a percent, you might write 12.5%. One in eight is not really the same as predicting 125+/-1 of 1000 results will be a certain way, but unless you had professors beat that into your head, you might take a short cut. At least his models reflect a growing delta of uncertainty and monte carlo simulations. A lot of other sites want to say that because margins of error are all around 3% in statewide polls that the national certainty is 3%, which is absolutely false.

          1. I’ve always kind of been on Nate’s side on this. If the algorithm spits out 52.473854%, why not publish that number? If people can’t understand that this number is an estimate of underlying (but unknown) distribution, then it doesn’t matter whether you say 52% or “a little better than 50/50.” If they don’t understand what 52.473854% really means, then they don’t understand what the other two really mean either.

            That’s a heterodox opinion in my field, but I’m going to continue to hold it: publish the number that either fits normal conventions (EG, batting average to three digits, ERA to two) or just give the whole thing and let people do with it what they will.

            1. 538’s predictions are biased toward Clinton because they exclude Jill Stein from all their polling methodology, and I’m guessing Stein is pulling votes almost exclusively from Clinton.

              I’d trust Real Clear Politics on this, which shows FL, NC, and NV narrowly going to Trump.

  6. No! Not Deadspin! What will I ever do without their even-handed approach to politicizing sports?!

    1. I started listening to a Slate sports podcast a while back because I wanted a general purpose sports show and it got good reviews. That was a mistake, but if you want to listen to people who don’t actually seem to really like sports that much politicize sports, check it out. I’m giving up on it.

      1. WTF is this I can’t even.

        1. I stuck it out for a while because they cover topics outside of the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NCAA (I’m interested in all of those save NBA but it’s easy enough to get coverage elsewhere). But sports and entertainment is supposed to be an escape, not yet another area of culture to be taken over by signaling and moral preening about social justice issues. I should have known because Slate. Lesson learned.

          1. That’s why I listen to games on the radio.

          2. Find non-American covering it. I follow soccer more than the others so that’s easy.

      2. but if you want to listen to people who don’t actually seem to really like sports that much politicize sports, check it out

        Thanks anyway. I’ve already got ESPN.

      3. Yeah, that’s pretty much how all of the SBnation blogs are now. VOX gave the order to create a lot more content than the original bloggers wanted to produce so most the blogs are “staffed” with half retarded college kids that don’t really know anything about sports but definitely know how politicize everything.

        1. Hm, I don’t hang out on SBNation as much as I used to but I do checkout the Penn State blog from time to time and haven’t noticed this. Maybe it isn’t as bad on the team-specific sites. I just started listening to their all-purpose college football podcast (Solid Verbal). The first go seemed good.

        2. Grant Brisbee of MccoveyChronicles (SB Nation) is the only reason I tune to that site. He is the best sportswriter on the internet.

          But then Vox orders all of their sites to do their bullshit SJW crap, like It’s On Us, and they always seem so amazed when there’s pushback in the comments.

          I guess that’s why leftist sites are doing away with comments altogether, because you should just shutup and listen, not speak, peasant.

      4. if you want to listen to people who don’t actually seem to really like sports that much politicize sports, check it out.

        Let me guess: a bunch of smug, condescending elitist progtards bloviating about how stupid the hoi-palloi are with their love and beer and football. No thanks, I think I’ll pass.

        1. You NEED to care about concussions more than anything else ever!!!

          1. This is actually an undercurrent in pretty much every discussion of the football that they have. I think the words “moral implications of watching the NFL in the age of concussions” or something similar was uttered recently.

          2. I care about the NFL hiding the effects of concussions.

            But if a person isn’t being lied to about the risks and decides millions of dollars and fame is worth it, that’s their decision.

            1. “But if a person isn’t being lied to about the risks”

              The effects of concussions have been known for a hundred years Punch-Drunk was a term that was first used in 1837 if you want to tell me they’re being lied to your going to have to come up with some pretty serious evidence

            2. “I care about the NFL hiding the effects of concussions”

              Then you’re an idiot who has bought into some particularly stupid propaganda

              1. That’s a great way to start off a conversation, you pig faced asshole.

                1. That escalated quickly.

        2. Incorrect. A bunch of smug, condescending elitist progtards bloviating about how stupid the hoi-palloi are with their incorrect opinions about beer and football.

          1. My mistake. I forgot that it’s not enough to merely look down on the hoi-palloi, you have to also make sure to point out how wrong they are about everything.

        3. The refs are officiating like they hate Obamacare and black people.

      5. ESPN announcers have a side gig?

      6. Why not? I used to listen to people who don’t like video games that much politicize video games over on Kotaku. Gave it up many years ago and it felt like having hemorrhoids removed.

    2. I’ve tried to figure out every possible way to customize my Deadspin feed to just the sports.

  7. … in the presidential race he’ll “write in Piggy Poop Balls ….”

    Dang it. Now Almanian! has some serious competition.

    1. Piggy Poop Balls Fever: Catch It!

      1. That’s easy because it’s highly infectious!

  8. Why would anyone care about this enough to write an article for actual publication?

      1. And a beagle is a dog.

        Neither is an answer to my question.

        1. A dalmatian is also a dog.

          1. Hillary is a dog.

          2. I thought it was someone from Dalmatia?

        2. A blog is not an “article for publication” so your question, like life itself, is meaningless and stupid, Mary.

          1. Or Tulpa, whichever you are.

          2. “A blog is not an “article for publication””

            So this wasnt published?

            Oh, it was?

            1. Also, fuck yourself.

              1. Hey look, Cynical asshole is Jesse Walker’s mom.

                “Leave this stupid article my son got published ALONE!! ! “

  9. Why bother with this? Slate is (possibly unintendedly) transparent and who gives a shit who Deadspinners vote for?

    1. I’m more curious who the meatspinners are going to vote for.

      1. Trump spins them right round, baby, right round…

  10. They ran out of privacy ballot covers at the polling station, probably because old people put them in the voting machine, so everyone was just waving their ballot around and talking about the Vikings and whatnot. Old and penis = Trump. Young or vagina = Clinton. Just like the internet’s been telling me. Given the complete lack of interest in voting for the uncontested seats, I think either of the Koch brothers have a very real chance of hitting double digits in my precinct.

    1. …talking about the Vikings and whatnot.

      A bunch of Medieval history buffs at your polling place?

      1. They were talking about making the playoffs, so yes.

        1. That’s cute that they still they have a shot at the playoffs.

      2. Damn! No raping and pillaging on my ballots this year.

        I will have to head home and drink ale and talk about the other times that there was raping and pillaging on the ballot. Aaaaaarrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!!

        1. No raping

          Grabbing by the pussy?

          and pillaging .
          CF Donations?

          Yeah, OK, both are poor substitute for proper Viking raid.
          Wait, would you settle for Paula Jones and Eminent Domain?

  11. To The Polls Ye Sons Of Bitches!

  12. Who cares who the socialists at Slate and Deadspin are voting for. Every time someone clicks on their site they can claim that person loves what they are pushing.

    I am all for knowing what the enemy is up to but they get advertising revenue somehow from number of viewers.

  13. Whew…and here I was dying of suspense wondering.

  14. There are also three nonvoters. They’re sitting it out for the Slatest possible reason: They’re Canadian.

    HEY. Don’t associate us with Slate. Being Canadian is the best excuse to avoid the U.S. election.

    If you want Reason’s Canadian cred up you could always hire Lauren Southern…

    1. If you want Reason’s Canadian cred up you could always hire Lauren Southern…

      Ahahahaha. The very idea is hilarious. They’d have Neil MacDonald or Rick Mercer write a peace before they’d acknowledge Southern exists.

      1. Is Reason’s reputation that flippant? I mean, MacDonald?

        1. Before Southern? In a heartbeat.

      2. I can dream can’t I? A Reason where every Richman or Dalmia article is followed by Southern and Steyn? A Reason that respects its brothers in the North, rather than use them as a punchline? A Reason not for Zoolander, but one that Mackenzie and Papineau would be proud of?

        Screw it, I’ll make my own Reason. With blackjack, and hookers.

          1. No, you’ve already demonstrated you can’t write Canadian. Eh.

        1. Can I subscribe to Canuck Reason?

        2. Can i be your nemesis?

  15. “They’re sitting it out for the Slatest possible reason: They’re Canadian.”

    Could you say it with anymore disdain?

    1. No amount of disdain is sufficient for Slate.

    2. I think he means that the only reason a Slate voter wouldn’t vote for Clinton is because they are foreign. They just, you know, happen to be… Canadian.

      1. WHERE MY JOKE GONE?

    3. Yeah it’s not the Canadianiest possible reason.

  16. “I am voting for Clinton, which makes me the most conservative staffer on this goddamn site.”

    Hah, that guy knows what’s up.

    1. This made me miss AnonBot.

  17. My instincts suggest that unanimity (*at least in the sense of no one here outwardly voting Trump) usually means someone is lying.

    1. Or whoever does hiring is a good judge of character.

      1. Nope: unless you mean to suggest that political sentiments are typecast.

        I’m just saying its just as implausible as when nobody voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 in 9 philly districts

        There are always outliers. They are often created by the very projected unanimity around them. No one could listen to fellow office-workers talk about the same shit every day and not want to vote the opposite

        1. Neither of the publications that Jesse mentions in his post have unanimous support for any candidate/position.

          1. He’s saying it’s unlikely that none are voting for Trump, not that they are all voting for Hillary.

            1. Don’t mock Hugh’s reading problems. Parentheticals confuse and frighten him.

            2. Why would that be unlikely though? Is it really surprising that no one among a small group of journalists (a profession which tends to self-select leftists) would support a polarizing politician like Trump?

              1. Why would that be unlikely though?

                Should i simply repeat what i just said, or do you need it translated into a series of pictographs?

                1. I guess you could repeat it, but that still wouldn’t make it account for the counterpoints that I brought up. I guess your mouse batteries died before you could copy my whole response.

                  1. the counterpoints that I brought up

                    #1 “Ignores what was just said”
                    #2 “Expresses bewilderment”
                    #3 “rhetorical question which ignores points already made”

                    An intellectual cornucopia

                    1. Why is it implausible that there are no supporters of a polarizing, controversial, and unconventional political candidate among a small staff of people in a politically self-selecting profession?

                    2. No *admitted* supporters.

                    3. What evidence do you have that any of the respondents aren’t being honest about their voting intentions?

                    4. Read the very first words i wrote above and ask yourself why you’re asking that question.

                    5. I asked that question because I wonder if you have anything to go on other than your inability to conceive of alternatives to your own deeply retarded mindset.

                    6. your inability to conceive of alternatives

                      I can certainly conceive of a variety of possibilities. I just find some more plausible than others.

                    7. An intellectual cornucopia

                      Yeah, he’s got nothing on “I literally can’t imagine other people not being contrarian douches.”

                    8. he’s got nothing on “I literally can’t imagine other people not being contrarian douches.”

                      Correction = I can’t imagine at least *one person* not being one.

                      there’s a difference.

                    9. No one could listen to fellow office-workers talk about the same shit every day and not want to vote the opposite

                    10. Take yourself, for instance.

  18. Hmmm…. The rest of y’all probably didn’t notice this, but my analysis shows there doesn’t seem to be a single Trump vote among them. This is quite shocking that vibrant, free-thinking publications like Deadspin and Slate, with such massive diversity of gender, ethnicity, and political philosophy, would fall into this numerical pattern. Surely this must be the most nigh-impossible statistical anomaly that has occurred in the history of scientific inquiry.

    1. no no…..there are no “admitted” trump votes.

      Slate’s viewship is far higher when fragile progs need a safe space and echo chamber to justify their deep frustration that the Republicans ruin every attempt to make the world perfect. Slate was a goldmine during the Bush years. Less so, when the only enemy is the “obstructionist” Republican house and those two evil SCOTUS justices.

      Trump as POTUS would be an absolute goldmine for Slate. I fully expect management to vote Trump.

    2. Look, if 59 wards in philly can cast a 0% Romney vote, a couple of journalists at Slate and Deadspin can certainly register zero on the richter scale.

  19. They’re sitting it out for the Slatest possible reason: They’re Canadian.

    I lol’d.

  20. I had a couple youtube channels (like minutescience) post why they are voting for Clinton.

    Who the fuck cares what you think? Like when an athlete endorses a politician…

  21. I never bothered switching my party affiliation after 2008, mainly because I enjoy the quizzical looks I get from Park Slope poll workers when I tell them I’m a Republican.

    Ugh, everything about this is insufferable.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.