A.M. Links: Trump Attacks Graham and Flake, Bannon Calls Alt-Right a 'Collection of Clowns,' Philippine Drug War Kills 58 in 3 Days

|

  • Gage Skidmore / Flickr.com

    President Donald Trump took to Twitter this morning to defend his Charlottesville statements from criticism by "publicity seeking Lindsey Graham," "the Fake News," and "Flake Jeff Flake."

  • "President Donald Trump's decision to double down on his argument that 'both sides' were to blame for the violent clashes at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, was driven in part by his own anger — and his disdain for being told what to do."
  • New poll: 51 percent of Americans "disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president."
  • "In an interview he said he believed was private, Stephen K. Bannon described the alt-right as a 'collection of clowns' and lashed out at rivals in the Trump administration."
  • In the past three days in the Philippines, police have killed 58 suspected drug users or dealers.
  • Hong Kong student activists Joshua Wong, Alex Chow, and Nathan Law have been sentenced to six to eight months in prison.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Brickbat: Drug Cocktail

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. President Donald Trump took to Twitter this morning to defend his Charlottesville statements from criticism by “publicity seeking Lindsey Graham,” “the Fake News,” and “Flake Jeff Flake.”

    He sure has Graham’s number!

    1. Could have called him Graham Cracker and really set Twitter ablaze.

    2. Hello.

      Double down? This infers there was only one side to blame.

      To anyone with a brain bigger than a speck of dust of course there’s plenty of blame to go around.

      Idiots. I’m surrounded by god dang fuckenmother idiots.

      1. This infers there was only one side to blame.

        No, you infer; this implies.

        1. Somebody come watches the Big Bang theory.

          1. *i don’t know where that ‘come’ came from.

      2. And it doesn’t imply that there was only one side to blame. It implies that he’s very confident he will win and therefore he is willing to risk even more.

        That’s how blackjack metaphors work.

  2. “President Donald Trump’s decision to double down on his argument that ‘both sides’ were to blame for the violent clashes at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, was driven in part by his own anger ? and his disdain for being told what to do.”

    Now from a distance divine his IQ for us.

    1. No, no, do meyer-briggs first, extrapolate wildly, then do IQ.

      1. ESFP. 110.

  3. 51 percent of Americans “disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president.”

    He’s been doing the job of being president this whole time?

  4. President Donald Trump took to Twitter this morning to defend his Charlottesville statements from criticism by “publicity seeking Lindsey Graham,” “the Fake News,” and “Flake Jeff Flake.”

    Flake escaped being called Jeff Fake. He can breathe quite the sigh of relief today.

    1. I was going to say that it’s a real missed opportunity to have not used either “Jeff Fake” or “Fake Flake.”

  5. In an interview he said he believed was private, Stephen K. Bannon described the alt-right as a ‘collection of clowns’…

    Finally, we come full circle back to clown panic.

    1. You know who else associated clowns with Nazis?

      1. Jerry Lewis

      2. John Wayne Gacy?

      3. Killer Klowns from Outer Space?

  6. I don’t have time for this shit, I just found out there’s a large collection of Nazi memorabilia on public display in Washington, DC at some place called the Holocaust Museum and we’re marching to burn that mother down. Who’s with me?

    1. I will grab my tiki torch!

  7. In the past three days in the Philippines, police have killed 58 suspected drug users or dealers.

    Jeff Sessions pops a rare boner.

  8. “In an interview he said he believed was private, Stephen K. Bannon described the alt-right as a ‘collection of clowns’ and lashed out at rivals in the Trump administration.”

    Collection of clowns with accusations of violent behavior and rhetoric? Sounding the Jessie Walker siren.

  9. Jennifer Lawrence offers fans a chance to get DRUNK with her by donating to anti-political-corruption group – after asking them to help her identify white supremacists at Charlottesville march

    The 27-year-old has teamed up with the fundraising site Omaze to raffle off a trip to California’s vineyards, where one lucky J.Law-lover will get to go on a wine-tasting tour with the star.

    All hopefuls need to do is donate $10 or more to Represent.Us, an organization that fights political corruption ? and Jennifer even recorded a funny video to bring attention to the cause.

    I’d pop her cork, if you know what I mean.

    1. You would open a wine bottle for her? What a gentleman. I like House Crusty, even though its symbol is an open zipper.

    2. I’d cork her pop, if you know what I mean.

    3. I’d buy her a pop, if you’re from the part of the country that understands what I mean.

    4. I’d have sexual intercourse with her. But only in the biblical sense.

      1. Dude, the Bible describes some seriously sick sexual intercourse.

      2. You mean you’d let her ‘know’ you?

        1. You guys are way over-analyzing my dumb joke.

    5. She is such weak sauce, I wouldn’t fuck her with Bea Arthur’s dick.

  10. New poll: 51 percent of Americans “disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president.”

    Won’t this just make him say more things they don’t like? Think through this next time, poll responders.

  11. The Rise of the Violent Left

    Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office. Generally, they don’t even disclose their names.

    Kudos Peter Beinart.

    1. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office. Generally, they don’t even disclose their names.

      Yet, the unchecked damage they can do pales in comparison to the state.

    2. I thought this was an interesting article about the history of antifa and confrontations with neo-nazis and others they indentify as fascists: http://thefederalist.com/2017/…..ttesville/

      It’s amazing how far almost all media is going to avoid acknowledging that, at the very least, there were a lot of antifa types there looking for a fight. Even if they didn’t directly instigate any violence (I honestly have no idea if they did or not), they certainly deserve some blame for the situation turning into a riot.

      I listen to NPR a lot, out of habit and because it’s an easy way to get some basic news while I’m half asleep or driving. Their coverage of Charlottesville has been pretty badly slanted. This morning I heard for the first time something about antifa, including an interview with someone from some antifa organization who was pretty straightforward about the fact that they were there looking for a fight with racist groups. Which seems like pretty good support for the notion that both sides had people behaving badly. But still no acknowledgement of the fact in further reporting on the subject.

      1. The LA Times put together a piece with statements from people who were there, like journalists, protestors, etc.

        It is a mess, but each “side” had people looking to engage in violence, so violence happened. Also, they both seem to blame the cops for not stopping it, as if though a bunch of armored police swinging clubs and fists would have helped.

        If the modern-day Socs and Greasers want to throw down, they should meet at a Civil War battlefield and get it on, and leave the rest of us out of it.

        1. RIP Patrick Swayze

          1. No film describes the current times better than Roadhouse. It’s almost prescient watching it now.

            1. +1 Be nice

        2. I mean, I might be inclined to watch from a distance; they could sell tickets and raise money for their favorite Nazi/commie charities. Maybe rust use a sports stadium during the off season.

      2. This morning I heard for the first time something about antifa, including an interview with someone from some antifa organization who was pretty straightforward about the fact that they were there looking for a fight with racist groups.

        Antifans don’t even bother to hide the fact that they have violent motivations. They form ad hoc gangs specifically to seek out identified white supremacist groups and attack them.

        How Antifa hasn’t been declared a terrorist group itself is one of the most telling aspects of today’s society.

    3. Not a fan of PB, but I can respect writing like that. Thx, CJ.

      1. Nobody’s a fan of PB around here, but he keeps showing up in the comments anyways, like it’s his job or his calling or something.

        1. I enjoy PB with some J, though.

          1. We are not talking about Palin’s Buttplug?

            1. Peter Beinart, author of the article Crusty linked to.

    4. The movement to roll back the Enlightenment continues apace.

      1. ^This. Right here.

  12. Sex Allegations Rock GPD

    Two officers “had sexual intercourse with 17 members of the Gilroy Explorers, comprised of youth ranging in age from fourteen (14) to twenty-one (21). When their conduct came to light, [one] was demoted, but then ‘got his stripes’ back, while [the other] was allowed to resign.”

    ? “At office parties, GPD employees would throw their keys in a bowl and whoever pulled a key had sex with the person who owned the key.”

    ? The wife of an officer, who also was a department employee, proudly displayed her pierced genitalia to pool party guests, prompting several “mortified” mothers to leave with their children.

    ? That woman’s police officer husband, when they were engaged, “brought a Salinas police officer to ‘screw her’ while [he] watched. She later stated that she did not do it.”

    ? The same woman invited another officer to touch her breasts while they were in the Communications Center, and he did.

    1. The same GPD employee “kept a book in which she documented all of the sexual improprieties that occurred at the GPD, so that she could reveal the information should she ever be disciplined for her misdeeds. [She stated] ‘If she goes down, other people are going down with her.’ [She] also claimed that [her police officer husband] supported the fact that she was keeping a book.”

      ? At a Gilroy Police Officers’ Association Christmas party, “the female spouses [of two GPD officers] were outrageously intoxicated and were sexually touching both males and females including each other. Also, several people at the party were taking pictures of females exposing their private parts.”

      ? On a separate occasion, [an officer] showed sexually explicit photos that were inside a locker depicting GPD personnel groping [a communications staffer].”

      ? “For the first several years of his employment, [a male communications staffer] attempted to make sexual advances toward [Harrell] inviting her to come to his house?despite knowing [she] was married with 4 children.”

      ? The same man “engaged in sexual activity with other GPD officers and employees, and attempted to have sex with men by luring them to his house with the promise of ‘wild’ and ‘crazy’ women and alcohol. When women did not show up, [he] would tell the male guest, ‘Let’s get naked while we wait’.”

      1. I’m assuming there’s a statement to the effect that this is being investigated to see if procedures were followed, perhaps to see if more training is in order?

      2. Its all that garlic, I guess.

      3. Most of that seems kind of whatever. If only more police officers stuck to fucking each other.

        1. Police are just in the habit of fucking the little guy.

  13. Anybody attacking Graham and Flake will have my support.

    1. Yet even more proof that you are in fact Reason’s most erudite commenter.

      1. Erudite: someone that is habitually rude over an electronic medium.

    2. So, I guess you are a big fan of Hillary and Obama now.

      1. When compared to McCain’s mini-me brigade…few are more detestable. I voted for Bob Fucking Barr over the disaster-to-be that was Obama because McCain’s vendetta against the First Amendment is too much for me.

    3. What did the Graham Cracker say to the Frosted Flake?

      “Dude, I’m not kidding, I’m super cereal right now”.

  14. Assange still says Russia didn’t do it

    Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

    1. I saw a fascinating interview of him in which he practically named Seth Rich as the source before backing off and playing coy.

    2. Well jeez, if he can prove it, why doesn’t he do it already?

  15. I seem to remember there being parades and parties in 1997 when Hong Kong returned to China after 400 years. You mean to say there are people who are upset by it now?

    1. HK became British territory in 1842 after the one war in history that is pretty much the libertarian wet dream of just wars – to legalize opium, justified in the name of free trade, and conducted mostly by the private sector

    2. There were many people concerned about the merger as well. It was a tense time. As China puts more restriction upon them I expect tensions to ratchet. Hong Kong is a place that knew freedom and success so removing it from them will be noticed.

      1. The Brits are the ones who put the cronyist ‘functional constituency’ system in place. That’s the system that the democracy protestors are protesting since it gives the wealthy and the corporations they own and the special interests they represent and the money in their bank accounts multiple votes and sets aside 30 of the 70 legislature seats for them. And they get to select the ‘Chief Executive’ too. So basically 3% of the population in HK controls the entire govt for their personal benefit.

        And most of the ‘human rights provisions’ that the Brits put in place for the transition had never existed in Hong Kong before. The Brits put them in place to fuck with the Chinese – create new ‘rights’ for people, enshrine them as Basic Law, and then hand it over to someone else so they get blamed for cracking down on any dissent. Clever – but pretty damn cynical.

    3. There were also a whole lot of people who emigrated from HK while they still had British passports and could easily move to the UK or other commonwealth countries.

  16. Who is this Stephen K. Bannon calling the alt-right a bunch of clowns? Is he related to Trump’s chief strategist, the Nazi white supremacist Steve Bannon who created and leads the alt-right?

    1. That term “alt-right” still strikes me as meaningless. Mainly because I still don’t know what it means. As such, I’ve never used it and I probably never will.

      1. Thus endeth the Tautology.

      2. Alt-right means evil, just like proggie.

        1. Alt-right is Neo-Nazis, right?

          Nazis are lefty socialists.

          So…..

          Its lefties fighting among themselves and they are so stupid they think they are fighting conservatives and winning against Trump.

          1. See what I mean? You guess lefties is interchangeable with proggies.

            1. Lefties bugs the little socialists more than proggies does, so I sticking with lefties for now.

              1. Keep on keeping on, numbnuts.

      3. It means alternative right.

        You’re welcome.

        1. Thank you.
          Still meaningless.
          But, thank you.

  17. The A.C.L.U. Needs to Rethink Free Speech

    The A.C.L.U. needs a more contextual, creative advocacy when it comes to how it defends the freedom of speech. The group should imagine a holistic picture of how speech rights are under attack right now, not focus on only First Amendment case law. It must research how new threats to speech are connected to one another and to right-wing power. Acknowledging how criminal laws, voting laws, immigration laws, education laws and laws governing corporations can also curb expression would help it develop better policy positions.

    Your daily terrifying reminder that free speech is always under assault, and that some people who graduated from law school are retarded retards from retardtown.

    1. Christ, what an asshole.

      Speaking of which, why are you not using your Citizen X handle, Citizen Crusty?

    2. K-Sue Park needs to rethink “free speech”.

    3. When you encounter “holistic” in an argument regarding the Constitution, feel free to tune out.

  18. Hong Kong student activists Joshua Wong, Alex Chow, and Nathan Law have been sentenced to six to eight months in prison.

    Hong Kong, you’re Beijing’s now.

    1. They need another Wong to make this right.

      1. I see some potential for a Hu’s on first skit.

  19. What’s So Generous about Spending Other People’s Money?

    Believing in the ability of big government to solve problems doesn’t make you any better than the people who believe in shrinking government to solve them; it just means that you have a different view of economics. And the politicians who promise to “give” you health care, welfare, and other benefits in exchange for votes aren’t really promising to “give” those things at all; they’re promising to take resources from others in order to fulfill their promises, without ever having to feel the pinch themselves.

    1. Oh, you just like Timpf.

      I’d prefer to see “big government” less often, though I understand she may be writing to an audience that laps that up.

  20. “In an interview he said he believed was private, Stephen K. Bannon described the alt-right as a ‘collection of clowns’ and lashed out at rivals in the Trump administration.”

    After the interview he proceeded to paint his face white, put a red nose and wear big-sized shoes before going out o to the street.

    1. I don’t think Bannon needs to put on a clown nose.

  21. “President Donald Trump’s decision to double down on his argument that ‘both sides’ were to blame for the violent clashes at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, was driven in part by his own anger ? and his disdain for being told what to do.”

    “They can’t tell me they’re bad Nazis. Who do they think they are? I’ll show them! I’ll show them all!”

    Toc! Toc!

    “Mr. President? Are you all right?”

    “Yes, yes, I’m just finishing freshing up. I’ll be right out!”

    /He grins.

    “It’s show time!”

  22. The comments at Politco….jesus fucken christ. How do these people get up in the morning without hitting their heads against the headboard or door? Or poke their eyes with a toothbrush? It can’t be people are this hyper-derp.

    That’s what happens when you go to FB for a comments section I guess.

    You get splendid retardation.

    1. You should hang out at Bratfart.com with morons like yourself.

      1. Ignatius,

        With what part of this do you disagree?

        “I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It”

        1. I’m a free speech absolutist and ACLU donor.

          I’m for freedom on everything including issues conservatives oppose freedom on (abortion, drugs, prostitution, other blue laws, prohibitions on Sunday activities) and issues progressives oppose freedom on (guns).

          1. I couldn’t tell from your commenting history.

            1. It was just yesterday you asked when I had been critical of Obama and I mentioned he was dead wrong on Citizens United.

              CU was rightly decided and a victory for free speech. Obama wrongly maintained it was about campaign finance – position McCain also held.

              1. You have centuries of commenting history here. I’m talking about the aggregate.

              2. Another brave, already born pro baby killer.

      2. /shoves unsalted cracker down mouth.

        Shhhh, itsokay.

  23. New poll: 51 percent of Americans “disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president.”

    So 49 percent approval? That’s way up from 33.

    1. Or 16% of people answer ambiguously or have no opinion.

    2. Same polling outfit that said he wouldn’t win?

      1. Yeah, but even they cannot deny that Trump is gaining support especially with all these lefty nutjobs tearing down historic markers.

        1. Trump is gaining support especially with all these lefty nutjobs tearing down historic markers.

          So Trump supporters are just as idiotic and tribal as the people who think Trump has anything to do with the white-supremacists. Good to know.

      2. How many times do I need to put the boot up your ass about the differences between approval polling and polling for electoral results?

          1. You forgot the margin of error.

  24. “In the past three days in the Philippines, police have killed 58 suspected drug users or dealers.”

    Or, you know, just people they don’t like. We won’t know until the posthumous trials have concluded.

  25. After this week’s horrors, both in Charlottesville and on twitter, we can totally relate to those victims of oppression and authoritarianism in China and the Philippines.

  26. “New poll: 51 percent of Americans “disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president.””

    Newer poll: 37%* of people sitting in my office think stupid-ass polls like this hold any value. I’m pretty sure that I could just make up a number and it would hold as much meaning and as much statistical significance as polls like this.

    * this was a notably odd result considering I’m the only one in my office. This poll has a margin of error of +/- 58%.

    1. The big downside to his crumbling approval rating is that he has become toxic on tax reform too – the only issue he could actually help the country on.

      Our best chance for tax reform was in 2013 with Simpson-Bowles but conservatives and progressives killed it despite the support of the POTUS.

      1. You will get to have a heart attack again soon when the 2018 budget is revealed and all sorts of lefty programs are cut including NPR.

        Then tax reform and then ObamaCare.

        Then it will be time for Trump inauguration again in 2021.

        1. And his 2018 budget will be greeted with roughly the same response as every other presidential budget for decades. The media will make it out to be the most important political event in centuries, the opposition will commence with the wailing and gnashing of teeth about how it’s the apocalypse, the supporting party will proudly masturbate and brag about how this will solve all the world’s problems.

          And, in the end, nothing will come of it. Eventually, a continuing resolution will be passed to maintain the current spending approvals.

          1. Curt|8.17.17 @ 11:47AM|

            Spot on comment.

            Yet Trumptards like “lovecons” will keep the faith.

            1. They should have called the Nazi group in Charlottesville: Socialists Unite.

        2. Trump’s budget doesn’t mean shit.

          And he loves lefty programs like Medicare – or was he lying on that too?

          The GOP won’t cut shit. They never do.

          1. We’ll see. You and your lefty friends are getting nervous about though.

            I see articles ditching the SJW socialists and Nazi socialists nonsense for upcoming budget cuts.

    2. I find the results believable. I also would find it believable that 80% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, or that 75% of Americans wake up every morning thanking god that Clinton isn’t president.*

      *including atheists

    3. this was a notably odd result considering I’m the only one in my office.

      Given this information, may quick back-of-the-napkin calculation says you should have come up with 35.6 percent with a margin of 63.7 percent. You may want to double check your math.

      1. I’ll double check the polling data.

    4. So, what are you saying about polling? Do you think that it is impossible to accurately gauge public opinion, or just that the polls aren’t done well, or are slanted? Or is it something specific about approval rating polls?

      I find the results quite believable, but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily statistically valid.

      People like to cite the failure of polls to predict Trump’s election. But didn’t at least some polls close to the election actually get state-by-state results (i.e. the ones that actually matter) correct enough to predict the outcome?

      1. Scientific polls are a leftist fake media conspiracy. Conservatives prefer to just know things without evidence – like Creationism.

        1. Scientific polls can be plenty useful. Assuming that every random statistic published is indicative of a scientific poll or taking a single data point out of its larger context: now that’s just silly.

          I agree with you on the second point though… you just should’ve listed more examples like anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, anti-vapers, anti-nuclear energy, etc.

          Oh wait…

          1. I can’t think of one single prominent anti-vaxxer or anti-GMO politician.

            I know that somehow that is supposed to show that liberals are as stupid as conservatives are but you’ll have to find another example.

            And Obama is strongly pro-nuclear energy.

            I like how conservatives fight against moonbat liberal strawman who only exist in the Green party fringe.

            1. I like how conservatives fight against moonbat liberal strawman who only exist in the Green party fringe.

              No you don’t. You’re just a dope who likes saying stupid things. In fact, I’ll bet you’re one of those people who talks because you like the sound of your own voice.

            2. Jill Stein.

            3. “I can’t think of one single prominent anti-vaxxer or anti-GMO politician”

              How about a group instead of one single?

              “Last March, Senate Democrats killed a bill that would have prevented the mandatory labeling of GM foods. On the surface, this sounds like a victory for consumers?But the problem is that since GMOs are completely safe, to slap what amounts to a warning label on them is unnecessary, and could unjustly damage a vital industry.”

              https://geneticliteracyproject.org

        2. You’re retarded.

          The salient point is that approval ratings are meaningless to electoral success. It doesn’t matter how much people say they disapprove of Trump when they disapprove of his democratic challenger even more.

          As for leftists being retarded, have you been following the news lately? Sexual dimorphism denialism has become an inviolate plank for lefties, and unlike creationism, their refusal to accept that biological sex isn’t a figment of the Patriarchy’s imagination has actual policy consequences.

      2. Well, I think it might hold some value when we see the results of a single poll that is administered regularly in a consistent way. Observing the change over time might be interesting. As it stands, most of the time we just see that poll X provided some data point. Then, a week later, we see that poll Y provided another data point of slightly different data with a different methodology. For example, this week we learn 51% disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president. Last week, I roughly remember something about a 30% approval rating. Next week, we’ll see something else about how 62% of people polled disapprove of Trump.

        The slight differences in what’s being polled mean they don’t relate to each other. In the absence of some trend data, the only thing I take away from this particular 51% stat is that he’s pretty unpopular. I can gather the same information by spending a minute or two interacting with any other human.

        1. Following the link, I see that the poll does provide some history. It shows that the 51% figure is within the margin of error for the rest of the time that he’s been president. The only notable change is that it bumped up to 55% on 8/16 and then back down to 51% on 8/17.

          Generally, all I see from the poll is that there was a slight bump to his disapproval on 8/16. Otherwise, his approval/disapproval numbers are pretty consistent with what they’ve been for his entire presidency. That communicates a rather different message from just saying he has a 51% disapproval rate.

          I agree with you that I find the results completely believable. I’m just saying that I don’t think they tell me anything useful (particularly when the 51% figure is all that’s mentioned).

      3. In a more general sense, I am also skeptical of the methodology of these polls. For one, I think they are pretty vulnerable to selection bias. I think the people who actually respond to surveys like this are skewed based on ownership of landlines, willing to answer calls from random numbers, willing to not hang up immediately when they realize what the call is, willing to take the time to answer the survey questions, etc…

        Also, answering a lot of their questions requires a willingness to conform your opinion to a false binary. That survey has a question of “Do you think statues honoring leaders of the Confederacy should remain as a historical symbol or be removed because they are offensive to some people (or unsure)?” I would have to firmly say: none of the above. Not “unsure”… none of the above.

        1. Thanks. I’m not sure what to make of polls a lot of the time. There are definitely a lot of slanted polls such as you describe. Sometimes I answer polls, but as soon as it becomes clear that they are designed to produce a particular result, I hang up.
          I think that there are several polling orgs that do try to do it properly and scientifically. But there’s still the problem of self selection and call screening that you describe.
          Still, I like to think that there is some way to know about public opinion that isn’t completely anecdotal. I think you are right that looking at changes in poll outcomes is probably more useful than the absolute numbers.

          1. Actually, pretty interesting to me that you say, “sometimes I answer polls”. That implies you’ve gotten multiple calls like that and responded to multiple polls. I wonder if you made it onto some kind of list of people who will actually answer polls. I’ve definitely never answered a phone poll. To my knowledge I’ve never been called. But, I haven’t had a landline for 15 years and I don’t answer the phone for random, unknown numbers.

            The only person I know that says they’ve answered a political phone poll is my mom. And, as near as I can tell, that was just calculated for the purpose of complaining to me that she just wanted to talk to someone on the phone because I don’t call enough.

            But, yeah, I generally agree about knowing/measuring public opinion. My BS detector tends to go off when I see it boiled down to a single number in a headline.

            1. I live in NH and have a land line phone. We get pretty heavily polled (and robocalled, and lots of annoying crap) in presidential years. And I’m registered with no party, so I’m probably on a lot of lists.

        2. I think the people who actually respond to surveys like this are skewed based on ownership of landlines

          You do know that ownership of a landline phone is strongly correlated with age, so that to the extent a pollster fails to correct for the ownership issue, it skews the polling sample older, i.e., whiter and more Republican, right?

          1. Yeah. I don’t actually have anything to back it up, but I assume that the different factors that I mention will correlate fairly well to party affiliation along those lines.

    1. The Washington Post is talking about The Nation. How long before CNN reports on The Washington Post talking about The Nation? And then, how long before Fox News reports on CNN reporting on The Washington Post talking about The Nation?

      1. A terrifying spread of Nation-alism.

      2. I guess the media gave up on “anonymous sources” and decided to use other media outlets as sources for their nonsense.

        1. That’s been the fake news game all along.

          Only the originating Media refers to anonymous sources. After that, Pete and rePeat just refer to “The Nation is reporting this morning that…’ without any reference to the veracity or integrity of the original story.

          Next level, various Media do stories like: “Several News Outlets are reporting….”
          Now that the report is twice removed, there is no need to refer to any source. This makes it sound like the Several News Outlets have diligently confirmed each other’s stories.

          Now, the talking heads can take the Fake News furiously jackoff with it until you the viewer gets a face full of funky spunk.

          It reminds me of how dog-shit CDO’s were recycled and sold as something legit back during the bubble/crash.

  27. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.