Rich Lowry editor of National Review has a sanguine take on the idea that America is getting ripped off because of tariffs.  See the article here. Basically he seems to be saying that because under the current trade regime America is the envy of the world and has a commanding economic presence (ed note: for now) that system must be good for us. He offers some statistical references to supposedly prove it. The article was written a couple of days ago at NRO and distributed in other publications – note possible pay wall at NRO (reflecting balanced trade no doubt).  Anyway he believes that the high tariff scenario will diminish our economic standing.

Our views here at Veritas PAC about the direction of Trumps trade maneuvers are supportive from their monetary policy possibilities as well as establishing strategic independence .

And so to Rich Lowry, here are some we think countervailing points:

We admit to coming from a nationalistic mindset, call it tribal if you want. We are for more fare or reciprocal tariffs in order to help keep extensive productive capacity in operation in our country and not in theory (as Lowry perhaps suggests is good enough) on the presumption that the variety of components necessary,  skilled soft resources, raw materials and infrastructure are or would be readily at hand, just flip a switch or something.

When we had more doctrinaire free trade sympathies we did not realize the dark downsides and implications it creates — one world government —  “world trade federations’ world health organizations, G summit this and G summit that, none of them to be trusted as they are hallmarks of heavily managed society inuring to one-world government and bureaucratized to the extent one must get permission to do something from Belgium rather than say Bismarck where people are governed by a freedom protecting Constitution.

Raw statistics particularly measured in dollars as we are finding out can hide a lot –how valuable are those dollars when the country that supposedly stands behind them in some way is so much in debt — many many many trillions at a minimum. That we just keep printing more and more money may not be a good reflection of economic activity even adjusted for inflation. If the medium of exchange we promote is not accepted how much is our wealth? And differing with Lowry, when as they say the SHTF, country X might be in need of something more edible than our software. And indeed our society and our families, our culture must be well protected, and in house as to primary needs because without them in the short term many could be dead.

For me the nationalistic sentiments (which have many fathers) referred to as MAGA and its trade policies are about vulnerability in a world that is still volatile. They are about not being a patsy – financing other countries socialism even if it is a downfall for them — because entertaining their lifestyle is long-term pathogenic for both of us. It is about not enhancing or being dependent on other nations for production while our capabilities not merely deteriorate but become lost.

One country doing and selling what they do best and buying from another country what they do best is the mantra of globalism which human nature being what it is is a stalking horse for one-world government to monitor and police the agreements. Of course cheater countries abound because they take the logical progression seriously and are not about to abide by it for their own countries’ broader based industrial survival.

Rich you refer to “more tech and aerospace, less shoes and textiles” as key to our supposed economic health. But the tech (including aerospace) can be and is copied. Our aerospace is to a great extent military oriented and that is also used to protect freeloaders’ lifestyles.

By your lights why should we produce any shoes or textiles? We can “simply” go to India for them right? All manner of countries with their own specialty thinking it can hold the others hostage, no problem. Mutual assured destruction?

Given the dearth of manufacturing jobs and related spinoffs all those remaining workers can learn code right?   We do not think that is the formula for a country’s survival.

0

0

Scott County Republican Central Committee (SCRCC) candidate for Chairman Chuck Brockmann , a current Vice-Chair of the county party, responded to a letter he directly ascribes to current Chairman and candidate for reelection Jeanita McNulty.  Her letter responded to an invitation sent by Brockmann to SCRCC members inviting them to a meeting identified as a “Chuck Brockmann for Chairman ” event as somehow surreptitious.

We  posted  that letter with our comments earlier in the week. As we pointed out the letter was signed Scott County Republican Party — not under any personal signature but for which we have no doubt was at least authorized by McNulty.  An irony was that the putative letter from McNulty decried Brockmann for implying a meeting was an official act of Scott County Republicans (when it did not) by way of implying her letter was a formally approved action.   More of our comments follow Brockmann’s set forth below:

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: Chuck Brockmann <[email protected]>                                                 Sent: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:50:53 -0500 (EST)                                                                     Subject: Chuck Brockmann’s response to Jeanita’s email

Fellow Scott Republicans and Supporters,

Chuck Brockmann here, I’m running for Chairman of the Scott County Republican Central Committee executive board in the upcoming election on March 6th.  I’ve read the email Jeanita sent out today and her information is full of false accusations and slanderous lies.

For those that have not seen this email, I have attached it for you.  I encourage you to read it as it represents the exact political nonsense that my team and I will end after we win the election.  It is a desperate attempt to hang on to political power and I am terribly sorry she chose to send it to you.

At this time, I will only address one thing, my team and I will support and encourage all Central Committee members to remain neutral throughout the primary election process.  After the primary, we encourage everyone to support the winner.  We must unite and defeat the Democrats, and we can only do that together.

If necessary, I will address the rest of her falsehoods.

My team and I look forward to serving all of you on the Scott County Republican Central Committee.

Chuck

Our comments in the previous post were sent to current Chairman McNulty at her G-mail address and to the official G-Mail address of Scott County Republicans.  In those comments we inquired as to on what basis the organization’s bona fides were used — had (her) letter been vetted by at least all members of the Executive Committee. We have received no response to date from her or the “Scott County Republican Party”.

We support Brockmann to be the new Chairman of Scott County Republican Central Committee for his commitment to openness with  committee members and he will  facilitate the ability to contact one another.  McNulty’s insular approach to meetings and proprietary attitude toward committee and delegate membership communication avenues is straight out of participation killing “Control Mongering 101” , which is on the resume of every party incumbent sycophant. It is unbecoming to all members and only aggravates any animosity, helping no one.

+1

0

• What the GOP did particularly right — overwatch of voting processes

• What “they” did wrong — not playing rope-a-dope and keeping Biden in the race and spending so much time on hectoring about the mechanism of voting instead of inoculating the vote early on

Our General Observations: 

We agree that the GOP election process overwatch nationwide, along with marginal legislative efforts at insuring voting integrity (primarily in red-states), were key to reducing Democrat cheating, en masse anyway. But the other emphasis by the GOP of promoting the idea of voting by mail was against interests of the integrity of the vote and complicated the overwatch. Also, but for “vote by mail/ bank the vote” being such a resource hog, the vote might have been better for Trump and for GOP gains in congress with a relocation of resources to better expand the vote for Trump and in the process demoralize the Dem vote. 

Let us elaborate a bit more: **

We do not want Republicans or independents cheating on a onesy-twosy basis matching Democrats at their game.  At home voting means no photo ID at time of vote, and no overwatch as to coercion-intimidation-falsification or substituted judgment (voting for someone else) and no contemporaneous observed signature. It is absolutely the most insecure way of voting and then at the other end it has to rely on signature verification and lengthier counting periods complicating validation and overwatch. Signature verification is a joke anyway.

The GOP apparat says they won with vote by mail and banking efforts in that regard. Our view is that typical of credit grabbers they just love the paid hustle, whatever it is. Resources spent repetitively hectoring people to vote early by mail cuts into motivational and expansive messaging and availability of funds for early messaging to inoculate the population and grow the GOP base.

People know how to vote, if they are interested they will vote. Voters in the 1960s and 70s voted at as high or higher a rate with a relativly minuscule amount of vote by mail, less voting opportunities in person, less transportation availability and voting largely constricted to one day.
Make people interested. Put patriotism in them, educate them, expose the Democrats as a party, begin in early spring even February promoting party alongside primary election messaging by candidates (which will help those candidates be more consistent in their messaging) .

We also believe it was/is a phony claim to say that “banking the vote” saves money. Id like to see an audit validating that claim. My view is it wastes money assuming people do not know how to vote. Every repetitive sentence used to hector or explain how to vote early by mail is wasted breath that cuts into motivational messaging.

As previously mentioned it cuts into growth messaging and funds to do so. As long as one person in a household holds to voting securely, which means voting in person and holding to the good-government concept of voting no more than a few days before Election Day — that household continues to receive all the stupid hectoring because “bank the vote” — never mind that it is the HOUSEHOLD being hectored.

The intimidating tone goes that if you “bank the vote” “we” won’t “have to” continue to contact you with breathless information on how to vote early by mail. Oh they tried to fine tune it with vote records but the “we see you have not voted” big-brotherism is endemic and the general ads and admonishments continue unabated, — wasted messaging on all but a very few. It is narrow messaging that hits the voted and the high propensity just the same, forgoing actual growth and suppression messaging for messaging about the mechanism and timing of voting. They used guilt as well, insufferably trying to instill guilt for not voting early – now suddenly de rigueur. Door knocking to encourage voting is fine, but giving people the bum’s rush, inculcating vote-by-mail is against good-government interests.

It should be understood that Trump 47 is only a plurality president (albeit he did better than Trump 45) not breaking 50% with Harris being only 1.5% behind him. Why so many who can read the results keep saying Trump “won the popular vote” I do not know. He was the most popular of the various candidates but somewhat more voters preferred someone else.

Arguably key to his strong plurality win is not that Trump was so overall enthralling (he brought unnecessary negatives to the table affecting leaners) but that the Democrats found someone worse than Hillary in the form of Kamala Harris and the utter failure of the Biden-Harris administration on the economy, the border, the culture and foreign policy. The majority of voters in fringe parties might have given the actual popular vote to Harris although thank God and the system Trump would have still won the electoral college and thus the election.

It is frightening that the Dems did as well as they did. Nearly half or more of the country went for a Marxist, more clearly so than ever before, along with so many leftist congressional candidates.

Several of the GOP nomination candidates would have beaten dementia Joe Biden, but Trump in the biggest potential GOP political blunder of the election, helped bring in Kamala and reenergize the Dems and thereby arguably limit coattails in the election.
Agreeing to debate Joe against protocols and thus helping expose Joe and knock him out of the race was stupid, certainly not 4D chess. With Biden the Dems were totally demoralized. Trump should have let sleeping dogs lie and not agreed to Biden’s own stupid bravado. All he had to claim was “protocol” but I guess we could not expect that from the guy who refused to debate his Republican challengers reserving his own debate bravado for a dementia ridden Democrat. It was impulsive for Trump to agree. He should have mustered the discipline to let Dems be saddled with Joe.

With a replacement for Dementia Joe they were able to raise probably $2 billion and kept hope alive . . . they found themselves stuck with Kamala but it was quite possible they could have picked another candidate by perhaps buying Kamala off, like she did with Oprah and Beyonce and “influencers”. That Dems could keep their vote in line as much as they did with Kamala, they could have done so with someone else. Maybe not, maybe so.
But the most secure thing to do for us was run against Joe and also best for the down-ticket races. The Dem’s problem of being saddled with a still really bad replacement candidate was their mistake not Trump’s brilliance. And not having Biden as Trump’s opponent arguably prevented an actual popular win by Trump.

Getting off track a bit as to the messaging battle, the Dems tried to win on abortion which was/is a big part of their problem. Abortion was all they used but it only helped hold a small part of their base, that element was still likely to vote for Harris and Dems anyway. Abortion produced an abortion of a campaign.

Anyway, there should have been no Democrat wins in a CD that went for Trump. As it was there were 12. True, the GOP picked up votes but I believe the failures and distaste for Democrat performance increased GOP trends (a relative concept) more than whether people voted early by mail.

Messaging and now organic distaste for Dem’s suppressed Democrat vote. Good messaging is more important than voting early by mail because good messaging both suppresses the opposition and enhances the GOP across the board. Weakness in the opposition was more important in 2024 than voting early by mail.

So now we have the narrowest of majorities in the Congress. I am grateful we have majorities at all but the situation is dicey, to say the least. I think we would have done better congressionally, long and short term, running aggressively as a party (however Trumpish in tone) against the Dem Party, against anyone connected to the Democrat party for all their egregious failures. Maybe just 3 or 4 CD’s might have followed but we need every bit of such a margin.

So the apparat is crowing and remains big on “early”, perhaps putting a damper on federal efforts at reform. I only accept that “early” is good when it comes to starting and then sustaining inoculating messaging. But this go-around that would have had to begun “early” at a time when the apparat was falling all over themselves saying ~~ we have this now, we will beat them with “early voting by mail” ~~ their mechanism — wasting resources on related stupid messaging ad nauseam.

Voting Republican is what is key, whenever it is done. Voting by mail does not increase the vote. Your opposition having eggregiously bad candidates suppresses their vote and having a better alternative candidate (we had that) and exploiting the difference with messaging is key.

By the way, further marginalizing the situation in Congress, at least temporarily, is Trump raiding some of the incumbent and reelected personnel. To the extent they come from GOP areas still means more money must be spent on those races rather than “banking” that money and using it to sustain the effort of change with supportive messaging and holding GOP incumbents feet to the fire.

*It is certainly arguable but we believe Stein votes would have virtually all gone to Harris or not voted. RFK votes were so calcified his support of Trump so well known, that these diehards would not have voted for Trump or Harris and likely not voted. Same for Oliver — hard core Libertarians had problems with Trump and they are impractical and hidebound. “Other” vote totals and write-ins cannot be predicted.  Source of totals:   https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2024&off=0&f=0&elect=0

**  This commentary, slightly edited here was also part of a comment to Townhall this day.

0

0

All three went for Trump.

Maybe G*d hasn’t given up on the USA just yet

This appeared around 430PM on Tuesday November 5th., facing East.  Photo credit to RN.

0

0

Selzer’s full record not as pristine as leftist admirers believe

Referencing Selzer’s final poll prior to the 2024 General election, the one she was so wrong about Trump v Harris, Fox reports she published that:

In the 1st Congressional District, 53% of respondents said they preferred the Democratic candidate, while 37% said they would vote or have already voted for the Republican. Democratic challenger Christina Bohannan, therefore, has a 16-point lead over Republican incumbent Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks in their 2022 rematch contest.

The actual result was that Republican Miller-Meeks has prevailed albeit narrowly, nevertheless indicating that besides Trump Selzer was 16 points off in her final poll for that race.

In 2022 Selzer early October released her poll of the statewide race for Attorney General, Republican challenger Brenna Bird  was said by Selzer to be 16 points behind Tom Miller, the longest serving AG in the country. According to the DMR’s own article:

Forty-nine percent of likely voters say they would vote for Miller, a Democrat, compared with 33% who choose Bird, a Republican.

money shot comes later and it isn’t pretty

Brenna Bird defeated Miller by 1 point , making for a 17 p0int fiasco of a poll for Selzer.  True, it was not Selzer’s final poll of the race which then showed a much closer race (still with Brenna loosing) but not to pick up the trend just a couple weeks out is a fools gold standard. There is a game that can be played by pollsters, to bolster or deflate who they want to earlier on, and in order to achieve some credibility provide a more professional poll in the one that is used for comparison to actual voting results — the final poll.

/////

Regarding the June 2010 Republican primary, Selzer showed Bob Vander Plaats at 29%  against then former governor Terry Branstad who she showed at 57%  — a 28 point spread.

https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=325152

The primary results were Vander Plaats ~~ 40.9% Branstad 50.3 %.   She was off by 18.6 points — clearly unable to evaluate for that race who was likely to turn out, where a candidates support was likely coming from, or lacked any ability (or perhaps desire) to reach them.

////

Election lawyer and columnist Orly Taitz produced a chart of Selzer’s performance:

Pollster Ann Selzer was off by as much as 10.5% in prior elections

From the chart, some other races Selzer was in significant error :

In the 2008 Presidential general election Obama v McCain her poll was off 7.5 from the election results which was outside the margin of error for her poll. In the 2006 Iowa congressional race of Braley v Walen she was off 9+, comparing final poll to election results. In the 1998 Vilsack v. Lightfoot race her final poll was off 10 pts to actual.   In high profile contentious races either Republicans don’t like to talk to pollsters like Selzer or she is using unrepresentative respondents or has more fliers than her sycophants realize.

0

0

REPUBLICANS GAIN US SENATE AND KEEP  US HOUSE*

Trump beats Harris by 13+% in Iowa = over 214,000 votes.

Des Moines Register’s Ann Selzer on suicide watch (see previous post).

Miller-Meeks ekes out another squeaker,

 Trump wins Scott County for first time  

Abortionists, where is thy sting.  Everyone on your billboards here won reelection handily Vondran- Kauffman – Mohr – Mommsen and  Justice May on other ads, their main target, who was up for retention. Those lying spots you spent so much money on against Miller-Meeks – you failed miserably.

More analysis later 

0

0

The following is a comment posted to the publication Townhall as regards what has been the phenomenon of the left media glomming on to the recent DMR- Mediacom fostered Selzer poll supposedly indicating Trump is behind Harris in Iowa.  Selzer argues to the effect that the poll cannot be considered a push for Dems because ~~ wouldn’t it make the Republicans work harder to get out the vote~~. Our argument is that the poll,  if not to demonstrate incompetence, the purpose as presented  is to encourage Democrats in truly battleground states.

I live in a blue county in Iowa and I can say Dems are active, more so than Repubs as far as media and yard signs. That Dems are active is not surprising, that Repub are not more is disappointing but perhaps indicative of presumptions about how the state will go. The presidential race drives too much of the spending and impinges on attention and resources for down ticket races, especially if the Dems see those races as their only hope and focus accordingly. I am looking through the blue hue here so hopefully it is rosier in most of the rest of the state.

Going by the Emerson Poll it is rosier elsewhere but Selzer is maybe loading her calls in blue counties (the 4 or 5 most populated) and all the cat ladies elsewhere in the state who are more willing to answer the phone. But I am still a bit worried about retrenchment for lack of enough fight by Republicans, congressional candidates excepted. However in more sober or less paranoid moments that the state can be predicted to flip in spite of all the other indications of Republican structural increases seems unreasonable.

If I am correctly informed of Selzer’s approach which is that she relies less on weighting and more on random calling than other pollsters, which some might argue takes pollster manipulation out of the results, she may have established the new text book example of the modern day problem with her approach, present for a number of years but this year in her rendition unameliorated by luck of the draw. More broadly referred to as the no-response bias. The problem is that “random” people do not answer their calls. A certain even if undefined “type” do and do not.

More and more “average” people do not answer their phones from unrecognized numbers and those that do might have a bias compared to those that do not. Further there is a particularly palpable resistance by Republicans and particularly Republican men to trust or respond or sit still for any political call interrogations including from honest pollsters who first must cut through the push-polling conducted by campaigns and list mining operations in order to get an interview.

And earnest pollsters are not free from sin and that is also reflected in peoples response to their calls.The tainting of their questions particularly when it comes to issues, the presumptions in the use of language is more and more understood and rejected even if not argued at the time. Their questions are stiff and fixed, and frustrating resulting in no responses, hangups, and incompletes. If more and more people do not trust pollsters, those that due may overrepresent a political nuance or view thus skewing the results. Too many pollsters may be polling unrepresentative trusting people, people who take such calls, people more likely to trust government and other people.

Perhaps Selzer and the DMR — will be properly embarrassed by their incompetence or purposeful thumb on the scale including HOW gleefully they reported the biased news. In 1948, more innocently, pollsters relied on phone contacts which, insufficiently weighted, favored Republicans. It was easy, more Republicans had non-party lines. Maybe after a solid win in Iowa by Trump — more towards the Emerson poll showing 10% margin for Trump, Trump will be able to hold up the Des Moines Register headline after he wins the election, like Truman did in the now iconic photo from 1948.

Even at that, if the DMR was honest or innocent or competent, it would only properly say the race appears to have closed, not that Harris leads, but that would not be good enough to motivate the un-voted Democrats in the other states, that hope they decided to be in service to, the true target of the headlines. It was a get out the vote effort not in Iowa, a small Electoral College state they knew was going Trump despite all their efforts over the years. It was meant for the battleground states.

The true meaning of the poll could just as well be written as Trump may get 47% to Harris 43% in Iowa as that would still be in the margin of error for both. In other words it is just as likely Trump gets 47% not 44% and Harris gets 44% not 47% and still be within the 95% confidence level from the sampling’s 3.4% margin of error.

The same confidence level and margin of error for the Emerson poll puts Trump’s support at +10 thus putting the chances beyond Harris’ reach, for that sample anyway, and assuming neither poll is a flier. One of the two polls is incredible, given all manner of other indications and trends, is significantly biased in its sample methodologies (innocent or not, ) and that poll appears to be Selzer’s.

And by the way wouldn’t an objective news organization give some analysis to an alternative poll unless they were vested (the liberal DMR is invested) in the results of the Selzer poll which they commissioned? Questions arise, did the DMR commission the results or did Selzer play to her own politics, or did she take leave of her senses in constructing and allowing publication without at least insisting on a proper presentation, if nothing else to protect her reputation (however overdone that is as she has had some doozy errors over the years)?

Proper unbiased reporting by other outlets (the usual suspects the DMR was feeding and that ate this up) is not properly a matter of just regurgitating the alleged numbers but rather to at least engage in a cursory examination of the true meaning of the numbers and avoid bias in their presentation of them, which obviously the DMR was not interested in doing. Other consumers of this crap poll if honest would at least mention the existence of a competing poll by a reputable organization, just as recent, with same sample size in same state, same margin of error and degree of confidence. At the very least the use of the Selzer poll was to push.

All that said, I am not as convinced as some of what the degree of early voting means for Republicans compared to alternative uses of resources. The time and resources expended by the formal party involvements are GOTV oriented. They do little on messaging which I maintain, if started early, done well and consistently as to why to vote R, inoculates and changes voting patterns and would be more additive than the net results the paid and volunteer drones produce by pushing early voting.

Chronically there is an inordinate expensive effort at vote by mail rather than, if it is so important to vote early, to do so more securely in person at satellite early voting locations that are reasonably generous across the state. The relative cumbersomeness of vote by mail; that it is not a good government approach to elections as it encourages, certainly enables onesy-twosy fraud; that it prevents proper voter ID, combine to create an aura against Republican interests. The costs associated with promoting one mechanism of voting rather than motivational messaging to increase support and turn more Democrat leaners into Republican voters thus turning the Dem mules into our mules — is not required for Republicans to win, biggly.

0

0

You have heard about it by now.  It is in all the newspapers , broadcast media  etc:

Iowa Poll: Kamala Harris leapfrogs Donald Trump to take lead near Election Day. Here’s how

Never mind the Emerson poll released same day, similar number surveyed, weighted, similar margin of error:

November 2024 Iowa Poll: Trump 53%, Harris 43%

Some outfit is very wrong and we think it is most likely Selzer.

Here are links to the poll publicly released Saturday (apparently earlier to Democrats*) saying Trump is behind by 3 points in Iowa.  The matter deserves attention because of the now undeserved praise still being handed out to poll designer and manager Ann Selzer*

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2021/11/18/iowa-poll-results-questions-how-works-elections-issues-approval-politics/6291360001/

That is unless accuracy is not the purpose but desired effect

The poll has achieved what I believe may be its purpose — be so useful as to gel last minute enthusiasm, maybe not  Iowa so much, but to be touted by the media and Democrats (forgive redundancy)  in many states to the manipulative effect:  ~~ we can do this, see even Iowa has come around to Harris. We can win this thing everywhere!!  Join the trend, get on the bandwagon~~!!

No?  Consider this story line from the very publication commissioning the poll in question, a breathless summation of theirs about one of their similarly structure polls back in mid September: Excitement and optimism explode for Democrats with Kamala Harris as nominee.

A false or inaccurate  poll could serve other darker purposes, using the work of a “respected” pollster, however arrived at, as a cover-the-cheat poll supposedly to show a trend in support of Harris. ~~ Those found ballots were just part of a trend, don’t you know, as verified by this “respected” pollster ~~ . I put nothing past Democrats in their desperation to defeat Trump.

While the results of outlier polls can be honestly arrived at, a 95% confidence level means there is a chance a poll can be totally off from the actual sentiment, indeed 5% will be.  However this one it can be argued has elements such that only gross incompetence or purposeful skulduggery could come up with such results, according to knowledgable critiques we have seen. See the specific critiques of this poll and general comments about polling of late by pollsters or analysts — like Nate Silver, Mark Mitchell, and others.

One interesting point I believe made by Mitchell is that the national polls are probably most accurate.  (The recent Atlas poll is encouraging for us in that regard). (he Selzer poll is Iowa only. I think he was saying because of homogenization of error in national polls or biases that state polls do not weed out or are inordinately affected by, are the reasons. We think Selzer’s at least suffers from gross non-response bias. Affinities are not represented adequately because they won’t talk to pollsters or answer the phone period.

Some of the critiques of this poll would seem just devastating — maybe not career ending as Selzer can always say ~~ hey it was just a flier, I reported what I got, but look at my track record. I can’t help what people do with it~~.  Right.  But then again she looks maybe near retirement anyway.

So about the non-response bias . . . disregarding the possibility Selzer has adopted CYA pack-polling as per Nate Silver’s description of what is going on with others, and realizing that her alleged accuracy record is not uniform or unassailable, and that coming out of the leftist Des Moines Register media shop, her patron for this effort to the effect that those who pay her bills lie about Republicans all the time and especially when they think they can get away with it, putting a thumb on the scale to keep hope alive nation-wide, pretend a crack in red Iowa, shore up efforts elsewhere, encourage Harris voting herein . . . maybe the poor girl can’t find Republicans to take her calls.

We think its is a real phenomenon especially with Republicans. There is a palpable distrust of polling so no patience with the process, hang-ups, incompletes, non-responses if they do happen to pick up and find out the purpose. Fewer people answer their phones from unknown callers. We would venture that caller ID is active uniformly on land lines and certainly cell lines. The days of not knowing the ringing is from a strange number or not being suspicious this time of year that it is likely a political call, are gone. This is not the time of Princess dial phones, no screen functions at all, and inadvertent pick up and polite submission to interrogation.

So it would seem Selzer has to profile lists to call from to get enough R’s or independents to respond, or make scads of calls to get an answer and then disregard that the person who does answer just might be of a certain type, a bias of one sort or another. Perhaps Republicans she makes contact with tend toward Republicans of the ticket-splitting ilk who think of themselves as good government people on that basis and answering the phone is their duty or something . . . and surely pollsters don’t manipulate. They are still officially R’s but how R? Knowing the demographics one can examine and refine a list to find greater propensity for Trump support or not. And keep in mind that in Civic 101 we were told the polls were so wrong as regards Dewey and Truman because the bias was that more Republicans had private-line phones. The nuances as to who answers may be more subtle now but real.

0

0