Saturday saw the release of an Iowa poll that showed Kamala Harris up 3 points -- a shocking result in a state where she has done no campaigning, is historically unpopular, and has trended Republican for the last several election cycles.
The poll has breathed new life into Democratic hopes, as one prediction market now says that Harris will win (the others say Trump will win), and Democrats wonder if polls showing Trump doing well (including in Iowa) are wrong.
What is actually going on?
We begin with a couple of basic principles. First, a poll is a snapshot of the electorate, but once in a while it will get the electorate wrong. Typical polls report their results with a 95% confidence interval -- but it is possible, in rare cases, that they simply collected an unrepresentative sample. That happened recently to Rasmussen, which has shown Trump leading nationally for months. One night, it showed Harris leading, then went right back to a Trump lead.
Second, polls can be manipulated by changing various assumptions about the nature of the electorate. These assumptions are used to process the raw data. I doubt that was the case with this poll, so close to the election, but who knows.
Third, it really is possible that Kamala Harris voters are being under-sampled elsewhere -- that she is bringing in a host of new female voters. This has been the Democratic hope for months: that abortion will put her over the top.
Fourth, though unlikely, is that Trump's comedian, with his Puerto Rico joke, turned off enough voters to give Harris a massive surge. I doubt this happened (I had trouble remembering the whole thing, just one week ago), but maybe.
The truth is that we don't know what is going to happen. Vote-by-mail has added to the confusion, because the polls are coming out while voters in many states are voting, or have voted, already, so they may be skewed somehow.
Personally, I begin with the assumption that Republicans never win close races, except by surprise. This is because Democrats control the process of voting (Republicans treat it as a neutral exercise), so they can turn out votes where they need to.
When Republicans win, it is because they have won in places Democrats did not anticipate (see the "blue wall" in 2016), or because Democrats are demoralized (which happens, on occasion) and don't bother fighting anymore.
Next, there is also the problem of bias. Republicans believed a massive victory was coming in 2022, and it was wiped out. Why? Partly because abortion was a big issue, but also because Republicans have stopped trusting nearly ALL media.
The fact that the media do lie about major things, and often, has meant that the conservative world has turned to partisan sources for news. The Republican confidence in recent days might reflect a more airtight bubble, not reality.
Both sides seem to think their candidate has the edge. I would still rather be Trump, for a variety of reasons. I think he has campaigned like a winner and she has campaigned like a loser. But the "Hitler Heil Mary" may also be working.
We can't know. I do know that if Harris wins, Republicans will not accept the result. Nor should they: the media have been biased, the Democrat candidate won zero primary votes; and even the judicial system has been weaponized.
The best result for the country is one in which Trump wins a landslide and we can all move on, seeing as he is termed out in 2029. The worst result is one in which the outlier Iowa poll is correct and we are back at each other's throats.
Perhaps the likeliest result is the most entertaining one: Harris wins everywhere Biden won, except Michigan and Pennsylvania, where she loses because of the Middle East; and then the House decides the race on January 6, 2025.
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
An interesting weekend -- one of the last of Daylight Savings Time -- in which there is much to celebrate, much to contemplate, and a bit to worry about.
The Gaza peace deal is shaky, but holding, after the living hostages returned; the shutdown is still going on, with no end in sight; the China trade war is heating up; and the confrontation with Venezuela continues to escalate.
The "No Kings" protest was a dud, despite the media's attempt to inflate it. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have basically stolen the rhetoric and the imagery of the Tea Party protests, circa 2009. They claim they are defending the Constitution -- just like the Tea Party did.
On the one hand, this is good. How wonderful to have a political system in which both sides, bitterly opposed though they are, articulate differences through the Constitution -- and not, as in so many other countries, outside it.
On the other, this is sheer hypocrisy for the Democrats. Not only did they malign the Tea Party as ...
