THE STATE OF THE RACE FOR PRESIDENT

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

The ridiculous level of dishonesty in election campaigns and the media is a major issue in politics today. The desperate attempt to win at any cost has left too many voters in this cycle with the familiar feeling of having to pick between the better of two difficult options. The polls show this and even something as data-driven as polls become the subject of manipulation by die-hards on either side. The data should be objectively observed and reported, but such is not the case.

What we are left with is the bogus poll patrol, and both sides are guilty. Political polls are public opinion surveys that gauge sentiment at the time they are taken. The better polling organizations use sophisticated methods to construct questionnaires, collect data, analyze the data and provide the results with a reasonable margin of error. If we look at many of these polls over a period of time, we can deduce trends to indicate whether a candidate has a lead outside the margin of error, or not. Polls, therefore, are not necessarily predictive but can give us a sense as to where a particular election is heading. Hopelessly biased media “journalists” only look at the data that shows their candidate in the lead or catching up, the other candidate badly failing, and then make impossible-to-support flat predictions in declarative language. Nowhere to be found is any nuanced discussion of margins of error or the methodological difficulties inherent in collecting meaningful data from verbal questionnaires by cell phones.

But back on the campaign trail the Democrats went for the quick fix, the easy route (leveraging Biden out, deciding Kamala is in). But they are not going to solve the Biden problem with a Biden clone. Newly anointed Kamala Harris (so much for “democracy is on the ballot”) is now trying to verbally distance herself from the Biden-Harris border disaster. And Trump is back to his old self, neither chagrined nor informed by the favorable reactions to his mellower convention speech, nor the assassination attempt. Just days ago he called VP Harris “a bum.” How does this help?

Both sides will have an abundance of money, surrogates and talking points. But most of these assets will be bulls-eyed at the other candidate and it will get even uglier if that’s possible. We will be told, umpteen times, that a vote for the opposition is an existential threat, and that our candidate is the savior and the only choice to save the planet. Their candidate? Fuhgeddaboudit. Facts do not matter as each campaign will have legions of realty re-constructors that will design a never-ending air attack designed to destroy the opposition and woo the undecideds. Still, in the end, a more rational electorate will decide which presidential candidate will inherit the most complex job in the world, campaign silliness notwithstanding. This show will go on the for the next few months, with the focus sharpening in the fall, reaching a fever pitch in late October. Let’s hope that somewhere in the circus there may be some actual substantive policy discussion where we can get a glimpse as to what the winning candidate might actually do.

POLLS, POLLS, POLLS – What Do They Really Tell Us?

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

It’s the silly season (again) and all the punsters and pollsters are making predictions as to who is leading and who will win. How do they know? The answers they use are in the almighty polls, but what do those polls really tell us?

The consensus is that voters begin to seriously focus on the election after Labor Day, so the early polls may provide an indication, but we need to look deeper to understand what the polls may mean. Polls are not necessarily predictive but are designed to provide qualitative data on popular sentiment. Gauging a number of polls over time yields trends, which are retrospective, not prospective. In other words, political polls look at the present and the past, not the future. Yet many play the prediction game because we think that what is probable today might tell us what’s going to happen tomorrow. Not necessarily.

Political polls are public opinion surveys, and thus we have to be concerned with the data collection methods as well as the data parameters. For example, in order to collect data many polls use a technique known as Random Digit Dialing (RDD) to ensure all voters in a population have an equal chance of being called. The survey staff must be properly trained and supervised, and samples should be large enough to be statistically meaningful or they may suffer from small sample size validity issues (which may lead to results that are true, when they are false, called Type II error in statistics).

For instance, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll (04/15/24) showed that 833 registered voters preferred Biden to Trump by 41% to 37%. The margin of error (MOE, the statistic that indicates how far off a survey may be) was 4% with 22% of those polled having no preference/might not vote/favoring a third party candidate. So what does this really tell us? The media would report that Biden has 4 point lead, but is that accurate? Does this poll have any realistic predictive value?

My observations are as follows: any sample of less than 1,000 respondents is too small to have much statistical power, and the results are within the margin of error as well. Also, 22% undecided is too large a group to give us confidence in the determination as to which candidate may be leading. This is just the tip of the statistical iceberg. Many polls suffer from considerable statistical issues:

Registered voters vs. likely voters: polls that measure registered voters only are weak as they measure people who may not vote; likely voter responses are more meaningful
Timing: polls from last month may be out of date in an age of fast paced news cycles
Sample size: it’s doubtful that a sample of less than 1,000 voters could be representative of the voting population of the United States
Undecided responses: the Reuters/Ipsos poll mentioned above had 22% choosing something other than Biden and Trump, with only a 4% difference between the two with seven months to go to the election – this makes it very difficult to draw any meaningful inferences
Margin of error: rates over 4% are usually too large to provide confidence in the result, and leads within the MOE means no one has a lead
Outlier polls: a result that is far from the average of the other polls – the media on either side loves to quote polls that show their guy in the lead, even if it is way outside the average

So to revisit the Reuters/Ipsos poll, a result that seems to favor Biden: it’s a small sample of registered voters only, a result within the MOE, with a large amount of undecided. If you’re looking for a prediction, don’t bet any real money using this poll.

Another issue is using the average of polls, a method which is supposed to give us a solid basis as to who is leading whom. Perhaps the most popular is the RealClear Politics (04/15/24) average of polls (widely quoted by the media) which is an unweighted average, meaning it’s a simple average of polls with different sample sizes. Here is a recent report:

POLLSTER	DATE	SAMPLE	MOE	TRUMP (R)	BIDEN (D)	SPREAD
RCP Average	3/21 – 4/7	—	—	45.5	45.3	Trump+0.2
Morning Consult	4/5 – 4/7	6236 RV	1.0	44	43	Trump+1
Reuters/Ipsos	4/3 – 4/7	833 RV	4.0	37	41	Biden+4
I&I/TIPP	4/3 – 4/5	1265 RV	2.8	40	43	Biden+3
Emerson	4/2 – 4/3	1438 RV	2.5	46	45	Trump+1
Rasmussen Reports	3/31 – 4/2	1099 LV	3.0	49	41	Trump+8
Data for Progress (D)**	3/27 – 3/29	1200 LV	3.0	46	47	Biden+1
NPR/PBS/Marist	3/25 – 3/28	1199 RV	3.7	48	50	Biden+2
Forbes/HarrisX	3/25 – 3/25	1010 RV	3.1	50	50	Tie
FOX News	3/22 – 3/25	1094 RV	3.0	50	45	Trump+5
Quinnipiac	3/21 – 3/25	1407 RV	2.6	45	48	Biden+3

But when the samples are weighted by the number of voters (a sample of 1,438 is given more “weight” than a sample of 833), Trump’s lead doubles. Also, note how many of the polls are “RV” or registered voters, and that some of the polls are older, meaning from prior news cycles. The age of a poll is an issue as in just one month Biden may have any number of mumbled gaffes, Trump may insult another dozen people, and another war or two may break out. All of these sway public opinion and affect the polls.

Anyone who draws firm conclusions from these polls is engaging in a neurotic level of wishful thinking. But there is hope, many surveys over a period of time (longitudinal, in statistical language) generate more confidence than one-off polls (cross-sectional). There are no simple answers, we have to do the work. For example, most recent polls show Trump with a lead outside the MOE in the swing states over a period of time, and we therefore can have some confidence in that result. In recent history polls tend to tighten as we get closer to election day, and much can happen. We will see what events move the arc of the current trajectory.

References:

RealClear Politics. 04/15/24. RCP Poll Average. RealClearPolitics – Live Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls. RealClearPolitics – Live Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls

Palmer, Ewan. 04/15/24. Donald Trump’s Polling Numbers Are Dropping. Newsweek. Donald Trump’s Polling Numbers Are Dropping (newsweek.com)

A HOUSE DIVIDED, OR IN THIS CASE QUARTERED

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

In the United States we have two political parties, but two major groups each within each of those two parties. The Republicans still have the mainstream, traditional GOPers, and also the Freedom Caucus-Trump nationalist types. The Democrats have their own mainstream, left of center group plus the progressive left wing. There are a scattered number of liberal Republicans (e.g., Sen. Susan Collins) and conservative Democrats (e.g., Joe Manchin) in Congress. Each party is thus divided, and therefore the country is divided. In Lincoln’s famous speech in 1858 he warned of such political divisions and feared for the country: “it will become all one thing, or all the other.” His way of saying be careful what you ask for.

Where does this leave voting Americans? There are still many who are unenrolled (note: we register to vote but enroll in a party) in a major party or have cast their lot with minor parties. The independent and minor party voters make up almost 40 percent of the electorate. But a Pew Research Center survey (2019) suggests that even among independents, most lean to one major party or another (see Political Independents: Who They Are, What They Think – Pew Research Center), but choose to remain officially unaligned. Why is this?

We may infer an inherent distrust of the two major parties among many independents as both have displayed a good deal of corruption in recent years. The duplicity and animated rhetoric test the tolerance of even the most loyal members outside the base of each party. The language is abhorrent, and the ethics are scandalous. Its win at any cost: say anything, do anything, just get and maintain power. Once in power each side investigates the other and weaponizes government institutions, the media and public policy, on a massive search and destroy mission of their opponents. They just can’t stand each other, and the American public suffers from an overload of bitter, vindictive rhetoric designed to damage each member of the other side to the maximum extent possible. Lincoln warned, in the same speech, of a such a “battle” in the political arena raging “under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy…”

Thus the two major political parties divide America as they themselves are also divided. It becomes a free-for-all in a rule or ruin atmosphere and a vulgar display of exactly how the founders did not want our government to work (“of the people, by the people….). The hot topics exacerbate the fight: abortion, the border, inflation, the Russia-Ukraine war, the Israel-Hamas war, and others. Each side leverages virtually anything to force the hand of, or better, to bury the other side. The outright lying is ridiculous and the media on both sides have become wholly owned subsidiaries of their political masters. Each party forces a different reality that excludes the other, and that reality is further parsed by the division within each party. And there is no end in sight as we are eight months away from the general election. There are many reasonable people in politics, yet the current conversation is dominated by shallow thinking, paranoid types like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Marjorie Taylor Green.

The electorate needs to better educate itself on the issues as well as the candidates. The test for those who choose to vote is to resist the party label, to see beyond the ideological divide, and to vote for reason, thoughtfulness, and a better chance for a decent future.

KENNEDY’S VEEP: THE STRUGGLE FOR CREDIBILITY

By Ken Grossberger, PhD

RFK Jr. has picked Nicole Shanahan for the vice-presidential slot on his ticket. The ex-wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin is a lawyer and an activist, and at 39 finds herself in the center of the American political arena. Kennedy, in his introduction yesterday warned her about the candidate risks in current political times: character assassination, name calling, negative reporting, exposure, investigations, lawsuits, etc. She has no experience as a political office holder, which may be one of her strengths. She is from humble origins but has been in a position to contribute to various causes such as climate change, female reproductivity and criminal justice. She has also contributed to the campaigns of Democrats and progressives, and her checkbook may be one of the most attractive features to the Kennedy campaign.

But the main issue for Kennedy is his credibility. Does he really intend to win, or just make a statement? Is this a set up for 2028? There is a long history of third-party candidates for President of the United States. The fledging Republican Party (in the process of replacing the Whig Party) was running candidates in 1856 (John C. Fremont) and 1860 (Abraham Lincoln). In the 1890s issue-oriented groups formed the Greenback Party, the Populist Party and the People’s Party. The early 1900s saw the rise of the Progressive Party (also known as the Bull Moose Party with Teddy Roosevelt as their candidate in the chaotic election of 1912). Southern Democrats ran as Dixiecrats with Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate in 1948. Gov. George Wallace of Alabama ran on the American Independent line in 1968 and John Anderson ran as a liberal Republican on the National Unity Party on 1980. Ross Perot was an independent candidate in 1992 and 1996. The Reform Party ran Pat Buchanan in 2000 and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 2012 and 2016. The Green Party has run Ralph Nader several times in recent history and now Jill Stein in 2012, 2016 and this year. All of this with little success, but Lincoln won and Perot got 19% in 1992. Most of the rest were also-rans with low percentages of the votes.

So, the probability of a Kennedy win is exceptionally low, even in a cycle where both major party candidates are seriously flawed and highly vulnerable. But anything that includes Trump will defy any odds thus history may not be as much of a factor as it usually would.

TRUMP’S VEEP (AND REPLACEMENT?)

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

The latest polls suggest a probable Trump victory in November based on his edge in the swing states. Assuming this holds, his Vice-Presidential pick looms large as a successor if Trump gets convicted of any of the criminal charges against him in the multiple jurisdictions in which he has been formally charged. So who will it be?

The short list, as reported, includes Sen. Tim Scott, Gov. Ron DeSantis, business guy Vivek Ramaswamy, Rep. Byron Donalds. Gov. Kristi Noem and now former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Others have been mentioned (including former Gov. Nikki Haley). All this is speculative as Trump dangles a lot of bait in many directions. If Trump suffers a criminal conviction or goes bankrupt (or both), there is a scenario where the Republican National Committee (RNC) would have to replace him, and if he has already chosen a VEEP (before or after the Republican convention in August), then the RNC (led by his hand-picked chair and his daughter-in-law) might well select his pick as the successor presidential candidate. If recent polls are any indication, that successor might fare well against President Biden (polls during the primary showed Haley doing better against Biden than Trump did).

If Trump survives the barrage of lawsuits against him then this is a moot point and then it’s on to November. But if he takes a bad hit and is mortally (politically) wounded, then his number 2 becomes the Republicans’ number 1, and we are in a brand new ballgame. But if the potential replacement is likely to have better numbers against Biden, then exactly what is the political rationale behind the Democrat’s massive push to remove Trump from the political landscape?

Most of the Democrats’ campaign strategy revolves around bashing Trump, so if he’s not there, what do they do?

POLITICAL POLEMICS PARTY

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

Only a schizophrenic could make sense of Tuesday’s House of Representatives hearing on Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report. The Judiciary Committee is loaded with Members of Congress who are also attorneys, and the hearing immediately devolved into a contest of can-you-top-this in argumentation and fact parsing.

Republicans and Democrats crafted statements designed to proffer a point view, irrespective pf anything Mr. Hur wrote in his report, or stated verbally. For example, a number of Democrats insisted that the Hurt report exonerated President Biden of any wrongdoing, irrespective of the number of times Mr. Hur categorically stated he did not exonerate the President. Similarly the Republicans only found evidence of guilt in the report. Wasn’t this the same document?

How can intelligent people come away with such dichotomously different interpretations of the same report? They can’t, unless of course its Congress and it’s an election year. Thus the problem. No matter what the issue, each side argues what they must to leverage advantage, facts notwithstanding. The more naïve portions of the public are bewildered, the more savvy listeners hear the same old song and dance. Left in the dust are honesty, honor, and a sense of justice. A poor showing after more than 200 years of democracy and trillions spent on a large, modern government. Yet this nonsense goes on and on.

Third party candidates such as RFK Jr. try to coalesce the middle in an attempt to cobble together a coalition of the reasonable, side stepping the noise in the DC swamp. To what end we will find out in November, but in the meantime it’s a fight to the finish over every scrap of information, every hearing, every special election, every bill and every issue.

We would need a legion of Diogenes-like warriors to wrangle the truth out of the political class in a desperate attempt to make sense of anything that is coming out of Washington.

SOCIALISM, SNICKERS AND SNARKINESS: THE HATE OF THE UNION SPEECH

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

Article II of the constitution requires the president to deliver “from time to time” “information” on the state of the union. In recent memory we heard the soaring rhetoric of Ronald Reagan, the eloquence of Barack Obama and the incisive words of Bill Clinton. Joe Biden’s speech on Thursday was none of that. Give-Em-Hell-Joey came out blazing in what amounted to more of a campaign rally pep talk than a state of the union address.

Was the raised voice approach evidence of some newfound energy, or a failure of anger management? He came across as a roboticized angry old man. His rant was more blame game than solution oriented as he referred to his “predecessor” 13 times. It was a polarizing, divisive speech that did nothing for independents. He was loud, contentious, confrontational, mawkishly pandering and unpretentiously partisan. It was a baseless attempt to appeal to the base in a transparent exercise to reset his campaign at the cost of reason and civility. After digesting this speech the American people needed a dose of philosophical Narcan. At times it seemed like an exercise class, how many times could the Democrats stand up? You could almost hear the Pointer Sisters in the background. The Jack-In-The-Box Democrats jumped up so often the House clerks almost had to send out for oxygen. It’s the kind of theatrical fawning that renders the political process as appearing spurious and self-serving.

In Biden’s imaginary America the only real problem is “my predecessor,” and his arguments are based on carefully parsed data and reality avoidance. It’s an election year, so he romances the left with a list of expensive giveaways (how all this is to be actually paid for no one knows, maybe “tax the rich” again) but with each promise one could see America’s future fading into the sunset under a growing mass of unpayable debt. Another check-the-box exercise in political manipulation, and he kept coughing as if even he didn’t believe his own jive. In a bizarre moment, he interjects a point about the great snack rip-off (so much for lofty rhetoric and the promise of the great American experiment), which went nowhere. He then perfunctorily proposes a two-state solution for the middle east. Which Israel is he supporting? He pandered to the left, heckled the hecklers on the right, and blew his response to a call to “say her name” with his Lincoln Riley faux pas. Then came they pedantic core values wrap up. Which core was he referring to? Then chants of “four more years” (meaning we want power). He closed with “I’ll always be the president for all Americans.” Really?

So the president uses the state of the union speech to re-launch his reelection bid, as he mumbles, fumbles and stumbles his way into the future. Unfortunately, the antidote to current President Biden is former President Trump, who has his own blizzard of problems. He attacks his friends as much as he attacks his enemies (basically he just attacks) in a desperate attempt to get back what he craves most, power.

It’s a race to the bottom in what we hope is the last of this tawdry exercise in how politics in America is not supposed to be.

THE DEMOCRATS RHETORICAL LOOPS

Ken Grossberger, PhD

In order to make excuses for their failed policies, the Democrats, and their Not-So-Mainstream- Media allies, have, either in coordination or due to some neurotic impulse to repeat their word or phrase for the day, routinely blurted out responses in reaction to criticism of their positions. Once that word or phrase is spoken by a leader, by the White House, or by some other lefty forum, the talking heads all start saying the same thing.

Remember the increases in energy costs due to Biden’s policy decisions? It was called the “Putin Price Hike.” And Biden’s deflection from the Democrats’ failures in Congress blaming the GOP? He said, “this is not your father’s Republican party.” And Biden’s flip on soaring inflation? He whispered, “Bidenomics is working.” And the multiple catchphrases repeated by his Homeland Security Secretary and others, “the immigration system is broken” and “the border is secure”, and not to forget “the border is closed.”

This constant repetition, with the presumptive force of rhetoric, perhaps satisfies the base, but further antagonizes the political right, and frankly puzzles the political center. Each of these lines is severely challenged by facts and believability. To whom are they speaking? They can only win their base once; the right and the center just aren’t buying into these. This not-so-subtle attempt at deflection is mawkishly transparent at best and ludicrous at worst.

Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it less nonsensical. Perhaps it satisfies having said it, perhaps it reassures when it is repeated, but it surely insults when measured against reality. The White House and the Democrats get stuck in these rhetorical loops because quite often they have no other answers.