Jacobtldr Categories Politics
When survey researchers hear about "Shy Trump" voters, we hear it as measurement error, and there's good evidence that it's vanishingly small. But I think the broader public might also be including non-response error as part of how they understand that term

As we unpack the sources of survey error, it's worth keeping our eye on some patterns. For instance, this comparison of survey averages to projected results by @gelliottmorris shows a correlation between 2016 and 2020, but also an intercept shift

Putting out some hypotheses now that can be tested as vote counts get finalized (still not done counting!) and pollsters look back at their own data
1) Everything @davidshor says here about trust and non-response: https://t.co/aXYZMc5QO5
It's tricky to test for, because surveys aren't asking about trust and we don't have great national benchmarks either. That said ...
2/ While it’s long been routine for wealthy interests seeking to buy access and influence over a president to do so by making large political contributions to his campaign and allied groups, it’s unique to President Trump that these groups personally enrich him in the process.
3/ We've tracked 137 of these events since the day Trump took office. https://t.co/toIW0EJOyK

4/ And some of the big spenders have gotten their money's worth, as the NYT laid out earlier this month in a detailed report partly based on our data
5/ Groups large and small have learned that holding expensive events that the president profits from is a part of doing business in Trump's Washington, and it's paying off.
Take the AHRI, which spent $700k at Doral, and got a favorable decision within weeks

2/I had seen on social media before I arrived that Trump trains were happening locally and I was curious to see if he had gained meaningful ground (You know by now that Hillary won there in 2016 by 33 and 41 percentage points respectively.) ex:
This is the RGV where my wife Debbie (@debber66) grew up. it\u2019s the bluest part of Texas and mostly Hispanic. She never thought she would see the day! #Maga2020 #RGV https://t.co/ziPTmgjhWB
— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) November 3, 2020
3/I also wanted to see what it was like, in a red state allegedly turning purple, to be in a blue region that may have been moving in the opposite direction.
4/Aside from Twitter, it was hard to find coverage of the Trump trains (which, according to locals, had been going on every weekend for at least a month, with hundreds involved) or of growing local enthusiasm for Trump.
5/Late morning, I spoke to @MorganGrahamGOP, the first Latina head of the Cameron County Republicans, who expected modest but meaningful gains. “I don’t think he’s going to break 40%, but mid-high 30s. That doesn’t seem like a lot to folks,” she said, but in the RGV, it was.
As long as that is true, it's fine.
Cuomo's standard was neither consistent nor scientific. That is a clear first amendment violation.
Conservatives are crowing over this as an own the libs moment, denying that many who support public health restrictions are people of faith. This broke long standing precedent, so don't at me with your calls for originalism etc. This is just know-nothing politics by other means. https://t.co/KLeiKlp6p7
— Gregg Gonsalves (@gregggonsalves) November 26, 2020
Gorsuch is SCIENTIFICALLY RIGHT HERE.
If people can't admit that, then they are allowing their biases to
Neil Gorsuch goes off on @NYGovCuomo in the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling blocking his Covid restrictions for religious services. https://t.co/HOKmgsUAKg pic.twitter.com/dcl7o5irDd
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 26, 2020
This on the other hand is 100% BS.
Not a single scientist I know supports this double standard. The best ones know that the type ofvenue is irrelevant... Only the size and # of people
Sonia Sotomayor dissents: \u201cJustices of this Court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily.\u201d https://t.co/HOKmgtcc8Q
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 26, 2020
In short, it is the LEFT here using religious bias to promote an antiscientific standard and allowing the State to violate Rights.
The Liberals and CJJR should be ashamed.
Another good thread here.
A consistent standard would have passed constitutional muster.
Last night, SCOTUS issued injunctive relief to houses of worship challenging NYC\u2019s COVID-19 restrictions, the first time it has granted such relief during the pandemic. I have mixed views about the decision and early reactions to it.
— John Inazu (@JohnInazu) November 26, 2020