July 13, 2016

"New swing-state polls released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University show Trump leading Clinton in Florida and Pennsylvania — and tied in the critical battleground state of Ohio."

Politico reports.
Trump leads by three points in Florida — the closest state in the 2012 election — 42 percent to 39 percent. In Ohio, the race is tied, 41 percent to 41 percent. And in Pennsylvania — which hasn't voted for a Republican presidential nominee since 1988 — Trump leads, 43 percent to 41 percent...

While the Quinnipiac results are eye-popping, they don’t represent any significant movement — except in Florida. In three rounds of polling over the past two months, the race has moved from a four-point Trump lead in Ohio in the first survey, then tied in the next two polls. In Pennsylvania, Clinton led by one point in the first two polls and now trails by two.

But in Florida, the race has bounced around. Clinton led by one point in the first poll two months ago, but she opened up an eight-point lead in June — a lead that has been erased and more in the new Quinnipiac survey....
[T]he Quinnipiac polls are imperfect measures of a post-email investigation race. That’s because, like many of the school’s other polls, they were conducted over an unusually lengthy, 12-day time period: June 30 through July 11.
Here's Quinnipiac's press release:
By wide margins, voters in each state agree with the statement, "The old way of doing things no longer works and we need radical change." Voters also agree by wide margins that trade agreements with other countries have hurt them and their families' financial situation.

Voters still say Clinton is more intelligent than Trump and that she is better prepared to be president. But Clinton has lost her wide lead over Trump for having "higher moral standards." And Trump widens his lead over Clinton for being more honest and trustworthy....
And look at this 15 point spread on the jobs issue in each of the 3 states:
Florida voters say 54 - 39 percent that Trump would be better creating jobs.... Trump would be better creating jobs, Ohio voters say 54 - 39 percent.... Trump would be better creating jobs, Pennsylvania voters say 54 - 39 percent....
I'm shocked by the numbers who say "the old ways don't work and it's time for radical change": Florida, 71 - 25; Ohio, 73 - 24; Pennsylvania, 72 - 26.

A weird comparison is the difference between asking about "higher moral standards" and "more honest and trustworthy." In Florida, the 2 candidates are tied — 42 - 42 — on moral standards, but Trump beats Clinton — 50 - 37 percent — on "honest and trustworthy." In Ohio, it's close to a tie on moral standards — Clinton 43, Trump 42 — but Trump is 10 points ahead — 47 - 37 — on "honest and trustworthy." In Pennsylvania, Clinton edges out Trump — 43 - 41 — on moral standards, and Trump crushes her — 49 - 34 — on "honest and trustworthy."

Why do those 2 concepts diverge (consistently)? Higher moral standards could lead a person into  secretiveness. Being less caught up in morality could liberate a person to speak in an open and unfiltered way. There is shame and there is shamelessness.

120 comments:

David Begley said...

And still about 20 percent undecided in all three states.

rhhardin said...

They never poll about which candidate is better at nonsense.

mezzrow said...

That's a lot of typing to set up the last line. Worth it though, wasn't it?

There's lot of popcorn to be sold between now and November. My personal opinion is that this is just a bump, and Nurse Ratched is still inevitable.

"If Mr. McMurphy doesn't want to take his gun control orally, I'm sure we can arrange that he can have it some other way. But I don't think that he would like it."

Mick said...

I am very surprised (or not) that the "law prof" has failed to notice that the the Republican Party is scheming to not give the nomination to Trump, by way of the corrupt judiciary.
They got a treasonous judge in Virginia (Payne) to say that the Virginia delegates could vote for whomever they choose, despite state law (542D) that says that the first ballot must be for the winner of the Primary. The judge went against all Supreme Court Precedent that says the states have plenary power to conduct Presidential elections, given by article 2, and handed a higher authority to the political parties, who are not even mentioned in the Constitution, and who G. Washington warned direly against in his farewell address.

The political parties are using the judiciary to usurp the political power to determine whom is the President of the United States from the states.

See Correll v. Herring

https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/images/e/ea/Correll_v._Herring_Memorandum_opinion.pdf


July 11, 2016

Gusty Winds said...

@Mezzrow

Good one. There is a little Nurse Ratched vs. McMurphy going one this election.

Brando said...

There's going to be a lot of individual polls out between now and November, with lots of wild swings (Clinton up a few points one day, Trump up a few points the next) but generally the trend is showing a close race, usually with a small Clinton lead (though it could move to a small Trump lead). The disparities of voter preferences (e.g., supporting a candidate they consider less trustworthy, or voting against a candidate they think "supports the policies I support") can be best explained by the fact that there's a sizable group (much larger than in previous elections) that cannot stand either candidate but will support one of them by default. So you can find someone despicable, dishonest and favoring policies that make no sense to you, but still vote for that person because the opponent is somehow worse.

The other thing is that the swing state totals will track very closely to the national poll totals--so if someone wins the national popular vote by a few points, they are likely to have that same lead in Ohio, Florida, etc. (The counterexample of 2000 doesn't really disprove this, as both Gore's popular vote lead and Bush's lead in Ohio, FL, etc. were very close).

My name goes here. said...

Trump may yet lose. But it should be pointed out that he is tied with her after spending to a first approximation zero dollars on ads.

Put another way, Hillary has spent close to $150 Million dollars and all she can do is tie him.

Clyde said...

I wouldn't say that Clinton is more intelligent than Trump; her e-mail scandal pretty much shows that she's not particularly bright. More sophisticated? Probably. More cunning? Definitely. You can't become a leading member of a crime syndicate without having low cunning if you don't have high intelligence.

Sydney said...

Trump is probably seen as less moral because he has repeatedly dumped wives as they age for younger models. But he is more honest than Hillary. He doesn't lie the way she does.

damikesc said...

For the last few major events, polling has seemed rather unreliable. We have polls now with widely disparate results.

I just question the basic efficacy of polling any longer.

Daniel Richwine said...

Clinton may be perceived as more moral because she supports causes which have been instructed as morally correct ones: income redistribution, easy immigration, women's privacy, free health coverage, etc. Trump may be perceived as more honest because he keeps saying things everyone is thinking.

damikesc said...

There's going to be a lot of individual polls out between now and November, with lots of wild swings (Clinton up a few points one day, Trump up a few points the next) but generally the trend is showing a close race, usually with a small Clinton lead (though it could move to a small Trump lead). The disparities of voter preferences (e.g., supporting a candidate they consider less trustworthy, or voting against a candidate they think "supports the policies I support") can be best explained by the fact that there's a sizable group (much larger than in previous elections) that cannot stand either candidate but will support one of them by default. So you can find someone despicable, dishonest and favoring policies that make no sense to you, but still vote for that person because the opponent is somehow worse.

This is why conservatives need to target colleges. Either hire conservative faculty or lose perks (taxing endowments will hurt them bad). They are churning out a generation of grads who TRULY believe that ANY Republican will happily slice away all of their freedoms.

Personally, I'd be fine if the GOP decided to not nominate Trump and went with somebody else instead (I've always said Rice since she doesn't want the job and that has always been appealing to me). But I doubt they will and we're stuck with what we have. I just think rule of law trumps everything and I think a Clinton win effectively kills it. A Trump win at least puts the option of Hillary being made to answer for what she did on the table. If she cannot be punished, then nobody has any reason to follow our laws any longer.

Bay Area Guy said...

For the last few Prez elections, the races come down to Fla, Ohio, Va, and Penn. I like Penn as a possible flip for Trump. Coal-miner country in Western Penn. should be all in for Trump, since the Left has essentially declared war on coal. Criticizing various global trade deals which have hurt our manufacturing base, also helps Trump.

Wilbur said...

" Trump crushes her — 49 - 34 — on "honest and trustworthy."

There's a visual I can do without. So could he. no doubt.

Amichel said...

Any poll with Trump tied with Hillary and a large percentage undecided is a win for Trump. Undecided voters are generally considering voting for the challenger over the incumbent, but aren't sure enough yet to commit. Hillary is the incumbent in this race, Trump the challenger.

Rick said...

Either hire conservative faculty or lose perks (taxing endowments will hurt them bad).

This is not the right way to go about ending far left control of academia. We need to end direct public support of schools. Vouchers would allow schools to specialize and those focusing on STEM / business are going to outperform schools focusing on grievance studies. Right now the idea that big universities should offer everything leads to them using each other to justify ever more radical faculty hires and activist positions. As long as the herd sticks together they can all move in a direction their customers don't want.

People's preferences will come through unless they're controlled by the structure. The radicals know this which is why every racial hoax ends with a demand for more race based activist hiring.

rehajm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rehajm said...

Voters also agree by wide margins that trade agreements with other countries have hurt them and their families' financial situation.

Amazing and disturbing. I wonder if any of the respondents could even imagine a scenario where they might benefit from trade?

Sebastian said...

"I'm shocked by the numbers who say "the old ways don't work and it's time for radical change"" I'm encouraged! So no more Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Obamacare, SSI increases, Iran deals, Russia resets, immigration discretion, immigration family preferences, ag subsidies, green subsidies, student loans, trannies in the military, weaponizing IRS, Ed Dept Dear Colleague letters -- after all, "the old ways don't work." That's what they're saying, right?

Anglelyne said...

Why do those 2 concepts diverge (consistently)?

Because "honest and trustworthy" is a pretty straightforward concept on whose meaning most people agree, whereas "moral standard" is fuzzy. A lot of modern people seem to think that "morality" is essentially a matter of "being nice", and we all know Hillary wants to be Nice, say, to refugees and illegal immigrants, and Trump wants us to be Not Nice to them. So maybe they think Trump is more "honest and trustworthy" re his Not Nice (aka immoral) intentions, whereas Hillary will be much Nicer (aka moral) with other people's money and communities, even if she's a liar.

Higher moral standards could lead a person into secretiveness. Being less caught up in morality could liberate a person to speak in an open and unfiltered way. There is shame and there is shamelessness.

This statement could be Exhibit A for the fuzziness of the phrase "moral standards". It immediately invokes "niceness" and decorum as moral values, which would be pretty far down on my list of concepts and behaviors relevant to "high moral standards".

AprilApple said...

Hillary and her corrupt cronies will spend a billion, and the corrupt machine and her corrupt media will drag her old corrupt cackling carcass over that finish line.

Bob Boyd said...

My name goes here. said..."Hillary has spent close to $150 Million dollars and all she can do is tie him."

That's what I was thinking. Plus, Trump has much of his own party working against him, forces would normally be arrayed against Hillary, but aren't.

damikesc said...

Rehjam, I suppose the biggest issue with trade is the only people cheerleading it are the ones who became fabulously wealthy while it seems far more have seen no real benefits from it. Saying "it's good" isn't enough...People want to see the perks. And they don't seem to be.

M Jordan said...

Word in the street is that Clinton's internals in crucial states are bad ... really bad. So bad she sicced Ruth Bader Ginburg on Trump.

Trump's tweet on Ginsburg last night -- "Her mind is shot -- Resign!" -- may be a sign he's privy to this unholy alliance. Or, as most seem to think, it was just another Trump late-night tweet fiasco. One think is certain: we're going places we haven't seen before.

Brando said...

"Any poll with Trump tied with Hillary and a large percentage undecided is a win for Trump. Undecided voters are generally considering voting for the challenger over the incumbent, but aren't sure enough yet to commit. Hillary is the incumbent in this race, Trump the challenger."

That used to be the conventional wisdom, but undecideds broke for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2012. I don't think without more info we can assume how they'll break this year.

"For the last few Prez elections, the races come down to Fla, Ohio, Va, and Penn."

The problem is so long as the Dems win CO, NV and don't lose any of their usual blue states, the GOP has to win FL, OH and at least one of VA or PA. That's also assuming they don't lose NC or AZ, where it's been a tossup. The Dems have several paths to electoral victory, but the GOP has to practically run the table.

Big Mike said...

I'm shocked by the numbers who say "the old ways don't work and it's time for radical change"

@Althouse, I'm not all that shocked that you're shocked. You are a tenured professor and certainly more ensconced in an ivory tower than you think. The current system is working well for you. Not so for a lot of people.

Sebastian needs to talk to more doctors. Medicare and Medicaid used to work better than they do today -- nearly any doctor will tell you that. Cutbacks in Medicare and Medicaid funding (mostly to fund Obamacare), coupled with the EHR regulations, have made it impossible to provide good care to some of their patients without digging into the physician's own pocket or hitting up the patient for sums of money they can't afford.

The never-ending QEs have hit retirees very hard in the wallet. When my late mother in law retired she had built up a modest nest egg and could live frugally but comfortably on the interest. Today getting interest on your money is but a dream and American economists are talking about negative interest rates. What should old people do? Take the red pill and die already, is the answer that Obama and his fellow Democrats are pushing.

The present economy has seen people who had hoped to work until their late sixties forced to retire in the early sixties and even late fifties. That helps the published unemployment rate, but those people are collecting much less social security than they had hoped or even expected, and they'd much rather be working.

Jobs. Get a college degree and get a good job. In the past we could chuckle about folks with a masters degree flipping burgers, because we knew that sooner or later the economy would turn around and they'd get something more appropriate to their educational attainments. Not since Obama took office! Now that person with the masters has tens of thousands of dollars of student debt but very few prospects of better than part-time employment until someone does something about the economy. You'll hear about people who are success stories, but why would the press write about the ones who aren't success stories in this economy.

And that's not including UMW workers out of work thanks to the Democrats' "War on Coal." Nor are they the only union workers who've been hit hard by the past 7 1/2 years. The only unions who are genuinely doing well are the UAW and government unions.

But none of that affects you, Professor (unless UW retirement policies force you to rely heavily on Medicare) so you can be shocked.

PB said...

There may be a Bradley Effect at play here that consistently underestimates Trump support across the board.

Brando said...

"There may be a Bradley Effect at play here that consistently underestimates Trump support across the board."

If there was, I'd expect to see a consistent underperformance in live polls vs. anonymous online polls, or him outperforming the polls in his primary races, but we haven't seen that.

What will help Trump at this rate--because the sort of people that like Trump were already in his corner--is for enough of the 60% or so of voters who can't stand him to decide they can't stand Hillary more, enough to grudgingly vote for him. That may happen if she does more to make people despise her (which I'm sure she's capable of) or if Trump, through acts or omissions, manages to make himself less despised among that contingent.

As things stand now, I don't know if even a major terror attack would help him (he misplayed the Orlando one, and while a terror attack can harm the incumbent party, it doesn't help if the challenger appears erratic), and the economy is running out of time for a collapse (as even a recession takes a few months for people to notice it). He's going to have to work on that 60%.

John Henry said...

I wonder how reliable the polls are? In Britain they turned out not to be so reliable about Brexit. One of the reasons, it seems now, is that people lied to the pollsters out of fear.

If they supported Brexit they would be seen as bad people. So they told pollsters that they supported it.

We've had a pretty extreme level of violence and vilification of Trump and his supporters. Even an assassination attempt by an illegal alien. Would it be any wonder that people might be afraid to identify as supporters?

There is not a lot of risk to telling a pollster that you are for Trump. There is no risk whatsoever in saying that you are for Hilary or undecided.

I do not think it is knowable how much, or even if, this is skewing the polls to Hilary. I do suspect that it is happening.

I don't think Trump does much polling. He should really screw up the process by telling his supporters that, if polled, they should lie.

John Henry

John Henry said...

Re political polling, I think Mike Rothko had the right idea years ago. If asked lie.

His reasoning was that the main purpose of polling was to find out what people wanted. The pol then shapes their positions and policies to match that. They have no intention of carrying them out, they just want to get elected.

Perhaps, went Mike's argument, if the pols were unreliable, they might have to just start saying what they believed.

Remember, if polled you have no legal obligation to be truthful. You have a moral obligation to be untruthful.

John Henry

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Amazing and disturbing. I wonder if any of the respondents could even imagine a scenario where they might benefit from trade?

Yes, I can imagine scenarios where I benefit from trade and I am sure the respondents can too. However, as damikesc states, saying trade is good is not good enough.

Trade, especially "free trade" like just about everything else in this world has good aspects and bad. Winners and losers. A healthy polity would be attempting to alleviate the bad and address the concerns of the losers.

However, we seem to have arrived at a point where neither major political party is willing to do so because they are controlled by the "winners" who (to coin a phrase) don't give a fig about the losers so long as their gravy train continues.

In addition, the very notion of a nation-state and local control is being attacked. Is, in fact, considered retrograde nonsense no different than racism among many if not most of the elite who benefit from globalism.

"But wait," say the citizens of many nations, "if you don't think I have any rights as a citizen and are perfectly comfortable importing people from third world countries so they can undercut my wages and vote against my interests and change the culture in ways I am not comfortable with, then why should I appoint you as my representative?"

"Shut up you racist loser," reply the elites.

Derek Kite said...

I would love to see Trump win after spending $150 million on his campaign, beating Hillary who will spend close to $1 billion.

Pour les autres.

grackle said...

As a Trump supporter I’m not surprised … but … I do not want Trump to get out too far ahead before the Democrat convention. It’s best that the MSM/Democrats not realize what is happening until after Hillary is baked into the cake.

The Morning Joes were definitely alarmed this AM. There was a lot of excessive laughter(even more than usual) over weak witticisms, which I interpret as a sign of anxiety. Whistling past the graveyard. I think Nicolle Wallace may have a sense of what is occurring and probably Mark Halperin, the rest seem to be clueless, which is good. But they are all nervous.

In Cleveland I assume there will be riots. Cleveland has been run by Democrats for generations so I assume the city administration and the police are incompetent and probably corrupt. That means riots. Trump can riff on the law and order theme he’s developing.

rehajm said...

I suppose the biggest issue with trade is the only people cheerleading it are the ones who became fabulously wealthy while it seems far more have seen no real benefits from it.

I suppose, though just because the 'far more' don't see the benefits doesn't mean they aren't benefiting. We're still the 2nd largest exporting nation and those products aren't produced exclusively by fabulously wealthy individuals. There's still big lines at Wall Mart on Saturdays of people taking advantage of low prices, too.

It's one thing for Trump to exploit a wedge issue that's worked for the GOP in the past (and I'm glad somebody is), but still...

khesanh0802 said...

Two things:
1. Buried in the middle of Politico's article -" When voters are asked to consider the general election again, this time given the option of choosing Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Trump’s advantage over Clinton grows in each state. Trump leads on the four-way ballot by five points in Florida, one point in Ohio and six points in Pennsylvania."

2. I don't know why Ann is surprised by the heavy lean toward " things aren't working". Rasmussen has had "country wrong direction" by 65%+ for at least a couple of years.

John Henry said...

My name goes here pointed out that Hilary has spent $150mm and gotten pretty much fawing media coverage. Trump has spent very little.

And Hilary can't move the needle.

I think Trump's strategy is interesting. In the first place, I don't think a lot of advertising at this point does much more than make the media like you. I doubt that would ever happen with Trump no matter how much he spends.

There is a finite amount of money available to both sides. Hilary may be able to raise $1bn from her backers. Trump could, potentially, spend $9bn of his own money. (He won't, but it could be available)

The more Hilary spends now, the less she will have to spend later when it may mean something. The less Trump spends now, the more he will have available)

Trump is a master of marketing with over 40 years doing it very successfully for a living. He thrives on it.

Most politicians have no experience and less love for marketing themselves. It is a means to the end rather than the game itself.

Anyone want to bet who is better at marketing their presidential "brand"?

Trump has already beaten 16 well funded, mostly experienced politicians. Not just beaten them but completely beat the shit out of them like a rented red headed stepchild. It ain't about money. It ain't even about policy and ideas so much. It is about marketing the brand.

Trump can do it, others can't.

John Henry

Terry said...

"Blogger khesanh0802 said...
Rasmussen has had "country wrong direction" by 65%+ for at least a couple of years."

Obama would tell that 65% that they were wrong.

Levi Starks said...

Can't wait to listen to this mornings episode of the Dianne Rheem show this morning on NPR. She'll be off the rails.

damikesc said...

I suppose, though just because the 'far more' don't see the benefits doesn't mean they aren't benefiting. We're still the 2nd largest exporting nation and those products aren't produced exclusively by fabulously wealthy individuals. There's still big lines at Wall Mart on Saturdays of people taking advantage of low prices, too.

But how many of those people shop at Wal-Mart as a choice rather than "My money is not getting any higher while expenses are definitely going up and I need to stretch my money as much as I can". It's why poor people don't shop at Whole Foods. They have to take their stagnant money and make it go as long as it can in an increasingly costly world. I don't see much of an opportunity for improvement --- why should I do anything to help billionaires who already seem to dictate a system running against me to do any better for themselves?

It'd be different if some of the cheerleaders would so much as acknowledge that NO policy is a panacea. Free trade isn't good for everybody. Nothing is. The free market is really good, but it isn't great for everybody, either.

Cruz's ad early in the campaign, for me, is the most accurate ad I've seen: If the elite were the ones being harmed by global trade and immigration (and they are tied, whether we like it or not), it'd have stopped long ago.

John Henry said...

Drudge has an quote from David Cameron, ex PM of Britain. Blindsided by a Brexit election the polls said he could win.

“I was the future once!”

I think Hilary may be thinking the same thing.

The thought of her sitting in a darkened room, Nora Desmond like, thinking that makes me smile.

John Henry

Anglelyne said...

Big Mike: @Althouse, I'm not all that shocked that you're shocked. You are a tenured professor and certainly more ensconced in an ivory tower than you think. The current system is working well for you. Not so for a lot of people.

The current system is working well for me, too, but I never cease to be shocked that Althouse is shocked by entirely predictable events. How can anyone be so unaware of the things you discuss in your comment?

Granted, I notice among my own acquaintances a divide between what I'll label the "well(publicly)-pensioned" and the "401(K)ers". (Quick and dirty categories, but I think it works well enough for my point.) The former tend to be a bit defensive about things, and appear to have more faith in the ultimate stability of the status quo. This is understandable. But even so, even the most in-denial among them are not "shocked" by what those other people out there are thinking and doing, because they do know what's going on "out there", regardless of their own comfort and security (and fond wishes that all this unpleasantness just go away).

The really shocking thing about contemporary life is how shocked the "well-informed" are by entirely predictable (and predicted) stuff.

John Henry said...

Damisk asked

But how many of those people shop at Wal-Mart as a choice rather than "My money is not getting any higher while expenses are definitely going up and I need to stretch my money as much as I can".

Perhaps not as many as you might think. While WM does have their own store brands on some foods and clothing, pretty much everything else they sell is national brands the same as you would buy at Target or K-Mart or such. Just cheaper.

So I wonder how many people who could shop elsewhere are shopping at Walmart instead of Target? They may think: "I can buy a Hamilton-Beach blender in Walmart for 10% less than Target. I would be stupid to spend the extra 10% for no reason."

Walmart grocery departments also carry many more national brands than store brands. Just cheaper. Ditto clothing.

John Henry

John Henry said...

BTW, a pro-tip from someone who has spent the past 30+ years working in a lot of food plants.

The Walmart store brand is often exactly the same product as the national brand.

That can of Hunts tomato sauce, is exactly the same sauce as WM's Great Value brand. It is made in the same plant, using the same recipe and the same materials. The difference is that they just swap out the labels. Sometimes on the fly without even stopping the line.

The cost of changing to an actually different product is just way too expensive.

Note: I used Hunts as an example but I do not specifically know if Hunts also makes Great Value products.

John Henry

shiloh said...

"I just question the basic efficacy of polling any longer."

Romney Trouncing Obama in Ohio

Romney 49%, Obama 48% in Gallup's Final Election Survey

Willard Mitt campaign internal polling puts Rep nominee up ONE POINT in Ohio and TIED in PA/WI

Pre-assembling the excuses for Obama's defeat tomorrow

If it all comes down to WI...

Romney up by 1 in...

...!!!...Minnesota


Objective political facts ...

Keep hope alive !!!

>

3 1/2 months out is Althouse doing a good job making her con flock feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Rhetorical.

She does try her best especially a couple days before the election.

What ever happened to Nathan Alexander as he was 100% convinced mittens would win a lanslide victory! Therapy?

I yield back the balance of my time ...

Anglelyne said...

rehajm: There's still big lines at Wall Mart on Saturdays of people taking advantage of low prices, too.

Oh ffs, rehajm, do you really not understand that there is more to a "standard of living" and "quality of life" than being able to buy cheap crap at Walmart?

Affordable goods are great. (I pop into the local Walmart myself now and again.) But unfortunately those "big lines at Walmart on Saturdays" correlate with a lot of negative factors, too.

Brando said...

"The Walmart store brand is often exactly the same product as the national brand."

From personal experience, my wife usually shops at the Super Wal Mart nearby because it is the closes grocery store and has just about anything you need. Service there is decent, too.

I'm sure some people shop at Wal Mart because their budgets are tight, but there are a lot of cheaper options for that (Save A Lot, or Aldi, both of which have the "we only sell the stuff that we have a big run on" model). Wal Mart I think succeeds more at convenience and variety.

shiloh said...

"Save A Lot, or Aldi"

Indeed! Also Big Lots and Marc's ...

Quinnipiac should do a poll on preferred grocery shopping.

eric said...

Something else not seen analyzed by all those people who consider themselves political analysts.

The Republican primary isn't over yet. Many Republicans are still holding out hope that Trump will be replaced at the convention.

What happens to the polling when he becomes the nominee?

eric said...

Also, could someone explain this to me.

Nationally, Reuters has Clinton going from +8 to +13.

Over the same time period, McClatchy/Marist has Clinton going from +9 to +3.

Makes it seem like polls are just making it up.

Brando said...

"The Republican primary isn't over yet. Many Republicans are still holding out hope that Trump will be replaced at the convention.

What happens to the polling when he becomes the nominee?"

Do you really think the sort of Republicans who haven't supported him yet will start to do so simply because he officially gets the nomination? It's been clear for months that he was going to be the nominee.

For him to win over any more Republicans, he'd have to do something else to change their minds about him. Actually going silent for a month might do the job.

shiloh said...

"Actually going silent for a month might do the job."

Disappearing?

mockturtle said...

Per Angleyne: Because "honest and trustworthy" is a pretty straightforward concept on whose meaning most people agree, whereas "moral standard" is fuzzy.

Bingo! In fact, I daresay many poll participants equate 'morality' with sexual fidelity and avoidance of profanity.

mockturtle said...

And, as we know, Hillary keeps her profanity behind the scenes.

Michael said...

Polls showing either candidate in the lead with both around the 40% mark don't mean much. No one doubts that both Hillary and Trump will get over 40% of the vote. The question is: what happens with the other 20%? Anybody's guess.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The current system is working well for me, too, but I never cease to be shocked that Althouse is shocked by entirely predictable events. How can anyone be so unaware of the things you discuss in your comment?

Yeah, me too. I'm doing well, for now. But I have family for whom the current system is not working well at all. And not because they are doing anything wrong. They want to work, and are more than willing to work hard, but the competition for jobs is ferocious. That's great for people with a lot of capitol, but are current societal situation is starting to make the Gilded Age look absolutely egalitarian.

At least during the Gilded Age they didn't con young people into going into thousands of dollars in debt to acquire (and in many cases failing to acquire) useless "credentials" so they could then get jobs in the service industries.


I saw something on the Intertubes the other day. Guy was telling about a middle-aged man knocking on doors in his neighborhood trying to get people to subscribe to the local dead-tree newspaper. He asked the guy what he did before that gig. Guy replied he was a mechanical engineer at Boeing.

Rusty said...

Save A Lot, or Aldi, both of which have the "we only sell the stuff that we have a big run on" model).

I think the Aldi model is to just stock a limited selection of the most popular stuff. It is name brand stuff just in Aldi packaging. It comes off the same production line. Occasionally they' have tools on sale. I buy em to modify them for different projects.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Speaking of the Gilded Age, a clip from my newest guilty pleasure.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/zd1lfc/another-period-the-worst-family-in-newport

Michael K said...

I'm with Big Mike and John Henry.

The GOP convention will show the still reluctant GOPers that Trump is their only option short of emigration.

I expect violence and more violence. The Black Panthers are planning to demonstrate with long guns like that idiot in camo with an AR 15 in Dallas. Not the shooter. The guy on TV who is now complaining.

The BLM people will create a Trump landslide.

If they don't succeed in killing him. I just hope his security is up to the job.

Brando said...

"Polls showing either candidate in the lead with both around the 40% mark don't mean much. No one doubts that both Hillary and Trump will get over 40% of the vote. The question is: what happens with the other 20%? Anybody's guess."

That's the big takeaway--masses of likely voters who can drift. I'd still guess the split will be close enough to even to make this a narrow race, but who knows. The disgust with both of these choices seems higher than in previous years.

"I think the Aldi model is to just stock a limited selection of the most popular stuff. It is name brand stuff just in Aldi packaging. It comes off the same production line. Occasionally they' have tools on sale. I buy em to modify them for different projects."

We once hit one on a trip, not knowing what to expect. The prices and products were good, but seeing everything off-brand was surprising. I'd go back if there was one in our town.

Original Mike said...

"For him to win over any more Republicans, he'd have to do something else to change their minds about him. Actually going silent for a month might do the job."

When I go a few days without hearing him, I start to think maybe he wouldn't be that bad. Then he opens his mouth.

Michael K said...

"He asked the guy what he did before that gig. Guy replied he was a mechanical engineer at Boeing."

I saw that, too. Back when I was an engineer, we used to talk about engineers driving taxicabs every few years.

That was when Defense was a big industry and before H1B visas.

When I quit to go back to school and do pre-med, every other engineer, except a couple of higher-ups, was planning to go to law school, medical school or get an MBA.

Brando said...

"When I go a few days without hearing him, I start to think maybe he wouldn't be that bad. Then he opens his mouth."

I feel the same way. If the recent polls are more than a temporary blip, it could be because for the past week he's avoided saying anything really stupid. Maybe his campaign team has finally muzzled him to show him that if he just lets people think about Hillary, he can pull this out.

Michael K said...

" Maybe his campaign team has finally muzzled him"

Trump seems to me to be a quick learner and marketing is his thing.

The #NeverTrumpers, and I don't know if you fit that model, have got to get used to this style of campaign or resign themselves to Hillary.

Anglelyne said...

John Henry:

“I was the future once!”

I think Hilary may be thinking the same thing.

The thought of her sitting in a darkened room, Nora Desmond like, thinking that makes me smile.


I try not to give in to base enjoyment of vindictive emotions, but...yeah, me too.

Bruce Hayden said...

In regard to food quality, the CBS morning show had a guy on this morning talking about food fraud, and how often you don't get what you think you are in the stores and the restaraunts. Like affordable Kobe beef. My partner and I have recurring discussions where she claims that restaraunts sometimes substitute horse meet for beef. I don't believe it (because that would be pretty blatant false advertising/packaging), but she was married to a chef, who had seen all the tricks. In any case, one of the author's points was that the best place to buy good food is often the big box chains like Walmart, which have the buying muscle to force suppliers to provide high quality food. And, indeed, we have found consistently the best quality in canned chicken and tuna at their Sam's Club. The worst consistent quality in foods has been from our local Western Family grocery store, and esp its store brands. We have also had good luck with the Costco and Krogers store brands. But I know that when we get back to a big city late this year for the winter, we will be buying our canned chicken and tuna from Sam's Club.

eric said...

Brando asked,

Do you really think the sort of Republicans who haven't supported him yet will start to do so simply because he officially gets the nomination?

Yes, I really think that.

Here is my analysis.

The primaries are always very emotionally charged. I've been invested in three. My wife and I went for Alan Keyes in 2000. In 2008 we were for Romney. In 2012 for Newt. Each time we would find ourselves saying things like, "If it's X, we aren't going to vote for X. The GOP cam suck it."

But later, after the primaries, it occurred to us that we were being immature. Let's take this last election. Did we really want another four years of Obama just because Romney is a NE Liberal Democrat? In so many ways Romney would be better than Obama.

So, eventually we came around and voted Romney.

Right now, their are a lot of Republicans, over represented in the media, who have a vested interest in Trump being replaced at the convention. If you read them regularly as I do, they focus more on Trump and his negatives than anything else. They pound him for every little freaking thing. They have no skepticism at all towards WaPo or NYT stories. They assume the worst about Trump in every story and they pile on.

They do this in the hopes of replacing Trump at the convention. Influence enough voters and maybe they can get him replaced.

Non media Trump haters don't have that power to express their frustration and dislike of Trump. The only way they can hope to influence the convention and get Trump replaced is through polling. If they are called, that's their chance.

But where do they go once the primary is really over? Once the delegates have chosen Trump and he is the nominee?

I think we will know by the first week of August, give or take a week.

If the Republican talking heads finally come around, so too will many others. Just as I have in the past. Just as my wife has.

Darrell said...

Seventy percent of voters think that Hillary should have been indicted. Makes one question the "Hillary is leading" polls, doesn't it?

Bruce Hayden said...

@Dr K - I welcome disgruntled engineers who want to go to law school. One of my partner's best friend did it, went into litigation, and made a fortune. His detail orientation allowed him to excell (and his engineering allowed him to understand doctors and medicine). I would never go to a patent attorney who had not worked as an engineer (etc) before going to law school. The ones who never practiced as engineers treat patents like any other legal endeavor. That most often means that they are writing and prosecuting patents on inventions that they don't really understand. If you don't really understand the invention, you most likely aren't going to be able to competently claim it,nor distinguish it from the prior art. If you have been doing it as long as I have, you can more often than not tell the former engineers and scientists from those who went straight from undergrad to law school by how they argue claims, with the non-engineers concentrating on formalities, and the former engineers on substance.

Nichevo said...

Actually going silent for a month might do the job.
7/13/16, 10:04 AM

Hey Brando,

Why don't YOU try it?

Nobody who wants to defeat Hillary! needs to hear your yammering!

People who want her to WIN, yes, you are a good friend to them.

Yes...anytime we learn that H eats babies, H sells the Capitol building to the Chinese, H calls black people N-words, you then come back with "so they're both bad."

Would you. Please. Shut the fuck up about how awful Trump is? Say, for a month? It seems that you should regard that as a reasonable request.

We already have Shiloh. Nobody nowhere needs TWO Shilohs.

Don't just reflexively reject this request. Please consider it carefully.

shiloh said...

"Seventy percent of voters think that Hillary should have been indicted. Makes one question the "Hillary is leading" polls, doesn't it?"

If one believes the 70% which was also a poll.

Bottom line, we need more polls!

mockturtle said...

Always sad for me, being a resident of a blue state, that my vote for President never counts.

Brando said...

"But where do they go once the primary is really over? Once the delegates have chosen Trump and he is the nominee?"

I get that, but I figure the primary was really over when Cruz conceded. Since that time, no one has raised a serious alternative for the GOP ballot (even this stunt the delegates are trying to do at the convention seems more like a way of trying to get Trump in line than to seriously replace him, because who would they replace him with? No one has stepped forward because no one wants that position). I can't imagine that anyone who today is thinking "never Trump!" is going to change their mind after the convention makes it technically official.

What I think might make the difference is if Trump shows discipline for the next few months, and hits Hillary on the things that cleave Left from Right (e.g., the BLM stuff, affirmative action, climate change) so that those who are already conservative will be thinking "ok, he's saying what I agree with there, and Hillary obviously isn't". That, and of course more from Hillary will do the trick.

There's still the issue of the ground game, and demographics, but the challenge of uniting the party is the low hanging fruit. Endorsements don't matter, best to ignore those, but the rank and file are still the ones that the party counts on to turn out.

shiloh said...

"We already have Shiloh. Nobody nowhere needs TWO Shilohs."

Indeed, I'm quite happy with the current Althouse 95/5 con majority as "we" want to keep this a fair political fight.

Nichevo, does it bother you when Althouse deletes your posts? Rhetorical.

Michael K said...

"the best place to buy good food is often the big box chains like Walmart, which have the buying muscle to force suppliers to provide high quality food."

Costco filets are the best. At least an inch thick.

"I welcome disgruntled engineers who want to go to law school."

I think they would be especially good on technical issues. I used to do a lot of medico-legal consulting. Ive probably testified in 100 trials for both sides. I've seen lawyers who went to law school late and who, while brilliant (One was a transplant surgeon), were pretty weak in the courtroom. At one time, I thought I might write a book on how to use expert witnesses.

Michael K said...

"who would they replace him with? No one has stepped forward because no one wants that position)."

I'm still trying to figure out what Bill Kristol is doing. He's destroying his little magazine.

Brando said...

"Nobody who wants to defeat Hillary! needs to hear your yammering!

People who want her to WIN, yes, you are a good friend to them.

Yes...anytime we learn that H eats babies, H sells the Capitol building to the Chinese, H calls black people N-words, you then come back with "so they're both bad."

Would you. Please. Shut the fuck up about how awful Trump is? Say, for a month? It seems that you should regard that as a reasonable request."

If you don't care what I have to say then why not ignore it? I ignore plenty of comments on the thread, and am doing you the courtesy of responding to yours because you addressed mine, but if it bothers you you certainly don't have to pay attention to my comments.

I've pretty consistently criticized Hillary, long before Trump was ever a candidate, and am disgusted with both. Many people feel this way, and you're probably not going to find an active thread on the Internet where that sentiment isn't expressed. Some people don't want to hear that, because they have a clear preference (for Trump or Hillary, or simply far more against one or the other). But here's the thing--we're not the ones running for office who need to win votes.

Brando said...

"I'm still trying to figure out what Bill Kristol is doing. He's destroying his little magazine."

I don't get it either. But then, Kristol has a long record of getting things wrong. His attempt to get David French to run was a mix of sad and hilarious. Hilari-sad?

shiloh said...

"Would you. Please. Shut the fuck up about how awful Trump is?"

It sort of goes without saying ie a given he's a discombobulated train wreck!

Sort of like Althouse cons sayin' Hillary is the devil ad nauseam.

But, but, but what would Althouse cons discuss the next 3 1/2 months? ie a catch-22.

>

Althouse cons really, really, really don't like anybody who disagrees w/them. Shocking! As they prefer a 100% con echo chamber. Bless their little hearts!

shiloh said...

Breaking ...

NBC/WSJ/Marist poll:

IA = Hillary +3
OH = Tied
PA = Hillary +9

Keep hope alive!

eric said...

Thanks for posting that Shiloh.

I ask again, in what world can any polls be trusted when they are so far apart?

Makes no sense at all.

tim in vermont said...

Since Costco stopped taking Amex, I am looking for someplace else.

cubanbob said...

If Chuck is going to vote for Trump as he said he would ever so reluctantly do then it really becomes a question of who shows up to vote. Democrats going violent at the conventions will certainly help Trump. Indeed just about any negative news helps Trump. Question is can Trump help himself by stop talking rambling incoherent shit. Dude you didn't make it big in business that way, yes you do that as a schtick but every once in a while you had to speak coherently and sensibly to get the deal done. Now is the time to do that, act and speak coherently to get you the backers you need. I'm going to vote for you if for no other reason that I can't stand the thought of a mendacious, champagne communist (actually fascist) grifter, criminal, traitor and FBI certified fool as president of the great country. So for God's sake stop making it so difficult for ordinary law abiding taxpaying patriotic Americans pull the lever against Hillary.

Michael K said...

" As they prefer a 100% con echo chamber. Bless their little hearts!"

Well the left has a 100% echo chamber where anyone disagreeing is banned.

I notice you are still here and lefties post at Powerline all the time.

NRO is so overrun with lefty trolls I don't read comments there.

eric said...

I think his real complaint, Michael K, is that Ann's site isn't drowned out by lefty comments.

There are about five regular left/liberal commenters here. There are another five or so that are middle to left. The rest are on the right.

This isn't good for a Democrat. Hearing the other side to them hurts. Causes them physical pain and emotional distress. They need to describe it as an echo chamber because it sooths their soul to believe so.

shiloh said...

MK's usual non-sequiturs, changing the subject aside, let the record show he would prefer Althouse be a 100% con echo chamber as he didn't state otherwise.

shiloh said...

"Causes them physical pain and emotional distress."

Projection at its finest, congrats!

Indeed, 4 years ago as evidenced by the threads posted above, were extremely painful to libs !@#$%^&*

Oh the humanity!

Unknown said...

Nichevo can't tolerate a opposing opinion, well he's no different than most con commenters. It's amusing to hear someone have a nervous breakdown because a few liberals comment here.

Michael K said...

"MK's usual non-sequiturs, changing the subject aside,"

I understand that you live politics, especially lefty politics, 24/7 but there are a few of us who like sailing or flying or navigation or airplanes or any one of a thousand things you have never known.

Original Mike said...

"I understand that you live politics, especially lefty politics, 24/7 but there are a few of us who like sailing or flying or navigation or airplanes or any one of a thousand things you have never known."

What do you mean? He's an astronaut!

Michael K said...

"He's an astronaut!"

No, space cadet,

Unknown said...

The great Kreskin knows all sees all. He knows or assumes he knows how other commenters have lived or live their lives. I wonder what makes someone say something so foolishly arrogant? Reminds me of Justice Ginsburg, whose speech may be influenced by an aging frontal cortex.

Michael K said...

"Profile Not Available" has spoken.

Unknown said...

I guess the Great Kreskin doesn't know all afterall.

shiloh said...

MK's consistently off topic er talkin' about his champagne wishes/caviar dreams exotic, to be envied lifestyle er in his own little world totally unaffected by everything happening around him.

IOW your average, semi-detached, common garden variety Althouse con.

MK, have you ever been experienced? Rhetorical.

Michael K said...

"MK, have you ever been experienced? Rhetorical."

So, you get your philosophy from dead rock musicians ? Good to know.

You have a long way to go to understand the world.

My experience is more in dealing with life and death and in sailing across oceans and in leaving home at age 18 and never living there again. I made my own way in the world, an experience you will never have.

Michael K said...

"his champagne wishes/caviar dreams "

They were not wishes, kid. They were things I did and on my own dime, unlike you.

shiloh said...

MK, as mentioned, totally unaffected by everything happening around you.

Indeed, who are you trying to impress by living at this blog 24/7?

A definite chip on your shoulder ~ messy divorce? Don't get along w/your kids?

hmm, I can get personal too.

Michael K said...

"Indeed, who are you trying to impress by living at this blog 24/7?"

Why do I have to be trying to impress anyone ? I work a couple of days a week and am not here. Today I am not working and the topics are interesting. I go to other blogs and post comments.

Why are you here ? Trying to sound wise ?

shiloh said...

"Why are you here ?"

As mentioned many times ***entertainment*** which you provide daily.

Unknown said...

Shiloh,
Every chance MK gets he puts forth this idea that he is a perfectly normal happy well adjusted man. He goes out of his way to give in detail aspects of his life he thinks will impress others. His daily over he top personal insults toward any commenter who he perceives as liberal belies that this guy is well adjusted. This guy is one miserable human being. That's my guess. He doesn't seem to think that anyone will ever get personal in retaliation. Seems as if he isn't used to being challenged or opposed.

Nichevo said...

If you're here as an audience, the first thing is to shut up.

Michael K said...

"Profile Not Available" is engaging in psychoanalysis.

It is amusing to see how nasty the left gets when facing disagreement with no valid arguments to respond with.

I used to see this at Wash Monthly all the time. Then the moderators started to delete my comments and leave the insults.

OK. Have at it kids. I have things to do.

shiloh said...

"no valid arguments to respond with."

MK, 90% of your replies are irrelevant personal anecdotes, non sequiturs, changing the subject red herrings ...

on a good day!

Nichevo said...

Shi, if you were any political position you would be equally annoying. Which is clearly your aim. I only wonder if you can act normal. Or if this is the act.


Shorter Shi:

Mommy mommy mommy!

It's not the liberals or leftists I object to per se, but the poor quality of their posts.

Brando, by all means rave on. I merely ask what you pretend to be accomplishing.

Unknown said...

Interesting how much it bothers MK that a commenter chooses to be anonymous. Yes of course you have things to do, so why do you spend so much time here at Althouse every single day? MK, you are transparent, it doesn't take much more than average powers of observation to see through you. Now let's see how soon it takes you to tell other commenters what psychoactive meds they should be taking. You have recommended such medication many times. So you're diagnosing via the internet sight unseen. You should know better, or maybe it's that frontal cortex acting up again. It's not pleasant having others treat you the way you so often treat others here. Is it?

Nichevo said...

As for deleting me and leaving you, I have a hypothesis which she substantiates every day:

Althouse likes what is bad, and hates what is good.

Unknown said...

Nichevo, if you're concerned with quality commenting, I'd suggest you stop commenting, as it most often is garbage. Save yourself from yourself.

Michael K said...

"Interesting how much it bothers MK that a commenter chooses to be anonymous."

Interesting how the lefties want 100% politics. Preferably leftist but all politics anyway.

"You have recommended such medication many times."

Only to a couple who seem to need them. You might be a good candidate but you seem to get off on being anonymous, Inga.

Unknown said...

Frontal cortex degeneration cause you to see people who aren't here? Worse than I thought. I thought you had better things to do, why are you still here?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin said...

I don't see the disconnect between "high moral standards" and "trustworthy".

Trump presents a persona where you can pretty much trust that he believes what he says (trustworthy), but if you look at some sharp business practices and sharp elbows he threw in the campaign, like comments about Cruz's wife, you would be less impressed by his moral standards.

Clinton, OTOH, is the embodiment of self-serving lies (untrustworthy), but has left the real dirty work to her flying monkey minions so she has a superficially plausible claim to higher moral standards than does Trump.

They are two different things, it is not odd or irrational for people to rate them differently, and it's not just a matter of being prepared to lie or dissemble for raison d'etat.

Guildofcannonballs said...

"MK, you are transparent, it doesn't take much more than average powers of observation to see through you."

I respect Dr. K. for his transparency. He knows people like me HATE HATE HATE abortion yet doesn't hide his own unique perspective if the conversation warrants, unlike myself who shoehorns abortion into every conversation I have as one of the few things I can feel not-so-damn-obviously inferior to the regulars here about.

Hell, like Dwight Yoakum once sang,

"Once there was this
Spider in my bed
I got caught up in her web
Of love and lies

She spun her chains
Around my heart and soul
Never to let go
Oh, but I survived

'Cause I ain't that lonely yet
No, I ain't that lonely yet
After what you put me through
Oh, I ain't that lonely yet"

mezzrow said...

re: Nurse Ratched

great minds think alike, I suppose (preens)

https://twitter.com/ishaantharoor/status/753320292110532608

Nichevo said...

Save yourself from yourself.
7/13/16, 4:16 PM


So you ARE Inga!

Jon Ericson said...

Anonymous said... [hush]​[hide comment]
Dr. K sure can hand it out but he can't take it. Good to see others standing up to this person. That's how Karma works sometimes. He needs a daily goes of his own medicine.

7/13/16, 4:34 PM
In case you missed it.
Bwaaaaaha.

Fabi said...

Michael K is a fine commenter. He's very well read, highly educated, and solidly versed in rhetoric. The sad, jealous trolls will never diminish his contributions.

wildswan said...

I read that Hillary has paid for 31,000 ads in battleground states and Trump zero. Yet they are close to tied in the polls. I don't know - yet this election has that Brexit feel to it.

Shiloh, UnKnown and the others seem to have decided that it would be fun the insult one commenter a day - to pile on, to tag team someone who is posting winning comments. I've heard it said: if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you don't have the facts, argue the law; if you don't have the facts or the law, scream and pound the table. Or, in this case, if you can't make a case for Hillary - and it seems they can't - scream and pound the commenters.

But since Shiloh-Unknown tactics [SHUN] are always a guide to where the left is going and how they hope to do it - we can take these personal attacks as indications that Hillary is in deep trouble? I remind you -31,000 ads to none and all this money spent has left Trump even with her in the polls.

Or is Trump ahead? Is it the Bradley effect combined with the Ferguson effect? Combined with lying to pollsters? combined with use of cell phones, not land lines? Maybe it all happens when Hillary says that the economy has recovered and all those who have not recovered realize that she doesn't intend even to acknowledge them, let alone do something for their economic situation. At most, she'll call them racists if they make their voices heard at all.

Michael K said...

Boy, the lefties are sure in high dudgeon.

Inga, if you are really the Dean of the UW Law School, for example, why not let us know ?

Shiloh has a real problem with people who have done more than he/she has.

He/she really hates it when a couple stray of the politics reservation and comment on flying or celestial navigation or Omega.

Sorry but I have a life, unlike a couple I won't name.

Jon Ericson said...

Polls? Why the hell would I respond to telephone polls.
Who is on the other end of the line punching in answers.
Where does this data go?
DNC? IRS?
Why do I get phone polls every week?
Am I so lucky as to be selected by Rooters, AP, or other semi-legitimate polls?
I tell em "No free answers from me!"
So do I suppose the "polls" might be used for nefarious purposes?
I'm sure Unknown proudly proclaims its loyalty to the "pollsters".
I'm not paranoid. They Are out to get me.