September 1, 2015

"They don't know how to explain it. It's not possible. Nobody can turn their unfavorable around, especially that big, 63 unfavorable back in May to 61% favorable?"

"That's a 60-point-some-odd shift [for Donald Trump in Iowa].  No number's ever done that before.  They even admit in this poll they have never, ever seen this before. Numbers just don't reverse themselves like that in a space of a few months or ever, especially when the politician in question is totally known by the electorate.  Once you are both totally known and broadly disliked -- 63% Trump back in May -- you're doomed. One hundred times out of 100 times you are doomed.  You cannot recover from that, except Trump has.  Here's [WaPo's Chris] Cillizza: 'In the almost 20 years -- gulp -- I have spent following politics closer than close, I've never seen anything like the total reversal in how Trump is perceived by Republican voters. It is, quite literally, unprecedented.' You know what else bugs 'em about it?... They haven't had anything to do with it.  Trump goes over their heads.  Trump reversing his favorables and unfavorables is totally on Trump.  The media hasn't helped.  If anything, the media has been trying to cement unfavorability numbers on Trump... That this guy, without their help, in fact, with them working against him, has totally reversed in a matter of five months, what people think of him.  They think it isn't possible, A, and especially it isn't possible, B, without them helping.  And it's not just the media that are perplexed.  The Republican wizards of smart who concocted this theory on how Trump had peaked and it was just a matter of being patient and wait and he'll blow himself up because he can't get anymore popular than whatever he is now.  That was their theory.  He's too well known.  He's too well known now.  There's no way he can change.  And yet he has."

Rush Limbaugh on his show yesterday, making some good points, though "60-point-some-odd shift" is bad math. Iowa's opinion of Trump was 27% favorable and 63% unfavorable last May and is now 61% favorable and 35% unfavorable. That's a 34-point increase in favorability, not 60 points. Rush was double counting. There's a 28-point change in unfavorability, but that 28 switched positions to favorable. You can't add those numbers together. They're the same people. I suspect the change is that people have become accustomed to the idea that Trump hasn't toppled, that the obvious ways of attacking him have failed, so he seems to be a credible candidate. In that sense, the media's attacks have helped Trump, because he got the opportunity to very conspicuously show how he can stand his ground.

82 comments:

damikesc said...

I don't see how Rush double counted. If 27% viewed you favorably and now it's 61%, it is a 34 point turnaround. His favorability increased and his unfavorability dropped.

You could more easily argue that he's had a 62 point change (from -36 favorability to +26 favorability)

rhhardin said...

The media attacks helped Trump because people hate the media. Only Trump throws sand in their gears and gets to do it over and over.

I throw sand in the media gears but they don't cover me. So do lots of other people. Trump forces them to cover it.

More sand.

Once written, twice... said...

The Republican Party has imploded and is now just a joke. It did it to itself.

Once written, twice... said...

For years the Republican Party has flirted with gay-baiting, race-baiting, immigrant-baiting, etc., etc., etc.

The Repulican Party created Donald Trump.

Hillary in a landslide.

Nonapod said...

The pendulum has swung back in a weird, unpredictable way I guess.

Ann Althouse said...

"I don't see how Rush double counted. If 27% viewed you favorably and now it's 61%, it is a 34 point turnaround. His favorability increased and his unfavorability dropped."

Approximately 30 percent shifted from the negative to the positive position. If you want to count these people twice, once when they get to a neutral position and once when they become positive, you could say 60. I know Rush isn't the only one who focuses on the favorability gap and double counts people like that.

rhhardin said...

The meaning of shift isn't definite in English.

The reversal of a 49-51 to 51-49 would be called a two point shift.

The reversal of a 0-100 to 100-0 would be called a 100 point shift.

I'd prefer the product, in units of square people.

Ann Althouse said...

""I don't see how Rush double counted. If 27% viewed you favorably and now it's 61%, it is a 34 point turnaround. His favorability increased and his unfavorability dropped."

Not sure you are disagreeing with me. I said 34, the number you are repeating. Rush said 60.

tim maguire said...

I agree with damisec that the "double counting" is legit. The drop in unfavorable and the increase in favorable should both be counted for the same reason favorable and unfavorable are treated as independent numbers--otherwise you ignore the third choice, "no opinion."

That said, a lot of people may be doing what I am doing--I have long dismissed Trump as a vanity candidate who won't do the schlep work of actually getting himself on the ballot. His popularity is irrelevant because his supporters won't get a chance to vote for him. I still think that's the case, but a lot of smart people are saying he's for real, which forces me to pause for the first time and think, maybe he could pull this off. If so, what kind of president would he be? I still think a terrible one, but, again, a lot of smart people aren't so dismissive and I can't ignore that.

damikesc said...

Approximately 30 percent shifted from the negative to the positive position. If you want to count these people twice, once when they get to a neutral position and once when they become positive, you could say 60. I know Rush isn't the only one who focuses on the favorability gap and double counts people like that.

I'd argue that the gap is a more meaningful measure than the individual numbers. If you go from 5% favorable to 35% favorable --- you're still viewed unfavorably.

If you go from -36 to +26, that is more meaningful, and honestly, more significant. Turning around both numbers isn't easy. It seems exceptionally difficult to turn a detractor into a promoter if you're already universally known.

rhhardin said...

If one person moves over from starboard to port, the boat undergoes a 2 person change in list.

MisterBuddwing said...

Althouse's Hillbillies of course don't see that as a problem.

"Hillbillies." Now where have I heard that pejorative before?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

In celebrating Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh is flattering himself.

Laslo Spatula said...

From a comment on the Denali thread that also fits here:

Trump as Mr. October, The Great Reggie Jackson: he struck out a lot, but that isn't held against him, when the home runs in the right moments are spectacular.

The Straw That Stirs The Drink: Jackson's quote about himself, but applicable to Trump.

Everyone else on the R side is just bunting.

Double connotation of 'bunting' intended.


I am Laslo.

Paco Wové said...

Hey, L. E. Lee's back!

rhhardin said...

If you form the 2D vectors (63,27) and (35,61), they span an area of 2898 square people, my proposed shift measure.

This would be scaled to 100 people.

Let somebody try to call this excellent measure double-counting.

Paco Wové said...

Also known as Jay Retread. Maybe it's time to fire up the Sockpuppet Finder again.

rhhardin said...

By contrast, (100,0) and (0,100) gives a shift of 10,000 square people.

(49,51) and (51,49) gives a shift of 200 square people.

It's like learning centigrade for election poll shifts.

rhhardin said...

Rule, for do-it-yourself people, a shift from (r,s) to (t,u) is r*u-s*t (the rust rule), otherwise known from high school as a determinant. Throw away the sign and intuit in whose favor the shift went.

I've lost the girls, I know.

bbkingfish said...

You guys are talking about two different things.

1.) Rush Limbaugh is talking about net favorability.

2.) Anne Althouse is talking about the percentage of poll respondents who view Trump favorably.

Always good for a chuckle to see Republicans wrestle with math.

Drago said...

Always good for a chuckle to see dems struggle with concepts that are over their heads and think its a problem for republicans.

One remembers the laughter on the left regarding Rumsfelds truism about known knowns, known unknowns and unknowns wherein, again, the basic logic eludes them.

But do carry on.

Jaq said...

"Fuck you Chuck Todd" is a winning campaign theme, I think.

Jaq said...

Always good for a chuckle to see Republicans wrestle with math

That is fucking funny. Tell me how Democrats in Detroit had it all figured out how they could pay out bonus 13th checks to there pensioners every Christmas without going bankrupt, or how Illinois can't pay their lottery winners, then get back to me about how Democrats are so great at math.

Drago said...

BTW, when even football announcers understand the concept better than your average lefty poster, you understand fully how backwards the lefties are.

Just listen in as a team is about to score a TD and it is somehow taken away taken all the way for a score in the other teams favor.

What do the announcers say? They will say that is a 14 point shift. They will not say, hey, it's just an incremental 7 points added to one sides tally.

Jaq said...

Yeah yeah yean, homophone misspell! Alert the media!

tim maguire said...

Drago said...Always good for a chuckle to see dems struggle with concepts that are over their heads and think its a problem for republicans.

It's one of those funny things about life, you have to learn a lot before you can begin to understand how little you know. Democrats are convinced of their sophistication not despite their simplistic ignorance, but because of it. They think conservatives are dumb not despite, but because, the concepts conservatives wrestle with are so far over their heads.

tim maguire said...

rhhardin said...If one person moves over from starboard to port, the boat undergoes a 2 person change in list.

Excellent analogy.

Drago said...

tim maguire: rhhardin said...If one person moves over from starboard to port, the boat undergoes a 2 person change in list.

Excellent analogy"

It's a better analogy if we add in the "rowers/riders" aspect.

rhhardin said...

Math doesn't require intelligence. It requires interest.

CJinPA said...

Rush is misreading the swing in favorability. That's a third "misreading" post? Trend?

rhhardin said...

If a plane crashes in Texas due to a tailplane stall, they won't report that cause in the news because women will tune away.

Women don't tune away because they're not intelligent, but because they're not interested. It's too technical.

Women look for complex social narratives.

Gabriel said...

Politics is like baseball. The stats are purely retrospective. No one has ever done x under condition y, until they do.

MadisonMan said...

Math doesn't require intelligence. It requires interest.

Exactly.

Etienne said...

Have you noticed that with the Republicans running both the Senate and the House, that still there is nothing getting done.

The reason is, the Republicans are completely fractured. It's like there are three (or more) parties involved.

Does it even matter if a Republican or a Democrat gets elected? Whoever does win, is going to be writing Executive Orders, and bowing to the Court in running the country.

Polls are for losers. You have to look people in the eye, then the candidate knows he's moving in the right direction.

furious_a said...

Always good for a chuckle to see Republicans wrestle with math.

This from the people who (1)confuse low tax rates with subsidies and (2)think gambling is an excellent way to fund public education.

CJinPA said...

There are simply too many intelligent women to discount.

Dang right. Feminists, on the other hand, make up only 23% of the U.S. female population.

Anonymous said...

Ann Althouse is helping cement the generalization that women aren't good at math.

CJinPA said...

Have you noticed that with the Republicans running both the Senate and the House, that still there is nothing getting done.

Having politicians not doing stuff with our government is not always a bad thing.

furious_a said...

If so, what kind of president would he be? I still think a terrible one...

Compared to...? We're not dealing in absolutes.

Curious George said...

"bbkingfish said...

Always good for a chuckle to see Republicans wrestle with math."

LOL Democrats think that if you ask for a 20% increase in funding, but only get a 10% increase in funding, then you cutting funding.

furious_a said...

...even if you add in the wives, are the numbers still enough?

As long as Trump is nice to Rachael Ray and Oprah, he'll roll up the LIV reality TV demographic. Which is larger than you want to admit.

Bob Ellison said...

Favorable/unfavorable is a binary concept. Someone who was 51% "unfavorable" and switches to "favorable" goes all the way over. It's winner-take-all.

I'd guess that there were lots of 60/40 and 55/45 unfav/favs before, and with all of Trump's recent sound bites, many of them switched. That doesn't imply a 60-point or even a 30-point switch. It just means more people say "meh, I guess he's not half-bad", literally.

Anonymous said...

If you have 200 people voting and 100 vote yes and 100 vote no, the vote is split with zero difference.

If 1 person changes his mind, the vote is now 101 to 99.

The vote won by how many votes?

traditionalguy said...

For 6 years the Presidency was kept under the abuse of a lying autocrat as Harry Reid's Senate prevented any interference with that to happen. The American middle class rebelled and were slandered as Tea Party criminals with the IRStapo on their case, Then they won the House. Still Reid stopped Congress from stopping the slow demolition of American institutions.

Then the voters won the Senate too. And low and behold the Congress just kept letting Obama destroy the USA and its allies while the GOP sold out cheap to the Billionaires lusting for cheap labor from Mexico.

The middle class now has found itself a leader willing to attack all of its enemies at once without fear of the media or a sell out. Trump is the real deal.

Drago said...

eric: "If you have 200 people voting and 100 vote yes and 100 vote no, the vote is split with zero difference. If 1 person changes his mind, the vote is now 101 to 99. The vote won by how many votes?"

Shhhhh. You just blew bbkingfish's little brain.

Bob Ellison said...

eric, what if during the second vote one more eligible voter turns up and votes for the second side.

Now the vote is 101 to 100.

campy said...

"eric, what if during the second vote one more eligible voter turns up and votes for the second side."

What if one side finds a ballot box in their car's trunk with another hundred votes for their side?

CJinPA said...

Ah, but can Republicans like Trump, Limbaugh and rhardin tell the difference between the two groups, or do they only see girl brains at work?

Modern feminists are quite easy to distinguish.

Especially on the topic of math/science STEM etc. Simply look up the social media lynching of Nobel Prize winner Timothy Hunt, who along with his scientist wife was a strong supporter of women in science. Copy the names of the women behind that disgraceful charade and paste them on a list.

Those are the women everyone can ignore.

Bay Area Guy said...

Trump's numbers may or may not be inflated, but the recent Quinnipiac head to head match-up poll has Clinton over Trump, 45-41.

This does impress me. She's been campaigning for the presidency for 40 years, and after only a month of media interviews and 1 debate, he's only down by 4?

exhelodrvr1 said...

The difference between the favorable and unfavorable ratings of a politician are often cited in these analyses. (I.e. when the unfavorable is larger than the favorable, someone is "underwater"). Trump is correct in his analysis of the swing in Trump's ratings.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brando said...

Obama beat Romney in the 2012 popular vote by 53-47. Obama ended with a six point lead over Romney. If Romney had gained three points, he would have tied Obama.

Todd said...

Once written, twice... said...
For years the Republican Party has flirted with gay-baiting, race-baiting, immigrant-baiting, etc., etc., etc.

The Repulican Party created Donald Trump.

Hillary in a landslide.
9/1/15, 9:21 AM


Can a felon, currently servicing time, be sworn in as President? Would they extend visiting hours so the cabinet can meet?

CJinPA said...

Perhaps the others need to stop stereotyping women in science as being too dumb or uninterested to participate in political conversation?

Well, I cited one example of 'women in science participating in political conversation' and it was embarrassing. Made them look dumb and definitely not serious. Perhaps the ladies can police their ranks, too.

Anonymous said...

That this guy, without their help, in fact, with them working against him...

In other words: with their help.

Hari said...

The math of favorable/unfavorable ratings is done like baseball standings:

A team that has 27 wins (favorable) and 63 losses (unfavorable) is "36 games UNDER 500"
A team that has 61 wins (favorable) and 35 losses (unfavorable) is "26 games OVER 500"

The swing is 62.

Hari said...

To elaborate, the favorable plus unfavorable do not add up to 100.
To go from 0 favorable and 100 unfavorable to 0 favorable and 0 unfavorable (with 100 undecided) is a 100 point swing
To then go from 0 favorable and 0 unfavorable to 100 favorable and 0 unfavorable is an additional 100 point swing.

tim maguire said...

furious_a said...
"If so, what kind of president would he be? I still think a terrible one..."

Compared to...? We're not dealing in absolutes.


Yes, we are. I think Trump would be a terrible president. That has nothing to do with the alternatives, each of whom will be judged by me on their own merits until we get to the point where I am comfortable settling on one.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cubanbob said...

The counterpoint to Trump is Sanders. Both parties need a serious Come To Jesus moment and re-think who ought to be their nominees and what their positions ought to be. Hillary doesn't jazz anyone on the Democrat side like Sanders does and on the Republican side no one comes close to the energy level that Trump is achieving. Its not for nothing Cruz is being nice to Trump. I suspect he thinks Trump will be the kingmaker instead of the nominee. As for Sanders, can't figure what he hopes to accomplish other than reprise 1968/1972 Children's Crusade unless he thinks he can also be a kingmaker if other candidates jump into the Democratic field. Bombast aside and not kowtowing to the media and PC, Trump's positions are not all that much different to what was the DNC platform of 1996 with respects to illegal immigration. There might be a lesson here for the Democrats.

Unknown said...

Translation:
Party Base to DC Establishment: "F*ck You. War"

CJinPA said...

Btw? Anectdotes should not be confused with statistics.

LOL Let me sift through your imposing list of statistics...where are they...they were quite imposing, not mere insults, real stats...

Seriously, I shouldn't have to tutor you on the case of Sir Hunt. If you care about the intersection of professional women and politics, which you clearly do, you should be up on that. And policing your ranks.

rhhardin said...

The nicest bit on women and math is by Vicki Hearne here.

A rare woman who can write.

rhhardin said...

Sir Hunt.

Mike Hunt is a regular radio caller.

Ken B said...

It is double counting. Consider a change from 100% unfavorable to 100% favorable.
200% of voters only happens in Chicago.

Qwinn said...

"Those ladies aren't in MY ranks, btw."

Apparently, alongside math, women have trouble understanding the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Sorry ladies, couldn't resist.

CJinPA said...

Ah, but I wasn't the one making assertions about the stupidity of women. Then, you backed up your assertation, when called on it, with a personal anecdote.

Oh boy. Where to begin. Maybe you have me confused with some other icky guy? I made no assertion "about the stupidity of women" and I didn't cite a "personal" anecdote.

Other than that, you doing a heckuva job.

I referenced feminists in general and those involved in (or covering) STEM fields. They've behaved stupidly.

The 77% of women in and out of the STEM fields (I also never denied there were many in it) are the silent majority. You should have no problem with that, unless you're part of the 23%. Cool?

Jupiter said...

I don't think Trump would make a very good President (better than Hillary, of course), but he makes a great candidate. He is holding the other candidates feet to the fire on immigration. The fact that they respond by attacking him, rather than shifting their positions, shows that they are owned by their pro-immigration donors. Fuck 'em. I never thought I would vote for a Mormon, but I voted for Romney. I suppose I may end up voting for Jeb Bush, whose position on immigration is pretty much the same as Ted Kennedy's. Actually, I'd rather vote for Trump.

Does that mean I view him "favorably"? Sure, why not?

pm317 said...

Trump is not a politician. That is his biggest asset. In the beginning when his unfavorables were high, people only knew of his media caricatures. And then he started talking and they hear he is saying all the right things and unlike any politician. In our household, we are just in awe at his opportunism at every turn. We don't know if we will vote for him or if he will be a good president but I think he is doing things smartly. If the same guy had used some polish like reading stuff off of a teleprompter and you didn't know that he was Trump in his previous incarnation, you would have given him the same chance you gave Obama.

damikesc said...

The GOP has become the party of mean old white people.

...while their opponents are nothing but unpleasant old white folks and the GOP, by and large, isn't nearly as old or white.

Yes, we are. I think Trump would be a terrible president. That has nothing to do with the alternatives, each of whom will be judged by me on their own merits until we get to the point where I am comfortable settling on one.

The opponent does matter.

How did Strom Thurmond stay in office for so long? Because nobody remotely credible ever ran against him. Ditto for Lindsay Graham? He's hardly beloved here, but who in the hell is going to be his replacement?

Bush was hardly my favorite President. But he was infinitely better than Gore or Kerry, so I voted for him. I didn't --- and still don't --- think McCain was much better than Obama so I voted Barr.

CWJ said...

Thank you Ken B.

Jaq said...

It is double counting. Consider a change from 100% unfavorable to 100% favorable.
200% of voters only happens in Chicago


The difference between minus 100 and plus 100 is 200, ask a fifth grader if you are unsure.

richard mcenroe said...

The 2014 elections should have shown us that pollsters either a) don't know what they're doing or b) are perfectly happy to tell the highest bidder what he wants to hear.

Birches said...

@ Ken B

But it is a 200% change.

Jaq said...

You know what I find amazing, is how much of the Democrat electioneering I get in my email consists of appeals to fear.

Gahrie said...

Obama beat Romney in the 2012 popular vote by 53-47. Obama ended with a six point lead over Romney. If Romney had gained three points, he would have tied Obama

...and it would have been a 6 point swing, -3 for Obama and +3 for Romney.

I'm Full of Soup said...

What Drago said at 9:57!

Ann Althouse said...

Don't respond to the commenter we always delete or you will also need to be deleted.

Drago said...

Birches: "@ Ken B But it is a 200% change."

Number lines are strange and exotic things.

Gahrie said...

The GOP has become the party of mean old white people

Really? Then why does the Republican Party have many minorities (including Indians, Hispanics, and Blacks) elected from majority White districts, while all of the Democratic minority politicians all come from Gerrymandered majority-minority districts?

Anonymous said...

Media tends to go with the changes in the net numbers, in part because this change will always be larger than any nominal change in the numbers and therefore they can make more of a news story out of it. A 45-55 disadvantage going to a 55-45 advantage is called a 20 point swing because the numbers went from -10 net to +10 net.

The "double counting" is just what happens when subtracting two numbers that move in more or less equal and opposite amounts while adding to the same number each time. That is, in a perfect poll where everybody answers one of two options, U + F = 100 while U - F ranges from -100 to 100.

As for the pollsters being surprised, Trump has factors that make him somewhat unique. He's been around as a celebrity mogul for longer than the Clintons have been on the national scene, but that also means public opinion of him early on was likely based on his celebrity persona and the idea that he was a lightweight joke. Several months of attacks by the other candidates lend credence to the idea that he's a serious contender.

Also in play is the fact that Trump has little concern about speaking forthrightly on some topics while his competitors try to serve up a bland salad bowl of buzzwords hoping that people will apply the dressing of their choice and eat it up. Taking on the establishment also shouldn't be discounted.

Nichevo said...

Althouse 4:18 - who? You've been cutting Glynn a lot of slack lately.