This Moore guy does seem to be a rather bright fellow. I’ve said before, when there are concerns you need to address those concerns, not dismiss and belittle those expressing the concerns.
Moore didn’t dismiss these concerns that many have, he actually validated them. Then proceeded to address it in a way that alleviates much of the concern. That’s the way to “win”.
My inner glitch says:
What is this, the final exam? Do they expect her to know the entire US Constitution by heart? Her answer was perfect – we don’t want judges to legislate from the bench!
No, since it’s a rushed appointment and confirmation process, she’s freely admitted she did zero preparation whatsoever. Because it doesn’t matter what she says, the “hearing” is just for “show”.
Maybe it was a calculated “appeal” to Trump’s “religious pretenders” portion of the “base” all along?
“He tells it like it is!!! TRADITIONAL values!”
Hmmm…
“Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I’d need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process,” she said. “So, you know, if I give off the cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit, and I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.”
You’re right. How dare she say she’s going to act like a judge should act.
Had she given an answer, and a potentially upcoming case on the subject should come before the court, she’d have to recuse herself. This wasnt vague theoretical concepts, it was a very pointed, and timely question. You can keep railing on how “simple” of a question it is, but that’s exactly why it was asked.
She gave a very good response, and the only acceptable one for a judge.
They were one of the worst predictors in 2018 mid-terms but these are races that are a bit different from the presidential election. On the other hand, they were the most accurate in 2016.
I’m not convinced that they’d deliberately try to not be relevant. Unlike CNN or MSNBC who make money with outlier polls (to call it kindly) having shocking results, Rassmussen would not have an interest in remaining irrelevant. Long term, that’s not a viable business strategy if you only appeal to a minority of your audience.
So I suspect that they took a closer look at their results in 2016 vs 2018 vs the average trend of polls and noticed they were consistently out of the margin of error. And then looked at systematic flaws in their methodology that’d make them almost a standard deviation off from everybody else. My guess is that they tweaked how they determine who is a likely voters, maybe changing their rules about having a cell phone or not, or changing the wording of some questions.
It’d be easier to tell if they were transparent about their methodology in the first place and why I don’t rank very high either (unlike RCP or 538) but the nerd in me would love to know how their methodology changed because determining with any accuracy who is an actual voter (vs a likely one) is incredibly difficult in practice. Many likely voters who respond they will definitely vote, actually don’t. And vice versa almost a third of unlikely voters, actually end up voting.
Where have you seen such assessment? AFAIK they were terrible in 2016 as well…
They were close with the final national Presidential poll for 2016. But not overall for 2016.
A single poll is not a good measure of accuracy
“The comments attributed to me without my permission in the GOP campaign ad were taken out of context from a broad statement I made months ago about the efforts of federal public health officials” — not about Trump, specifically, he said.
“In my nearly five decades of public service, I have never publicly endorsed any political candidate,” Fauci emphasized."
“I think it’s really unfortunate and really disappointing that they did that. It’s so clear that I’m not a political person, and I have never ― either directly or indirectly ― endorsed a political candidate,” Fauci told CNN on Monday. “And to take a completely out-of-context statement and put it in what is obviously a political campaign ad, I thought was really very disappointing.”
So, how do Trump supporters feel about this? Fauci said he was taken out of context and his quote put in a different form, he doesn’t want it there, and he hasn’t taken a political position. The polite, honest response would be to take it down immediately and apologize. Instead, Trump attacks and demeans Fauci, claiming Fauci doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Final spread was Clinton +2.1. Rasmussen were Clinton +2 when just about everyone else was Clinton +3 to +6 spread.
I disagree. The final poll should be the closest estimate since there is the least time left for voters to change their minds and poll numbers to move. It’s almost irrelevant what the numbers are 2 months before the election since a large number of voters are still undecided and lots of things changed in the last few weeks.
I think it’s quite ironic that you’d call this out as somehow being inappropriate, when you’ve done the same to Trump repeatedly for years.
Sorry, see edit addressing that. They were close on one single poll for one race. Doesn’t really say much for accuracy (just one poll has much random chance). They did poorly or mediocre on the latest state polls/etc for the 2016 cycle.
Charlie Munger, the vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, spoke about the psychology of human misjudgment in a famous 1995 talk to a class at Harvard University. Munger never took a course in psychology or economics, but he gives a fascinating point-by-point outline of all the ways we lie to ourselves and allow others to lie to us. Here’s a very brief rundown of the first five:
No. 1. Psychological denial. We believe what we want to be true.
No. 2. Incentive-cause bias. The reward outweighs the risk and/or any doubts you might have.
No. 3. Commitment tendency. This is a “superpower in error-causing psychological tendency,” Munger said in his 1995 speech. You waited for that diamond or bus or return on that stock, so it’s more likely to arrive, right? Wrong.
No. 4. Self-confirmation bias. We look for evidence that supports our wishes and/or our beliefs.
No. 5. Agency cost. This comes into play when we are too trusting of paid financial advisers, doctors, lawyers, religious leaders, politicians, business leaders…
Aka “Everything that disagrees with what I believe is wrong”.
Glitch “mainstream media biased against Trump”
MIT: “mainstream media biased in favor of Trump”
Hmmm… Glitch vs MIT…
It’s good to see you are finally starting to understand the psychology behind how you are viewing things…
Yeah, exactly. Except your little study equated “mainstream media” with Fox news, and only Fox news. So you clearly dont even understand what it says. Try addressing what I actually said, instead of just doubling down on your initial baseless retort.
I see the Portland natives were peacefully celebrating Columbus Day.
Liar in chief