She's having far too much fun right now. Where does that Hillary Clinton get off? She's out there, completely beating Donald Trump's ass, and even worse, she seems to be having FUN doing it. And Politico reports that, what with how she pretty much is leading by 38 million points in all the traditional battleground states, the Clinton/Kaine campaign is screwing around in red states, because A) they can and 2) it puts Donald Trump on the defensive:
No doubt you're right on every count, but isn't it just as lazy and grifty to fly to SC, UT, OH, MI or any other red state Hillary's handing him his ass in, and charge the extra rental miles on the TrumpCo jet to the campaign?
Maybe he's up late making donations to NAMBLA? I've heard a lot of very smart people talking about how his tax returns might show millions of dollars in donations to NAMBLA.
Or because we wake up with a certain tumescent appendage, and feel the need to massage it to relieve the pressure, and relive wonderful moments of the past.
OK, this is a guy who studies people's response to visual cues such as facial expression. He is interested in the concept of first impressions. Interesting stuff. But it is a huge leap to apply it to "how voters vote," a topic on which he has zero expertise and no data. But I can see you're committed to your conviction that "most voters" decide quickly and shallowly about presidential elections. I hope you don't volunteer at phone banks or canvassing.
Was. In 2008 pollsters didn't reach a lot of people because they only called land lines, and most of them were caught offguard by the demographics of cell phone users. Cell phones get called now, but more importantly, the best pollsters have better algorithms for calculating the effect of groups or categories they may miss. If you look at the 538 website, which aggregates polling stats by gathering lots of polls and weighting them to account for these factors, you'll see that they give stats in three ways: polls, polls plus, and if the election were today. Polls plus is by far the most reliable.
That said, polls are definitely flawed. They are most useful in tracking trends and they should not be used as forecasts. They measure public opinion from moment to moment. Which is why real data about how voters actually do vote (as in the Gallup research) is so useful and informative. Polls in a presidential race are almost completely useless before about mid-September precisely because the period between the conventions and election day is when people are going through the process of deciding. (My original point.) You can see the process occurring by looking at polls during that period, and seeing them get more accurate. (2012 showed this pretty well, especially at 538.)
The main problem with polls isn't cell phones but figuring out which people will actually vote. http://www.nytimes.com/2015...
But this is research about how the mechanisms of snap judgment, first impressions, jumping to conclusions work. He's attempting to systematize that process. It would be a leap to argue that that is the only process by which all humans make decisions.
Out of curiosity, I did a word search to see if he discusses voting - which is a fairly specific and even unique kind of decision making. Very different from, say, the evolutionarily driven decision about whether it's safe to walk down that dark alley when you get off the bus. He mentions that the act of voting can be influenced by the location of a polling place, using the example of a vote on a school bond issue being more likely to pass if the polling place is in a school. Which is certainly valid, as far as it goes.
I see that Todarov has written about how facial expressions (of candidates) can affect voting. That's part of the sociology of celebrity, which is certainly an aspect of voting. But it's all a bit overdetermined, and risky to apply to real life.
This was a flash in the pan idea for some southern NY counties. All those fake rebels got REAL MAD about Cuomo riding NYC to the Governor's mansion. So about 20 guys (all named Cletus, probably) got together and seriously talked about seceding from NYS to for form "New Amsterdam." That, for very obvious reasons, did not come to fruition.
You know when you fill in those in-store warranties or returns forms or delivery info forms with your cellphone number?
No doubt you're right on every count, but isn't it just as lazy and grifty to fly to SC, UT, OH, MI or any other red state Hillary's handing him his ass in, and charge the extra rental miles on the TrumpCo jet to the campaign?
Maybe he's up late making donations to NAMBLA? I've heard a lot of very smart people talking about how his tax returns might show millions of dollars in donations to NAMBLA.
I should've known that if I just scrolled down I'd see a lot of really smart people talking about how Trump might be a major donator to NAMBLA!
Is that a tweet? I can't see those. What does it say?
Or because we wake up with a certain tumescent appendage, and feel the need to massage it to relieve the pressure, and relive wonderful moments of the past.
Take a look at the research. This is a data analysis not a poll. There is a difference.
OK, this is a guy who studies people's response to visual cues such as facial expression. He is interested in the concept of first impressions. Interesting stuff. But it is a huge leap to apply it to "how voters vote," a topic on which he has zero expertise and no data. But I can see you're committed to your conviction that "most voters" decide quickly and shallowly about presidential elections. I hope you don't volunteer at phone banks or canvassing.
Was. In 2008 pollsters didn't reach a lot of people because they only called land lines, and most of them were caught offguard by the demographics of cell phone users. Cell phones get called now, but more importantly, the best pollsters have better algorithms for calculating the effect of groups or categories they may miss. If you look at the 538 website, which aggregates polling stats by gathering lots of polls and weighting them to account for these factors, you'll see that they give stats in three ways: polls, polls plus, and if the election were today. Polls plus is by far the most reliable.
That said, polls are definitely flawed. They are most useful in tracking trends and they should not be used as forecasts. They measure public opinion from moment to moment. Which is why real data about how voters actually do vote (as in the Gallup research) is so useful and informative. Polls in a presidential race are almost completely useless before about mid-September precisely because the period between the conventions and election day is when people are going through the process of deciding. (My original point.) You can see the process occurring by looking at polls during that period, and seeing them get more accurate. (2012 showed this pretty well, especially at 538.)
The main problem with polls isn't cell phones but figuring out which people will actually vote. http://www.nytimes.com/2015...
But this is research about how the mechanisms of snap judgment, first impressions, jumping to conclusions work. He's attempting to systematize that process. It would be a leap to argue that that is the only process by which all humans make decisions.
Out of curiosity, I did a word search to see if he discusses voting - which is a fairly specific and even unique kind of decision making. Very different from, say, the evolutionarily driven decision about whether it's safe to walk down that dark alley when you get off the bus. He mentions that the act of voting can be influenced by the location of a polling place, using the example of a vote on a school bond issue being more likely to pass if the polling place is in a school. Which is certainly valid, as far as it goes.
I see that Todarov has written about how facial expressions (of candidates) can affect voting. That's part of the sociology of celebrity, which is certainly an aspect of voting. But it's all a bit overdetermined, and risky to apply to real life.
She'll be in somewhat good company ... An old queen of Sweden (Margareta) was known as "King Pantsless". She didn't mind that either >.>
I would absolutely buy these too!
Hee! I tell coworkers, "This is me, normal. Imagine what I'd be like on drugs!"
Somehow the Republicans managed to turn this election into a referendum on fascism. This is not good news for John McCain.
Surprisingly, I am not wiping a tear away from my dainty, feminist eye.
This was a flash in the pan idea for some southern NY counties. All those fake rebels got REAL MAD about Cuomo riding NYC to the Governor's mansion. So about 20 guys (all named Cletus, probably) got together and seriously talked about seceding from NYS to for form "New Amsterdam." That, for very obvious reasons, did not come to fruition.