I am sure that it is accurate. Pressure on the media makes a difference. It is even possible that the difference is not overwhelming numbers expressing disapproval, but that the arguments that people make are listened to. Let's make it easier for us to exercise that pressure. Give is the link that is best used to tell CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post what we think about their coverage of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, about the campaign itself, about particular stories.
We should be reminding the media that "very article about [should] Trump include his threat to democracy, but they should also question whether Trump’s consistent confusion about the identity of his political opponents should be disqualifying. " The point of this is not to mock Trump's decline but to protect this country from the terrible things he would do to it and us.
The NYT does not list email contact for their Board of Directors although “shareholders” can contact via the Secretary at nytsecretary@nytimes.com. A flood of emails from “shareholders” would get their attention.
You are on to something when you suggest stock holders have influence. Is there more leverage in asking pension funds, unions, universities, to divest from the businesses that are antithetical to democracy in the way they are conducting themselves.
I agree but what is really needed is a respected journalist providing a detailed analysis of the media coverage with examples so the comments don’t sound like sour grapes
Last night, on a zoom forum sponsored by Partners4Democracy, Michelle Cottle of The NY Times, EJ Dionne of The Washington Post, Franklin Foer of The Atlantic, and Mara Liaison of NPR all agreed that there is something wrong with the coverage of Joe Biden. They (especially Dianne) verged toward stating that the coverage of Biden was unfair. But then they drifted into criticizing the perception that Biden creates when, during events for which he does not have to prepare to be "on," his tone sounds fragile and weak. They appear to acknowledge that this has nothing to do with Joe Biden's age and certainly has nothing to do with any loss of capacity. At least one of them said, without being contradicted, that the characteristics that hurt him have been part of who he is since he became a Senator at age 30.
Any of the four of these journalists could create the detailed analysis you ask for. Is there anyone out there who knows any of them to ask. Or anyone else for that matter.
First, Biden has had a life long problem with stuttering, which he has addressed many times! He admits that when he is tired it becomes more pronounced and he finds himself doing it unconsciously.
Second, if anyone has ever paid attention, people who wear dentures that could be loose sound as if their speech is ‘garbled’, as if they are moving marbles around in their mouths. Of course I am sure Biden has the best dental care, but it certainly could be the case that this happens during the day as he does sooo much speaking!
Maybe the next time you see him speak you can be aware of it.
I think there are probably many, many Republican denture wearers who can relate! Maybe they just can’t remember we are all human.
Good points. A friend of mine was in attendance at an event where Biden spoke and was 50 get away from him and said in person he looks old. This person is 50 and all people 80 or above will always look old.
Absolutely. Every Single Time anyone says Anything about Biden's age, whoever (of sound mind) is present should immediately say "He's only three years older than Trump and in better physical shape".
One would first have to find a respected journalist, a very small group these days as virtually everyone in the media has become associated with a particular perspective that they cling to without consistent regard for contradictory facts.
No doubt about it, and Legum is quite good but his reach is limited to those who find him on Substack. If/when the platform goes public that may change but that's still limiting compared to the networks, cable, and legacy print media.
This is true, but a number of Judd’s investigative pieces have been picked up by major news outlets. He usually tells his readers when that has happened, and it’s been happening quite a bit this year. I think he’s one of the best independent investigative reporters out there.
I too would like the link to best and most effective way way to approach media. Yesterday I left a comment to an article in the New York Times with the word “weaponized” in the headline. I said it was an inappropriate and lazy word to use in the context of the article. Boring too. However, comment sections seem like the least effective way to bring ideas to the writer of articles
Was the headline about Biden "weaponizing" Trump's attack on the ACA? I will not click on that nonsense. Is every single campaign claim going to be "weaponizing" now? Ridiculous. Talk about watering down what used to be a strong word.
Copy editors and desk editors shape the daily content, direction and headlines in newspapers. There is no way to get to them. Sorry!
The best method might be to write to Managing Editors and/or Executive Editors. Their names/contact information should be publicly available per outlet. Hope this helps?
Thank you! I was just about to make the same request.. I have written LTEs and to networks, never knowing whether anyone is paying attention. Please send specific suggestions on whom to write to.
When I wrote to the Times about their poll, complaining that media should be reporting news not creating it, and saying I did not believe the results, instead of publishing my post, the author wrote to me and tried to browbeat me into accepting the results. I said, where are the questions? What is the methodology for finding people to answer them? Standard things one wants to see along with the results of any poll. I did not get a response to that. I saw the headlines warning us that Biden needs to worry about young people, and did not read the article. What I do know is that they need to do a poll on how Trump is doing with young people. I assume they don't do this because they know he is not popular. Look at the Clemson game yesterday where a large amount of people booed him. I read that there were also cheers, but I will assume those are the older Clemson alum. Who knows. Can't know with no poll looking at Trump, and not doing a separate poll on Trump with the youth voters is just bad social science. In Germany on Bunten und Binnen, they were interviewing locally elected Youth representatives and some of the local youth on what they want from their politicians. They said, "to ask what we want." I do not see that being on the Republican agenda because they have zero respect for youth, or women, or non-"White" people, or non-Christians, or non-Cis-gendered people, so youth is just one of the many demographies the Republicans do not give a damn about. But, does the NYT have any vehicle for analyzing this? No! So, the NYT makes itself more and more irrelevant to me. I just skim and scroll down each morning to the puzzles that I want to do. Will Short is more reliable than the journalism staff and the editorial board. Same with WaPo. I skim the headlines, and except for articles about things like the war in Ukraine, which I have other sources on too, or literature and arts, I don't read much unless it is to keep in touch with what they are saying, which mostly disgusts me. I am grateful that I have other sources, which is why I donate to The Guardian, so they can remain an independent voice. Where is the US version of The Guardian? It is The Guardian US.
You need to separate the news portion of the NYT from the editorials. The editorial section encourages different points of view while the news section runs the front page headlines. That s the part that needs to be the focus.
There was a guest opinion piece in the NYT yesterday about the Heritage Foundation and how they are working with Trump to take over the government if Trump gets elected.
There was also an ObEd from George Conway who was a is a member of the Federalist Group condemning them and was joined by several other leading members.
Thanks for writing this “for me.” I couldn’t agree more. BTW have you read MacLean’s “Democracy in Chains.” I also recommend Richardson’s “Democracy Awakening” and Maddow’s “Prequel.”
The Guardian is my news source daily, has been since the beginning of the pandemic. I am happy to donate to them because their POV keeps me centered without being pummeled by opinion.
This sounds so, so like me, myself and I. Nice to know there are many others drawing some of the same conclusions. Did you see the billboards on the way to the game? Apparently signed by something or other something or other "liberal vermin" - I love an effective sense of humor with a point.
“ What I do know is that they need to do a poll on how Trump is doing with young people.” –
Well, maybe. However, what I think would be more relevant would be information about how many “young” people are defecting to RFK, Jr. and other third party candidates (and why).
Shame on Nate Cohn. All one has to do is look at his headlines over the past weeks to reveal his prejudicial leanings.
Nov. 28 - "Why Biden's Weakness Among Young Voters Should Be Taken Seriously"
Nov.16 - "We Talked to Some Kamala-But-Not-Joe Voters"
Nov. 8 - "Tuesday Was Great For Democrats. It Doesn't Change The Outlook for 2024"
Nov. 5 - "Trump Now Leads Biden"
Nov. 5 - "Why Biden Is Behind, and How He Could Come Back"
Oct. 30 - "Why Less Engaged Voters Are Biden's Biggest Problem
Aside from the fact that the headlines disclose a kind of National Enquirer sensationalism unbefitting a "journal of record", the pathological focus on Biden's electoral ills does not demonstrate unbiased political analysis rather a biased political opinion. Mind you, the distinction between analysis and opinion is important. Analysts investigate and question; opinion writers theorize and make assumptions. Cohn's columns fail on both counts. He does not use his investigative prerogative to delve deeply into the implications of polling results or the quality of the polling which itself exposes an inherent bias. He also declines to identify his opinions as such, as if his position as NY Times "chief political analyst" protects him from bad practices. What it does is wrap him in an editorial cloth upon which is written, "I can say and write whatever I want without apology." Maybe so. But that does not prevent others from identifying you as a journalistic hack willing to do the bidding of an increasingly dubious gate keeper of the news.
I commented yesterday that it is, in fact quite easy to create a biased poll. All the pollster neds to do is create a biased group of participants which is what Nate Cohn and the NYTs did. Cohn even admitted that in his notes in the bottom of the poll document.
Imagine if Cohn/NYTs had a participant selecttion criterion that 55% of poll respondents must be readers of this or any of the other liberal Substack newsletters like HCR, Jess Craven, Simon Rosenberg. How do we think the results would have looked? Would Biden have been "shockingly" up on Trump 70% - 30%?? The 4 weeks of news headlines following would certainly have looked different.
Sadly, that's not the effect the NYTs editorial board wanted.
Are either result reality? We won't know until Nov 2024.
What we do know is that Democratic grassroots activism across the country, focused on key issues and on Biden's excellent record are sure winning local elections, even in deep red states.
We need to keep up/intensify our activismand we will win across the board in 2024!!
I'm looking forward to Robert's zoom call on Thursday!!
Young people don’t talk to pollsters. The methodology virtually assures that. Also, younger voters are more issue-driven than personality-driven. The exception to that was Bernie Sanders, of course, but that’s atypical.
I live in North Carolina and Jeff Jackson who is running for AG was literally gerrymandered out of his district by Republicans and has shifted to run for AG against Dan Bishop famous for the diasterious “ bathroom law” which cost NC millions of dollars in corporate investments.
Read Heather Cox Richardson today for a detailed explanation about what the Biden Administration is doing to strengthen and manage our supply chain processes to manage inflation. I was unaware of these actives and programs and these are the accomplishments that need to be highlighted and expounded upon will all voters. These are not programs a Trump Administration would implement or even discuss another stark difference between the two parties. Finally a friend mentioned that if you read the text of most of the speeches and tweets made by Trump
since he lost the election you will not read of any ideas, plans or policies that will “ make America great again” and most of the dialogue is about tearing down our government, revenge and personal attacks on those who dare to question the integrity and qualifications of Trump. The contrast is startling.
Sadly this characteristic reflects not only Trump's personality but the personality of his most ardent supporters and as such is an effective strategy. When your support is amorphous and counter factual grievance based, then that's what you feed.
True but the number of true believers of Trump who identify with Trump as part of their persona cannot get him elected if they all voted. True Republicans have had it with him.
Are polls, their wording and the order of their questions, published as well as the results? If not, their validity and reliability are in question. Also, are polls only verbally presented? What's going on here?
I never answer the phone if the number is not in my contacts. If somehow I forget and do pick up, and it’s a poll, I don’t participate. Same with emailed and snail-mailed polls. Am I part of a demographic that is not being counted?
In the past when I did not believe the reported outcome of a poll and tried to find a copy, I was never able to do so. No scientific paper in any area of research would omit providing a copy of the poll and a description of all relevant factors in the poll administration so that anyone who wished could test reproducibility. Without this on offer, no poll is worth the time it wasted to compose, administer and tally much less write up and read. It is so easy to provide one must believe either the pollsters are ignorant of actual research procedures and precautions or are deliberately hiding failings.
Another point: In press reports, polls are accompanied by putative statistical uncertainties (“plus or minus”). But when they give results for subgroups, they rarely accompany the results with statistical uncertainties or the information – the sample size for each subgroup – that would let one estimate the uncertainty.
Therefore, one should certainly take results for subgroups (e.g. “young people” with shovelfuls of salt unless either the results are overwhelming or the statistical uncertainties are given.
And *that’s* if one can believe the poll was of a genuinely random sample …….
I am heartbroken! In 2019 I sold my tractor to give more money to the senate campaigns for Warnock and Ossoff. They both won in a 2020 runoff. And now you tell me that Warnock has moved to North Carolina??? The traitor! Oh, the contumacious reprobate!
Or perhaps you were misinformed by David Henry's "sarcastic gaffe." Someone ought to contact his family....
The last time I checked, Senator Warnock represented the state of Georgia, not North Carolina, alas. As a resident of NC, I’d love to claim him as one of ours.
I was just about to clarify this :) Thanks. As a North Carolinian, I am glad that the Rev is helping with our fund-raising events. We need Josh Stein as our gov and Jeff Jackson as AG.
I am sure that it is accurate. Pressure on the media makes a difference. It is even possible that the difference is not overwhelming numbers expressing disapproval, but that the arguments that people make are listened to. Let's make it easier for us to exercise that pressure. Give is the link that is best used to tell CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post what we think about their coverage of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, about the campaign itself, about particular stories.
We should be reminding the media that "very article about [should] Trump include his threat to democracy, but they should also question whether Trump’s consistent confusion about the identity of his political opponents should be disqualifying. " The point of this is not to mock Trump's decline but to protect this country from the terrible things he would do to it and us.
The NYT does not list email contact for their Board of Directors although “shareholders” can contact via the Secretary at nytsecretary@nytimes.com. A flood of emails from “shareholders” would get their attention.
https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2022/03/Board-of-Directors-and-Corporate-Governance.pdf
Also, this from HCR commenter, knowledgable Georgia Fisanick.
⬇️
“For $46.45 you can buy a share of NYT and go to shareholders meetings and make your feelings known in a venue with more clout.”
You are on to something when you suggest stock holders have influence. Is there more leverage in asking pension funds, unions, universities, to divest from the businesses that are antithetical to democracy in the way they are conducting themselves.
Here is a list of email addresses of the entire WaPo Editorial staff https://helpcenter.washingtonpost.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002940991-Leadership-of-The-Washington-Post-newsroom
Great. Helpful to me and, I'm sure, to others.
I agree but what is really needed is a respected journalist providing a detailed analysis of the media coverage with examples so the comments don’t sound like sour grapes
Last night, on a zoom forum sponsored by Partners4Democracy, Michelle Cottle of The NY Times, EJ Dionne of The Washington Post, Franklin Foer of The Atlantic, and Mara Liaison of NPR all agreed that there is something wrong with the coverage of Joe Biden. They (especially Dianne) verged toward stating that the coverage of Biden was unfair. But then they drifted into criticizing the perception that Biden creates when, during events for which he does not have to prepare to be "on," his tone sounds fragile and weak. They appear to acknowledge that this has nothing to do with Joe Biden's age and certainly has nothing to do with any loss of capacity. At least one of them said, without being contradicted, that the characteristics that hurt him have been part of who he is since he became a Senator at age 30.
Any of the four of these journalists could create the detailed analysis you ask for. Is there anyone out there who knows any of them to ask. Or anyone else for that matter.
I would like to make 2 important points!
First, Biden has had a life long problem with stuttering, which he has addressed many times! He admits that when he is tired it becomes more pronounced and he finds himself doing it unconsciously.
Second, if anyone has ever paid attention, people who wear dentures that could be loose sound as if their speech is ‘garbled’, as if they are moving marbles around in their mouths. Of course I am sure Biden has the best dental care, but it certainly could be the case that this happens during the day as he does sooo much speaking!
Maybe the next time you see him speak you can be aware of it.
I think there are probably many, many Republican denture wearers who can relate! Maybe they just can’t remember we are all human.
Good points. A friend of mine was in attendance at an event where Biden spoke and was 50 get away from him and said in person he looks old. This person is 50 and all people 80 or above will always look old.
Pray tell, what does tRump look like?
Even worse
Absolutely. Every Single Time anyone says Anything about Biden's age, whoever (of sound mind) is present should immediately say "He's only three years older than Trump and in better physical shape".
What does tRump look like?:
Without his hairpiece?
Without his makeup?
😂😂😂
One would first have to find a respected journalist, a very small group these days as virtually everyone in the media has become associated with a particular perspective that they cling to without consistent regard for contradictory facts.
There are a few and Judd at Popular Information comes to mind.
No doubt about it, and Legum is quite good but his reach is limited to those who find him on Substack. If/when the platform goes public that may change but that's still limiting compared to the networks, cable, and legacy print media.
This is true, but a number of Judd’s investigative pieces have been picked up by major news outlets. He usually tells his readers when that has happened, and it’s been happening quite a bit this year. I think he’s one of the best independent investigative reporters out there.
True but if he writes a piece it will be detailed and could be a launching pad for distribution and others.
I miss Eric Bohler.
Wish the lines connecting comments were darker, meant this thought in answer to Dave Conant - sorry!
I too would like the link to best and most effective way way to approach media. Yesterday I left a comment to an article in the New York Times with the word “weaponized” in the headline. I said it was an inappropriate and lazy word to use in the context of the article. Boring too. However, comment sections seem like the least effective way to bring ideas to the writer of articles
Was the headline about Biden "weaponizing" Trump's attack on the ACA? I will not click on that nonsense. Is every single campaign claim going to be "weaponizing" now? Ridiculous. Talk about watering down what used to be a strong word.
That is a good point that I missed. thanks.
"Biden Campaign Aims to Weaponize Trump’s Threat to Obamacare."
Yes, I don’t usually either, but I wanted to leave a comment about that so, there I was!
Weighing bad comment vs. not clicking...I think you made the right decision!
Copy editors and desk editors shape the daily content, direction and headlines in newspapers. There is no way to get to them. Sorry!
The best method might be to write to Managing Editors and/or Executive Editors. Their names/contact information should be publicly available per outlet. Hope this helps?
Thank you! I was just about to make the same request.. I have written LTEs and to networks, never knowing whether anyone is paying attention. Please send specific suggestions on whom to write to.
When I wrote to the Times about their poll, complaining that media should be reporting news not creating it, and saying I did not believe the results, instead of publishing my post, the author wrote to me and tried to browbeat me into accepting the results. I said, where are the questions? What is the methodology for finding people to answer them? Standard things one wants to see along with the results of any poll. I did not get a response to that. I saw the headlines warning us that Biden needs to worry about young people, and did not read the article. What I do know is that they need to do a poll on how Trump is doing with young people. I assume they don't do this because they know he is not popular. Look at the Clemson game yesterday where a large amount of people booed him. I read that there were also cheers, but I will assume those are the older Clemson alum. Who knows. Can't know with no poll looking at Trump, and not doing a separate poll on Trump with the youth voters is just bad social science. In Germany on Bunten und Binnen, they were interviewing locally elected Youth representatives and some of the local youth on what they want from their politicians. They said, "to ask what we want." I do not see that being on the Republican agenda because they have zero respect for youth, or women, or non-"White" people, or non-Christians, or non-Cis-gendered people, so youth is just one of the many demographies the Republicans do not give a damn about. But, does the NYT have any vehicle for analyzing this? No! So, the NYT makes itself more and more irrelevant to me. I just skim and scroll down each morning to the puzzles that I want to do. Will Short is more reliable than the journalism staff and the editorial board. Same with WaPo. I skim the headlines, and except for articles about things like the war in Ukraine, which I have other sources on too, or literature and arts, I don't read much unless it is to keep in touch with what they are saying, which mostly disgusts me. I am grateful that I have other sources, which is why I donate to The Guardian, so they can remain an independent voice. Where is the US version of The Guardian? It is The Guardian US.
I donate to the Guardian also, everyone should.
Very good point. I support the Guardian and check its coverage every day.
Me too.
You need to separate the news portion of the NYT from the editorials. The editorial section encourages different points of view while the news section runs the front page headlines. That s the part that needs to be the focus.
There was a guest opinion piece in the NYT yesterday about the Heritage Foundation and how they are working with Trump to take over the government if Trump gets elected.
There was also an ObEd from George Conway who was a is a member of the Federalist Group condemning them and was joined by several other leading members.
Thanks for writing this “for me.” I couldn’t agree more. BTW have you read MacLean’s “Democracy in Chains.” I also recommend Richardson’s “Democracy Awakening” and Maddow’s “Prequel.”
The Guardian is my news source daily, has been since the beginning of the pandemic. I am happy to donate to them because their POV keeps me centered without being pummeled by opinion.
Good point about polls of tfg and young people. 🤔 AND The Guardian
This sounds so, so like me, myself and I. Nice to know there are many others drawing some of the same conclusions. Did you see the billboards on the way to the game? Apparently signed by something or other something or other "liberal vermin" - I love an effective sense of humor with a point.
“ What I do know is that they need to do a poll on how Trump is doing with young people.” –
Well, maybe. However, what I think would be more relevant would be information about how many “young” people are defecting to RFK, Jr. and other third party candidates (and why).
Shame on Nate Cohn. All one has to do is look at his headlines over the past weeks to reveal his prejudicial leanings.
Nov. 28 - "Why Biden's Weakness Among Young Voters Should Be Taken Seriously"
Nov.16 - "We Talked to Some Kamala-But-Not-Joe Voters"
Nov. 8 - "Tuesday Was Great For Democrats. It Doesn't Change The Outlook for 2024"
Nov. 5 - "Trump Now Leads Biden"
Nov. 5 - "Why Biden Is Behind, and How He Could Come Back"
Oct. 30 - "Why Less Engaged Voters Are Biden's Biggest Problem
Aside from the fact that the headlines disclose a kind of National Enquirer sensationalism unbefitting a "journal of record", the pathological focus on Biden's electoral ills does not demonstrate unbiased political analysis rather a biased political opinion. Mind you, the distinction between analysis and opinion is important. Analysts investigate and question; opinion writers theorize and make assumptions. Cohn's columns fail on both counts. He does not use his investigative prerogative to delve deeply into the implications of polling results or the quality of the polling which itself exposes an inherent bias. He also declines to identify his opinions as such, as if his position as NY Times "chief political analyst" protects him from bad practices. What it does is wrap him in an editorial cloth upon which is written, "I can say and write whatever I want without apology." Maybe so. But that does not prevent others from identifying you as a journalistic hack willing to do the bidding of an increasingly dubious gate keeper of the news.
Thanks for putting this list together. Very helpful!
This is excellent. Thank you, David.
Thanks for this.
I commented yesterday that it is, in fact quite easy to create a biased poll. All the pollster neds to do is create a biased group of participants which is what Nate Cohn and the NYTs did. Cohn even admitted that in his notes in the bottom of the poll document.
Imagine if Cohn/NYTs had a participant selecttion criterion that 55% of poll respondents must be readers of this or any of the other liberal Substack newsletters like HCR, Jess Craven, Simon Rosenberg. How do we think the results would have looked? Would Biden have been "shockingly" up on Trump 70% - 30%?? The 4 weeks of news headlines following would certainly have looked different.
Sadly, that's not the effect the NYTs editorial board wanted.
Are either result reality? We won't know until Nov 2024.
What we do know is that Democratic grassroots activism across the country, focused on key issues and on Biden's excellent record are sure winning local elections, even in deep red states.
We need to keep up/intensify our activismand we will win across the board in 2024!!
I'm looking forward to Robert's zoom call on Thursday!!
Young people don’t talk to pollsters. The methodology virtually assures that. Also, younger voters are more issue-driven than personality-driven. The exception to that was Bernie Sanders, of course, but that’s atypical.
Read “Democracy in Chains” (MacLean).
contumacious! I love this word. Thank you!
Had to look this word up; first time encounter. Fabulous!
Robert --- you stumped me today (and my wife) ---- so for the benefit of those like me ---
CON-TU-MACIOUS
/ˌkänto͝oˈmāSHəs/
adjectiveARCHAIC•LAW
(especially of a defendant's behavior) stubbornly or willfully disobedient to authority. What a great word
Hmm. Surprised to see that it is classified as "archaic." It is a useful word because it relates to so much of what is going in today's legal world.
Trump is not contumacious: he IS the authority.
/s
I am absolutely positive Mr. Hubble has used this word before! Don't ask me how I know (innocent whistling)...
Here's contact info for the NYT and WAPO:
New York Times
Editorial
editorial@nytimes.com
Foreign
foreign@nytimes.com
Letter to the Editor
letters@nytimes.com
National
national@nytimes.com
Contact an individual reporter
Email: peter.baker@nytimes.com
Publisher: Arthur.Sulzberger@nytimes.com
The Email Format for New York
Times is:
firstname.lastname@nytimes.com
OSEPH KAHNExecutive Editor
MARC LACEYManaging Editor
CAROLYN RYANManaging Editor
SAM DOLNICKDeputy Managing Editor
MONICA DRAKEDeputy Managing Editor
STEVE DUENESDeputy Managing Editor
MATTHEW ERICSONAssistant Managing Editor
HANNAH POFERLAssistant Managing Editor and Chief Data Officer
letters@nytimes.com.
https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014925288-Submit-a-Letter-to-The-Editor
US Mail: 620 Eighth Avenue. New York, NY 10018
WASHINGTON POST
Leadership of The Washington Post newsroom
Sally Buzbee
Executive Editor
sally.buzbee@washpost.com
Krissah Thompson
Managing Editor
krissah.thompson@washpost.com
Justin Bank
Managing Editor
justin.bank@washpost.com
Matea Gold
Managing Editor
matea.gold@washpost.com
Scott Vance
Managing Editor
scott.vance@washpost.com
Monica Norton
Deputy Managing Editor
monica.norton@washpost.com
Mark W. Smith
Deputy Managing Editor
mark.smith@washpost.com
Ann Gerhart
Deputy Managing Editor
ann.gerhart@washpost.com
Craig Timberg
Deputy Managing Editor
craig.timberg@washpost.com
US Mail: The Washington Post, 1301 K Street NW, Washington D.C. 20071.
THANK-YOU!!!
Wow! Thank you!
I live in North Carolina and Jeff Jackson who is running for AG was literally gerrymandered out of his district by Republicans and has shifted to run for AG against Dan Bishop famous for the diasterious “ bathroom law” which cost NC millions of dollars in corporate investments.
Read Heather Cox Richardson today for a detailed explanation about what the Biden Administration is doing to strengthen and manage our supply chain processes to manage inflation. I was unaware of these actives and programs and these are the accomplishments that need to be highlighted and expounded upon will all voters. These are not programs a Trump Administration would implement or even discuss another stark difference between the two parties. Finally a friend mentioned that if you read the text of most of the speeches and tweets made by Trump
since he lost the election you will not read of any ideas, plans or policies that will “ make America great again” and most of the dialogue is about tearing down our government, revenge and personal attacks on those who dare to question the integrity and qualifications of Trump. The contrast is startling.
Would it be effective if Biden and supporters listed his accomplishments along with the slogan “MakING America Great Again” ?
Exactly. BTW, have you read HCR’s “Democracy Awakening?”
Reading it now. It’s fantastic
Sadly this characteristic reflects not only Trump's personality but the personality of his most ardent supporters and as such is an effective strategy. When your support is amorphous and counter factual grievance based, then that's what you feed.
True but the number of true believers of Trump who identify with Trump as part of their persona cannot get him elected if they all voted. True Republicans have had it with him.
True and phew.
Outstanding column, Robert. Thank you!!
Are polls, their wording and the order of their questions, published as well as the results? If not, their validity and reliability are in question. Also, are polls only verbally presented? What's going on here?
I never answer the phone if the number is not in my contacts. If somehow I forget and do pick up, and it’s a poll, I don’t participate. Same with emailed and snail-mailed polls. Am I part of a demographic that is not being counted?
That’s my modus operandi too.
The brighter demographic perhaps?
Such a good point about the precise wording which can certainly influence the answer.
In the past when I did not believe the reported outcome of a poll and tried to find a copy, I was never able to do so. No scientific paper in any area of research would omit providing a copy of the poll and a description of all relevant factors in the poll administration so that anyone who wished could test reproducibility. Without this on offer, no poll is worth the time it wasted to compose, administer and tally much less write up and read. It is so easy to provide one must believe either the pollsters are ignorant of actual research procedures and precautions or are deliberately hiding failings.
Another point: In press reports, polls are accompanied by putative statistical uncertainties (“plus or minus”). But when they give results for subgroups, they rarely accompany the results with statistical uncertainties or the information – the sample size for each subgroup – that would let one estimate the uncertainty.
Therefore, one should certainly take results for subgroups (e.g. “young people” with shovelfuls of salt unless either the results are overwhelming or the statistical uncertainties are given.
And *that’s* if one can believe the poll was of a genuinely random sample …….
True! The degrees of confidence for the smaller sample sizes are probably completely outside of usable parameters.
Agreed.
Excellent point.
I think we should consider Twitter not a financial project, but a political project and look at it accordingly.
The $75M is beside the point, it's about influence even if it appears to be futile. Lies repeated get believed.
This non-apology is a cat and mouse of mea-culpa sea-lioning having everyting to do with toying and nothing to do with money.
Stay focused.
Marc Elias is a national treasure. 🌟
While Senator Warnock maybe participating in a fundraiser FOR North Carolina, he is a senator OF Georgia.
I am heartbroken! In 2019 I sold my tractor to give more money to the senate campaigns for Warnock and Ossoff. They both won in a 2020 runoff. And now you tell me that Warnock has moved to North Carolina??? The traitor! Oh, the contumacious reprobate!
Or perhaps you were misinformed by David Henry's "sarcastic gaffe." Someone ought to contact his family....
The last time I checked, Senator Warnock represented the state of Georgia, not North Carolina, alas. As a resident of NC, I’d love to claim him as one of ours.
I was just about to clarify this :) Thanks. As a North Carolinian, I am glad that the Rev is helping with our fund-raising events. We need Josh Stein as our gov and Jeff Jackson as AG.
I would also appreciate links to journalists and/or news organizations to share my thoughts.
Isn’t Sen Warnock from Georgia?