Still seeing difference between generic ballot and special election outcomes.

For the last several special elections, we have seen the Democrats averaging +16 on voter turn out. That is to say, using the 538.com model, Democrats have, on average, performed 16 points better in the special election than one would predict based on the overall partisan lean of the district.

That's notable because the generic ballot gives Dems about 6.5-7.5 point advantage over the last few months (again, using 538.com).

The difference is important because it is the difference between a standard mid-term where the party in power loses seats and a wave election that would give Dems the House (and possibly the Senate). I am guessing that the difference reflects the difference in voter enthusiasm. Voter enthusiasm is always difficult to predict. If the difference is significant, it can play Hell with the projected voter formula. I think this last is at play.

Keep in mind that polls aren't just a random sample of the population. Every polling firm has its secret sauce of how it conducts its survey to try to accurately reflect the population likely to turn out to vote. This is true even for polls of total registered voters, not just polls of likely voters. Registered voters are polled in a way that reflects the registration pool. So if Dems have an advantage in registered voters, even if the state largely votes Republican (West VA is an example of this), the poll will contain a larger number of registered Democrats to reflect this reality.

I'm also seeing the occasional wild fluctuation in specific polls, which I suspect reflects polling firms tinkering with their formula. There is a lot of concern about getting it right and making reasonably accurate predictions in light of past polling failures and the increasing overall volatility of the electorate. (As I like to say, 'volatile electorates are volatile.')

All of which suggests that this will be much more like 2006 and 2014, where it was uncertain even up to election day how things would fall out, than like 2008 and 2010, when it was obvious there was a "wave election" and the question was how big. This matches my highly impressionistic sense of the electorate. In 2006 and 2014 overall economic numbers were good, but lots of people were hurting from wage stagnation and other issues. It wasn't that lots of people who had traditionally voted for one party flipped, but that lots of people who traditionally voted for the party in power stayed home. Which is why you get the split between the generic ballot and the actual election outcomes.

Another thing to note in the recent special elections, which is again consistent with 2006 and 2014 rather than 2008 and 2010, is that polls tightened considerably in the last few weeks before the election with lots of undecideds breaking at the last minute for the Democrat. 

All of which is to say, it is going to be an interesting ride, with the outcome remaining largely unpredictable until the actual election.

Marketplace on Google Fiber

https://www.marketplace.org/2018/08/07/tech/promise-and-reality-google-fiber?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email&mc_cid=7b211ed2bf&mc_eid=bf11efc24c ;

Who Was Fooling Whom?

David Frum argues that Trump hijacked the Conservative movement.

 Seth Cotlar, professor of American history, argues that the basic roots of Trumpism were fully present in the 1990s and that it is the "never Trumpers" who changed.

My own experience is that life is a lot more complicated than that. This is in part because at any given moment, people go around with a lot of stuff in their heads, including stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

I know many intellectual conservatives, and have since the 1990s. Some deceive themselves into thinking they are intellectual when their supposed intellectual foundation is very shaky. But others have well thought out political philosophies and can recognize when they are expressing a preference based on philosophy rather than an ironclad truth. And some folks are a mix of these approaches depending on the subject.

Cotlar's argument is that many of today's Trumpists, such as Gingrinch and D'Souza, were hailed as intellectual stars in the 1990s when in reality they were pretty consistent with their Trumpist selves. This is true, but not complete. Sure, Gingrinch said a lot of reactionary things. But the intellectual framework of the "Contract with America," whether you agreed with it or not, was a fairly self-consistent and rational framework ("rational" in that its outcomes flowed from its assumptions). It is also the case that much of what was assumed in the 1990s wrt economics and political theory -- from Democrats and Republicans -- turned out to be wrong. We did not need "tough love" or "broken glass policing" or a bunch of other policies that proved to be quite horrible in their outcome. But these outcomes were not proven at the time. Oh sure, many of us who opposed these polices had plenty of reasons to oppose them. But all the history we accumulated hadn't happened yet. 

So the real question that neither Frum nor Cotlar answer is "who was fooling whom?" I think the answer was "lots of people fooled themselves." 

IG Report on FCC "DDOS Attack."

After John Oliver called on viewers to tell the FCC to leave the net neutrality rules alone  via his "gofccyourself.com" website, traffic promptly overwhelmed the server. The FCC rushed out a press statement that it had been subject to a DDOS attack.

Many of us didn't believe it. We argued the FCC (particularly Chairman Pai) was trying to hide the fact that so many people hated his policy that traffic overwhelmed the server.

Turns out we were right, sort of. 

It wasn't Pai, but FCC CIO David Bray. He simply did not want to admit that the system was overwhelmed. He also made a sap judgment based on the DNS traffic that was disproven by his tech people a few hours later. When it became clear that it wasn't a DDOS, Pai refused to back down and admit he had jumped the gun.

In fact, Pai continued to misrepresent information to Congress. As is the case with clever lawyers, there were a bunch of technically accurate but utterly misleading facts marshaled in support of a conclusion Pai knew was false.

Pai better hope the Democrats do not take over in November.

Link to IG Report: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/fcc-oig-roi-ecfs-ddos-08072018.pdf

Good article by Stephen Miller's Uncle

Stephen Miller's uncle writes this piece for Politico: "Stephen Miller Is An Immigration Hypocrite And I Should Know Because I'm His Uncle." 

For those unaware, Stephen Miller is Trump's immigration policy architect. The author points out that Stephen Miller's mother and entire family on that side would be dead if Miller's immigration policies had been in place in the 1900-10.

All of which is true, but I'm betting the next family seder is going to be awwwkwaaard . . .