#is there any chance you may have overinterpreted | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

asherlockstudy · 2 months

Note

Hey! Im a recent anon and I wanted to react to what youve been discussing with the anon who agrees with you. Personally, Ive had phases about what I believe about Rhett and Link and the nature of their relationship. I have found the idea of these two attractive, weird, charismatic, creative men being into each other quite appealing, but I dont think Ive ever truly believed it without the help of fan speculation and overinterpretation of giffed moments. Especially after the reveal about their religious background… Without the fan content to feed the nice fantasy, I go back to the presented reality of their unique, brotherly friendship. You believe something that is extreme, even within a tumblr fandom that fixates on the idea of them as a couple. You do you, I dont even have to tell you that! What I find frustrating, just for me, is that I can’t easily refute your view. But I really do believe, without much doubt, that theres nothing between them, like they’ve repeatedly said, and, moreover, that theyre just not physically attracted to each other, despite the moments that may be interpreted as flirting (or… as mind-in-the-gutter banter, you know!). The one thing that I could concede is that, if there is any kind of sexual tension between them, it’s mostly subconscious or repressed, and they don’t want to explore that and only feel comfortable with their current, deep, but platonic friendship. I think that your interpretations, the ‘signs’ you notice in their videos, while beautifully packed with meaning, are not necessarily there. But once again, I can’t really prove it to you, and I find that frustrating. It’s about what feels like a plausible conclusion, an ‘inference to the best explanation’ as philosophers would say. My current opinion is a conventional one, but certainly not within the tumblr fandom, which is full of people that seem to at least believe that there’s something there even if not acted upon. I just think that their interactions could be what they say they are: two lifelong straight male friends connecting, having fun, learning about each other and the world, performing for an audience, often winding each other up, showing us their strange humor, their fascination with awkwardness and love of silly innuendos. And here we are, chronically misinterpreting it to maintain our delightful fantasy, a fantasy shared by many other fandoms built around two apparently straight men that have good chemistry, by the way. This is what I think is happening, and Im not going to judge, because as I said, the fantasy is really nice. As for the overarching themes and methaphors you have identified in their scripted content… I think alternative interpretations are definitely possible. The digging a hole video, for example, might be about collaborative endeavors in general, about the dramatic structure that is still exciting without normal dramatic content, about the joy of absurdist concepts and doing things just to do them, together… not the specific situation you imagined about them wanting to come out of the closet eventually, and navigating their relationship. I have to say, I was impressed and entertained by your interpretation of their puzzle video. I also think that there’s a lot of basic ‘if our characters did this somewhat suggestive or odd thing this would be funny’ reasons behind their scripted content… and not necessarily the cohesive story about viagra that you believe has happened to them. I think that sadly, they might be more boring or random than what you give them credit for, as far as cleverly hidden messages go. But yeah, I dont know how we could definitely know who’s right about this... If they never come out as you suspect they are planning to, if they stand by their no-homo claims, would you give up on your theory, or do you think there’s a chance that, in your worldview, they might never ‘fully come clean’, rendering both our theories basically impossible to prove or disprove? What do you expect from the TV show they’re going to release, for example (sorry if you already shared that before)?

Hello, thank you for analysing your different perspective in a polite way. I have been having a lot in my mind these days and I delayed answering. I was about to explain why I support some things regarding the videos and the puzzle video but somehow in this crazy world I didn’t answer before the brolinoscopy episode and I feel like R&L answered for me before me in this video!

After 9 years, Rhett brought up the reference by saying “you can even find missing puzzle pieces inside rectums”. It’s not even the first time they suddenly bring up the puzzle video after a silence nearly a decade long. Link as Sandy had a small puzzle tattoo in the Brown Diamond too. But today’s insinuation was so much more straightforward. As you understand, after this development, I am once more convinced I cannot find a more suitable explanation than the one I had in the puzzle post (the viagra thing might be a stretch or made up story by them but I stand by all the main and crucial points I made there). And that reference is generally nothing compared to all the things Rhett (also Link) said (supposedly I guess, but wild if true) incoherently in the brolinoscopy.

However, I do not intend to make an analysis here, neither do I plan to try to convince you, I am kinda over that in general and I don’t want to push something down the throats of people who find it unlikely or uncomfortable. I have figured out some people consider me extreme and… it doesn’t resonate well with me. If I am proven correct, will I have been extreme then all this time? Of course I will definitely keep doing my own thing in my original posts but I don’t want to try to change anyone’s mind anymore. Therefore I am curious - you said it is frustrating that you can’t refute me. Is this about me (I don’t think I matter, I am just an anonymous randomer blabbing potential nonsense) or is it about the possibility of Rhett and Link truly being more than friends? Or is it just because you are so convinced you are right that it would be frustrating to be proven wrong? I would understand that last sentiment (I am often the same way), less so if it’s a case of any of the former two scenarios though.

The only thing I want to stress again is that for me all my ships have started as an observation and then some became a pleasant fantasy. I have never liked a ship because I liked the idea of it first and then tried to force it into my reasoning and conclusions. It has always been the opposite with me - I see cues I consider very clearly there and then I decide whether I like that ship or not. Which is why I never liked fanon ships. Save for the Sherlock fiasco, I have a record of 100% canon ships and 0% fanon or slash. In fact, I almost have a personal aversion to them, idk why. As for Sherlock, the entire fanbase was essentially proven wrong and it wasn’t that we were all wrong but that apparently something happened and bombed this show and they wrapped up one season earlier than intended with enstranged actors . Still, many many fans were sure there was no case the show could end like it did and waited for another season. Not me. I realised the plot and show was bombed for good and I was done with it very quickly. I was proven right. I am saying all this only to explain that this “aw it’s a nice fantasy I am having so now I am misinterpreting gifs” is not representing me accurately. I was perfectly happy with Rhett and Link as platonic friends and I would be very happy with this image in my mind forever. I value deep friendship and, you know, being loyal to your spouse extremely. It’s just that it’s been quite a few years this is not the image I am getting from them at all. Of course I could be wrong but even if I am, it’s not because I try to make my fantasies reality out of nowhere.

I agree many people misinterpret gifs. There are gifs and gifs though. And some leave very little room for misinterpretation.

Regarding your question, I do doubt from time to time that they will get on with it. But then shit like today’s happens. There is always the chance that they will get scared for good before the end. But since November-December, I think something has shifted inside Rhett and he has made his decisions. But who knows. I definitely think there is a possibility they never come out, not even in the show they prepare, and keep hiding forever but I consider it a very very very small possibility. I could also eventually give up on my theory but for this to happen, there’s a shitload of undoing they would have to do first!

#rhink #rhett and link #randl #anon #mail #R&L #brolinoscopy

6 notes · View notes

sciencespies · 4 years

Text

Why Immunity to the Novel Coronavirus Is So Complicated

https://sciencespies.com/nature/why-immunity-to-the-novel-coronavirus-is-so-complicated/

Why Immunity to the Novel Coronavirus Is So Complicated

Even before the blood left his arm, André Valleteau suspected he knew what his doctors would find.

Just weeks before, the 27-year-old from Toronto had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. The symptoms hit him hard: headache, cough, sore throat and fatigue that relegated him to his bed 15 hours a day. “It didn’t matter how many times I napped,” he says. “I was tired until the next time I napped again.”

Valleteau, a researcher coordinator at a pharmaceutical company, spent two weeks self-isolating and recovering, then decided he wanted to help others do the same. He contacted a local researcher and offered up his blood—along with the disease-fighting antibodies that likely teemed within. Indeed, Valleteau’s blood tested positive for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and a team of scientists is now studying molecules from patients like Valleteau in the hopes they can inform the development of drugs or vaccines to vanquish the virus.

Antibodies, which the body makes in response to dangerous microbes like SARS-CoV-2, are crucial for defending against disease. Many can glom onto pathogens and subdue them before they have a chance to encounter vulnerable human cells. Antibodies are also evidence: Some COVID-19 tests target these molecules because they show that someone has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. (And as previously reported, the possibility of false negatives or false positives, which are more common with some tests than others, can sometimes muddle attempts to pinpoint past infections.)

Even then, while a positive antibody test (also called a serology test) can say a lot about the past, it may not indicate much about a person’s future. Researchers still don’t know if antibodies that recognize SARS-CoV-2 prevent people from catching the virus a second time—or, if they do, how long that protection might last.

Immunity isn’t binary, but a continuum—and having an immune response, like those that can be measured by antibody tests, doesn’t make a person impervious to disease. “There’s this impression that ‘immunity’ means you’re 100 percent protected, that you’ll never be infected again,” says Rachel Graham, an virologist studying coronaviruses at the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Global Public Health. “But having immunity just means your immune system is responding to something”—not how well it’s poised to guard you from subsequent harm.

It takes a symphony of cells

In discussions of immunity, antibodies often end up hogging the spotlight—but they’re not the only weapons the body wields against invaders. The sheer multitude of molecules at work helps explain why “immunity” is such a slippery concept.

When a pathogen infiltrates the body, the immune system mounts a defense in two acts. First comes the innate immune response, a blunt, broad-acting ensemble that attacks any invader that doesn’t resemble a normal-looking human cell. Slower but more specific is the adaptive immune response, a second wave of assailants the body custom-builds to recognize unique features of the infectious microbe.

This second wave includes antibodies, which are manufactured by immune cells called B cells. Some antibodies are potent weapons that curb a microbe’s capacity to latch onto and enter cells, while others simply flag germs or infected cells for destruction by other parts of the immune system. The former category, called neutralizing antibodies, are necessary to combat most of the pathogens that plague humans, and their production is generally considered a hallmark of a good vaccine, says Sallie Permar, a virologist and vaccine expert at Duke University says.

A laboratory technician holds a bag with samples ready for COVID-19 testing, including blood for an antibody test, at SOMOS Community Care site in Washington Heights Latino community.

(Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket / Getty Images)

Although antibodies have a short lifespan, disappearing from the blood after a few weeks or months, the immune system retains some of the B cells that produce them. If the same germ returns, these cellular factories will whip up a big batch of antibodies to wage a second war. But antibodies alone aren’t enough to quash an infection, says Diane Griffin, an immunologist at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health. “You need an orchestra of responses [for protection] to really be effective.”

T cells—another subset of the adaptive response—are often left out of conversations about immunity.

“You can’t have a great antibody response without T cells,” says Akiko Iwasaki, a virologist and immunologist at Yale University. Among a slew of helpful functions, T cells help young B cells mature into antibody-making machines. “These things really go hand in hand.”

T cells are also formidable fighters in their own right. In a bid to stop the spread of a pathogen throughout the body, some T cells will trigger infected cells to self-destruct. Others linger after an illness has resolved, patrolling tissues so germs can’t reestablish a foothold. (One of the reasons that HIV is such a devastating diagnosis is that the virus destroys some of the body��s T cells.)

Studies of other coronaviruses, including the ones that cause SARS and MERS, show that T cells play integral roles in stamping out sickness, says Stephanie Langel, a virologist and immunologist at Duke University. It’s likely that the same will hold true for SARS-CoV-2. Compared to antibodies, however, T cells—which often hole up in hard-to-reach tissues like the lungs—are more difficult to extract and analyze. That makes T-cell detection unlikely to play much of a role in clinical tests for immune responses against SARS-CoV-2. For researchers, though, T cells “represent a wealth of knowledge” about how our immune systems deal with the new coronavirus, Langel says.

Antibodies aren’t perfect

Even the most sensitive laboratory tests have their limits, and finding antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 is no guarantee that those molecules are high-quality defenders or that a person is protected from reinfection.

Most commercially available antibody tests search a person’s blood for antibodies that can recognize SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein, the molecule the virus uses to attach to human cells. Some (but not all) of these assessments can tell how many antibodies a person is producing—the more the better, generally speaking. But typical tests don’t determine whether the antibodies are neutralizing. To come to that conclusion, researchers must mix antibodies with viruses and check whether they stop the pathogens from invading human cells in a laboratory under strict safety protocols.

A T cell (blue) engages its target cell for destruction.

(Alex Ritter, Jennifer Lippincott Schwartz and Gillian Griffiths, National Institutes of Health / flickr)

Though non-neutralizing antibodies can play less direct roles in incapacitating a pathogen, many are duds that have no effect on microbes. Some may even chauffeur active viruses into healthy cells, inadvertently accelerating infection. “Essentially, the antibody helps the virus replicate,” Permar says. This rare phenomenon, called antibody-dependent enhancement, has been observed with the viruses that cause dengue and Zika.

Why antibodies can be so inconsistent is still a mystery, in part because laboratory experiments can’t recreate the conditions these molecules experience in the body, says Marcia Goldberg, a microbiologist at Harvard University. “It’s really important to actually test how well antibodies are working in people.” (One way to do so involves administering antibodies to patients battling COVID-19, something that’s being trialed in hospitals around the world.)

Even antibodies with known neutralizing powers aren’t foolproof. Donna Farber, an immunologist at Columbia University who studies T-cell responses against airway viruses, says that some patients with high levels of neutralizing antibodies in their blood still succumb to COVID-19, another hint that other parts of the immune system are needed to reliably defeat this disease.

That’s why antibody tests shouldn’t be overinterpreted, Iwasaki says. One common misconception is that a positive antibody test means a person no longer has the virus in their system, which isn’t necessarily the case. Antibodies are often roused about a week into a new infection, potentially overlapping with a pathogen’s tenure in the body. Diagnostic tests that search for the virus’ genetic material can help tease that timeline apart, but even these assessments can yield incorrect results.

“So much nuance is being lost by just saying ‘serology [antibody] positive’ and ‘serology [antibody] negative,’” Iwasaki says.

A range of responses

A person who has recovered from their first brush with a new pathogen like SARS-CoV-2 may travel one of several immunological routes, Goldberg says—not all of which end in complete protection from another infection.

One possibility is that the immune system does a great job of cataloguing the invader’s unique features. That intel will get stored in an army of B and T cells that will rally to fight the second time a germ comes around. B cells in particular play a starring role in this scenario, pumping out neutralizing antibodies that can sequester and disable a pathogen before it even has the chance to enter a host cell, Iwasaki says. This phenomenon, called sterilizing immunity, make people essentially resistant to reinfection. The body may rouse this reaction in response to microbes like the virus that causes measles, which tends to be a one-and-done infection for most people.

A scanning electron microscope image of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

(NIAID / flickr)

But not all pathogens prompt such a robust response—and not everyone reacts the same way to a given microbe. People can experience varying shades of partial protection in the wake of an infection, Goldberg says. In some cases, a bug might infect a person a second time but struggle to replicate in the body, causing only mild symptoms (or none at all) before it’s purged once more. The person may never notice the germ’s return. Still, even a temporary rendezvous between human and microbe can create a conduit for transmission, allowing the pathogen to hop into another susceptible individual.

Under rarer circumstances, patients may experience symptoms that are similar to, or perhaps even more severe, than the first time their body encountered the pathogen.

That doesn’t mean people are doomed to experience the same diseases over and over. “The word ‘immune’ makes it sound like the virus gets close to your body, hits a wall, and has to turn away and go find someone else,” says Allison Roder, a virologist at New York University. But even partial protection from the immune system will curtail the amount of pathogen in a person’s body, and, by extension, the likelihood of transmission.

None of these protective states are necessarily permanent or mutually exclusive. A person’s immunity to a pathogen can wane over the course of months or years, eventually dropping below a threshold that leaves them susceptible to disease once again. Researchers don’t yet know whether that will be the case for SARS-CoV-2. The widespread deployment of accurate antibody tests, which can track both where the virus has been and how people are faring after having it, may help answer that question. Scientists are also trying to determine the antibody levels that correlate with protection against reinfection and how durable those responses are over time.

Finding those answers will be a boon for vaccine development, Permar says. “The dream of every vaccine is to be able to say, ‘We need this level of antibody.’ Then vaccines can chase that endpoint. Until we know that benchmark… we’re operating in the dark.”

So far, early studies in both humans and animals suggest exposure to SARS-CoV-2 marshals a strong immune response. But until researchers have more clarity, Graham advises continued vigilance—even for those who have gotten positive results from antibody tests, or have other reason to believe they were infected with COVID-19.

Valleteau, who has received clinical confirmation the coronavirus is no longer in his system, is still practicing physical distancing, frequently washing his hands and wearing protective gear like face coverings. He’s also taking extra precautions around the patients he works with, many of whom have diabetes, a condition that can increase the risk of complications from COVID-19.

“This is not a free pass to act like nothing is going on,” he says. “Just because you’ve had it and recovered, you’re not absolved of social responsibility.”

#Nature

#05-2020 Science News #2020 Science News #Earth Environment #earth science #Environment and Nature #Nature Science #News Science Spies #Our Nature #outrageous acts of science #planetary science #Science #Science Channel #science documentary #Science News #Science Spies #Science Spies News #Space Physics & Nature #Space Science #Nature

1 note · View note

theliberaltony · 4 years

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to a special edition of FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): It’s hard to believe that last Monday was the Iowa caucuses and now, it’s time for New Hampshire to vote for a Democratic nominee tomorrow. Obviously, we missed the big X factor of the Iowa caucuses — no results that Monday and still no declared winner because of data issues — but we’re done with Iowa; it’s time to talk New Hampshire.

What’s going on in the Granite State? Bernie Sanders sits atop nearly all of the recent New Hampshire polls we have, and has a 68 percent chance of winning the most votes there, according to our primary forecast, but Pete Buttigieg isn’t too far behind Sanders in our polling average and he even led in one recent Suffolk New Hampshire poll. How would you describe the state of the race? And what factors should we be looking at that could affect who wins on Tuesday?

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): I guess a major question is whether voters will strategically funnel toward the two leading candidates — Sanders and Buttigieg — which would hurt someone like Warren (whose voters maybe move to Sanders) as well as Biden or Klobuchar (whose voters possibly move to Buttigieg).

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): +1 to that, Geoffrey. Strategic voting can make primaries unpredictable. Since New Hampshire looks like a two-man race, that can cause a stampede of support from the lower-polling candidates to whichever of the two front-runners they prefer.

geoffrey.skelley: Perhaps that’s part of why Biden went all in on that video attacking Buttigieg, to stall a continued rise?

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief):I think our model likely has a fairly good handle on New Hampshire. We have Bernie with a 68 percent chance to win and Buttigieg at 27 percent, which leaves 5 percent with a miracle upset by Warren, Biden or Klobuchar. That all sounds about right to me.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): It feels like Sanders is the favorite, but Buttigieg could still win. Warren and Biden seem likely to be vying for third and fourth. Klobuchar seems likely to finish fifth, as she doesn’t seem as strong as she was in Iowa.

sarahf: I’ve wondered Perry, if maybe given what happened in Iowa, it’s Biden who finishes fourth or fifth. New Hampshire is just another state that’s really hard for him demographically.

And after Iowa, a Biden finish in the high single digits wouldn’t totally shock me. His footprint and enthusiasm in the state just seems much smaller (I know, reader, crowd sizes are not the best proxy for a candidate’s enthusiasm). His campaign is already lowering expectations in New Hampshire, but I wonder how that would shake up the race going forward.

nrakich: I would caution against any overinterpretation by the media or others if someone like Biden finishes fifth. If that happens, it would probably only be by a point or two, which really isn’t significant.

Similarly, the collapse of Biden or Warren in New Hampshire opens the door for someone like Klobuchar or Gabbard to finish third, which would surely grab some headlines. But if it’s a third-place finish with 10 percent, that’s really not all that impressive.

natesilver: I mean, it’s not clear to me that the Biden campaign would rather have Buttigieg win New Hampshire than Sanders. If Buttigieg wins New Hampshire, it’s an extremely wide-open race, and a win by Biden in South Carolina could be more impactful.

It’s also not clear to me whether that ad will be effective. It might be! Reporters on Twitter seem to think it’s smart! But, Buttigieg is also using his lack of Washington experience as an asset, and it seems a bit mean-spirited in a state where voters sort of like civility.

sarahf: Right, mayors … are supposed to revitalize sidewalks?

geoffrey.skelley: I agree, it’s unclear if that ad will have its intended effect. Voters have likely already factored in Buttigieg’s lack of big-time experience at this point.

nrakich: Yeah, Sarah, I found that ad ineffective. It felt like it was belittling the important, if not world-changing, work that local government does every day.

However, Geoffrey, I’m not sure voters have fully priced in Buttigieg’s lack of experience. He hasn’t really had a scrutiny cycle this election the way that, say, Warren has.

And only 73 percent of Democrats knew enough about him to have an opinion, according to an average of polls taken from Dec. 19 to Jan. 15. So there is room for more people to learn about him in a negative way.

natesilver: I’m not sure I totally agree that Buttigieg hasn’t faced scrutiny? He’s gotten a LOT of media attention, as this is really the third different period of the campaign in which he’s perceived to have surged.

nrakich: But very little of that media attention has been negative. I think this cycle has shown candidates need to do a bit better than Buttigieg has done so far before they really start to get negative attention. Look at Warren — she rose in the polls for months, to more than 20 percent, before the narrative really turned against her.

natesilver: I don’t know, Rakich, I probably spent too much time on Twitter, where Buttigieg isn’t super popular.

(I definitely spend too much time on Twitter.)

sarahf: What do you all think about turnout here in New Hampshire? Does that have the potential to be an X-factor? It surprised me that turnout was lower in Iowa just given everything around 2018 and record turnout for a midterm.

geoffrey.skelley: New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner — whose main job seems to be protecting New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary — predicted 420,000 voters would turn out for the combined Democratic and Republican primaries. He very specifically predicted — how is unclear — 292,000 Democratic votes and 128,000 GOP ones. If the Democrats reach that mark, it would basically match the Republican turnout mark of 288,000 in the 2016 Republican primary. (Democrats had a little over 250,000 votes last time around.)

sarahf: And so if Gardner’s predictions are accurate, Geoffrey, that would mean pretty high turnout for Democrats, right?

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, that would slightly outpace the 288,000 or so who voted in the 2008 Democratic primary. Of course, it’s important to remember that cycle had two competitive contests going on, whereas the Republican contest this time around isn’t competitive — sorry, Bill Weld. That could influence how unaffiliated voters choose to behave, as they can vote in either party’s primary.

sarahf: I was just going to ask about that. How much do we think it matters that New Hampshire’s primary isn’t closed, meaning independents and those not registered as Democrats can still participate? Do you think it makes New Hampshire a good general election bellwether test?

And what does it mean, if anything, for this year’s candidates? Does that help Sanders? Buttigieg?

natesilver: I’m not sure whether it makes New Hampshire a good bellwether. But independents are a bit more unpredictable and it’s one of the things that makes polling harder.

geoffrey.skelley: Well, New Hampshire’s turnout as a share of the voting-eligible population in the 2016 primary was 52 percent for the two parties combined. It’s general election turnout was around 72 percent. While that’s a very high presidential primary turnout — New Hampshire tends to have the highest or nearly the highest every cycle — I’m not really sure it tells you much about the general election.

perry: Because Buttigieg (anti-Trump Republicans) and Sanders (kind of disaffected voters more broadly) are both arguing they can appeal outside of traditional Democratic blocs, it will be interesting to see if one or both of them are successful in doing so. Neither of those candidates are likely to dismiss the role of independents and unaffiliated voters — they are appealing to them as part of their strategy.

natesilver: Independents seem to like both Buttigieg and Sanders here. But they’re different types of independents. The Sanders folks are people whose views are probably liberal, or at least eccentric but averaging out to liberal, but who just don’t really like the Democratic Party as a concept. The Buttigieg folks are more your classic crossover independents and moderate Republicans. There is SOME feeling on the ground here that Buttigieg is prepared to do well with these sorts of independents outside of metro areas, and if he beats his polling here, that might be a reason why.

sarahf: You’ve looked into this a little, Geoffrey. But aren’t candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang largely the ones doing well with independents or more conservative voters here in New Hampshire? In which case, I’m not sure how much New Hampshire’s independent streak has an opportunity to be a wild card here.

natesilver: I think they (Gabbard, Yang) may be doing well in a RELATIVE sense. That’s why Gabbard might get like 5 or 6 percent of the vote here instead of 2 or 3 percent. But not in an ABSOLUTE sense. Sanders and Buttigieg have the highest share of the vote among independents.

geoffrey.skelley: Right, Gabbard’s overall support in polls has mostly come from people who identify as independents or even Republican. So that might help her at the margins, but that isn’t going to make her competitive.

It’s kind of important to win over Democrats in a Democratic primary — just ask Sanders about his 2016 performance. One reason he couldn’t beat Clinton was that he rarely won more support from Democrats than her.

nrakich: Here’s a potentially fun X-factor: What if we get a national poll on Monday that says something dramatic? Like Biden still has a commanding national lead, or Buttigieg now has 20 percent. Could that affect New Hampshirites’ strategic voting, or the media’s expectations?

natesilver: It’ll affect our model! Our model is going to react quite strongly in one direction or another to the next few national polls, and maybe also fairly strongly to Nevada and South Carolina polls. I don’t know that it’ll affect coverage here though.

It might affect Biden’s strategy though. Like, if they think they’re still strong in Nevada/South Carolina, that would have some impact.

sarahf: On that note, we still haven’t had a horse race poll conducted entirely after Friday’s debate. Do you think there were any last-minute surprises there that the polls might be late to pick up on going into Tuesday?

Much of pundit-land seems to have thought Amy Klobuchar knocked it out of the park, for instance. But I wonder if that’s enough to help her here in New Hampshire. Because does a third-place finish vs. a fourth-place finish matter really matter if you’re Klobuchar?

natesilver: Two of the three tracking polls showed a rise for Klobuchar at the expense of Buttigieg. These are small sample sizes, so one needs to be a little bit careful — and I’d note that our post-debate poll with Ipsos (of national voters, not New Hampshire) showed both Buttigieg and Klobuchar doing well. But, a mini Klobu-surge that hurts Buttigieg and helps Sanders is certainly a plausible story.

nrakich: Yeah, our polling with Ipsos seemed to show a status-quo-preserving debate. Sanders and Buttigieg, who were already the candidates doing best in New Hampshire, got high marks from viewers. So did Klobuchar, but she’s had strong debates before, and while they probably have helped her get to where she is, I don’t see any reason why this one would produce a more sudden surge for her.

geoffrey.skelley: The challenge for Klobuchar is, if she finishes at like 9 percent or something, does she really go on? Nevada and South Carolina do not look good for her at all — she’s at 3 percent and 2 percent in our polling averages, respectively — and I’m not sure you can spin a performance like that in New Hampshire into more support in the next set of contests. Buttigieg might be able to gain support from winning or nearly winning, but for someone further down the list, that’ll be harder.

Then again, she may just want to make it to Super Tuesday [March 3] to run in her home state of Minnesota — though losing your home state is not a great look. …

natesilver: I think she’ll go on if she beats Biden. Maybe not otherwise.

But who knows! If it feels like a wide-open race, maybe she stays in as she’s sort of a plausible compromise candidate down the line. And as Geoffrey said, Minnesota votes on Super Tuesday.

sarahf: This is probably getting a little ahead of ourselves, because it’s not about New Hampshire specifically. But people usually drop out after Iowa — except given the mess that was Iowa this year, that didn’t happen. But there’s usually a second wave after New Hampshire. Do we think that will hold true? Or is this field so fractured and splintered that most candidates are going to cling on?

nrakich: Yeah, I think Michael Bennet and maybe Deval Patrick drop out after New Hampshire.

geoffrey.skelley: It’s been clear that Bennet wanted to keep going at least up to New Hampshire. So after he wins like 1 percent on Tuesday, that will presumably be the end of the line for him.

Patrick, however, probably wants to hang on until South Carolina. A Super PAC running ads on his behalf is dropping a fair amount of money there, for what it’s worth.

sarahf: OK, let’s end on one or two final X-factors you think could throw a curveball in New Hampshire’s primary — and don’t say, “We don’t get any votes.” That would just be cruel and unusual punishment after Iowa.

geoffrey.skelley: I don’t think we have to worry about that! New Hampshire’s primary is state-run, not party-run, so it’ll use the normal voting apparatus.

In terms of curveballs, Warren doing better than expected could be a twist. The new CBS News/YouGov poll that came out on Sunday had her in a clear third at 17 percent. We’ve heard anecdotally that she has a great ground game here, so maybe she will end up holding onto support better than some polls suggest. That could help Buttigieg if Warren supporters aren’t moving to Sanders.

nrakich: I guess I am just looking for whether Buttigieg’s momentum — which has been clear in the day-by-day polls — continues over the final stretch and is enough for him to overtake Sanders. But any disruption in the narrative, from the debate to a national poll to a well-timed attack from another candidate, could in turn disrupt that momentum.

perry: Biden basically conceded in the debate that he wouldn’t win New Hampshire. Probably not ideal (at least for winning, perhaps smart in terms of expectations setting.) He released a buzzy video attacking Buttigieg. I don’t know how that plays. But Biden is the person I’m most interested in — I feel like he could get 19 percent or 9.

geoffrey.skelley: Perry, 19 percent would be a W for Biden, so that would be a curveball!

nrakich: Geoffrey, you’re just playing into the expectations game!!

geoffrey.skelley: I’m just reading into what the media would say about Biden getting 19 percent. It would be taken as a win.

nrakich: Just a couple weeks ago, Biden was forecasted to get 20 percent of the vote, on average, in our model. If he gets 19 percent and that’s perceived as a win, his strategy of lowering expectations will have been very successful.

geoffrey.skelley: Sure, but in the aftermath of a rough performance in Iowa, and the downplaying of expectations by Biden, I’m pretty sure the press would enthusiastically latch onto a Biden comeback narrative.

nrakich: I think that’s probably right. But people need to take a step back and realize that the right interpretation of that would probably be, “Iowa was a weird hiccup for Biden,” not “Biden’s campaign was on the brink of death, and then he recovered masterfully!”

sarahf: Anyone other than Sanders finishing first, though, would be a pretty big deal. I could see Sanders’s margin only being one or two points, but given the polls we do have, I still think he should win New Hampshire. But Nathaniel is right in that there’s still room for a last-minute surge to take hold. And yeah, understanding how Biden will do remains a bit of a mystery to me.

natesilver: I don’t know how people (by which I mean the media) would react to like a 2-point Sanders win, which is one of the more plausible scenarios.

nrakich: Oh, I guess I’m also looking to see how many candidates finish about 15 percent and therefore qualify for delegates. The more candidates who get delegates, the more chance we have of a ~~ CoNtEsTeD cOnVeNtIoN !!! ~~

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #A FiveThirtyEight Chat

0 notes

criticalotterstudies · 4 years

Text

The experience has left me with a lack of faith in the prognostications of pundits and pollsters, an awakening unfortunately not shared by those pundits and pollsters. Indeed, the very people who massively fucked this up the last time around are desperate to convince us today that they know exactly what is going on. One of the most outspoken is New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait, a man who is so high on his own supply that in January 2017, he published a book called Audacity: How Barack Obama Defied His Critics and Created a Legacy That Will Prevail — three days before Trump’s inauguration.

You might say that a liberal who believes that Barack Obama’s legacy has prevailed is delusional. But that is the description Chait applies instead to his worst enemies, namely anyone to his left. “New Poll Shows Democratic Candidates Have Been Living in a Fantasy World,” says a recent piece of his. Indeed, Chait seems to consider leftists a greater threat than conservatives, sometimes devoting many more column inches to the dangers of campus activism and redistributive economic policies than the rising tide of the right.

Let’s look back at Chait’s record, choosing a random year. How about 2016. His greatest hits include, “Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination” (the reason being, “he would almost certainly lose”), “Donald Trump Is Not Going to Win Michigan” (he did), “Hillary Clinton Isn’t Very Popular, But She’s Winning Anyway” (she didn’t), and “Why Hillary Clinton is Probably Going to Win the 2016 Election” (all together now).

Chait’s latest refers to polling data from the New York Times, focusing on swing states. The results “ought to deliver a bracing shock to Democrats,” he says, given that Trump “trails Joe Biden there by the narrowest of margins, and leads Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.” (It’s worth noting that a recent national poll from the Washington Post shows all three leading Trump.)

It is indeed true that Trump is a more formidable foe than many, for example Jonathan Chait, realized the last time around. But his claim is not that Democrats need to fight him harder — it’s that they need to appear more like him. Characteristically, and in spite of evidence to the contrary, he gestures towards middle ground:

The “center,” of course, is a somewhat hazy concept, subject both to overinterpretation and misinterpretation. Capturing the center isn’t the only reason politicians win elections, and some policies that Washington elites consider “radical” are in fact popular. Nonetheless, it really is true that there are a bunch of persuadable voters who can be pushed away from a party based on their perception that it’s too radical.

...

As helpful as it may be to consider the totality of statistical information, it’s also important to remember that probability is not reality. Even now, the New York Times probability meter leaves Trump with a 95 percent chance of being the president. The inherently hypothetical nature of probability is why it leads to counterintuitive conclusions for those of us who are not theoretical mathematicians, and always runs the risk of favoring outcomes that don’t happen.

What makes policies popular? Public opinion is not some kind of geological formation, solid and immobile.

Even simple predictions make countless assumptions about circumstances — any event is contingent upon infinite factors in its environment and process. But even more troublesome is the observer effect — the name given by science to the phenomenon when measuring a result affects the outcome itself. The results you get are affected by what question you ask, like if you have a preceding suspicion that Biden voters think Warren is too far left. And in the most uncomfortable reality for the political press, when those results are publicized, they have a ripple effect on public opinion.

The idea that moderate candidates do well simply because they represent the will of the electorate, rather than because they are endorsed, supported, and popularized by the party establishment and the media is self-evidently absurd. This is plainly observable in a variety of ways. The media adores Pete Buttigieg, who fulfills their wildest fantasies of a dignified, erudite statesman, but who appears to the rest of the world as a barely sentient robot. His showings in any and all polls fall far short of his rapturous reception by pundits, but his lead over competitors may be a result of his attempted coronation. Meanwhile, the political press continues to comically underreport poll data that shows favorable outcomes for Bernie Sanders, outright declining to mention him even when he comes in first or second.

What makes policies popular? Public opinion is not some kind of geological formation, solid and immobile. You might describe politics as the process of popularization, both of policies and principles. Consider the idea of socialism, which, since the last Sanders candidacy, has risen significantly in popularity among the general population — particularly young people. Probability is hard to measure and even harder to predict, but it’s not the best basis for political action. It’s not necessarily even the best way to play poker.

Reducing politics to electability turns it into little more than a card game, and the pundits playing the odds are just as superstitious as any compulsive gambler. But politics is not a game, it’s a fight. It’s only worth participating if you believe something.

https://theoutline.com/post/8194/ignore-the-polls

0 notes