A Sail Around the Puppy Seas to Exemplify the Polls Using Appallingly Sized Samples

No, but seriously looking in depth at what individuals are saying is a totally legit research technique.

To recap, in previous posts I’ve looked at the Sad Puppy/Rabid Puppy political split in terms of the right’s anti-Trump vote and the alt-right’s pro-Trump vote. Simply, the difference between notable Sad Puppies (as defined by the 2015 Hugo Campaigns) and the Rabid Puppies was a simple as the Rabid Puppies being strongly pro-Trump.

How do things stand now? The Rabid Puppy camps remain pro-Trump obviously: racism and misogyny are seen as a feature rather than a bug of the Trump candidacy.

On the Sad Puppy side, Peter Grant the Tor-boycott guy has been leaning Trump for awhile.

Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia, remain in the plague-on-both-your-houses camp.Brad has been making digs about people supporting Hillary though.

The big change is Sarah Hoyt, who has announced that she intends voting for Trump: https://accordingtohoyt.com/2016/11/02/last-night-i-dreamed-again/

I think her reasoning is interesting – not terribly coherent and based on a looming dread of leftists doing lefty things but still interesting. I say that because it helps show what may be happening in various ways with the polls (at least in part). People with various kinds of right (or anti-left) views finally caving under the weight of a freakish electoral cycle and picking the only side they can pick.

, ,

16 responses to “A Sail Around the Puppy Seas to Exemplify the Polls Using Appallingly Sized Samples”

  1. “…racism and misogyny are seen as a feature rather than a bug of the Trump candidacy.”

    About that: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/02/exclusive-video-broaddrick-willey-jones-praise-hero-drudge-breitbart-slam-mainstream-media/

    As to Sarah Hoyt and other Sad Puppies authors, there was never a chance any of them were going to vote for Hillary. I expounded my views in the comments there at length, no need to repeat here. Suffice to say, even if Trump is every bit as bad as we all expect, having him as president of the USA has one major benefit.

    The media -hate- him. They will dig forever to get him. If the guy farts in church they’ll do a spectrographic analysis for brimstone.

    If Hillary gets in they will let her nuke Moscow and never say anything. They’ll applaud.


  2. I’ve resisted reading any Hoyt recently, but that was surprisingly coherent. Obviously she starts from incorrect facts and assumptions and so ends up at the wrong result, but the thinky bit in the middle was quite rational. Interesting that Brad seems to have started from a similar place and arrived at the opposite conclusion though.

    Hoyt rather exemplified something that’s been puzzling me whenever I’ve seen it from US conservatives – this insistence that both Clinton (now) and Trump (in the primary) benefited from the media being terribly terribly biased liberal stooges who refused to expose their true crimes. I mean, have they not seen Fox news? Breitbart? Did they miss that this internet thingy means “the truth” would get out even if there was a conspiracy?

    Liked by 1 person

        • And what percentage of the media coverage of Trump should have been negative?

          You should have chat with that Phantom guy – he gave us all a stern lecture once about stats not meaning much without a baseline.


          • Well, after our pleasant little Phantom hiatus, I see he’s back. I’m sure everyone remembers that he disappeared exactly when CF gave his talking points substantive and serious replies that he was obviously unable to deal with.
            And now he’s back doing the troll dance again. Let’s not let him play this game.


      • “And what percentage of the media coverage of Trump should have been negative?”

        You are arguing that there is no media bias. Why?


        • Not at all. I believe there are all kinds of media bias. That Trump has generated a lot of negative news stories about himself isn’t a great example is the point I’m making.


      • “That Trump has generated a lot of negative news stories about himself…”

        You’re not even trying, are you?


        • Trump’s a no-such-thing-as-bad-publicity sort of guy. It is pretty much his media strategy and his campaign strategy. Say something outrageous and get free coverage – much cheaper than paying for adverts. Seriously, you can’t have NOT noticed this? The news media haven’t been forcing Trump to go off on Twitter rants etc. he’s done it all by himself.
          Now, I’ll buy that there is a media bias in so far as Trump coverage = ratings but that’s more an example of Trump/media mutual aid than hostility.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. The whole issue of media “bias” has been just another one of the many non-substantive distractions from real issues. I’d rather call the media coverage across the spectrum “sensationalist.” With all the many and multiplying very serious issues in the world at the moment, the coverage has been very reductionist and tabloid-like. Corporate media is the problem, not ideological “bias”.


    • Adding just to clarify for Phantom: media “bias” is not just found in the things that are said, but in the things that are not said. There has been virtually no coverage or substantive questions of serious issues the addressing of which would impact corporate interests: the North Dakota pipeline and the horrifying display of violent neo-colonialism seen there, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that contains clauses which would allow corporations to sue sovereign states if their laws affect corporate profits), the ongoing issues with the quality of water in Flint and elsewhere, the many problems inherent in privatizations of prisons and so on ad infinitum.

      If the media and the hack-politicians are “in the tank” for anyone, it’s for their conglomerate corporate owner-donors. This is what plutocracy looks like (possibly on the road to fascism).

      Liked by 2 people

      • “This is what plutocracy looks like (possibly on the road to fascism).”

        What do you mean “on the road to”, KR? Obama is a bigger fascist than Mussolini. Go look up the definition of “fascist,” then go look up the structure of Obamacare. Textbook example.


      • Just because fascists were not opposed to universal healthcare does not mean that everybody in favour of universal healthcare is a fascist.

        And US elections have a long history of focussing on fairly banal issues (What happened to Clinton’s e-mails and what’s in them? What rude and clueless thing did Trump say now?) rather than actual problems like TTIP, the North Dakota Access pipeline, mass incarceration, mass poverty, etc…


      • “…actual problems like TTIP, the North Dakota Access pipeline, mass incarceration, mass poverty, etc…”

        How about dead women and children getting eaten by coyotes all along the border, from Texas to California, Cora? I believe Camestros made some crack up at the top about the Alt-Right being all racist for supporting Trump.

        Daring to speak about proper border control is what Trump got called a racist for. All there is out there is him being called a racist. I don’t see any pics of little child corpses nibbled by wildlife in the national media. For that I have to go to local papers of border towns, there’s a new pic every week. That is called a lie of omission.

        The Obama open border kills a couple hundred people a month, at a conservative estimate. We’re not allowed to speak of it, because “that’s racist!” Trump did anyway. He’s the -only- one who spoke about it.

        Try crossing illegally from the USA into Canada some time and see how long it takes the cops to send you home. Is Canada a hopelessly racist nation? Or do we just have a functioning border?

        Only one example. See two more above.

        And yes, Obamacare is -classic- fascism. Most of the DemocRat platform is. Half of Trump’s platform is too. Mussolini would approve. Also doomed to fail. See Canada for example of failing single tier, government run health system. See England for example of failing two-tier health system. NHS is falling apart.


      • People are dying at the US-Mexican border because of US immigration policy. Trump and his “secure border” will only make this situation worse.

        And if you think universal healthcare is fascism, then move to the US where you will be bothered by less of it.

        Sarah Hoyt, meanwhile, continues to live in a parallel universe that is some kind of communist dystopia.

        Liked by 1 person

%d bloggers like this: