BLUES: Red viewers were told about Nevada!


Blue tribe viewers were not: Oof! A new assortment of swing state polls was bruited on cable last night.

Correction! The polling results were bruited on red tribe cable. Blue tribe cable stayed silent concerning these scary results.

The data came from polling done by Emerson College / The Hill. As best we can tell, this listing of recent swing state polling results can be defended as basically accurate:

Nevada: Trump +10
North Carolina: Trump +9
Georgia: Trump +9
Arizona: Trump +6
Pennsylvania: Trump +5
Wisconsin: Trump +4
Michigan: Trump +3

That's the rundown as we saw it bruited on Fox. As best we can tell, those figures can be defended as a basically accurate account of the recent polling data.

We saw those figures bruited on Fox; they weren't cited on MSNBC. Headline included, here's a February 22 report from The Hill concerning the Nevada / Arizona figures:

Trump leads Biden in Arizona, Nevada: Polls

Former President Trump is leading President Biden in head-to-head hypotheticals in both Arizona and Nevada, polling released Thursday shows. 

A new Emerson College Polling/The Hill survey found 46 percent of Arizona voters support Trump when pitted in a one-on-one match-up with Biden, while 43 percent back the incumbent. Another 12 percent were undecided.

In Nevada, an Emerson College Polling/KLAS-TV/The Hill survey found Trump leading by 6 points—with 46 percent of voters in the state supporting the former president and 40 percent backing Biden. Fourteen percent were undecided. 

As Biden and Trump both appear poised to win their respective party presidential nominations, the polls signal a close race in key battleground states. 

With independent candidates added into the mix, Trump’s lead over Biden in Arizona jumps from 3 to 6 points—and climbs in Nevada from 6 to 10 points.

We're not sure how those polls "signal a close race" as we look ahead to November. That said, the new Emerson surveys may have been "wrong" on the very day they were conducted—and they could end up having little to do with the way the campaign ends up in those seven swing states.

We don't offer these data for their (limited) predictive value. We offer them as another example of the way our modern news industry works.

In this age of "segregation by viewpoint," red tribe voters will routinely hear some set of facts—facts which will often be accompanied by waves of clownlike distortions.

Blue tribe voters will hear vastly different sets of facts. On occasion, it's even possible that blue tribe voters may hear alternate distortions!

In yesterday afternoon's post, we mentioned this rapidly devolving aspect of our nation's journalistic arrangements. In this subsequent post, Kevin Drum posted this (fully representative) part of what we said:

On one channel, [the claim that an illegal immigrant killed a nursing student in Athens, Georgia] drove eight hours of primetime reporting and discussion. On the other channel, the topic doesn't exist. However you may assess the dueling news judgments, our tribes are now living in two different worlds with respect to topic selection and delivery of information.

So it went, again last night, with respect to those polling statistics. 

Gone are the days when everyone sat and listened to Walter Cronkite, with few other sources of news. Also gone are the more recent days when cable news programs like Crossfire presented debates, or possibly pseudo-debates, between advocates of some red tribe position and advocates of the blue stance.

Under our new arrangements, Red America lives in one journalistic universe, Blue America lives in another. That said:

Concerning that brutal murder in Georgia, we're inclined to disagree with the general thrust of what Kevin then said:

DRUM (2/27/24): Immigrants, both legal and otherwise, commit crimes at lower rates than natives. Still, they do commit crimes, and if you force feed your audience hours of news about every one, they'll naturally think that crime from illegal immigrants is out of control. It's all theater.

We agree with Kevin's initial statement. It has long been our understanding that "immigrants, both legal and otherwise, commit crimes at lower rates than natives."

Having said that, we'll also say this. In our experience, red tribe tribunes haven't been disputing that fact in their treatment of immigration and border issues over the past few months.

In our experience, they've been saying something different. It seems to us that it's hard to argue with the claims they have been making, clownish Jesse Watters-style distortions to the side.

At time like these, members of every warring tribe may need access to good sound advice. "Long ago when the men fought for Troy," it was Nestor, king of Pylos' sandy harbor, who "always gave the best advice," starting in Book One of the Iliad, when he chastises Agamemnon lord of men, tells him to beat back his rage.

The ten-year siege of Troy was a war of the Late Bronze Age. Our current sieges are being fought in our own Information Age.

Last night, the PBS NewsHour took up the matter of the dispute about the Georgia killing. When it did, it seemed to us that our blue tribe was handed some unhelpful advice.

You can read the transcript of the NewsHour segment here. You can also watch the videotape.

At one point, the NewsHour's Amna Nawaz asked the most direct and appropriate question about what's being said. It seems to us that her academic interlocutor responded by debunking several points which we've seen no one make:

NAWAZ (2/27/24): Professor, I'm sure you have heard this argument before. We're hearing this again, which is that if this man had not been allowed to enter into the United States, if he'd not been allowed to stay, he couldn't have committed this crime, and this young woman would still be alive today.

Are people making that argument wrong?

PROFESSOR KUBRIN: Well, it's not that that argument's wrong, because, essentially, that is true. But I think it's misplaced, because, at the end of the day, if we really do want to cut down on crime in general, absent this one horrific incident, making restrictive, exclusionary and harsh policies aimed at immigrants is really not going to yield the benefits of reductions in crime that many people believe, largely because, as I just mentioned, immigrants are not the ones engaging in crime.

I would point out also that there's been a lot of instances of violence on campus with young individuals getting killed, tragic events, most of which are occurring by native-born Americans. And so I think we need to pay attention to broader factors that contribute to this kind of senseless violence, rather than simply aiming our targets at immigrants.

So it went. For the record, each participant may have seemed to be assuming the guilt of the accused. 

That said, Nawaz accurately recounted the argument which is being made on red tribe cable. The professor responded by saying that the argument is "true"—at which point, she said the word "but" and just kept on going.

The professor proceeded to knock down several claims we've seen no one make. We thought back to the occasion when our blue tribe's leading tribune had made a common but mistaken claim about the gender wage gap—and an academic came on the air the following night to help her wriggle away from a clear statement of the fact that she had erred.

As we continue to watch blue tribe cable, it increasingly seems to us that our tribe's leading tribunes are increasingly going wrong in their general focus. 

We humans all need good sound advice at times of tribal warfare like these. There's a lot of journalistic garbage on red tribe "cable news"—but are we getting good advice and sound direction from our own blue tribe's TV shows?  

Increasingly, it seems to us that we pretty much aren't. Also, it seems to us that the die has been cast—that it's too late for our tribal advisers to intercede in ways which might help.

Next November, will it turn out that those Emerson College polling figures were basically "right?" We can't answer that question, but one group of voters heard about those figures last night, and one group of voters did not. 

Tomorrow: Still trying to make our way to those "beloved colleagues [and] viewers"


  1. "Perhaps more important is that Trump underperformed the public polls again. He received 68.2% of the vote in Michigan as compared to his FiveThirtyEight polling average of 78.7%.

    It’s the fourth consecutive race where Trump has underperformed the polls.

    It’s not clear what’s happening here, but if polls are overestimating Trump’s share of the vote it could call into question the general election polling showing him leading Biden."

    1. Somerby says: "As best we can tell, those figures can be defended as a basically accurate account of the recent polling data."

      But polling data is not the same as election results. Polling has been broken, with models failing to estimate actual votes since 2016. Results were especially divergent in 2020 when Trump was predicted to win but Biden actually won the election.

      Democrats should not be complacent, but there are other sources predicting a "blue tsunami" landslide vote in favor of Democrats up and down the ballot because of failure to take seriously the backlash against Trump. Nikki Haley's hopeless campaign in this primary is a mobilizing point for those who dislike Trump and/or Republicans to the point that they will vote for Biden or stay home before they will vote for a criminal rapist fraudster, even if he is a Republican.

      Somerby, of course, never discusses that aspect of this election. He is busy pretending Biden is too old and excoriating liberals for opposing Trump. Does Somerby mention Trump's underperformance compared to the polls? Of course not.

  2. How much does the news media’s reporting and editorializing on Biden factor into public perception of Biden in polls like these? Back in 2000, Somerby was on that case.

    1. Yes. Remember how the MSM focused on Gore sighing during the debate with Bush? Never mind that Bush was making uninformed comments, Gore was now too aloof or impatient or whatever.

      I think dynamics have changed a lot since then. Does the media have the same ability to drive the narrative, or are they more reactive these days? For example, at least with online articles, some of them are just summaries of popular reddit posts.

  3. Bruce Newman has died.

  4. "We thought back to the occasion when our blue tribe's leading tribune had made a common but mistaken claim about the gender wage gap—and an academic came on the air the following night to help her wriggle away from a clear statement of the fact that she had erred."

    Somerby is talking about Rachel Maddow with this gratuitous remark, that has no relevance to today's discussion. Maddow repeated wage gap statistics that are found on the Department of Labor's website, and they ought to know about such things as women's pay compared to men's. What Somerby missed in his criticism of her is that women do earn less because of various factors and that is the wage gap, not a within-job category comparison of pay holding all outside factors constant.

    Maddow did not make the mistake, Somerby did. That was also true when Somerby launched the same criticism at Kamala Harris, who was similarly quoting Department of Labor statistics from the .gov website.

    I have no doubt that Somerby believes that women are treated equally in the workplace, but nothing supports that view. The only way the wage gap disappears is by eliminating the factors that arise from inequalities in women's lives, including child rearing, perceptions that women are not interested in advancement, lack of promotion and training opportunities, limits on access to job categories, hazing and discouragement from certain jobs (surgery as opposed to pediatrics, for example), and similar limitations. Somerby thinks these things must be set aside, not addressed as discriminatory. Then he calls his figures correct and women who are quoting government data wrong.

    For the record, Maddow was paid $24 million to Tucker Carlson's $27 million, when they were both hosting popular nightly cable news shows. (That has changed for both.)

    1. Somerby "Let’s be clear: This doesn’t mean that women face no discrimination in terms of pay."

      You're dumb af.

    2. And then he goes on to excoriate Maddow for claiming that women DO face discrimination in terms of pay. You must be dumb af to not realize that Somerby talks out of both sides of his mouth, but more out of one side than the other. These puny disclaimers do not make him right in criticizing what Maddow said, which was more right than Somerby.

      But kudos for learning to use the search function.

    3. What an ignorant and dismissive reply.

      He didn't "excoriate Maddow for claiming that women do face discrimination in terms of pay."

      He took issue with the way she reported that discrimination, specifically citing her saying "Women in this country still make 77 cents on the dollar for what men make."

      When you fight for something, facts matter. Take your posts for example, they are all over the place and attempting to dispatch Somerby by death from a thousand cuts. But if one examines one of the claims, like was just done here, they often fall flat. Which calls into question the integrity and sincerity of the author: You.

      And now you're mischaracterizing an article that is linked directly above your mischaracterization, for all to see. And what's fascinating is you think this helps the Left somehow. It hurts it.

    4. Maddow repeated the figure given by the Department of Labor. Somerby insisted on redefining the gap in a way that failed to take into consideration ALL of the forms of workplace discrimination that affect women's pay relative to men. That allowed Somerby to argue that the pay gap is no longer a thing, which is incorrect. For example, look at the gaps in sports, movies, medicine (where specialties with more women get paid less), and many other easily demonstrated gaps. I provided the one for Maddow vs Carlson, both in the same job at the height of their popularity. These are facts too.

      You favor Somerby's distortion because it supports your own prejudices. That doesn't make you or Somerby right. I will go with the Department of Labor because it is their job to report this stuff, they know how to do it, and they are not working overtime to explain away an obvious gap between pay for men and women.

      The redefinition of the gap by Somerby is what is called sophistry. The motive to explain away a real gap in wages is called bigotry and misogyny.

    5. Somerby’s commenters effectively debunked his critique of Maddow in real time. Her stat was correct. She did not say that it was all because of discrimination, but that’s what Somerby wanted you to believe. Women at that time earned 77 cents on the dollar vs men.

    6. It's simple. The topic of THIS discussion was whether you misrepresented the blog post. I haven't stated my position on the pay gap, you're adding unnecessary noise. But apparently I have "prejudices." Whatever, it's a distraction.

      It's not difficult to make a determination on what was actually being discussed here, right now. It's very clear that "And then he goes on to excoriate Maddow for claiming that women DO face discrimination in terms of pay." is not an accurate representation of the linked blog post.

      And now we have a new, fresh misrepresentation!

      Your misrepresentation: "That allowed Somerby to argue that the pay gap is no longer a thing"

      Reality: He ends with this:

      Hymowitz says the actual discrimination factor may come to 5-7 cents on the dollar. That’s quite close to what Hartmann said Monday night—if you cut through the gorilla dust which suffused her exchange with Maddow.

      Verdict: highly misleading

    7. Here's the link again so amused readers can compare for themselves:

    8. Somerby mischaracterized what Maddow said.

  5. “one group of voters heard about those figures last night, and one group of voters did not.”

    Somerby makes pronouncements like this all the time. Who really knows if “one group of voters” didn’t hear about those figures last night? They are public polls. They get reported on network newscasts, in newspapers, and it isn’t a guarantee that MSNBC didn’t report on them, last night. It is one of Somerby’s ongoing narratives that “one group of voters” (liberals, one supposes) are unaware of xyz, and are thus stupid blind tribalists, when they should, who knows, rise up and dump Biden? Somerby equates support for Biden with ignorant optimism. He of course likes to recount the many ways that he believes Biden is failing, as he did in yesterday’s post.

    After the Michigan primary, that Biden won handily, it was all over the New York Times and the network evening news how there was a large uncommitted vote, and how Democratic Muslim voters in Michigan disapprove of Biden’s handling of the Gaza crisis. Perhaps it was mentioned, ever so briefly, that Trump got a far smaller percentage of the vote there than Biden.

    We are painfully aware of Biden’s shortcomings (at least, what are characterized as his shortcomings in the media) and of Biden’s numbers.

    Kevin drum said it recently: it’s going to be Trump and Biden in the election, so this endless moaning, groaning, and caterwauling about “the sky is falling” from people like Somerby is just so much empty complaining, and serves to undermine the Democratic candidate.

  6. Somerby went from mocking the “horse race” reporting from the media fairly recently to gleefully joining the horse race reporting himself.

    1. Hi. This isn't horse race reporting. The post is about the divide in news coverage between the two tribes and questions the quality of reporting provided by blue tribe cable news.

    2. Yes. And this is typical of Somerby-haters. They misread his criticisms of media as his promotion of conservative themes.

    3. Somerby hides behind "media criticism" but what he writes does not approach media analysis at all, so that is clearly not his purpose here. Many essays say nothing at all that could be called media criticism.

      Calling everyone who criticizes Somerby a "hater" is propaganda and name-calling not discussion.

    4. The Post is also about polling. Which Someby once mocked as "horse race" reporting for many years. Just as he once mocked reporting that attempted to do psychological analysis, the kind of reporting he now DEMANDS the press do on Trump (this would seem to be part of Bob's overall attempt to let Trump and his supporters skirt any blame for their actions). So this 11:00 a.m. post is correct, Bob defender Pied Piper is sadly incorrect as usual.

    5. If Bob changed his mind about these things that's O.K., but his massive ego does not demand he explain to his readers why, or why he is making an exception now.

    6. When "everyone who criticizes Somerby" consists of the same two people that summarize things incorrectly, take things literally when convenient, mind read when taking literally is not convenient, and just generally are sloppy; trying to hurl mud at the wall in hopes anything will stick... yes they are haters. As they've demonstrated it time and time again by their body of work.

    7. If it was stupid for the media to do horse race reporting years ago when Somerby was mocking that kind of reporting, why should “blue” media do it now? Because Fox is doing it? That seems to make no sense.

      What makes sense is that he thinks liberals don’t know about Biden’s polling and that they need to know. So, horse race reporting it is.

    8. You don't seriously think that calling those who criticize Somerby "haters" is going to make the criticism stop? If you disagree with the criticism, make a few substantive arguments of your own, instead of just lazy name-calling.

    9. Guess what folks! The post is NOT about horse-races. The post is about how red media broadcasts some things, such as these polls, while blue media hides these things. And Somerby tells us this explicitly:

      "We don't offer these data for their (limited) predictive value. We offer them as another example of the way our modern news industry works.

      "In this age of 'segregation by viewpoint,' red tribe voters will routinely hear some set of facts—facts which will often be accompanied by waves of clownlike distortions.

      "Blue tribe voters will hear vastly different sets of facts."

    10. Piper, polls are still horse race reporting. That’s what it is. Why would it matter if Fox is showing polls but MSNBC isn’t? (an assertion that in my mind is unproven). He’s saying that because Fox is engaging in horse race reporting, MSNBC ought to also. Why?

    11. "Calling everyone who criticizes Somerby a 'hater' is propaganda and name-calling"

      Isn't it funny how the haters can dish it out but bawl like babies when they themselves are criticized?

    12. 2:16 - "He’s saying that because Fox is engaging in horse race reporting, MSNBC ought to also."

      No, he's not. He's saying that Fox tells us about X, but MSNBC doesn't. These polls are just one value of X.

    13. Piper, reporting on poll numbers is called horse race reporting. It’s the media turning what could be serious reporting into an inane numbers game. He used to oppose that. He was right then.

    14. Somerby used to ridicule Steve Kornacki for standing at his “big board” and endlessly drilling down into poll numbers. I guess he demands more Kornacki at the big board now. Thought experiment: if Biden’s poll numbers are good, would fox report on that, and would he excoriate them for not doing it?

    15. "Isn't it funny how the haters can dish it out but bawl like babies when they themselves are criticized?"

      Yeah I love how they are calling for us to "make a few substantive arguments of your own." Like I haven't pointed out the logical fallacies and incorrect characterizations they spew over and over again, they never admit being wrong and just deflect and attack. So yes, "haters" at this point.

    16. 2:53: I haven’t heard anyone “bawl like a baby.” I have heard actual arguments being made. Because they disagree with yours doesn’t qualify as “bawling.”

    17. As Mrs. Lundegaard said in Fargo, "It's the disparity here that concerns your dad and me." Somerby's topic is the disparity between the subjects covered by red and blue media. Polls are just one example.

    18. Mice routinely castigate Somerby as a sexist, misogynistic, racist defender of pedophiles, and a traitor, a propagandist paid by Putin, yet whimper and whine when someone asks them to support any of their ridiculous accusations. I think "haters" fits.

    19. Seconded. And thanks to whoever posted the link to the blog further up that hater #1 was busy misrepresenting. It's very illustrative of their behavior and allows a side-by-side comparison.

      Haters: this means you love Somerby and are a bigot!

      I'm a liberal.

    20. Bob Somerby is just complaining that the Blue Tribe isn't getting updated information about polling, which Bob Somerby does not support.
      Is that about right?

    21. "Mice routinely castigate Somerby as a sexist, misogynistic, racist defender of pedophiles, and a traitor, a propagandist paid by Putin,.."

      Relax. It's not about Bob. Mice routinely castigate Right-wingers the same way, for their grievances Bob repeats at TDH on a daily basis.

    22. I don’t think anyonee here has called Somerby a traitor. Also you missed some of the other things we did say about him.

  7. "Next November, will it turn out that those Emerson College polling figures were basically "right?" We can't answer that question, but one group of voters heard about those figures last night, and one group of voters did not."

    After each election, there is an analysis of how well the polls performed as predictors of the actual results. The polls did not perform well in 2016 or 2020, compared to previous elections, but they did better in 2022 because of changes to polling methods (see link below). Somerby CAN figure out whether the Emerson poll will likely be correct or not, but it requires wading into the weeds and looking at the details of each poll (who were the peole polled, what kind of model was used for sampling, what method of contacting respondents was used). Somerby does not want to invest effort in that (nor do most people), but neither should he just shrug and treat polls as if they were seers reading bird flight paths.

    Polls do not predict how motivated various groups of voters might be, what might happen to candidate health or in the news between now and the election, nor chance factors such as weather on voting day. Comey's letter mooted the previous polls for Hillary Clinton.

    Somerby's obvious desire to put negative poll results for Biden in front of blue voters strikes me as an unserious attempt to discuss polls. He says he is illustrating that red and blue news sources present different info, but if he were doing that, he would pay attention to what blue tribers are actually hearing, instead of the lazy assumption none of us were told about these poll results (not even at 538?).

    Mission accomplished once we are again told that Biden is going to lose. Over here on the left, we know about how black voters who are not conservatives are reacting to Trump's recent speech. We know about his failure to address the concerns of suburban women about efforts to limit contraception. Are these segments of the population being sampled in these polls? If not, they may produce election surprises. Polls provide stats for their sample. Somerby wouldn't check because he doesn't care about the accuracy of the polls. He only cares about rubbing the results in our noses.

    1. forgot the link:

  8. Somerby is back to professor bashing. He says:

    "The professor proceeded to knock down several claims we've seen no one make. "

    Actually, the professor proceeded to state several considerations she considered more important than the claim that if someone wasn't in the country they couldn't commit a crime here. They were her own points to make and she was not saying she was addressing anyone else's claims. That's why they weren't made by others -- they were her own concerns and ideas.

    But any thin reed to make a professor sound foolish, even when she was using sound common sense. Her point was that a narrow focus on immigrants, who are not a major part of any kind of crime, will not reduce overall crime stats, including mass shootings. Her point is valid, even if red tribers have not been making it. That is why red tribers should be watching PBS and not solely Fox. But Somerby doesn't conclude that. He is too busy criticizing another professor for expressing her views when asked to do so by an interviewer.

  9. Bob's newfound respect for horse race reporting is pretty meaningless unless he tells us what he thinks might improve the situation. When Fox had to pay out millions for trying to help Trump fix the election, Bob did not think it was important enough to mention. So what is the average person supposed to do about it's bad behavior. His only point seems to be we should hate MSNBC because they are just like Fox, blah blah blah....

    1. "we should hate MSNBC"

      What an infantile take.

      He dares to criticize all media on a blog that is about media criticism. Wah wah wah.

    2. @1:25 That isn't what this blog has been, historically. It focuses much more on criticizing mainstream media and gave a bye to Fox, for years, until very recently when Somerby got a bug up his ass over Greg Gutfeld, who went to high school adjacent to Somerby (but more recently). Before that, he was largely excusing Tucker Carlson while saying bad things about every host on CNN or MSNBC, especially the ones who were gay. And his prior complaint was that there was too much friendliness among hosts and that guests were all supporting the same points (all on the same page), and that there were too many female black journalist professor expert guests saying things he disagreed with (because he was spouting the Fox line).

      So this is not an equal-opportunity media criticism website at all. It is not even saying anything remotely similar to media criticism. I used to post actual examples of media criticism in comments and nothing Somerby writes approaches it because Somerby is (1) unable to engage in actual analysis and criticism, or (2) here for a different purpose and merely pretending that saying negative things about media figures equates to media criticism. Hint: it doesn't.

      And yes, Somerby does want readers here to hate MSNBC and watch more Fox. He has said so many times -- they have the best facts over there, he has even said, while not mentioning the disinformation.

    3. Somerby fanboys try to remake the blog content here by simple assertion. What a joke!

    4. He throws in some media criticism along with his routine bashing of Biden and liberals. Hint: that last part isn’t media criticism. His main criticism here is: “look at how bad Biden’s numbers are. Blue tribe voters are ignorant of this.” Meanwhile, the mainstream media does a lot of Biden bashing themselves, which liberals are subjected to daily. No one is unaware of Biden’s poll numbers. His main criticism here seems to be directed at MSNBC, who he claims did not report on this recent poll. I doubt even that is true.

    5. "So this is not an equal-opportunity media criticism website at all."

      But you admit it is a media criticism website?

      "It is not even saying anything remotely similar to media criticism"

      Oh! Sentence one didn't get the news, apparently.

      "Somerby is (1) unable to engage in actual analysis and criticism"

      Hmm. So a failed attempt at criticism means it's not criticism?

      "And yes, Somerby does want readers here to hate MSNBC and watch more Fox. He has said so many times -- they have the best facts over there"

      Weird. Almost sounds like criticism? Guess we've flip-flopped again!

      Even the most infrequent reader here knows Bob has never said of Fox "they have the best facts over there."

      "He throws in some media criticism"

      But I thought there was none? What a rollercoaster. What a hoot. Keep 'em coming.

    6. Bob's repeated line about the "squalor of us liberals" is no ones idea of "media criticism".

    7. @2:59 doesn’t seem to know what media criticism looks like.

  10. Mitch McConnell will quit in November.

    1. A shame…tragedy…

      All the best to Mitch.

    2. Such a saint. A real top quality…zzzx

    3. It’s so great how mitch refused to convict Donald Trump, yet clearly recognized the danger he posed. What a dork.
      Somerby was so quick to condemn Democrats for being upset with McConnell. What a joke.


  11. "It has long been our understanding that "immigrants, both legal and otherwise, commit crimes at lower rates than natives.""

    You don't know that illegals commit crimes at lower rates than natives. It may (or may not) be that they commit proportionally fewer reported crimes. It seems likely that most of the crimes committed inside their ethnic ghettoes simply go unreported, for obvious reasons.

    1. Also fewer incarcerations. Probably because they're sneaky?

      Here, educate yourself. Unless you're confortable spouting falsehoods because you aspire to be a propagandist?

    2. This argument about unreported crimes also applies to natives, although the reasons for avoiding police involvement may differ. Consider also that there are certain categories of crimes that undocumented people commit less frequently because of lack of opportunity.

      The use of loaded language by @1:35 is noted. What he calls ethnic ghettoes we tend to call neighborhoods or communities. Such "ghettoes" are comprised of both native and legal immigrants, not just undocumented people.

      No people are illegal but some are undocumented immigrants. Many that @1:35 calls "illegals" are legally here seeking asylum. Some of the people being called "natives" are themselves former immigrants, having acquired citizenship or legal residence, or their grown children.

      When undocumented peope are the victims of crimes committed against them by "natives," they do not report them either, because they fear police involvement. That is why sanctuary cities do not allow police to report immigration violations -- it interferes with policing and skews crime stats.

      Personally, I don't mind that undocumented people are deterred from committing crimes by fear of deportation. It doesn't matter to me why people avoid criminal behavior -- as long as they do. I wish more "natives" could be deterred too. If undocumented people are better at avoiding getting caught than natives, that suggests they are brighter than the average person, smarts which may have been needed for them to get here at all. That should enhance our population, compared to the less smart "natives" who keep getting caught all the time.

    3. Your link is about immigrants, while I was talking about illegal migrants. If you see no difference, that's your problem.

      Everyone who crossed the border without authorization has already committed a crime. Everyone of them is a criminal. Consequently, I don't think there's an amount of mental gymnastics that would justify the assertion that they "commit crimes at lower rates than natives."

    4. Illegal migrants are immigrants. I suspect that many of the people you are calling illegal are actually asylum seekers, who are here legally. Those who attempt to come by sneaking across a border are turned back at the border if caught. We do not know how many actually cross illegally. The majority of people entering illegally do so by flying into an airport with a tourist visa and overstaying their return date. You perhaps do not consider such people "illegals" because they blend in with other tourists and are not part of the stereotype you have been fed by the right wing, of desperate people in rags bringing drugs and disease.

      I don't consider a paperwork crime to be in the same category as serious crimes against people or property. The worst thing such a person does is get a job and contribute to our economy. Treating all migrants as if they were murderers is ridiculous. If we do that to migrants, then we have to do it to everyone else too, because why wouldn't any random man be capable of committing murder as a crime of opportunity? Men are dangerous, not being a migrant.

    5. Kevin drum has written several times about this. If Republicans were serious about stemming illegal immigration, they would support E-verify, which prevents businesses from hiring illegals. But guess what? Republican business owners want the cheap undocumented labor, so the GOP is left with absurd theatrics about border security, while stoking anger and resentment against mostly hard working immigrants. At least the Democrats want to try to secure the border but also treat immigrants and asylum seekers humanely.

    6. Your link is about immigrants, while I was talking about illegal migrants. If you see no difference, that's your problem.

      The linked article differentiates and has information about both. I can't read it for you.

    7. Sorry, forgot to put first sentence in quotes above.

    8. Again: everyone who crossed the border without authorization committed a crime. Therefore, there is no way illegal migrants "commit crimes at lower rates than natives", because most natives don't commit any crimes at all (or so one would hope).

    9. You can guess, or read the article.

      From the article:
      "...the Census data combines incarceration for criminal acts with detentions for immigration-related offenses, the researchers say in the paper. Incarceration rates among Mexican and Central American immigrants were similar to those of U.S.-born individuals between 1980 and 2005."

      It's more fun to guess. I love the argument that lets create a category defined by them having commited an illegal act and then argue that those in that group commit more illegal acts. What a way to proceed in trying to argue a point.

    10. And who said anything about incarceration rates and immigrants?

      Are you stupid? We were talking about crime rates of the illegal migrants (people who illegally crossed the border) , vis-a-vis the natives.

    11. 3:21,
      Remember to contact your Congressional representatives, and ask them what they are doing to streamline (legal) immigration, and make it easier to navigate.

    12. @4:10 PM
      What does it mean "to streamline (legal) immigration"? And how does it help me?

    13. 4:21,
      Streamlining immigration is a way to make it easier to navigate. Currently there are a lot of hoops one has to jump through to immigrate here legally.
      Immigration helps the nation (and its people in general), and even more so, if you think lowering the number of "illegals/ refugees" at our border helps you.

    14. What does it mean "easier to navigate"? What "hoops"? Spell it out, please.

      And I still don't see how this "streamlined" immigration helps me. Why would I want a bunch of idiots who have problem "navigating" in my neighborhood?

    15. 8:49,
      Most immigrants who come here are minorities, who may get political power, so no, that part does not at all help you.

    16. Immigrants coming here helps the people of the nation, but only if they want the USA to be a success.
      I don't see how that helps possibly helps 8:49.

  12. Consider this, Somerby fanboys: look back over the past few weeks/months, and tally up how many times Somerby has discussed Biden’s poll numbers. He has stated that he believes Biden will lose, because he’s too old and he’s something of a failure. Put those facts together in your mind. It adds up to Somerby trying to convince his readers of his opinion, that Biden is a poor candidate she will lose, bolstering his argument with polls.

    1. He hasn't stated that he believes Biden will lose. Ever. Not once.

      Good trolling through. You're the undisputed king of the trolls. You kick ass. God, you're good.

    2. Somerby has said several times that Trump will win. That is the same as saying Biden will lose.

  13. Reps are stuck with Trump, unfortunately for us. Dems have the power to persuade Biden to withdraw. Will Dems stick with Biden because their news doesn’t tell them he’s gonna lose?

    1. Ah yes. “Biden is gonna lose” not only is Somerby’s mantra, but now must be the daily message on blue tribe media. That is an irresponsible position.

      Oh, by the way, Republicans are no more stuck with Trump than Dems with Biden, by your logic. But I guess “Trump’s gonna win” is the message you are hearing, and must apparently be broadcast on liberal outlets as well. Thanks for your insight.

    2. Why is it an irresponsible position to reduce faith in the Dem candidate winning easily which historically means more voter turnout since people don't bother to vote when they think it's locked in? Explain.

      Prediction: they will not explain, they will change the subject and deflect

    3. Or just ignore the question. They don't like to explore their mistakes, just move on and throw more mud somewhere else. Something will stick damnit!

    4. Suomynoma, does Somerby seem the carefree and optimistic type? Is he a “people person”?

      He always stews over elections and frets over weaknesses and flaws in candidates that he wants elected.

    5. 2:54,
      I think David means "Reps are stuck with Trump" because they fear the violent repercussions that come from defying the rapist.

    6. Trump's already "making jokes" about what he will do to those who don't kiss his ring. In this specific case, the cowardice of Republicans seems justified.

    7. I was trying to engage David in Cal, not Somerby. Why can’t Republicans dump Trump the way we are told we should dump Biden? It’s unfortunate the GOP is stuck with Trump, says David.

    8. 3:13: because it isn’t the job of the news media to “reduce faith in the Dem candidate winning easily.” It also isn’t responsible for the news media to say “Biden is gonna lose”, when that is not a foregone conclusion. Did I really need to spell this out for you?

  14. What dost thou Fanny sayeth?