Is disappointing that NYT has an agenda and doesn’t report in a neutral fashion. The level of cherry-picking to tell a misleading story is quite astonishing, and is clearly a deliberate choice. Disgusting.
What is their anti-Ukraine agenda? Sure, the NYT hates Biden, but why publish what is, in effect, Russian propaganda? As the USA's paper of record, it's bad enough that the NYT did not even fact check this. It may just come down to laziness, and/or a lack of military experience or interest in military affairs at the editorial level. Quite possibly even the inability of the Google Maps generation to read a map scale. Any of those would be damning in their own right. I don't read the paper, but have there been signs of deeper motivations?
I'm not sure how much of a change there is from their tradition. The paper has endorsed only Democrats for President of the US since 1960, for example. What I am picking up on now is that while the facts they report may be factual, their headlines are of a high emotional caliber. Lots of loaded words. I wonder if this has increased with social media pressures to capture and keep an audience.
Thanks for this update that puts Russian advances in perspective.
What is far more frightening for the US and Europe is what you write about China. If it’s true that China not only supports but has actually been encouraging NK to help Putin, this clearly indicates that it is also testing western resolve and will draw precious conclusions about its future geopolitical strategy. If the west wakes up and ensures that Putin is defeated, China will think twice about the wisdom of invading Taiwan and in general throwing its weight around in Asia. If it doesn’t, and a Trump victory is likely to ensure that it just sits back and watches, then we can all look forward to increasing Chinese domination of the world for the next 20 years at least.
I think the lowest level of Chinese support is tacit acceptance. That way they keep their hands clean and get to gauge US and EUropean response to this extreme escalation. A Trump victory and they would have to worry even less.
I've been reading the nytimes since I was fourteen (I'm now almost 70). I am shocked by the decline in its competence as a newspaper. I regularly send them comments when a story like this which they refuse to publish (apparently they don't like being accused of coverage that originates in Moscow. I'm at a loss deciding whether to continue to subscribe. The truth is the damn paper went to hell after Red Smith died.
Anyhoo. Some good news with the usually every accurate Des Moines Register poll of Iowa showing Harris LEADING IN IOWA!
Hi Thomas--Im a paying subscriber to the NY Times (I think its important to pay for journalism, so I pay for quite a few). Their political coverage can be better, but their Ukraine coverage seems very heavily weighted towards an analytical community that seems focussed on Russian success. Its troubling, I agree.
I've been a NYTs subsciber since 1983 and a reader since 1963. I recently was trying to decide whether to unsubcribe from the WAPO or the Times (I'm subcribing to more substacks these days) but the Bezos capitulation solved that question. After suffering through the NYT's coverage of the leadup to Iraq2 I'm not surprised at all by their Ukraine failures. Maybe I need to be more active in unsubscriver mode.
If every reader of this substack votes for international sanity, that will add thousands of votes for Harris. But you don't get credit unless you say it ahead of time— I say Harris will win this election. Thank God!
Based on the high level of turnout by women, this article explains exactly why Kamala Harris will win the election with a bigger majority than Biden in 2020. Every poll is adjusted by the pollster, and In 2024, their adjustments always almost always favor Trump.
If you want to read a detailed but wonky explanation why pollster adjustments are bogus—
There’s more herding in swing state polls than at a sheep farm in the Scottish Highlands // Some pollsters aren’t telling you what their data really say
Hi Kathleen--good to see Silver doing a quick about face--but I thought he's generally been one of the most bullish about Trump throughout. And I do think he was regularly using all these polls that were bullish on Trump in his analysis--didnt he.
Ive always thought Harris was the favorite because of the enthusiasm the Democrats have and Trump's high negatives. Been saying that for the entire campaign since she became the nominee--and Im sticking with it!
The Iowa poll reminds me of that old childhood taunt: "It takes one to know one!" Driving the Harris support are "independent older women" and that exactly describes pollster Ann Selzer. She's been highly accurate the last five presidential elections. We go, grrls!!
You are right that if Harris wins it is going to be because of women. Unfortunately this race is simply to close to predict, unlike the disaster to the country if Trump wins. I'm not going to wishcast and predict a winner I'm a fan of Nate Silvers and though generally he;s predicting a 50/50 chance for both, in today's update he posits that if Ann Selzer's poll is correct there are positive implications for Harris.
I haven't heard much talk about how she had Trump up by a lot more than practically all other pollsters in 2020, and turned out to be right. There was a lot of panic in the Democrat camp then, and for good reason. I really do trust that she is right. It takes a lot of guts to publish a poll result like that, and a lot of her polls have been very askew of other polls, while turning out to be correct in the end.
I will predict outright that Harris will win the popular vote. After all, Trump has NEVER won the popular vote.
However, the goddamn Electoral College shenanigans, possible abusive court "rulings" (like Bush v Gore), other attempts at election theft, attempted violent coups, those I don't care to predict
“Its rather remarkable—Putin is basically being advised on where and how to escalate, and get away with it. “
That has been the Biden / Sullivan playbook for way too long. Kursk will be retaken potentially quicker now and the diversion of Russian troops from Donetsk to Kursk will not have to happen. More importantly for Putin, this avoids another mass mobilization requirement like in Ukraine.
I sincerely hope that a Harris administration is elected on Tuesday and that needed weapons start flowing without restrictions to Ukraine. Similarly, there has to be put a bigger cost re: sanctions-busting. This war will only end once the cost of going on far exceeds the gains.
In my very limited experience, the last year of a presidential term is consumed by legacy considerations. So it comes down to how he wants to be remembered re: whether he budges in the two months between VP Harris getting elected and getting sworn in. I somewhat doubt it.
Not a _huge_ surprise that you've come out to endorse Harris! :)
Overall though, this is another pretty depressing update. Not because Russia is rapidly gaining territory in Ukraine but because it shows the seeming growing determination among western leaders to lose not just Ukraine but the broader battle for 'hearts and minds' and for such principles as democracy, the rule of law, etc.
Perhaps one silver lining... If North Korean troops do displace Russians on the border with Ukraine in large numbers, that may lead to tensions between them and the local population (Russian society not being famous for its acceptance of non-white people). And if this means more Russian troops are deployed from relative safety in Russia to the meatgrinder in Ukraine, this might increase the rate at which Russian casualties are accumulating. Not that I hold out much hope for this causing a sudden collapse, but it can't be having no impact at all.
Things are not great and if Trump wins they could get worse. The only silver lining in all of this, is that this year shows that the RUssian army can be beaten--if Ukraine is helped in the right way. The problem is that they are not being helped in that way.
It's worth focusing on the strategic balance on the Korean Peninsula between North and South. North Korea now stands to gain active military experience, as well as whatever was promised by Russia in exchange. Does this upset the balance on the Korean Peninsula?
Lets see. We dont know how many troops will actually survive. Conventionally, would imagine the SK is very secure now (NK had to give Russia a huge percentage of its shells and now some of its best troops). However, in exchange, I imagine, NK is getting some pretty good tech and their missiles might soon show improvement.
Good point, but it would be improvement from a relatively low base. Will China be happy wirh this, or is it's tacit acceptance based on an understanding that NK won't get *too* much in return?
I wonder if the "peak" even happened. If Selzer is right--the whole polling industry will need to radically change (first thing being to openly state all adjustments that they make before releasing the results)
There was a peak at least in terms of vibes. But I think there may have been a real peak (even if quite small) as Trump consolidated his remaining potential support before Harris did (and in fact she's not even finished yet). He has the advantage of being a much better known candidate, although in his case it's actually an electoral disadvantage since people don't really like what they know about him. So he won all potentially persuadable candidates sooner than Kamala and then turned to energizing his low propensity voters. The problem is that in the process he started reminding remaining persuadable voters what they don't like about him (with the MSG event being just one example).
I think polling, as we know it is in severe decline. No one answers the phone anymore, when an unknown number calls. How many calls are made to get 1000 people to actually answer questions? Then, are these people targetted, for a favourable or unfavourable result?
Polling will have to reinvent itself if it's to stay relevant and be taken seriously.
A final point, Harris/Walz in a landslide. Decency towers over the maggots and the finally tally will show this. I think there will be some shockers, in terms of flipped states, and possibly even senate seats.
Now as to the election and the punditry thereof, Nate Silver is undoubtedly a smart guy but he’s also backed himself into a trap. He complains about herding in his latest piece but fails to mention that his method explicitly encourages that behavior.
Pollsters that are consistently wrong (ie aligned with the herd) will emerge unscathed re: rankings. Similarly, there are plenty of partisan polls designed to flood aggregators like Nate Silver to skew averages one way or the other.
My expectation is that the actual results will skew far more to the democratic side than polls suggest. Plenty of folk don’t want to respond to strangers on the phone, the ones that do are typically partisan or quite old, leaving out key demographics that will decide this election.
The real mystery to me will be around ticket splitting, ie to what extent do women for example vote for Harris while also voting for no-less-MAGA state and senate representatives. I hold out some hope that white women start voting en masse to preserve their bodily autonomy, etc. with some spillover effect.
Anyhow, I voted long ago, my ballot has been accepted, the post cards have been sent, the contributions made. Now it’s time to sit back and watch it all unfold.
The way political polling is done in the US would simply not be accepted here in the UK. Trying to "flood the airwaves" with biased polls would be ridiculed.....but, of course, the UK political system doesn't have the polarised electorate and knife-edge Electoral College of the US, so the basic contours are very different.
Phillips, as one of your multitude of subscribers I am grateful for all your efforts and applaud your success in getting the word out on Ukraine and the reality of polling and the US election! I almost feel guilty I have not been involved in the active and enlightening discussions of late due to multiple work and family obligations. I hope to wake up Wednesday morning (albeit in Canada for work) to good news!
As for the media, they are actively trying to bolster Putin and Russia without any reason I can fathom. Keep pointing out the duplicity of the NYT and WaPo!
The question about the NY Times is this: Why have they already decided that Russia will win? What do they get out of this reporting? And thanks to everyone who gets out and votes for Kamala Harris. Our hopes and dreams for America go with her.
I think we need to start formulating arguments for a Harris Administration to step up the effort in Ukraine. We need to be ready on day one to make the case that the effort by the Biden Administration was insufficient and that a lot more needs to be done on an urgent basis shore up the effort on the ground in Ukraine.
Is disappointing that NYT has an agenda and doesn’t report in a neutral fashion. The level of cherry-picking to tell a misleading story is quite astonishing, and is clearly a deliberate choice. Disgusting.
I agree--that graph was particularly leading--it had an argument that it was commissioned to support, and it trampled on fairness to get there
What is their anti-Ukraine agenda? Sure, the NYT hates Biden, but why publish what is, in effect, Russian propaganda? As the USA's paper of record, it's bad enough that the NYT did not even fact check this. It may just come down to laziness, and/or a lack of military experience or interest in military affairs at the editorial level. Quite possibly even the inability of the Google Maps generation to read a map scale. Any of those would be damning in their own right. I don't read the paper, but have there been signs of deeper motivations?
I'm not sure how much of a change there is from their tradition. The paper has endorsed only Democrats for President of the US since 1960, for example. What I am picking up on now is that while the facts they report may be factual, their headlines are of a high emotional caliber. Lots of loaded words. I wonder if this has increased with social media pressures to capture and keep an audience.
G Renner, I think you're right. NYT's digital headlines have become dumbed-down clickbait and can differ substantially from the actual reporting.
Yes, NYT has been a chronic offender.
Thanks for this update that puts Russian advances in perspective.
What is far more frightening for the US and Europe is what you write about China. If it’s true that China not only supports but has actually been encouraging NK to help Putin, this clearly indicates that it is also testing western resolve and will draw precious conclusions about its future geopolitical strategy. If the west wakes up and ensures that Putin is defeated, China will think twice about the wisdom of invading Taiwan and in general throwing its weight around in Asia. If it doesn’t, and a Trump victory is likely to ensure that it just sits back and watches, then we can all look forward to increasing Chinese domination of the world for the next 20 years at least.
I think the lowest level of Chinese support is tacit acceptance. That way they keep their hands clean and get to gauge US and EUropean response to this extreme escalation. A Trump victory and they would have to worry even less.
I've been reading the nytimes since I was fourteen (I'm now almost 70). I am shocked by the decline in its competence as a newspaper. I regularly send them comments when a story like this which they refuse to publish (apparently they don't like being accused of coverage that originates in Moscow. I'm at a loss deciding whether to continue to subscribe. The truth is the damn paper went to hell after Red Smith died.
Anyhoo. Some good news with the usually every accurate Des Moines Register poll of Iowa showing Harris LEADING IN IOWA!
Just three days left to save The Republic.
Hi Thomas--Im a paying subscriber to the NY Times (I think its important to pay for journalism, so I pay for quite a few). Their political coverage can be better, but their Ukraine coverage seems very heavily weighted towards an analytical community that seems focussed on Russian success. Its troubling, I agree.
Iowa poll--all I can say is fingers crossed!
I've been a NYTs subsciber since 1983 and a reader since 1963. I recently was trying to decide whether to unsubcribe from the WAPO or the Times (I'm subcribing to more substacks these days) but the Bezos capitulation solved that question. After suffering through the NYT's coverage of the leadup to Iraq2 I'm not surprised at all by their Ukraine failures. Maybe I need to be more active in unsubscriver mode.
Subscribe to ProPublica, who are doing GREAT work
If every reader of this substack votes for international sanity, that will add thousands of votes for Harris. But you don't get credit unless you say it ahead of time— I say Harris will win this election. Thank God!
Based on the high level of turnout by women, this article explains exactly why Kamala Harris will win the election with a bigger majority than Biden in 2020. Every poll is adjusted by the pollster, and In 2024, their adjustments always almost always favor Trump.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/its-the-gender-gap-stupid
If you want to read a detailed but wonky explanation why pollster adjustments are bogus—
There’s more herding in swing state polls than at a sheep farm in the Scottish Highlands // Some pollsters aren’t telling you what their data really say
https://www.natesilver.net/p/theres-more-herding-in-swing-state
Finally, the best pollster in the country has Harris up by 3% in IOWA.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/a-shocking-iowa-poll-means-somebody
Hi Kathleen--good to see Silver doing a quick about face--but I thought he's generally been one of the most bullish about Trump throughout. And I do think he was regularly using all these polls that were bullish on Trump in his analysis--didnt he.
Ive always thought Harris was the favorite because of the enthusiasm the Democrats have and Trump's high negatives. Been saying that for the entire campaign since she became the nominee--and Im sticking with it!
The Iowa poll reminds me of that old childhood taunt: "It takes one to know one!" Driving the Harris support are "independent older women" and that exactly describes pollster Ann Selzer. She's been highly accurate the last five presidential elections. We go, grrls!!
You are right that if Harris wins it is going to be because of women. Unfortunately this race is simply to close to predict, unlike the disaster to the country if Trump wins. I'm not going to wishcast and predict a winner I'm a fan of Nate Silvers and though generally he;s predicting a 50/50 chance for both, in today's update he posits that if Ann Selzer's poll is correct there are positive implications for Harris.
I haven't heard much talk about how she had Trump up by a lot more than practically all other pollsters in 2020, and turned out to be right. There was a lot of panic in the Democrat camp then, and for good reason. I really do trust that she is right. It takes a lot of guts to publish a poll result like that, and a lot of her polls have been very askew of other polls, while turning out to be correct in the end.
It all sounds good, but they thought that Hillary was going to win, too. I won't be anxiety-free until the votes are counted.
I will predict outright that Harris will win the popular vote. After all, Trump has NEVER won the popular vote.
However, the goddamn Electoral College shenanigans, possible abusive court "rulings" (like Bush v Gore), other attempts at election theft, attempted violent coups, those I don't care to predict
“Its rather remarkable—Putin is basically being advised on where and how to escalate, and get away with it. “
That has been the Biden / Sullivan playbook for way too long. Kursk will be retaken potentially quicker now and the diversion of Russian troops from Donetsk to Kursk will not have to happen. More importantly for Putin, this avoids another mass mobilization requirement like in Ukraine.
I sincerely hope that a Harris administration is elected on Tuesday and that needed weapons start flowing without restrictions to Ukraine. Similarly, there has to be put a bigger cost re: sanctions-busting. This war will only end once the cost of going on far exceeds the gains.
I agree with this Constantin
Would the Biden admin take direction from Harris before inauguaration day, regarding Ukraine?
In my very limited experience, the last year of a presidential term is consumed by legacy considerations. So it comes down to how he wants to be remembered re: whether he budges in the two months between VP Harris getting elected and getting sworn in. I somewhat doubt it.
I think Ukraine is s part of his legacy. Time will tell, but you are probably right
Not a _huge_ surprise that you've come out to endorse Harris! :)
Overall though, this is another pretty depressing update. Not because Russia is rapidly gaining territory in Ukraine but because it shows the seeming growing determination among western leaders to lose not just Ukraine but the broader battle for 'hearts and minds' and for such principles as democracy, the rule of law, etc.
Perhaps one silver lining... If North Korean troops do displace Russians on the border with Ukraine in large numbers, that may lead to tensions between them and the local population (Russian society not being famous for its acceptance of non-white people). And if this means more Russian troops are deployed from relative safety in Russia to the meatgrinder in Ukraine, this might increase the rate at which Russian casualties are accumulating. Not that I hold out much hope for this causing a sudden collapse, but it can't be having no impact at all.
Things are not great and if Trump wins they could get worse. The only silver lining in all of this, is that this year shows that the RUssian army can be beaten--if Ukraine is helped in the right way. The problem is that they are not being helped in that way.
It's worth focusing on the strategic balance on the Korean Peninsula between North and South. North Korea now stands to gain active military experience, as well as whatever was promised by Russia in exchange. Does this upset the balance on the Korean Peninsula?
Lets see. We dont know how many troops will actually survive. Conventionally, would imagine the SK is very secure now (NK had to give Russia a huge percentage of its shells and now some of its best troops). However, in exchange, I imagine, NK is getting some pretty good tech and their missiles might soon show improvement.
Good point, but it would be improvement from a relatively low base. Will China be happy wirh this, or is it's tacit acceptance based on an understanding that NK won't get *too* much in return?
I'm one of the subscribers in NC and I voted a long time ago.
Youre a star Andrew!
It looks like Trump peaked about two weeks too early.
I wonder if the "peak" even happened. If Selzer is right--the whole polling industry will need to radically change (first thing being to openly state all adjustments that they make before releasing the results)
There was a peak at least in terms of vibes. But I think there may have been a real peak (even if quite small) as Trump consolidated his remaining potential support before Harris did (and in fact she's not even finished yet). He has the advantage of being a much better known candidate, although in his case it's actually an electoral disadvantage since people don't really like what they know about him. So he won all potentially persuadable candidates sooner than Kamala and then turned to energizing his low propensity voters. The problem is that in the process he started reminding remaining persuadable voters what they don't like about him (with the MSG event being just one example).
I think polling, as we know it is in severe decline. No one answers the phone anymore, when an unknown number calls. How many calls are made to get 1000 people to actually answer questions? Then, are these people targetted, for a favourable or unfavourable result?
Polling will have to reinvent itself if it's to stay relevant and be taken seriously.
A final point, Harris/Walz in a landslide. Decency towers over the maggots and the finally tally will show this. I think there will be some shockers, in terms of flipped states, and possibly even senate seats.
Now as to the election and the punditry thereof, Nate Silver is undoubtedly a smart guy but he’s also backed himself into a trap. He complains about herding in his latest piece but fails to mention that his method explicitly encourages that behavior.
Pollsters that are consistently wrong (ie aligned with the herd) will emerge unscathed re: rankings. Similarly, there are plenty of partisan polls designed to flood aggregators like Nate Silver to skew averages one way or the other.
My expectation is that the actual results will skew far more to the democratic side than polls suggest. Plenty of folk don’t want to respond to strangers on the phone, the ones that do are typically partisan or quite old, leaving out key demographics that will decide this election.
The real mystery to me will be around ticket splitting, ie to what extent do women for example vote for Harris while also voting for no-less-MAGA state and senate representatives. I hold out some hope that white women start voting en masse to preserve their bodily autonomy, etc. with some spillover effect.
Anyhow, I voted long ago, my ballot has been accepted, the post cards have been sent, the contributions made. Now it’s time to sit back and watch it all unfold.
The way political polling is done in the US would simply not be accepted here in the UK. Trying to "flood the airwaves" with biased polls would be ridiculed.....but, of course, the UK political system doesn't have the polarised electorate and knife-edge Electoral College of the US, so the basic contours are very different.
Did you write to the NYT and point out their bias in the report, Phillips? If yes, did they respond somehow?
Nah--they do it quite regularly. Its interesting that they tend to go to the same analysts over and over again.
Sounds like a good lead for the counter-intelligence guys at the FBI… do we even do counter-intelligence stuff anymore?
If we do--we dont do it well!
Would that change with a Harris win? Simply in terms of confidence that they have the time to investigate and get things to the legal system?
I need a reaction that isn’t “like” here :-/
TYPOS:
then this escalation will probably get off likely.
Should be LIGHTLY.
withing the confines of military history
Should be WITHIN
Thanks Kathleen--will go do those now!
Phillips, as one of your multitude of subscribers I am grateful for all your efforts and applaud your success in getting the word out on Ukraine and the reality of polling and the US election! I almost feel guilty I have not been involved in the active and enlightening discussions of late due to multiple work and family obligations. I hope to wake up Wednesday morning (albeit in Canada for work) to good news!
As for the media, they are actively trying to bolster Putin and Russia without any reason I can fathom. Keep pointing out the duplicity of the NYT and WaPo!
I for one have missed your voice in this important conversation.
Where does the NYT find these people?
The question about the NY Times is this: Why have they already decided that Russia will win? What do they get out of this reporting? And thanks to everyone who gets out and votes for Kamala Harris. Our hopes and dreams for America go with her.
Close and perhaps first access to the Biden admin's deciders?
I think we need to start formulating arguments for a Harris Administration to step up the effort in Ukraine. We need to be ready on day one to make the case that the effort by the Biden Administration was insufficient and that a lot more needs to be done on an urgent basis shore up the effort on the ground in Ukraine.