Wednesday, June 24, 2015

2016

Surprise, I support Bernie Sanders.  The rest of them, both sides, are just lackeys of the rich.  However, I do have one small irritation with Mr. Sanders.  On one of the recent Sunday bobble head shows, he quite accurately explained how money (billionaires and such), with an assist from the Supremes, has made our political system and thus also our government corrupt.  The host asked Mr. Sanders if those who accept large sums of money into campaigns PACs and SuperPacs are corrupt?  Mr. Sanders hemmed.  Mr. Sanders hawed.  Mr. Sanders did not say, what he should have said, "yes."  I wonder how corrupt Mr. Sanders might be too?  Are our political contests now just a run to see who is the least corrupt and the lesser of thralls?      

The Race Is On--Who will get that 4 year lease on Air Farce One?

Along the way to lease signing, we will inundated with polls.  Lots of polls.  How many of them will be worth reading or reporting?  They will be reported, TV has to have fill the 24/7 blab hole.  I bet most of the polls will be mildly to quite inaccurate due to technological chanve.  The cost of tapping cellphone only people is high.  

Not too many years ago, only a small percentage of folks lived in cellphone only households.  I bet ten years ago, the number was 5% or less.  Today wireless only households exceed 41% and it's increasing.  What will it be in 2016 when we'll be awash in polls, uh, make that gibberish.  Oh, don't forget to add in the household who have a landline, but don't use it since they have a cellphone too (add in another 15% or so).

Does it matter if you miss the 25-29 year olds?  Only if you think 66% of them don't matter.  The younger the age the greater the likelihood they are landline averse.

If pollsters don't tap the cellphone only crowd and tap them well, how representative do you think their samples will be?   Imagine that Bernie Sanders polling folks do sample cellphone users well,  but Hillary Clinton's do not.  I wonder how Eric Cantor felt about his pollsters?

It costs a lot more money and takes a lot more time to build a random survey that includes cellphone users.  Will campaigns spend the money?  Take the time?  Or will the operatives say to their pols, "trust me" a lot?

I'm inclined to assume we'll hear mostly pollswaggle for the next year or two.  Don't forget, without decent polling even Nate Silver can't forecast shit.

Speaking of shit, are you ready for  the tsunami of TV ads?

Yeah, but I wonder how well the campaign aces will deal with the second type of cord cutters?  As folks have cut the landline, they are also cutting the cable (and satellite) too.   Steaming only is more than underway.

Cable companies subscribers numbers are flat for the past couple of years.  That means they've lost customers as new households become established.  It may be akin to the cellphone pattern.  What has begun small,  4% cut cable in 2010, but cutters increased to 7% in 2014.  And now we're in 2015 a nd on the way to 2016.  They  may go much higher quite rapidly.

 2015 has seen several new streaming services--Dish Sling, HBO, Showtime, and CBS to name a few.  Add in the DVR to the mix and ask, who is going to see ads for any pol?  If Netflix or Amazon began to show ads in mid stream that would be a bit too much.

Will services such as HULU deliver political ads?  If so, how will the pols know whom to target since their polls will probably be quite demographically off. Get ready, technology may deliver a very weird election.  How does Sanders vs. Trump sound?   It may be a demographicopolypse,  but quite entertaining.