Well it finally happened, the latest from Colorado:
Trump 42
Clinton 38
Ipsos Reid had Trump up 2 in Colorado earlier.
Meanwhile, the last out of VA has Clinton up only 3. Monmouth, and A rated pollster, has Trump 8 in Iowa. Suffolk, an A rated pollster has Trump up 3 in Ohio.
So pretty please: can the Clinton campaign get back on the air in Colorado and Virginia.
Please!
If you give Trump all of the Romney 2012 states plus Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada, that gets him to 265.
As Slate asked last month: “Then what?”
[current 538.com weighted averages]
Virginia: Clinton +4.8
Michigan: Clinton +4.2
Wisconsin: Clinton +3.8
Pennsylvania: Clinton +3.5
Colorado: Clinton +3.0
New Hampshire*: Clinton +3.0
* enough for an electoral tie, allowing the House of Representatives to vote him in
Barring an epic fail during the debates by Clinton, I can’t see where Trump’s 270th electoral vote is supposed to come from.
Last poll from NH: Marist – A rated 538 pollster – Clinton +1
Last poll From Maine CD 2, Trump +6
That gets him to 270.
Colorado today: Trump +4.
Numbers from 2 weeks ago aren’t very relevant right now.
I dunno. Clinton’s last week is a bigger gift than Trump could have hoped for and it still wasn’t enough to put him ahead. The debates are imminent. And given his ground game incompetence, he’s not safe with even small state polling leads.
I’m not saying he can’t win. Just that I’ll need to see his small lead in OH and FL last through the debates before I start panicking.
Run your analysis with Trump taking FL and OH. Then where does HRC put up her “firewall?” And what is a reasonable expectation for the solidity of those firewalls?
Clinton’s firewalls are in states with large minority populations. North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada are current firewalls even though the polling has slipped in them. I don’t know what the demographics of Texas look like but Latino Republicans likely have some difficulties with Trump. Enough to flip it? Not likely but who knows with that kind of cross-currents. Same with Latino GOP elsewhere.
It is going to be difficult to translate polling into actual delivered votes this year because the ground game could turn out to mean more than sentiment. Actually getting people to act on their dislike of Trump is where the race comes down to; there is no way ahead of time to handicap that.
The variance in Nate Silver’s model is still going nuts. There really is not a solid expected value for estimating the vote yet. All you have is the formal half of the area under the curve that he states as his top line.
And not a lot of pollsters are doing four-candidate polls. I suspect that a lot of that variance is shadowing the two minor candidates. I know that friends who vote GOP are beginning to break for Gary Johnson or for “none of the above”. In Southern states. It is possible for some surprise Clinton wins if Johnson cuts deeply enough and the polls aren’t doing a good job of tracking. The same phenomenon might occur in a state with high Stein votes.
Why doesn’t she just go back to using her primary election firewall states — those were the ones with the highest minority populations? The only problem for her is that those states are the least amenable to a third party candidate like Johnson to cut into Trump’s numbers.
I have CO in HRC’s column and that should hold unless she totally collapses between now and election day. If she had IA, NV, and NH in her column, you all could breathe a bit easier. Those three states have something in common, other than all being blue in the last two presidential elections and are particular to HRC’s 2016 candidacy.
Too soon to panic and panicking is when big mistakes are made (as team Clinton has done since Sunday and I don’t think they are out of the woods on this yet either). Much to come. Four debates. What succeeded for Trump in the GOP debates is nearly the opposite of what he needs against HRC.
Where did team HRC shift the money from CO and VA to? That needs to be evaluated before calling for more money back into CO and VA.
Two or so weeks ago, team HRC was looking forward to a landslide win. Now a squeaker? Are voters shifting or are the latest polls outliers?
Maybe this is what changed:
Clara Jeffery (Mother Jones Editor-in-Chief) at NYTimes
Sahil Kupur:
first of many response: Billmon:
The Party can not fail. It can only be failed.
Republicans have never held a monopoly on such thinking.
Pathetic, but expected. I remember when these same people kept telling us that Clinton was a known entity and couldn’t get more unpopular. I also remember telling them (with warning) that losing young to Libertarians was more of a danger than trying to reach “moderate” GOP’s, and to endorse full marijuana legalization.
I’m not worried yet. But it’s not funny anymore — if it ever was.
Today I crossed over the bridge – I am worried.
I would put our odds of winning at about 80 percent.
But if the first debate goes badly the Democratic party is going to come apart at the seems.
It’s too soon to be worried based on what we’ve seen so far. I’m waiting for the first debate first. Third party support is higher than in 2012, but the polling was far too sparse to be comparable. I’m not buying Gary Johnson’s polling numbers, not until the debates.
No one has been over 10 since Perot in ’96. Johnson flirts with it.
Thing is by 60-20 people want Johnson in the debate.
I agree with you in large [part – but the reality is the 2 way numbers aren’t great either. She still trails in IA, FL, OH and in the CO poll today in 2 way numbers.
Thought experiment — the right thing to do would be to include Johnson and Stein in the debates. Who, HRC or Trump, stand to gain more or lose less by including the two third party candidates?
Trump.
Stein will make all the arguments Bernie made.
Can you clarify. What assumptions are you making.
Stein will eat into HRC’s support? And thus Trump gains?
Does Johnson gain or lose? Johnson’s core libertarian support is small. I don’t know if those currently supporting him are lean/right/anti-Trump, lean-left/anti-BTB, pro-pot. Hypothesis on why those last two possible groups would support Johnson over Stein?
The polls I’ve seen seem to indicate a very slight trend toward Hillary in a 2 way election outside the south (and opposite in the south).
My interpretation of this would be that Gary Johnson voters are non-religious conservative but against Trump due to his temperamental unsuitability. Hillary is exactly what they want (perhaps even to their right) on foreign policy, and they can stomach her on domestic policy. In the south, non-millenial whites just dont vote D.
I see none of that. The polling in MI, OH, CO and NH are moving the other direction in 2 ways.
Can you be more specific?
I can’t find a single poll in recent days that supports you.
First, a clarification. I was referring to how much Hillary gains/loses in a 2 way as opposed to a 4 way (in the context of the message I was responding to). So, I should have said “shift” instead of “trend”. Ignore the rest of this if that was what threw you.
Now some polling. The NBC/WSJ/Marist polls on 9/11 are the most recent that did a handful of states, and I’m listing how much Trump gains/loses in a 2 way as opposed to a 4 way:
NV: T -2
GA: T +1
AZ: T -1
NH: T +1 (doesn’t support my thesis)
Since you mentioned OH, CNN/ORC has Trump losing 1 in a 2 way. The majority of polls in the other commonly polled southern states VA and NC show no shift while the rare poll in more southern states show a Trump shift. FL is a notable exception since its a southern state where Trump loses in a 2 way (a Jeb/Rubio effect?).
All states where Johnson and Stein are on the ballot are technically four way races. Neither Johnson nor Stein are expected to do that well. In part because they’re so little known and above a percentage point or two, their poll numbers are based more on saying no to HRC and Trump than support for Johnson or Stein.
However, my question concerned expectations if Johnson and Stein are included in the debates. If we go back to 1980, Carter refused to debate Reagan if Anderson was included. So, the first debate was Reagan, Anderson, and an empty chair. Whether or not that hurt Carter, it would be difficult to claim that it helped him. A savvier politician than Carter would have recognized the value of using the debate to highlight that Anderson was a Republican trying to pass himself off as some sort of moderate. Insisting on a two-person debate fed into the perception that Carter was weak.
In ’92 Perot held his own in the three-way debate, but he also had a real and identifiable public policy difference with the Bush-Clinton NAFTA position. It was Perot’s VP debate performance that hurt their ticket. The election results significantly understated the public opposition to NAFTA because Perot, while good at making his case on NAFTA, had no relevant qualifications for the job.
Trade in the form of the TPP is a major issue this time as well. Johnson/Weld are with Obama/Kasich on this and that ticket would go much further than the TPP. Formally, Clinton and Trump oppose TPP, but only a rube would believe Clinton on this and as Trump has no authentic position on this or anything and therefore, if elected/selected the odds are that he would line up with other Republicans in support of it. But in a debate with Johnson, would Clinton, Trump, and Stein gang up on Johnson? Or would Clinton and Trump prefer not to have Johnson up there and draw attention to the TPP?
What Johnson and Stein do is shift the point of victory around, depending on how much each cuts into the votes of Trump and Clinton. That is not likely a simple Stein takes from Clinton; Johnson takes from Trump effect. And the split might vary a bit from state to state.
It starts to make a difference as each approaches 10% in a state. Johnson might pull that in Tennessee, Kentucky, possibly Virginia. Unlikely elsewhwere IMO. I don’t think Stein can pull 10% even in her strongholds. If they do better, that will be news indeed.
What does “shift the point of victory around” mean? If the votes for a third party don’t flip the state from blue to red or vice versa, it changes nothing. The strongest third party candidate since 1912 was Perot in ’92 — and those weren’t votes for Perot but message votes: we don’t want NAFTA. And the GOP and a chunk up the Democratic party blew off those voters.
I’m actually weary of the Democratic Party continuing to shove its neoliberal/neocon agenda on those that don’t want that and then blaming voters for not voting for what we don’t want. The party was told in ’08 that we didn’t want HRC. We couldn’t know if Obama would be less in bed with that neolib/neocon agenda, but there was no other option and we also knew that he’d be the stronger GE candidate. HRC is worse today than she was in ’08 as she pranced around fomenting discord and wars. And those on the left once again told the party that she was the weakest GE candidate on offer, but this time they had it hard-wired for her to win. So, screw them.
You didn’t answer the question I posed in my prior comment.
It means that the two other parties can change the 50% mark between red and blue in unpredictable ways as their totals get between 5% and 10%. The other two parties are not pure doppelgangers of the duopoly.
Only a plurality and not 50% is needed to carry a state. If (a mighty big if) Clinton and Trump realize votes in the same percentages as the most recent polls, Johnson and Stein hold onto their numbers, and all the undecideds go for Johnson and Stein, the only state I can find that may flip is NC.
That returns to a question in one of my other comments, but now with more specificity, would it advantage or disadvantage HRC in NC to have Johnson on the debate stage? (Totally hypothetical since he didn’t make the cut.)
Second point, a good campaign team works the possible gets as a bit of insurance. Thus, NC would be on such a list if I were on her team. But how to work it? I haven’t a clue wrt NC. Chelsea Clinton? (If it were me, I’d keep both Bill and Chelsea out of NH.)
This article with the state charts got exactly zero play on this blog. Easier to ‘splain away with racism. All those small businessmen are suiciding???
Death predicts whether people vote for Donald Trump
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/04/death-predicts-whether-people-vote-for-donald
-trump
Take a look at VA if you want to get nervous. wtf?
Your WaPo reference didn’t work — this should.
It’s not difficult to present a reference as a link. Only difficult to illustrate how it’s done because blog programs are set up to read certain keystroke combinations as a code and not literally. For example is I type < (less than symbol) and then type a, both the < and a are read literally, but if I type < followed immediately by an a, it gets read as the beginning of a code for a link. Spelled out (for example saying question mark instead of ? when it’s the ? that is to be used, makes it all sound more difficult than it is), it’s like this (and don’t include the commas): less than, a, space, href, equal sign, quotation mark, paste reference link, quotation mark, more than, title of link, less than, backslash, a, more than.
For “title of link,” you can use anything. I used “this should” above, but generally I use the title of the referenced article or some variation of the title to clue readers as to why the link is being inserted.
I use easy copy extension for Firefox. Mark, copy title link and selection, paste et voilà:
Easy Copy
It writes the hypertext for you.
Thank you both very much. I will play around with the preview button. lol
wrt to the WaPo article, proper use of available data and statistics. But it seems to me that it only tells Trump where he needs to go for votes and places HRC needs to avoid. IOW, gaming out electoral strategies which is the lowest common denominator in what is supposed to be self-government. It’s what I’ve come to detest from the Republicans and Clinton/DLC type Democrats because it’s divisive and exploitative and only offers the illusion that people are choosing anything for themselves, their communities, and the country as the whole.
If team FDR had limited themselves to playing that game, the Great Depression would never have ended and WWII would have been a stalemate. (For practical purposes, one could view Stalin’s approach at the anti-FDR ending up with a continuing economic depression and WWII stalemate.)
Now up at The Guardian is Two American Dreams: how a dumbed-down nation lost sight of a great idea
Religion and/or drugs/alcohol offer relief from the drudgery, pain, etc. of subsistence. Of course, those coping mechanisms only insure that subsistence or worse is all that the future can hold.
Hope — that things can and will get better — by doing more of the same, needs little to keep it going. Thus, for the majority of AAs and Latinos that are experiencing real increases in longevity, that keeps them pushing the D button. In the short run, it doesn’t matter that financially they aren’t doing any better than they were eight, sixteen, or thirty years ago or that whites continue to live longer than they do. Once non-college educated white people switched to the GOP (I’ll date that as 1980), they too didn’t notice that they weren’t doing better financially but their longevity continued to increase.
Having become so completely invested in the GOP, they doubled down on blaming Democrats when they could no longer deny that they were doing worse financially. And Democratic politicians made that easy for them to do because electorally Democrats were milking non-white voters and that suggested to both those voters and white GOP voters that Democratic officeholders would and did favor non-whites. It was an illusion but it has kept voters in their pens (with an able assist from their respective booster clubs, including the once so-called progressive bloggers). Unable to see that almost all of these so-called representatives of the people are reprehensible and need to go yesterday.
Personally, I think that a solid majority of ordinary people get this. It’s the only thing that accounts for why Sanders maintained high favorable ratings throughout the primary season as he became better known.
Those were only Super Tuesday states. I wonder what NV looks like. They had a housing bloodbath.
Yes, I know those were numbers from SuperT. They also only reflected those that fall within the extreme of lowered financial and physical health.
The analysis has limitations. What it should predict is a win for HRC in IA and a win for Trump in NV. So far it’s the opposite, but the margin in NV is slim. Who could have predicted that playing dirty pool in IA, NV, and NH could come back to bite HRC in the butt in the GE? Interesting to me is that her team’s idea on how to rectify this is to send Sanders to OH to plead with younger voters to vote for HRC. Wrong.
and: “Income inequality, gross disparities in wealth: we’re told daily, incessantly, that these are the necessary consequences of a free market, as if the market was a force of nature on the order of weather or tides, and not the entirely manmade construct that it is.”
But HC is all better, now, I am told. I am chaffed for missing it. Then why are her choices very much in the old mold? The Chief of Staff for Larry Summers at Treasury? Tim Kaine? I am originally from Missouri, the Show-Me State, before it went nuts.
Now that Sanders has been turned into a HRC/DLC schmoe, she’s running the same campaign as the Clinton Democratic Party recommended Democratic candidates run in 2014. Two differences. With Trump standing on the anti-TPP side, she has to continue lying about her position on it. She has a huge contingent of nominally Republican war-mongers standing with her. The latter helps her where? (And I’m assuming that it doesn’t hurt her in any blue states, but wouldn’t put any money on that assumption.)
Not much polling in AR, but what there is has her doing worse than Obama did in ’12 polling. (Final AR election results for Obama were worse in ’12 than ’08.). I think that presidents, veeps, and even major candidates and nominees get more respect if they return to their identified home state at the end of their tenure or after losing. As most presidents do. Sanders purchase of a vacation home in VT would have been just right with a decent public relations announcement of the purchase. Instead, Jane muffed this as she had their tax returns and instead of fitting seamlessly into the character of Bernie, it left a bitter taste in the mouths of his supporters.
Why do I think good ol’ Al G had a hand in that innuendo-fest?
Gore? Or did you mean David Brock? The latter wouldn’t surprise me, but it the possibility that it was spontaneous is equally plausible. Sanders left himself wide open with that purchase. Possibly because he never really seemed to comprehend how damaging not releasing his tax returns was to his campaign. So, after endorsing HRC, there were two competing narratives: 1) Sanders the modest man of the people and 2) Sanders the sell-out and sneaky guy feathering his own nest. The vacation home purchase fed right into #2. That interpretation could be correct and I’m too biased not to see it. But either way, this would have been like child’s play for anyone with meager public relations skills to get it into #1.
(But if I had been that PR person, I would also have zeroed in on Jane from day one of the campaign.)
Al Giordano.
Oh. Al G will never compute as Giordano for me. But there are so many pimples in this election that it doesn’t matter which of them, if any, did X, Y, or Z.
Things do seem to be heating up. Pipe bombs in trash cans at a NJ event. Report of Dem election rigging in NV (just happened to be published by the NY Observer).
My take on this, and I am very worried – people sense that there are health problems and that adds to the perception of her untrustworthiness and we won’t start gaining ground until it’s dealt with. It’s like two campaigns on quicksand; health is something everyone relates to. start with our candidate doing a full multipage disclosure, not just a letter from her doctor saying she has “no new conditions” a full disclosure that will challenge Trump to a full disclosure as well. if he doesn’t disclose, it will be a concrete demonstration of his smoke and mirrors and fortify the anti-Trump position.
Marie, you mentioned that there’s something “off” in her recovery video outside Chelsea’s apt. what is off in the recovery video is that there is no entourage, no secret service. that she would risk walking around like that without protection, to show the cameras that she’s fine is a problem.
Yes, HRC fed right into her negatives for untrustworthy and untruthful in her attempt to dismiss legitimate questions about her health. And the questions weren’t some misogynist, etc. They would be asked about any presidential nominee that has displayed the odd moments and what appears to be actual health issues that she has exhibited. Extremely odd responses from her and her team if she is in fact healthy.
wrt to the post-“faint” photo op, I don’t think it appeared off because she wasn’t surrounded by secret service protection. Photos of her not within a crowd don’t include the SS detail. And it was clear from the wider shot of that appearance that her SS detail had established a large perimeter and were right there. The oddity may have been no more than that it was obviously staged to make her look fit as a fiddle.
OTOH, have asked myself if I could have put on such a fine performance ninety minutes after the one time that I almost fainted. In my case, there was no question about the reason why I was going to pass out and was given and injection and had cold compresses on my head and neck before I did. It was approximately two hours before I was cleared to leave, and at less than half HRC’s age, I still felt a bit woozy. I suppose I could have faked feeling fine for two minutes, but I didn’t faint, was treated immediately, and what precipitated the event was not endogenous to my health. HRC’s faint remains unexplained.
It all reminds me of Mao at the end – where they would stage something to show he was health.
No – the situations aren’t remotely similar.
I think you make a good point – it all gets tossed into the bin and is used in evaluating her.
that is so funny! but you’re right they aren’t remotely similar a- little girl had no bouquet of flowers b- there was no swimming in the East River
What Democrats have long refused to acknowledge is that when the party insiders choose the nominee without a fair and no holds barred primary, the nominee more often than not loses. When the people choose (or think they have), the nominee wins. The rub is that when the people choose, they don’t necessarily choose the best candidate but they do have a higher investment in the nominee.
Republicans felt that Ford, GWHB (to some extent), Dole, McCain, and Romney were shoved down their throats and they were pissed. The GOP insiders knew that and also had trouble among themselves in designating the winner; so, they defaulted to the collective and expected them to end up with any one of those the were okay with. Must have been stomach churning for them to watch Trump pick each of those off one-by-one until it came down to Trump and Cruz. Forced choice they accepted Trump and with the full expectation that he would lose badly and in the process teach the GOP crazies a lesson.
People are aching to have this out. In Philly people were trying to be good – thinking we were going to win. But it all lurked below the surface.
The exchanges on Drum tonight are signs of a party ready to tear itself apart. From entitled Clinton types who can’t understand why no one trusts her, to Sanders people who in the heart of heart may want Clinton to lose.
It all lurks below the surface – people reminding themselves of the larger goal.
But if Clinton loses the first debate and these numbers don’t improve it is going to get ugly REALLY fast.
If Trump craters and Clinton shows signs of cratering at the same time, the move to Johnson and Stein could occur relatively rapidly in the states they are on the ballot.
That would make the other states Trump and Clinton firewall states. Do we know which states those are? And how many electoral votes they hold?
That Kevin Drum piece is a classic.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/dont-hate-millennials-save-it-bernie-sanders
She’d have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those meddling kids!
It lurks beneath the surface.
The Iraq War supporter just dying to tell Progressives to fuck off.
I have no idea why Kevin things Mother Jones readers want to read that, or what it accomplishes.
Other than his lead levels related to teen violence correlation articles, I haven’t read anything by Drum since 2003. Can’t recall why, but his political articles struck me as sophomoric then and haven’t seen any reason to change my opinion.
Have to agree with you on this one.
as “basketful of deplorables” and a big faint took center stage, but a new book appeared on bookstore shelves a few days ago. The Independent — Stronger Together by Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. Okay that the title and authors of the boom and not the title the The Independent article.
How do these people fit in writing a book with campaigning, fundraising, and managing the campaign?
Sales aren’t robust and the reviews appear to be worse.
I guess I can look for this at my library soon. It seems to get every free political book out there.
This is not about sales despite the article, especially given the reported content.
It’s a ghostwritten campaign job. And apparently not where there was a priority.
Given the amount of policy discussion, it likely will find no use even among the media.
They had to do it; the campaign went through the motions. Interesting that the pan is in a UK paper.
I just pulled The Independent link because I didn’t want to waste a view for the NYTimes, etc. The reviews at Amazons, B&N, etc. all sound as if they’re either written by the boosters clubs for the two candidates or are paid shills for those two; so, not credible IMO.
Defend it all you want, but I find it offensive that people take credit for books they haven’t written. Which is why I don’t read any of these fake books by politicians or jerkwads like Trump.
Wonder if Tarheel could comment on the blowback from the NCAA decision on removing games from NC? That state bleeds blue, no?
Has there been any polling since that decision was announced? I’m only seeing one possible and it was by a GOP outfit. The incumbent Senator, Burr (R), appears to be in decent shape, but not as strong as other incumbents such as Portman and Bennet.
I’m fine with individual athletes using their position to highlight an injustice, but I would prefer that states and countries and politicians refrain from boycotting, etc. athletic competitions. That said, in the case of NC, the NCAA didn’t have a choice because the law is in violation of the NCAA charter. Just wish the NCAA (and other athletic sponsors and sponsoring organizations) would be more consistent and proactive in enforcing their charters on non-discrimination. Had the NCAA informed all those NC politicians and the public that when proposed, its charter would require withdrawing NCAA competition from the state, those politicians would have to own it. As it is, fear that the NC fans, public, and politicians will go into a “they’re picking on us” stance to excuse their bigotry.
Civitas has an excellent track record – i think they actually contract with Survey USA.
Polling track record where? But again, not clear that its latest NC poll includes voter perception of the NCAA decision. How and when new information gets known and integrated in the minds of voters falls more into the art than the science of polling and statistics. In looking back at the 2012 presidential polling, it appears that Benghazi (symbolically; not the actual events that were comparatively minor) was slow to resonate with the electorate and then faded quickly.
To a point in my previous comment — LATimes – North Carolina GOP: NCAA’s decision to pull championships from state is ‘an assault to female athletes’. Have no idea how they expect that new claim to work in their favor.
McCrory and Burr are running behind Cooper and Ross at last report. The NCAA decision hurts McCrory more than Burr, but Burr’s cheerleading on the Senate Intelligence Committee could be an vulnerability if anyone in NC knew what that meant for them. So far Burr’s relative anonymity after all his years in DC are a problem for him.
The state GOP legislators are trying to run on Hate Bill 2 but it is not looking helpful and a couple of them are talking tentatively about “compromise”.
The problem with the legislation is that they went for discriminating against everyone on their list, not just transgender schoolkids.
I’m quite curious about the way that “billmon” is commonly cited here. Higher up this thread, for example, I read this from him:
“Check the Hillaryhead responses:
a) Millennials are dumb.
b) It’s all Bernie’s fault.”
Do those “Hillaryhead responses” reflect what one reads on this blog? I think not. Or at least not in what Booman writes or the comments on his posts.
that comment would have made more sense attached to Dunwoody’s post with the Kevin Drum quote, which illustrates Billmon’s point very clearly. Democrats haven’t even lost yet and the hippie-punching is already starting.
Does that reflect the views here? maybe not, though there are some whose reflex is “everyone left of me is a communist idiot”, and even Booman isn’t immune to that.
Booman’s quotes above are from his twitter feed.
Booman and Billmon are not the same person.
Thank goodness.
Yea – typo – sorry.
Hillaryhead responses tends to refer to folks like Kevin Drum and Amanda Marcotte, possibly digby.
billmon calls ’em like he sees ’em.
Sometimes however, the defenders of Hillary go where the campaign likely is not at all going. And there’s a nod-nod-wink-wink about them being from the Clinton camp when they might not be. Just as the idea that there was stuff from the Sanders camp that was misogynistic when it might not have been.