Matt Seaton: What is polling good for, why does it matter, and what are its limits?
Harry Enten: Election polling can be used to help understand which issues matter to people, which can in turn help us understand why someone gets elected. I personally think the horserace component is fun, and plenty of people seem to agree. But look for analysis that knows its limits. Look for someone who explains why they think what they think. Someone who clearly states what their confidence is in any given forecast. Polling itself, and polling analysis, have a margin of error—and a margin of interpretation; anyone who is too certain should not be trusted.
Aristide Gasnier had already been mayor for fifteen years and was nearly seventy when the Nazi occupation began, in 1940. No doubt, this length of service gave him the moral authority in the community to carry out his bold conspiracy against the occupiers; even the local gendarmerie went along with it. Gasnier ensured that the Jewish refugee hideaways got food tokens, and issued them with new identity papers. For our friend Huguette, to learn at last—and in these times—that her family’s escape from the Holocaust was not just a random act of kindness from a couple of strangers but a concerted act of communal resistance has been deeply heartening.
Far-reaching though the effects of this moment in the Brexit story will be, the 2019 general election may change the landscape of British politics and the fabric of its society in even more profound and decisive ways. With renewed calls for a referendum on independence for Scotland, the specter of “the breakup of Britain” that has long haunted the UK may materialize at last—just at the moment when English nationalists are celebrating their Brexit victory. A fourth successive defeat for the Labour Party and an outright win for a Conservative Party has sharpened dividing lines, squeezed the liberal center, and broken consensus into polarity. At stake after this election, then, is the future of what has made Britain a reasonably civilized country since 1945: social democracy.
The NRA may repair its finances—dues did rebound in 2018, though the recent scandal seems likely to reverse that trend. The organization may also effect a transition to a new leadership with cleaner hands. It may even survive relatively unscathed the inquisition of the New York attorney general. But the cracks have appeared, the aura of invincibility is gone. The Parkland students and their allies in states like New York have succeeded in opening a door to reform, and lawmakers are less afraid to walk through it. Whether this will reduce America’s annual toll of gun deaths—nearly 40,000 at the last count, of which three in five were suicides—is yet to be determined, but this much can be said: the era of NRA supremacy is over.
The controversy over anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is, in reality, a displacement of a deeper, more systemic political rift in the party. And, in vital ways, that’s a far more significant obstacle than the administrative-disciplinary issue of rooting out a small minority of Holocaust equivocators and vitriolic anti-Zionists. This is an argument for the need to reframe our understanding of why anti-Semitism seems to loom so large in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party. The true story is that the fight between Corbyn skeptics and Corbyn fans over Jews and Israel has become a ruinous proxy for what is, in its essence, a struggle between social-democrats and socialists for the soul of the party itself.