Pbs Appearance Release: Fill & Download for Free

At first, I was really concerned that this was true. Trump had managed, much to my incomprehension, to hold on to the support of Republicans through so many scandals that I found the figure utterly plausible. But the methodology was flawed. Anthony Zarrella, my friendliest political adversary—whom you should follow if you don’t already—provides a good explanation in this answer.[1]Thankfully, we have obtained more polls since the release of the YouGov poll, and I think we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief.First, we have a PBS/Marist poll released on January 7.[2]In this poll, fewer than 1 in 5 Republicans approved. I wish it were under 5%, but this is a far cry from 45%. I’ll take it!In an Ipsos/Axios poll released the same day, there was a little less outright opposition, but an overwhelming majority of Republicans still opposed the insurrectionists/protesters/rioters/Stormtrumpers.70% of Republicans were opposed.Again, I wish it were over 90%, but I’ll take it.A few other things were worthy of mention.63% of Republicans still support Trump’s efforts in contesting the election results.66% of Republicans still support the Republican Party’s efforts to contest the election results.There is division between Democrats and Republicans about how to rate law enforcement’s handling of the protests. Democrats are more focused on the inadequacy of the response and on those officers who openly sympathized with the insurrectionists, while Republicans are focused on supporting the officers who tried to defend Congress.The next batch of responses is a bit more concerning to me:Was this a an attempted coup? Only 22% of Republicans think so. I really don’t care about the terminology that much. But can we at least agree that a group of Trump supporters, goaded by their hero, forcibly entered the Capitol with the express intent of coercing Congress into overturning the results of the election and maintaining Trump in power? If you don’t want to call that a coup, fine. We can call it an attempt at a violent usurpation of power. Potayto, potahto.Was this “protest and unrest” necessary to protect America? 36% of Republicans think so. This one I really don’t like. It again affirms the reality that tens of millions of our countrymen still believe that the election was somehow stolen from them. This is the same sentiment that fueled this insurrection in the first place. Honest Republicans need to have a conversation with their co-partisans. I don’t expect that they would listen to the likes of me.Should Trump be impeached? Only 15% of Republicans think so. This doesn’t concern me as much. The argument for why it’s more a matter of catharsis than of practicality isn’t unreasonable. Trump will be out soon anyway. What could be the problem? The problem is that this isn’t solely about Trump; it’s about defending the rule of law. The message should be sent that certain actions are utterly intolerable and worthy of impeachment and removal, irrespective of their timing. This is what the impeachment is about. We need to send a message to Trump 2.0. And conservatives should remember that the next such person will not necessarily be a Republican. We should be working together to strengthen our democracy. And part of that is making Trump ineligible for high office.In any case, to return to the question at hand, it appears thatThe poll was poorly designed.The vast majority of Republicans oppose the Stormtrumpers.There is unfortunately a persistent belief among a significant segment of the Republican electorate that the election was somehow stolen from them.Footnotes[1] Anthony Zarrella's answer to What do you think about the fact that 45% of Republicans said they strongly or somewhat support the storming of the Capitol? If you are one of those, why do you think so, and if you are Republican, but disagree, why do you think so many approve it?[2] http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202101081001.pdf#page=3

Actually, they did.To provide a quick explanation, basically the United States flew over Japan and dropped pamphlets that said this:TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.However, maybe that wasn't exactly clear enough for the Japanese people. Hiroshima wasn't that bad, right? Well, the pamphlet continues.EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.I think after this, it is safe to assume there was proper warning of the attacks on Nagasaki. However, you may realize that the pamphlet appears to have been written after Hiroshima. So, how were the Japanese people warned about the attacks on Hiroshima just before hand? Well, it appears as though the same general leaflet was dropped on Hiroshima as well, along with 33 other Japanese cities which were threatened to have been attacked. While I wasn't able to find the exact text of the Hiroshima pamphlets, you can find some more information down below. Additionally, the Japanese had refused to surrender to the United States previously (during negotiations), so in a way, the Japanese could have suspected an attack to occur soon.Here are some links to read about the pamphlets more in-depth.Hiroshima Pamphlets: http://hyperallergic.com/216234/the-leaflets-dropped-before-the-hiroshima-atomic-bomb/Nagasaki Pamphlets: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/Pamphlets Dropped Before Bombing:http://www.damninteresting.com/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens/EDIT: After some debate, I have seen that the exact date on the pamphlet mentioned in the PBS link was actually released slightly after the bombing. However, this does not change my answer, as LeMae leaflets were actually dropped before the bombings, and while not specifically mentioning a "nuclear strike/bomb", the fact that the United States said anything is a blessing, given the fact that the Japanese had terrorized and killed thousands along their conquest through the Pacific, and taken thousands of American lives. Hopefully this has cleared up some of the confusion. Thanks!

You’re early this time!House forecastMajority probability: Democrats 77%, Republicans 23%Projected seats (90% CI): Democrats 223 (208–251), Republicans 212 (184–227)Projected vote (90% CI): Democrats 53.4% (47.8–59.4%), Republicans 43.9% (38.5%–49.6%)In the past three weeks we’ve seen a bit of a recession in the Democrats’ margin in the generic ballot—it’s back down to something like 8 points now, whereas it was above 9 points right after Labor Day. A lot of people have been quick to attribute this to the Kavanaugh hearings, and I don’t blame them. It’s a high-profile, contentious affair that’s seized control of the news cycle at home and, unusually, abroad. And it’s a simple and convincing narrative—it’s pretty reasonable to expect that they’d galvanize voters from both parties, but Democrats are already historically enthusiastic about voting, whereas Republicans weren’t. So the enthusiasm spike that the hearing might cause is asymmetric.I think that’s jumping to conclusions, though. First, the story about the Democratic enthusiasm advantage evaporating appears to come from just one poll, that by Marist College for NPR and PBS NewsHour from October 1, which found the enthusiasm gap, measured in the percentage of Democrats who believe that voting in the midterms is “very important” minus the percentage of Republicans who think so, was down to a statistically insignificant two percentage points from a 10-point gap in July. That’s certainly a big drop, but it’s only one poll, and moreover, the drop is mostly due to the fact that Marist recorded a much bigger enthusiasm gap than other pollsters to begin with. Other pollsters that asked similar questions to gauge voter enthusiasm haven’t recorded similar drops because they’ve always had the enthusiasm gap much smaller to begin with.(On top of all that, the question in question wasn’t even measuring enthusiasm directly—it was asking about how important voters thought the election was, which is related, but not the same thing.)Second, it’s not like there’s been a huge effect on the House forecast. In fairness, the drop from 80%, which is what I had them at last month, has been kind of muted mostly due to district-level polling. Here I’m not talking just about the Siena live polling project that’s been doing a bang-up job of filling in a lot of competitive districts that hadn’t seen a nonpartisan poll, but also about UC Berkeley / Los Angeles Times poll dump from a few days ago, which polled the six most vulnerable Republican-held districts in California as well as two others with high-profile Republican incumbents. Results were good enough in those to pull CA-10 and CA-39 toward the Democrats, which probably helped to offset the Democratic decline in the generic ballot by a bit.Interactive version here.Nah, the main movement’s been in the Senate, where Democrats got a batch of, uh, let’s call it lackluster polling the other day. Fox released Senate polls from five states on Wednesday, meaning that this also constitutes movement downward from the last informal Senate update.It’s not good for the Democrats. At best, it’s okay: it shows Joe Donnelly and Clair McCaskill about tied in their respective races, which were almost universally considered to be toss-ups to begin with; Kyrsten Sinema’s lead in Arizona isn’t statistically significant, but that’s only slightly worse than where my polling average had her a couple weeks ago.Nah, the real bad news comes from the two remaining states, Tennessee and North Dakota. Tennessee is a real pickup prospect for the Democrats, but the Fox poll must be discouraging—Marsha Blackburn’s five-point lead in that poll is the largest she’s had since January. Worse still, the North Dakota poll found Heidi Heitkamp down 12 points, corroborating another recent poll that found her down 10.To boot, scandal-plagued Bob Menendez is suddenly treading water in New Jersey, with three out of four very recent nonpartisan polls showing him with a single-digit lead. The catch is that the fourth poll was from by far the most reputable pollster of the bunch, and it gave Menendez a healthy 11-point lead. Still, it’s not good for a Democrat from New Jersey to have about the same probability of winning as a Democrat from West Virginia—both Menendez and Manchin have about 80% chances of victory in their respective elections.The New Jersey stuff really only matters at the margins, though—it’s the Tennessee and North Dakota stuff that brings Democrats’ chances at a majority down from its high of 24% in early September to the current 16%.Senate forecastMajority probability: Republicans 84%, Democrats 16%Projected seats (90% CI): Republicans 52 (48–56), Democrats 48 (44–52)