Jackson Jambalaya

I wish they woulda called me

If you showed _every_ Mississippi resident a "line-up" of Hosemann, Finch, Chaney, Gipson, Presley and Baker and told them they would receive $10,000.00 if they could ID each and give their current office as well as give a 200-word or less _accurate_ synopsis of the duties and responsibilities of each office, you'd give $0.00 away. Yes, "_every_" includes asking Hosemann, Finch, Chaney, Gipson, Presley and Baker, as well as Phil, the Tater Tot and every member of the state and US Legislatures, as well as your humble writer. I wouldn't know Presley or Baker if I tripped over them and apparently, the only correct answer for Sec of State is "none whatsoever," which I would have gotten totally wrong.

And I'd bet $10,000.00 that if you asked _every_ Mississippi resident what they thought of "Saban's rumored new assistant, Mike Chaney" (or Presley or Baker), 40% would say Saban is a sorry SOB, 59% would ask who "Saban" is, .9% would ask if you had any meth you could turn loose of and .01% would shoot you. A coupla-hundred or so folks (I'm not doing the math) would know immediately who Chaney (or etc.) actually is. I can say that I would be in that last group as I know who he is...which is why I wish he were actually becoming Nick's new assistant.

It's FiTch, not Finch, unless we have reincarnated him and his lunchbox.

LOL, July 13 at 9:42, I actually know it's "Fitch," her office and its duties, yet, obviously, not well enough to immediately catch my own error (for example, I'm certain I'd have caught "Phil Brian" or "Tater Twa..." er, nevermind...). That's sorta my point: the only people who MIGHT know who even 20% of who elected officials are, what office they hold and the duties and responsibilities of that office are people with a personal monetary interest in knowing it. Even then, there probably aren't 100 people in the entire state that have such a monetary interest in knowing who more than about 40-60% of them are, what office they hold and what that office entails.

I'd also bet $10,000.00 that if you asked every person in Mississippi who was not a current or former elected official (or living off the spoils of one) what they thought of "elected officials," it would sure as hell cut down on those high "Unsure" numbers. And I'd bet at least $100.00 that the approval number would be negative because I have faith in Mississippi voters and I know at least some of them would vote "F'em all!" at least twice.

Telling on myself here, but I was traveling earlier in the week and someone asked me what I thought of Cindy Hyde-Smith. I admit that my immediate first thought was "who in the hell is that?" and racking my brain for a second. In my defense, Cochran had been in since the Siege of Vicksburg, so it is still muscle memory for folks to say/think "Thad Cochran," but that won't matter much to Cindy Lou-Who come election day.

Clearly, most voters statewide and in white districts vote "incumbent Republican" (white being presumed - are there any black Republicans in MS?), most in the Delta vote "black Democrat," etc. What we need to do is find about 5-6 white Alex Jones types named something like "Lamont Dontelle Washington" to run in the Delta and some black Bernie Sanders-meets-Jesse-Jackson types named "Parker Claiborne Pewtersmith, IV" or similar to fill up the statewide elections, just to see what happens next.

Vote Democrat for your Children's Children.

Vote Republican for your Bosses Boss.

Simple! Don't be an American Hating GOP Traitor!

Please tell me where I can meet you to take your rorschach test with these images, and bring your checkbook. And I have not financial interest in being able to answer the quiz. However, I totally agree with your premise and that "polls" such as these are not worth the internet paper they are written on - much less the cost that someone might have paid Brad to run his demogagory. Anyone who thinks this is representative of any unbiased results obviously hasn't followed Chism Strategy's history or worth.

Only thing that this poll shows is that Hosemann still has a higher name ID than many others due to his use of our state tax dollars to keep his mug constantly in front of our faces and in our ears as he pontificates on anything - and everything - while he smirks at the poor plebes he is so much smarter than.

Pose the answer you want to receive and I'll structure the question for you; early voting, new holiday, something for free of cost and effort - doesn't matter.

But, what the hell. Let the games begin and we'll get real results soon.

They didn't include any soybean farmers in their survey. They are a silent coalition, Epsy will prevail in November because of this.Folks usually vote with their own paycheck in mind.

To be clear, when I've referenced "elected officials," I do not mean just the few "biggies" such as Guv, Lt. Guv., S-o-S, Treasurer, Atty General, etc., I mean every elected state official, from judges and legislators on up to Guv. Counting just judges and legislators, the number is already around 300.

And I'll stand by my statement that the number of people who can recognize on sight, give the office held and a reasonably objective description of that office's duties and responsibilities of even 40-60% of the latter group is closer to 100 people than 1000 people, with the vast majority of that small cohort having some direct personal financial interest in being able to do so, i.e., lobbyists, reporters, etc. Add state-level appointees and I'd wager there isn't a single person who could reach even 20% recognition, office held and office description. Further add anyone who can personally effect an expenditure of $50,000 or more and I'd wager no one could reach even 5% recognition, etc., rate.

My point is that "government" (state and federal) has become a vastly over-staffed Byzantine bureaucracy with so many moving parts that no one has even a functional working knowledge of the entirety of "state government." Certainly, lots of people have knowledge and understanding of this or that small portion, and have some level of passing familiarity with related bits and pieces, but an "encompassing knowledge" would be extremely difficult and time-consuming, with no rational and objective incentive for anyone to attempt to acquire it.

Hence, you get things like a $2 million dollar driveway from the Taterhood to a shopping center, "not me" to blame for it and no one has the knowledge required to call anyone out on all of it.

"Add state-level appointees and I'd wager there isn't a single person who could reach even 20% recognition, office held and office description."

Well, I'll still take the wager. Not bragging, and agree that the number is very small, but there are some that are involved with the process that are not personally benefiting from it as you state (lobbyists, reporters, etc.) I don't really know how you define those that 'can affect' an expenditure of $50k or more - that probably includes some 5,000 of the total 30,000 state employees - although most of those cannot make the expenditure happen.

But your theory is wrong in the end - that's not how MDOT goes about deciding to build a frontage road. That is how many decide to try to demean one or more of those officials by spreading a false narrative with innuendo but not facts. Hell, even Pender and McGrath didn't produce the first document or statement tying Reeves into this project - but still Pender determines on his "guilty until proven innocent, I buy ink by the drum" mucksheet that Reeves "obviously" was the cause of this expenditure and it has no value or purpose other than for him.

The real problem is that many folks choose to vote based on nothing but the latest thing they have read on social media, and have little or no knowledge of either candidate, the issues, or their positions on the issues. For example - assume Hood is going to run for Governor; after three elections for a lower ticket office what policy positions has he been questioned on by the so-called media in this state? What is his position on the important (taxes, spending) issues or the unimportant (flag, abortion) issues. I say unimportant tounge in cheek recognizing that probably over half the state votes on those two issues vs really important issues that affect each of us every day.

As to Taterhood Parkway, I'm not accusing, much less blaming, the Totster of anything. I readily admit I don't know who is responsible and I doubt anyone really knows the entire story, especially members of the Jackson press. Hell, even if Tater did have a hand in it, I doubt even he knows the whole story. I would guess there is more than one someone responsible and there was more to it than Tater and/or the Taterhood wanting it, but that is a guess. It is based on what is public combined with past experience and knowledge of similar situations, but it is still a _guess_, albeit an educated one.

As to how MDOT (or any other state agency) goes about doing things, there is absolutely no evidence of which I am aware that indicates MDOT has a standard method of "how it goes about deciding" anything. Certainly no standard for short "frontage roads" connecting Taterhoods and Taterheads to tacos, cheap clothes and skimpy underthangs. I will note that from a satellite view, it appears that there is a back entrance on Cooper Road which then gives numerous options for ingress/egress to the Taterhood for all the Taterheads. If this is accurate, why is the "frontage road" needed at all?

Now, as to the rest, I've stated my position and I stand by it. I am also fully aware that others may, and at least one person does, disagree with it. That is their right. I will say that some explanation as to the point(s) of disagreement would be helpful, but that would be up to anyone who chooses to voice their disagreement.

Oh, and PS 2:43/5:45 - you've already lost. I'm not an idiot - before I posted, I asked a few folks and it didn't take long to find a person who made the bet as worded impossible to lose (or impossible to win, depending on perspective). It wouldn't take anyone long to replicate my results. With tongue firmly in cheek, where would you like to meet with YOUR checkbook?

NB: I admit the Saban thing was a kind of a ringer. We've got a lady from Korea (who is technically a Mississippi resident, albeit temporary) doing some project work who didn't know what a "Saban" was. And truth be told, I knew "F'em all!" wouldn't take more than 2 or 3 shorenuf real Mississippi residents. As long as we are being honest, the $100.00 wager is technically still a toss-up because I didn't bother to ask enough folks to see if at least one would try to vote twice, but now that I think about it, it is Mississippi - are you really sure you want to just piss away $100.00 on a sucker bet like that?

Speaking of Millsaps (or is it Milsaps)...I heard on the radio news (Supertalk) this afternoon of a study/poll done by the college. They were trying to get at why so few Mississippians vote. And in order to arrive at the answer they wanted to arrive at, they polled something like 160 people. The results were that most of those polled favored 'early voting' which means not having to show up at the polls. And most favored automatic voter registration which means not have to show up to register to vote. No word on how many polled were college students, unemployed folk or staff on various private campi.

So (and Democrats will love this), the end result and conclusion of the Millsaps professional study is that we should have voters who have no identity who didn't actually have to register to vote and whose votes can be tabulated without them having to show up at any polling place on any certain day or produce I.D.

I was one of those polled.
The questions were not slanted in phrasing and had clarity.
The voice was as close to monotone as I've ever heard.
Looking at the results, there's nothing wrong with the sample selection.
I have designed or participated in the design of statistical research for decades and I agree that many " polls" these days are poorly constructed and the results are "bought". That is sadly even true of medical research.
Such is not the case in this poll.
Many of you do not like Chism , either because he was a Rhodes Scholar or because his first job was with State government when a Democrat happened to hold the governorship. You assume bias when his job was to provide accurate, factual information on issues.
I think you should be glad one of our brightest kids came back home and stayed despite the immediate trashing he got from insecure good old boys who never even met him. He must love Mississippi because he could have made a helluva lot more money elsewhere.

This is a snapshot in time. Events and new information can change the results at a future point in time. When that happens, it does not mean the past polling was bad. Also, even the best polling has an error rate built in.

I wish statistics were required in every discipline for graduation and advanced statistics for every advanced degree. I suspect the dishonorable would still sell their ability to do good research, but at least more people could recognize valid research from biased garbage.

So, 8:40....just to be clear: You've participated in the designing of statistical research for years, consider yourself an expert on content validity and believe a poll of less than 200 people (many of whom were probably unregistered milineals) in a metro area of half a million is legitimate sampling? Gotcha.

I wonder how many of those polled could answer these questions:

1) Is voter I.D. required in Mississippi today?

2) Which political party appoints the governor in our state?

3) How many senators does our state send to Washington?

4) How many years can one person be a mayor in our state?

5) How old does one have to be to vote in Mississippi?

The pomp and circumstance in this thread notwithstanding, and having a degree in actuarial science, anyone who purports to draw conclusions based on statistics is neither knowledgeable about statistics nor are they employing any sense of objective reasoning.

Modern gambling is based on actuarial science and, more succinctly, statistics. Assumptions are guesses, not predictions.

And any statistics based in human interaction is inherently biased, regardless of sample size. Statistics, as taught, assumes ignorance and some times a complete vacuum of information. Employ the notion of garbage in/ garbage out philosophy and then you can utilize statistics in the manner best suited for them, gambling.

As far as the previous poster from Chism, or Chism himself, there is no humanly possible way to phrase questions about politics without slant. You can't control the experience, beliefs or biases of the people polled, so a slant to you might not be a slant to another. There is always something wrong with a sample selection and size and your attempts to qualify the polling with vague appeal to authority belies your obvious bias and association with the pollster.

People, just take things as they are. Life is so colorful that one does not need to add or infer any other color UNLESS your bias is a vain attempt to change someone else, which is a fool's errand.

@2:03,
My children will all vote republican happily! Also, my grandchildren, My nieces, my nephews, my in-laws, my brother, my sister, and all of my cousins all will vote republican. Sorry to burst your bag of lies!

Just some observations and NOT accusations, but note the last 2 pages of the first doc, in which those polled indicated their race and their education level.

Respondents who IDed as African-American was 33% (a bit low as an accurate reflection of the MS population, which is about 38% A-A), but what appears much more out-of-whack is those who IDed as having "less than a high school education" - 5.2%.

Only about 80ish% of the overall population of MS has a high school diploma. So, either 1) some semantic acrobatics are needed (i.e., "less than a high school education really means those who had NO high school at all...") or 2) it required some extrapolation to account for the sampling mis-correlation to the population (which introduces assumptions and error) or 3) the polling sample simply does not accurately reflect the population (in which case, at its core, this poll is little more than a poll of those who happened to be willing to take the poll).

Also refer to "Findings" such as:

"Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann enjoys an approval rating of +33%, remarkably steady when compared to the +34% rating he received in the Millsaps College-Chism Strategies Survey conducted in January 2018. Voters across the partisan divide largely approve of Hosemann:..."

It is troubling that _certain_ "Findings," such as the above, contain phrases such as "...Hosemann _enjoys_..._remarkably steady_ ..." (as well as "...voters across the partisan divide largely approve..."), but almost exclusively when purporting to impartially make findings on Hosemann. Apparently, Fitch is indifferent about her "previous +19% approval rating from our January survey also remains steady at +20% this month." Why would Fitch not "enjoy" her similar steadiness? Why is her similar steadiness also not "remarkable?" She allegedly does "enjoy" her "sturdy" support among certain voters. In a similar vein, the accompanying release as posted on JJ singles out Hosemann and makes (only) positive statements about (only) him/his performance/approval.

Moreover, I could not find any direct statement of who paid for this poll or where the money came from. Yes, it is styled as the "Millsaps College-Chism Strategies State of the State Survey," but that doesn't mean either or both weren't being paid by some person or entity.

All of the above (and other issues) blows any "impartial science" right out of the water. It would accurate to say that 100% of Hosemann's supporters are "remarkably steady" over a 6-month period, just as 100% of his opponents are "remarkably steady" over the same period. Does anyone really require a poll to affirm those "findings?"

In response to the comments made by 9:16am, 7-14-2018:

Bob Delasalle is a marginally competent writer of technical manuals, but he is certainly not what any reasonable person would call a gifted novelist.

John Grisham is a very commercially successful writer, but few would call him a literary genius and certainly no equal to writers like Faulkner.

Bill Fredericks is a marginally competent sign painter, but no one would call him a great artist.

Adolph Hitler was a moderately talented painter although most people don't know that.

Very few readers, if any at all, had any feelings about Delasalle or Fredericks, probably because I pulled the names out of thin air and as such, no one had any preconceived notions about either of them or their talents. On the other hand, the deprecation of Grisham and the praise of a small aspect of Hitler did cause feelings because of preconceived notions about each. Similarly, the mere mention of a name known the person hearing it, be it "Delbert Hosemann," "Donald Trump," "Barack Obama," etc. - causes a response and introduces a bias, even if it is subconscious, in the person merely hearing the name because of their preconceived notion(s) about that person. For a real-world example, look no further than Donald Trump, who pollsters pretty much universally said stood no chance whatsoever against, well, anyone, beginning in earnest about a month before he formally declared...and continued to do so right up until he was elected.

And by the way, the Grisham comment was pretty much a quote from Grisham himself and art scholars who have studied Hitler's paintings pretty much agree that while he was certainly not a great artist, he did have above-average talent as a painter.

@2:03

Now just why would I want my grandchildren to have to endure socialism ? Better yet, why do you want YOUR grandchildren to endure socialism ? Do you care no more than that about them or do you feel yours will be on the government teet anyway ?

Face it! The poll, its design and purported results are all a bag of shit. But, it kept some people on the payroll over at Millsaps.

75% of America buys products on line, Ebay..Amazon..ETC.... Probably 65% of American pays bills on line.... Why can't we VOTE ONLINE? It is time to progress with the times... I Think I smell the MS LOTTERY COMING....
MS lets get off the bottom!!!!

Garbage in, garbage out.

For July 14 @ 4:59 "Why can't we vote online?"....Picture This:

Mr. Brand (pulling a name out of thin air) sets up a card table at Patel's Quick Mart and Chicken Shack over in Clinton on election day (or during early voting). There's a laptop on the card table.

Mr. Brand has a line of about six people on average at his table all day long and the line is moving along at the rate of about 150 per day during each day Delbert allows early voting.

Mr. Brand hands each person in line five dollars and a box of Chester's Chicken in exchange for the temporary use of their I.D. card. He is pulling up a form on his computer and typing in the information from each I.D. card and selecting the same candidate's name on the form, over and over and over all day long. Mr. Brand is certifying that he is the person represented on each I.D.card.

Mr. Brand's candidate is elected. Mr. Brand is happy. His candidate is happy. Everybody who got a box of chicken is happy. YOU are happy since we now have online voting. Mr. Patel takes his cut - $200.00.

459 - your statement is b/s. 75% of Americans don't purchase online. But that has absolutely no relationship to voting online. Not the time or place to try to even begin explaining why your concept of the two activities is a non-sequiter, because it is a much deeper and complicated issue to be resolved on a social media blogsite.

But one good simple reason that can be suggested is by your concept - idiots that think as you do (or don't think might be the better description) don't need to be encouraged to vote ar all.

9:05am Since you're so smart, how large do you think a sample has to be to reflect the universal population? A political poll sample reflects the percentages of age, gender, and race among those who are eligible to vote, but it usually is lifted from and reflective of recent registered voter lists and includes a reflective percentage of new eligible voters who are to vote.

Indeed, so much information has been shared on our citizens individually that for decades there has been a list of people identified as " influencers" whose buying patterns and choices predict future trends with remarkable accuracy.

I expect about the same percentage of those who vote couldn't answer the questions you pose. It is also the reason " I don't know" was a choice in this poll unlike bogus polls. Which actually, in a poorly educated universal sample is somewhat better than " no opinion".

It's pretty clear that many don't understand what a poll is or isn't.

A political poll, if well done, is based on well tested mathematical formulas and research procedures which have proven to be better than guessing or relying on the anecdotal opinions of folks like you or the local fortune teller. It is not a prediction of the future, but simply a probable reflection of current attitudes on issues. And, think of the error rate like you think of the percentage of a chance of rain in a weather report done by area code.

A bad poll, like many polling calls I've received, asks questions like " Candidate X believes we should raise taxes on those making more than $20000 a year, Press 1 if you strongly agree..." (candidate X being the opponent). I hang up on those pollsters.

But, there is a way to predict with 99% accuracy how you will vote thanks to neuroscience but you'd have to be willing to have a brain scan that shows which parts of your brain reacts to photos you are shown.

Here's what you'll really hate. It doesn't matter how many facts you have on any issue. The right side of your brain will prioritize what facts you'll accept.

There are some very good books on the science of politics and on why propaganda works. Why don't you read them and get back to me.

SOOOO....our outcome of our elected officials is based on CHICKEN????
Now that is true Mississippi!!!!

July 15 at 9:19am wrote:

"A political poll, if well done, is based on well tested mathematical formulas and research procedures which have proven to be better than guessing or relying on the anecdotal opinions of folks like you or the local fortune teller."

"It is not a prediction of the future, but simply a probable reflection of current attitudes on issues. And, think of the error rate like you think of the percentage of a chance of rain in a weather report done by area code."

As to the first sentence quoted, yes, in theory. However, in practice, getting sufficient data to apply any of the formulas and procedures is a prohibitively expensive undertaking because of the difficultly in reaching a truly reflective cross-section of whatever very large group one is attempting to poll. So basically no pollsters gather such accurately reflective data/polling. There is plenty of good and accurate info on the web as to why it is so difficult, but as one general example, many people have no landline, but random polls cannot auto-dial cell phones. So pollsters must either hand-dial hundreds of numbers to get a single usable response (lots of people hang up and of those few that take the poll, they may or may not wind up being a usable responder, etc.). Moreover, as has been pointed out, once you a human being hears a name or term they are familiar with, it triggers a conscious and subconscious bias (note that "bias" in the use simply means an interference with a purely objective response). Basically and from a practical standpoint, polls simply are rough guesses at best and biased nonsense at worst.

As to the second sentence quoted, generally folks would be better off viewing polls as "snapshots" while realizing that the picture relies heavily on the photographer, the camera and the subject matter. As an example, think of two typical summer days. On one, you can look east and see dark clouds and rain moving in but you can look west and see the cloudless blue skies. If the "snapshot" is of the east, it shows a rainy day and if west, a beautiful day, neither of which really reflect the conditions at the time in that locations. Now, take a completely overcast or completely cloudless sunny day - no matter what part of the sky one snaps, it will be an accurate picture of that location and at that time.

I'll again refer folks to the 2016 POTUS race - the pollsters were sure Trump would lose the primary and then, the general, right up until he won it all.

And if you ask ten people in Fondren if they're happy with Jackson life, 8 of them will exclaim, "YES!"

What follows is: "BREAKING! 80% of Metro Area residents are satisfied and pleased living in Jackson."

Meanwhile; There was a poll/report out the other week claiming that Jackson was the best place in Mississippi to start a new business.

Not to defend Geoff Pender outright, but I believe the point of his story was to point out the perception of a conflict of interest......which any rational person would be able to see that there was. After further investigation of course, evidence illuminated that there was more than likely direct/indirect influence in the decision making of the project favoring Reeve's friends and neighbors. It's Reeves' and the executive branch agency head's fault for thinking that know one would notice or care.

Until Mississippians decide they are going to raise a serious ruckus whenever there is even a possible PERCEPTION of conflict, then the citizenry will remain in the dark, and taken advantage of as they have for the last 100 years. Transparency should be the rule. Proper conduct fears no exposure, yet the legislature has written laws that they cannot be investigated, so all they have to worry about is getting re-elected without showing any actual results.