The Polls Were Wrong. ‘People Chose Democracy.’

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/opinion/letters/midterm-elections-democracy.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

I live in Montgomery County in Pennsylvania. When I went to vote on Tuesday I had a feeling that something special was going on. I could barely find a parking spot in a really large parking lot, and there were lines of people waiting to vote. I expect that kind of turnout for a presidential election, but a midterm? Very unusual.

I voted the Democratic line. I’m a lifelong Democrat, and I haven’t missed an election since I returned from Vietnam in 1969. Before Election Day I had trouble sleeping because I was so worried that our American experiment was in its death throes. I woke up Wednesday morning almost afraid to turn on the television.

But lo and behold, with so much working against the Democratic Party — rising inflation, a president with low popularity numbers, midterms typically favoring the party not in the White House — the Democrats pulled off a political miracle.

Democratic voters showed up. People chose democracy over their concern that gas prices were high. The American electorate came through. And while there are still races yet to be determined, my faith in our system has been renewed.

I will sleep like a baby tonight.

Len DiSesaDresher, Pa.

To the Editor:

The majority of Americans showed that they still don’t want MAGA arsonists torching the government. Pollsters were among the big losers in this election, along with Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

Once again polls were egregiously wrong in predicting the outcome of the election, which was more red drip than deluge. No doubt this latest debacle will set off more debate about statistical sampling methods in the polling community. But this latest failure makes it clear that the entire concept of public polling is flawed and should be done away with.

While private polling may be of use to political parties in deciding where to allocate resources, public polling is of dubious value. When pollsters and pundits predict landslide elections, this can suppress voter turnout. And when they predict close elections, they can stoke fear and loathing, as we’ve seen this past year.

For polling to be so reliably wrong only adds insult to injury. How long would your local TV weather forecasters keep their jobs if they were so consistently wrong? Borrowing from Bob Dylan, isn’t it time we learned that we don’t need a pollster to know which way the (political) wind blows?

Eliot BrenowitzSeattle

To the Editor:

Regarding the “red wave” that didn’t happen: Did Republicans and conservative pundits really believe that spending 8 percent more on groceries outweighs the G.O.P. telling us what we can and cannot do with our bodies? It does not. We did not and will not forget what today’s Republican Party stands for.

Elaine EdelmanEast Brunswick, N.J.

To the Editor:

A winner is declared after each election. In general, that winner received somewhat more than half of the votes cast. Then, nearly without fail, that elected representative is somehow comfortable ignoring the wishes of the half of their constituents who voted for the other candidate.

The elected officials of both parties are guilty. And, as a result, the country has become more polarized.

So this is a call to all of the victors: You now represent all of the citizens of your district or state, not just those who voted for you. As you consider the issues of the day, remember that. Vote with intelligence and conscience.

Steven FuhrmanVirginia Beach

To the Editor:

Re “Rich Countries Pledge Millions in Climate Funds to Poorer Nations” (news article, Nov. 9):

The issue of “loss and damage” is one of the big points of discussion at COP27, the climate summit in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt. The basic question: Should rich countries be liable to poor countries for climate-induced harms?

There has been some important movement at the climate meeting on financial compensation. That, though, is just a start.

The larger colonialist legacy that explains why poor countries lack the financial resources enjoyed by the world’s rich countries must be explored at the summit if we hope to adequately address both the causes and the symptoms of losses and damages due to climate change.

The global financial system continues, for instance, to be loaded against poor countries, making it impossible to borrow adequate capital to finance loss and damage. Rich countries have built that financial system to their benefit, via the same colonial logic that has facilitated the extraction of wealth from the global South.

An adequate accounting of the history of climate change provides a justice-centered avenue for financing loss and damage, and should take a more central role at COP27.

Rick McCanliesBethesda, Md.

To the Editor:

Re “Checking the Status of Environmental Promises Leaders Made Last Year” (news article, Nov. 8):

The five promises listed from the Glasgow climate summit last year omit the root cause, without which none are achievable: human overpopulation. The world’s population of eight billion, projected to be reached on Nov. 15, is more than the earth can handle. All our major problems can easily be traced to this.

Douglas RingRio Rancho, N.M.

To the Editor:

Re “A Compromise on Immigration Is Possible” (editorial, Oct. 30):

I have seen, firsthand, the devastating effects our current asylum policies have on families seeking safety at the U.S. border. Here’s what the editorial board gets right: The current asylum system is fundamentally broken, and the United States needs to invest resources to ensure that the process is just and treats those fleeing violence and persecution with dignity.

However, the Bipartisan Border Solutions Act — which just 13 of 535 members of Congress have co-sponsored — provides neither realistic nor humane solutions to address today’s migration challenges. The proposal repackages Trump-era policies that would almost certainly increase the number of asylum seekers languishing in squalid conditions at the border.

Evidence shows that most people seeking asylum are committed to working through their immigration cases; they don’t need to be trapped in custody, where they are unlikely to receive legal counsel in the impossibly short time frames presented in this bill.

Instead of building new de facto detention facilities, Congress should fund local governments, legal service providers and humanitarian organizations to better support people seeking asylum.

Kimiko HirotaWashingtonThe writer is a policy adviser at the Women’s Refugee Commission.

To the Editor:

Re “The Attack on Paul Pelosi Unmasked the G.O.P.,” by Jamelle Bouie (column, Nov. 6):

Bravo to Mr. Bouie for articulating so clearly exactly what has changed in the language and behavior of the far right that makes it so jaw-droppingly repugnant: There is no longer a pretense of decency.

Who would have ever thought that we would yearn for the days when public figures would pretend not to be racist, antisemitic, misogynist and cruel? And when nearly all Republicans are complicit in this despicable candor with their silence, they too are part of the far right.

Margot SimsKansas City, Mo.