I haven’t watched much television coverage of the campaign. Thus, when I recently saw network news coverage of every Democratic candidate on the stump, I was really struck – viscerally struck – about how qualified a field this really is. Any and/or all of them. Giants [Democrats] trumping the shoulders of Midgets [Republicans], if I may be permitted this deliberately awkward play on the famous expression.

Still, I’ll go with this bumper sticker that a friend in Hawaii tells me he sees everywhere. (I don’t drive anymore, so I wouldn’t know; have you seen it?) –

https://www.amazon.com/Functioning-Adult-PRESIDENT-2020-Sticker/dp/B077GKNDGS

No, that’s not a minor quibble, it is totally obvious and I can’t believe I didn’t do it. Next time!

So why didn’t I “see” this at first glance? FIVE possibilities come immediately to mind: (a) senility; (b) transient ischemic attack; (c) intellectual obtundedness (cf. a); (d) ocular migraine; (e) Stroop Effect.

My failure to catch this error under the editing time limit means, ipso facto, that (a) might still be in play.

I agree – super cool!

You created this graph yourself, right? Congrats! But Greg, let me offer a modest proposal for improving it, perhaps for its next iteration – allow me to play the role of, let’s say, William S. Cleveland:

Instead of using black font for every candidate’s name (top of each graph), consider labelling each name with the color that matches their specific scatter plot w/line: e.g., blue for Biden, red for Warren, etc.

This is a minor quibble, but you may not appreciate its utility because (a) you’re so used to viewing the graphs, and/or (b) not many people have my apparent neurological deficit.

Here’s what I mean (yes, it’s weird – yet psychologically real): The first time I viewed the graphs, I literally could not figure out which line under “Biden” was Biden’s, etc. At that point I thought, “How come Greg didn’t tell us which color goes with which candidate?” Then, kaboom, I saw the dots surrounding the LOWESS [not LOESS, correct?] regression line, and all became instantly clear (like a Necker cube frame shift).

So why didn’t I “see” this at first glance? Four possibilities come immediately to mind: (a) senility; (b) transient ischemic attack; (c) intellectual obtundedness (cf. a); (d) ocular migraine; (d) Stroop Effect.

I’ll go with the Stroop Effect – it’s powerful, it’s real, and it’s a compelling explanation for my inability to “see” the graphs when I initially scanned them. This might seem unbelievable to you – and maybe I’m your only reader “dumb” enough to have had experienced this – but please (intellectually if not viscerally) accept the truth of what I say.

I’m an expert on this particular issue: my PhD thesis used extensive color scatterpoint graphs. When scanned as B&W into UMI, my entire thesis data became unintelligible. Ouch!
_________
Now, as far as real-world import … This op-ed by author/journalist E.J. Graff* provides much food for thought:

“The new rules of ‘electability’ mean Joe Biden can’t win. Guess who can?”
E.J. Graff (Boston Globe – Perspective/Magazine Oct. 9, 2019)
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2019/10/09/the-new-rules-electability-mean-joe-biden-can-win-guess-who-can-biden-can-win-guess-who-can/HznRjHMCRuhy0AOyWO7ZEI/story.html

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/graffej/

For readers who lack access to this informative article (which contains good links), it basically says: “Democratic primary voters are too focused on appealing to fictional centrists or Midwest swing voters. But appealing to the middle fails … ” BECAUSE THERE IS NO ‘MIDDLE’ any more … The electorate is just too polarized: Appeal to everyone (e.g., w/Biden), and you’ll end up getting no one. And so, Graff concludes, “Safe candidates lose. Passionate crusaders [Obama / Trump] win. When you write your checks or vote in your primary, go with your gut.”

Needless to say, Greg’s blog has considered this point many times.