Clothes, shmlothes

0

Clothes, shmlothes

This week, Kim Kardashian posted a naked photo of herself on Instagram. Idiots around the world formed an opinion one or the other on the picture, and not to be left out, Boulder Weekly has been working nights to formulate an opinion of our own.

The Kardashian picture stirred much controversy, largely because it’s a very popular celebrity, whom terrible parents apparently accept as a role model for their children, posting a nude photo on a public site. Some have said posting a naked photo of yourself on Instagram is a vain attempt to garner attention; others have said it’s an exercise in feminism and self-pride.

Critics included Piers Morgan, Chloë Grace Moretz and Bette Middler, aka no one’s answer to “Name three people dead or alive to have dinner with,” and Kardashian fired back with accusations of slut- and body-shaming.

Look, if you want to post nude photos of yourself on the Internet, have a great time. But, for the love of all that is holy, don’t tag the picture with “When you’re like I have nothing to wear LOL” because there are actually people, millions of them, who really don’t have anything to wear in this world.

Though perhaps it’s more of an indictment on Kanye West, Kardashian’s husband. You’d think if you were married to a fashion designer, let alone an iconic genius who is the voice of a generation, you’d have something decent to wear at all times.

Sure, Kardashian’s line was a less-than-tasteful comment made in jest, but a couple days ago I too found myself having nothing to wear and so, naturally, posted a naked photo of myself on Facebook, and now Bette Midler will not stop publicly body-shaming me.

YOU SHOULD TOTALLY IGNORE POLLSTERS

On the evening of March 8, Pollsters across the U.S. — including the infallible Nate Silver — shit themselves as Bernie Sanders won the Michigan primary over Hillary Clinton.

Let’s start with the Fox 2 Detroit/Mitchell poll, which predicted the largest win margins for Hillary with a 28-point spread.

The only demographic they predicted would go to Sanders was the 18-29 voting bloc, however, their polling methods may have left that group out entirely:

“Federal law only permits us to call land lines. Because likely Primary voters are older, 54 percent are 60 or older and 86 percent are older than 50, we believe there are sufficient land line voters to get an accurate sample.”

Logical fallacy much? What 18-29-year-old has a land line?

Monmouth University’s poll similarly left out young or even first-time voters by taking “a statewide random sample of Michigan voters drawn from a list of registered voters who participated in a primary election in 2012 or 2014 or voted in both of the last two general election, and indicate they will vote in the presidential primary on March 8, 2016…”

The total sample included 704 likely voters, 444 of which were contacted by a live interviewer on, once again, a landline, and 260 contacted via their cell phones.

And all interviews were conducted in English. So there’s that. Couldn’t have possibly missed any eligible voters that way.

Silver, of FiveThirtyEight.com, is legendary for accurately predicting the 2012 election results in all 50 states with a 99 percent success rate. He also predicted Clinton would win Michigan, but he gave himself a little wiggle room — sort of.

“So if Clinton wins there by 20 [points] or something, it doesn’t bode well for Sanders,” Silver wrote during a FiveThirtyEight chat on the afternoon of March 8. “Then again, I have a gut feeling — WHICH YOU SHOULD TOTALLY IGNORE — that Sanders could beat his polling there.”

Silver has since said he was never sure that Michigan was ever a 20-point race, but the point is larger than that — pollsters are underestimating young voters in a race where they matter more than ever.