Inigima Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Pew is out with a new study. it purports to show that MSNBC is more partisan than Fox. As evidence, it cites a higher percentage of negative stories about Romney and positive stories agout Obama on MSNBC than the opposite on Fox.I don't really know who's more biased, although lefty that I am I tend to assume it's Fox. But this certainly isn't a worthwhile metric. Maybe there are more negative stories about Romney on MSNBC because he's shitty and has it coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Greguh Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I can't remember where I read this, but if Obama were projected to win 80.9% of the vote, his projected chance of victory would be something in the neighborhood of 99.9%.Way low. I'm rusty at this particular brand of stats, and the error of any bell-shaped curve is, as I understand it, way higher for polls than it is for most, but there would be many many decimal places of 9's after the first one with 80% of the popular vote. IIRC being only 6 points ahead is about a 90% chance of victory, and it's a steep curve from there to 99%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartTesla Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 J. Scar is doubly wrong because of the 80% odds that he managed to mess up, but also because he identifies the national vote as the more important metric. Obama could be 50.1 in all his 'safe' states and 50.1 in the battlegrounds that take him over the edge, and Romney could be 100-0 in the rest, that would probably be the worst case scenario for a PV-EC split. Still, this emphasis on the national vote, especially in a statistical fashion, is even more galling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 a new study. it purports to show that MSNBC is more partisan than Foxdoes it address whether MSNBC is more or less dishonest than fox? i.e., if it's true, then who gives a fuck about purprted "bias"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Greguh Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Pew is out with a new study. it purports to show that MSNBC is more partisan than Fox. As evidence, it cites a higher percentage of negative stories about Romney and positive stories agout Obama on MSNBC than the opposite on Fox.I don't really know who's more biased, although lefty that I am I tend to assume it's Fox. But this certainly isn't a worthwhile metric. Maybe there are more negative stories about Romney on MSNBC because he's shitty and has it coming.MSNBC is biased against Romney in the same way that human biology is biased against the Ebola virus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 J. Scar is doubly wrong because of the 80% odds that he managed to mess up, but also because he identifies the national vote as the more important metric. Obama could be 50.1 in all his 'safe' states and 50.1 in the battlegrounds that take him over the edge, and Romney could be 100-0 in the rest, that would probably be the worst case scenario for a PV-EC split. Still, this emphasis on the national vote, especially in a statistical fashion, is even more galling.The national vote tells one story. If you win the national vote you are virtually guaranteed to not get blown out, and that helps the "horserace" discussion. Stating that Obama has a small but consistent lead in enough states to win is just as accurate and far more relevant for who is going to be president, but it requires a lot more patience and explanation to make that case. Technically it is "possible" to win the Electoral College with only 11 votes, but it is statistically almost impossible to win the Electoral College without being at least within 1-2% of the popular vote winner, unless we have strong third party candidates screwing things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 a new study. it purports to show that MSNBC is more partisan than Foxdoes it address whether MSNBC is more or less dishonest than fox? i.e., if it's true, then who gives a fuck about purprted "bias"?Well, if the media had honestly examined the R/R ticket, the race would have likely been over some time in the summer or early fall at the latest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 a new study. it purports to show that MSNBC is more partisan than Foxdoes it address whether MSNBC is more or less dishonest than fox? i.e., if it's true, then who gives a fuck about purprted "bias"?It doesn't, but now that I've skimmed the study instead of just the Slate blurb, I think they've mischaracterized it: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/02/msnbc_fox_news_which_cable_channel_is_more_partisan_pew_report_suggests.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartTesla Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Technically it is "possible" to win the Electoral College with only 11 votes, but it is statistically almost impossible to win the Electoral College without being at least within 1-2% of the popular vote winner, unless we have strong third party candidates screwing things up.I dont know about statistically impossible. Obama gained 4 million votes on the west coast in just three states for his popular vote, and assuming a 120 million electorate, removing that bonus get a 3.3% shift in the popular vote.So I would say improbable (but not on the basis of statistics) because if Obama or a generic Dem is doing badly in California group dynamics would assert that he is doing much poorly elsewhere too, like in New York. Maybe that falls under the ambit of statistics too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 And even if one believes that Romney will have a better four years because bipartisanship or rational GOP or whatever, there is still a very compelling case to not reward the Republicans for what they've done for the last four years.Exactly. It's bad enough that our political system provides incentives for the minority party to obstruct anything and everything; rewarding that behavior will only make things worse.Along those lines, I'm wondering if filibuster reform might actually happen in 2013. Harry Reid has publicly committed to such, assuming of course that he retains the leadership, and it is sorely overdue. If not for the filibuster, we'd have the DREAM Act and, I suspect, a public option in the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Greguh Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 And even if one believes that Romney will have a better four years because bipartisanship or rational GOP or whatever, there is still a very compelling case to not reward the Republicans for what they've done for the last four years.Negotiating with terrorists, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Exactly. It's bad enough that our political system provides incentives for the minority party to obstruct anything and everything; rewarding that behavior will only make things worse.Along those lines, I'm wondering if filibuster reform might actually happen in 2013. Harry Reid has publicly committed to such, assuming of course that he retains the leadership, and it is sorely overdue. If not for the filibuster, we'd have the DREAM Act and, I suspect, a public option in the ACA.Yeah - I cannot know for certain what an Obama victory would do to the GOP, but I really want them to be forced to ask why they lost when their opponent was dealing with roughly 8% unemployment. Will they rationalize it all away with media bias or ACORN or whatever? Many will, I suppose. But hopefully at least behind closed doors there would be some folks who would suggest that their scorched earth tactics weren't, in the end, sound strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Anyone see this? I would be really fucking annoyed if I received an unsolicited political text message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Technically it is "possible" to win the Electoral College with only 11 votes, but it is statistically almost impossible to win the Electoral College without being at least within 1-2% of the popular vote winner, unless we have strong third party candidates screwing things up.Huh? You can't win the electoral college with 11 votes. You must mean 11 states' electors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Greguh Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Huh? You can't win the electoral college with 11 votes. You must mean 11 states' electors.The scenario involves each of those states having a voter turnout of exactly 1 voter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Anyone see this? I would be really fucking annoyed if I received an unsolicited political text message.I think it fits the GOP attitude of "Freedom" being a signifier not of tolerance or even choice, but rather a lockstep vision of everyone either conforming to a narrow view or being marginalized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meshman Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Anyone see this? I would be really fucking annoyed if I received an unsolicited political text message.I'd think they'd get more traction sending out pro-Obama texts based on the anger these kind of texts generally make. Though there is some evidence of fake robo-calls being at play: http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/10/29/whos-behind-gay-robo-calls/ (example obviously not recent) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Along those lines, I'm wondering if filibuster reform might actually happen in 2013. Harry Reid has publicly committed to such, assuming of course that he retains the leadership, and it is sorely overdue. If not for the filibuster, we'd have the DREAM Act and, I suspect, a public option in the ACA.Like I've said before, I think it depends on how the rest of the election plays out. If Romney wins, they won't. That way they can let more Dems up for reelection in 2014 vote for stuff as necessary without having any danger of Romney actually signing anything. If Obama wins and Dems retake the House, they absolutely will and we'll have some great government for at least the next 2 years. If Obama wins and Republicans still keep the House (dingdingding) I think there will be some reform but it depends on how close the House is and how much pressure Obama, Reid, and Pelosi think they can put on House Republicans in more swing-y districts to compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Yeah - I cannot know for certain what an Obama victory would do to the GOP, but I really want them to be forced to ask why they lost when their opponent was dealing with roughly 8% unemployment. Will they rationalize it all away with media bias or ACORN or whatever? Many will, I suppose. But hopefully at least behind closed doors there would be some folks who would suggest that their scorched earth tactics weren't, in the end, sound strategy.I've been asking myself if, after an Obama victory, the GOP will come to its senses, but after weeks of reflection I have to say I am not confident. There are simply too many structural incentives for them to misbehave. Three minutes after Obama's victory (should he have one) is announced, the Republicans will be plotting how they can f*ck around with him to cash in for 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atreides Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Anyone see this? I would be really fucking annoyed if I received an unsolicited political text message.So would I, especially because I don't have unlimited texting. I wouldn't want to pay to receive anti-Obama slogans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.