If you replace "Bernie Sanders" with "Eugene McCarthy", "Hilary Clinton" with "Hubert Humphrey", and "GOP nominee" with "Nixon", this thread somehow makes more sense.
Well CNN is objectively favoring her. Their coverage is ridiculous both in relative quantity and characterization when they do deign to cover Bernie. Every time he comments on a platform plank it's an "attack" and so forth. Most mild mannered guy on a podium. "Attack" is a ridiculous description of anything Bernie says about another candidate with the exception of very recently about the GOP absurdity. That's the most acute example.
To say Clinton won the debate because poise makes it sound like a dog show
To say Clinton won the debate because poise makes it sound like a dog show
It would be almost as silly as claiming Bernie won the debate because of a public internet poll with zero controls or oversight. But nobody does that, it's too obvious.
"The only thing I ever saw that came close to Objective Journalism was a closed-circuit TV setup that watched shoplifters in the General Store at Woody Creek, Colorado. I always admired that machine, but I noticed that nobody paid much attention to it until one of those known heavy out front shoplifters came into place... but when that happened, everybody got so excited that the thief had to do something quick like buy a green popsicle or a can of Coors and get out of the place immediately. So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here--not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.” – Hunter S Thompson
Favoring her in terms of article coverage and analysis. I never said there was a such thing as an objective journalist. Who said that?
You can count up articles and tone yourself. It's a slam dunk. I'm not gonna write a term paper over a casual internet disagreement.
Those polls are as credible as most "expert" analysis available: both not very.
Anyhow being a disingenuous liar may make her a poor dating prospect and all, Churba, but I'm a little more concerned that it makes her a lousy prospect for president.
There's a lot more to cover with Clinton. She does more. She has more people who themselves are covered talking about here.
They're not talking about Lessig or Lindsay Graham or any of a dozen other candidates because there's nothing newsworthy to say about them. Or, if there is, it isn't both newsworthy and going to bring more eyeballs to their for-profit entertainment news.
I don't agree at all. You could use the excuse that Bernie has less exposure and therefore is less covered but that's a bit circular.
Meanwhile, he may be making fewer appearances but that's because he's still maintaining a better attendance record at his actual job in Congress than everyone else. And yes, Clinton's not in Congress I know. She's busy lying about her contempt for data security and sitting with her advisers perfecting her watered down versions of Bernie's popular planks.
Well, if there's one person I trust to know pomposity like the back of his hand, it's HST.
Hunter wasn't pompous, he was paranoid. He thought the whole world was out to get him. There was a certain narcissism that evolved out of that, but it was never to elevate him above others. You would be self centered too if you were so fucked in the head you thought Gary Trudeau had a network of spies following your every move so that he could write a characateur of you.
I don't agree at all. You could use the excuse that Bernie has less exposure and therefore is less covered but that's a bit circular.
Meanwhile, he may be making fewer appearances but that's because he's still maintaining a better attendance record at his actual job in Congress than everyone else. And yes, Clinton's not in Congress I know. She's busy lying about her contempt for data security and sitting with her advisers perfecting her watered down versions of Bernie's popular planks.
It's circular because it IS a popularity contest. The more popular you already are, the more people talk about you, and the more popular you get. It really is that simple.
There is nothing Bernie is doing that warrants more coverage than he already gets, and Hillarie gets bonus coverage from her vast high level political career.
What should he do aside from talk about actually important issues and his prescriptive solutions for them? Jump out of a plane? Leap school buses on a motorcycle?
You're right that we live in a cynical and fucked up society. Then you lose me when you go on to call surrendering to that mess "pragmatism."
What should he do aside from talk about actually important issues and his prescriptive solutions for them? Jump out of a plane? Leap school buses on a motorcycle?
Already be popular and well known. Hold executive office. Have more money and spend it. The average voter doesn't even understand the basics of the "issues." A lot of Americans don't really know what you mean when you say "left" or "right" to them, and just smile and nod. A huge percentage of the electorate are classified as "low information voters." Talking about issues in a meaningful way has no effect on actual people who vote.
Anyhow being a disingenuous liar may make her a poor dating prospect and all, Churba, but I'm a little more concerned that it makes her a lousy prospect for president.
Well, if you're going to disqualify her for that, then you might as well disqualify...everyone. Everybody lies. Everybody is disingenuous. Even Sanders.
You can count up articles and tone yourself. It's a slam dunk. I'm not gonna write a term paper over a casual internet disagreement.
Oh yes, I absolutely could. In fact, I have tools available that would make it trivially easy thanks to a push on data-backed journalism at a lot of outlets.
But I'm not, because I'm not the one claiming something is an objective fact. If it's objective, don't sit there telling me to prove it for you. You make the claim, you front the proof.
Unless, of course, it's the Reddit definition of Objective. AKA, "This is An opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine."
Hunter wasn't pompous, he was paranoid. He thought the whole world was out to get him. There was a certain narcissism that evolved out of that, but it was never to elevate him above others. You would be self centered too if you were so fucked in the head you thought Gary Trudeau had a network of spies following your every move so that he could write a characateur of you.
Matter of opinion, I suppose - I think you're right, but I also think he was kind of pompous - viewing himself as the one awake, the one who could see, while all others were blind.
I'm sure you've got a back end feed that you could search for key words and what have you and maybe meta data according to somebody else's interpretation. I can tell you what I see on the front page of CNN every single day and have no doubt is there right now. But sure, let's pretend it's not happening because I'm not willing to produce a dissertation.
You haven't got to worry about supporting Clinton. She's got quite a collection of the snowed and the supposedly pragmatic ready to fall on their swords already.
Not if it's objective. You said it's objective, I'm asking you to prove it - if it's objective, there must be proof that doesn't rely on you telling me what you see, instead simply presenting the proof to speak for itself.
Of course, the other option is to just back it down. You misspoke, it wasn't objective, it's just your opinion, fair enough. We've all got opinions, and we all misspeak sometimes. No worries, if that's the case.
I'm sure you've got a back end feed that you could search for key words and what have you and maybe meta data according to somebody else's interpretation. I can tell you what I see on the front page of CNN every single day and have no doubt is there right now. But sure, let's pretend it's not happening because I'm not willing to produce a dissertation.
Putting politics aside for a moment, the tools are much more interesting than that. It's crazy shit, dude, no joke. Don't think Back-end feeds(I technically can access some by exploiting favors, but I can't afford it on the reg), It's less a single tool, more like a toolbox of things for everything from dragging in data, pulling it apart, sorting it, cleaning and refining, mapping, visualization and more.
I'll be honest, I'm not very good with them - not good enough that I'd be confident using them for actual work, I'm still learning. People much more skilled than I am are still discovering new uses and methods essentially on the daily.
Pro-tip - if you want to make some crazy money, then that's an area you want to be looking into. I'm yet to find a really good one that isn't hacked together from a dozen different parts ranging from off-the-shelf tools like Silk, to pushing existing tools in new ways, to weird bespoke tools bashed together for a purpose - if someone could turn that into a single thing, or even a decent suite of things, you'd have enough cash to swim in.
Also remember that, to a first approximation, Bernie has 0 chance of winning the nomination. So maybe everyone's already being charitable by mentioning him at all?
When I referred to degree I meant honesty vs dis-ingenuity. Sure, everybody lies. I lied about eating my brother's Halloween candy. Some lies are greater than others, especially given the position of power they're told from.
CNN's coverage: objectively leaning crazily in favor of Clinton to the point of deliberately mischaracterizing Bernie's every utterance. Dismiss me for not producing pages of documentation if you like, I don't care. This is a chat not a lawsuit.
The toolset (or collection of toolsets) sounds interesting. I still would wonder who's producing the meta data and how.
Starfox:
Everywhere Bernie goes he draws crowds in the thousands. I don't recall that Nader or Paul ever did, but maybe. I think that if primaries are honest, he's got a chance that's better than assumed, especially considering that polling populations can be more than a little selective. I think that's a big if in and of itself. I don't think we ever got satisfactory resolution of the Diebold controversy among others.
CNN's coverage: objectively leaning crazily in favor of Clinton to the point of deliberately mischaracterizing Bernie's every utterance. Dismiss me for not producing pages of documentation if you like, I don't care. This is a chat not a lawsuit.ontroversy among others.
Search site:cnn.com for "Bernie attacks" and you'll probably get half a dozen. I'm prepping for the most irritating meeting ever, will try to dredge some up when I get back.
Bernie hadn't attacked any other candidate ever at the point most of those headlines were written. He had commented on policy stances but to call it an "attack" is editorial in the extreme. Especially in the context of the very personal, very petty attacks from other candidates to that point.
Lately he's started to take a potshot at Trump here and there and Hillary I think once. I think that's unfortunate but I think it's pragmatism to expand his base, and he certainly sticks to the issues far more than the others do.
Well OK Clinton also sticks to the issues fairly well but mostly she seems to be making the case for another clusterfuck in Syria because Iraq and Afghanistan went so well.
The toolset (or collection of toolsets) sounds interesting. I still would wonder who's producing the meta data and how.
Well, Everybody, really. You're pointing at a trawler, and asking who made the fish. There's not really anyone that the metadata comes from, because that's very much a case by case basis. If it's a very broad dataset, or a mined dataset, it's not really any specific who, as much as a group, or a range of things. It can be self-generated, with some analytical tools. And you're feeding it a specific dataset, you already know more than likely where it comes from.
P.s - Still waiting on that proof of it being objective. We're not looking for courtroom standard of proof, and certainly not an academic standard. Or even enough that it could go to print. To be honest, I think we're mostly waiting for anything other than "Well go find it yourself" in different wrappers. Or, of course, backing down and admitting it was just an opinion rather than objective, also an option, just to remind you.
I think that if primaries are honest, he's got a chance that's better than assumed, especially considering that polling populations can be more than a little selective.
Do you not think Nate Silver takes all that into account? He's basically always right.
Even if Bernie's chances are being underestimated, what are his "true" odds? One percent? The math just isn't with you, brother.
Edit: well, you took it out. Fair enough, I suppose.
Sitting in a meeting. CNNs search function sucks. Trying to find it on Reddit is also more difficult than expected.
At any rate, removing polls (while acknowledging that online polls are bullshit) is juvenile and certainly could be argued to be biased. I bet it would have stayed up more than like an hour with different results. Yes they did eventually put it back up, fairly well hidden.
Every story (the few there were) on CNN about Bernie's responses to a Clinton platform plank or issue stance was written as if Bernie was attacking Hillary personally. Tabloid stuff.
Searching now I'm not finding them. Call me senile or a liar I don't care. I won't retract it, because I read it. Seeing as I have to rely on CNN to continue hosting the content I'm talking about in absence of the months ago foresight to screen-cap it, I guess I'm out of luck.
I think that if primaries are honest, he's got a chance that's better than assumed, especially considering that polling populations can be more than a little selective.
Do you not think Nate Silver takes all that into account? He's basically always right.
Even if Bernie's chances are being underestimated, what are his "true" odds? One percent? The math just isn't with you, brother.
Edit: well, you took it out. Fair enough, I suppose.
"But the problem went beyond the UK. "The World May Have A Polling Problem," Silver asserted. "In fact, it’s become harder to find an election in which the polls did all that well." Silver went on to cite four examples where the polls had failed to provide an accurate forecast of the election outcome: the Scottish independence referendum, the 2014 U.S. midterms, the Israeli legislative elections, and even the 2012 U.S. presidential election, where "Obama beat the final polling averages by about 3 points nationwide.""
I don't really care what he is saying about this presidential election because basically no one cares except for the sake of pointless argument at this point but try to hedge a little more before saying that someone is always right.
basically no one cares [...] try to hedge a little more before saying that someone is always right
I'd say one bad result in ~12 years of forecasting is "basically" always, but hey, maybe that's just me.
(As an aside it looked like I was defending Sanders and the pointless argument that the Nate Silver comment was tied to. I don't care about this long, insipid presidential race. The concept of forging a political movement out of a presidential campaign seems preposterous to me and that is what Sanders entire run is premised on. He himself freely admits that without that he cannot win and political campaigns are terribly unsuited to creating social movements. I do enjoy all of the play socialism is getting in the media. As a socialist myself I find it entertaining. I could do without the hand wringing and red baiting from ornery liberals and conservatives but politics is politics.)
Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight have been at the political polling analysis game since 2008 so not "12 years" though if you lump in the sports stats analysis it games out to longer than that because he was dabbling in politics while at his sports job. I imagine he was good at the sports stuff but that isn't the point. 538 has participated in 4 American cycles and 1 British Election cycle. They stepped out of the American zone and it went a bit south. Failure happens, but it's statistics so that is the name of the game. "Always" is contrary to the entire tone 538 has about the stuff they put out, which is more than just Nate Silver. Also they have been warning about the increasing unreliability of the polls they use and that they themselves publishing their work might be skewing the polls. They are good analysts for admitting that. You could fill many paragraphs of quotes from 538 in this post as examples of these admissions but anyone with a passing familiarity with their work knows that. What they say should be carefully considered. Let's all just be careful with all of the absolutes and conspiracies this thread seems to be filled with.
It'll be hilarious when the US either becomes a reincarnation of Nazi Germany or our kids all die of preventable climate disaster. Anybody who thinks either scenario is melodramatic isn't paying a whole lot of attention.
I think it's inevitable that we're going to end up with some sort of Hunger Games scenario where the rich build walled gardens and the rest of us are mostly fucked, but sure, levity is good.
Agree with Gomez that Sanders' bid for a political movement to spring out of his campaign is far fetched, but it certainly is what we need. Sadly there's no shortage of agitators in young Socialist groups right now pointing out that Sanders isn't actually Socialist because REAL Socialists ought to be shooting people by now. Sadly, this actually seems to silence a lot of the more moderate ones out of embarrassment that they're not hardcore enough. I mean seriously? I will say that /r/socialism has been the subject of probably the most successful infiltration/trolling effort I've ever seen in my life, going on 3 years now. First alienating everyone with crazily over the top SJW-styled stuff beyond credibility, then following that up with a mock banning of those mods and replacing them with militant anarchists who say that anything but pulling a trigger is meaningless.
People are stupid.
That's not to say that I think extreme left communities are the only source of Sanders' support, just that they'd be the strongest, most vocal ones if they weren't busy having a dick measuring contest with agitation trolls.
Comments
To say Clinton won the debate because poise makes it sound like a dog show
Rather the same with the rest.
It would be almost as silly as claiming Bernie won the debate because of a public internet poll with zero controls or oversight. But nobody does that, it's too obvious.
"The only thing I ever saw that came close to Objective Journalism was a closed-circuit TV setup that watched shoplifters in the General Store at Woody Creek, Colorado. I always admired that machine, but I noticed that nobody paid much attention to it until one of those known heavy out front shoplifters came into place... but when that happened, everybody got so excited that the thief had to do something quick like buy a green popsicle or a can of Coors and get out of the place immediately. So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here--not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.” – Hunter S Thompson
You can count up articles and tone yourself. It's a slam dunk. I'm not gonna write a term paper over a casual internet disagreement.
Those polls are as credible as most "expert" analysis available: both not very.
Anyhow being a disingenuous liar may make her a poor dating prospect and all, Churba, but I'm a little more concerned that it makes her a lousy prospect for president.
They're not talking about Lessig or Lindsay Graham or any of a dozen other candidates because there's nothing newsworthy to say about them. Or, if there is, it isn't both newsworthy and going to bring more eyeballs to their for-profit entertainment news.
Meanwhile, he may be making fewer appearances but that's because he's still maintaining a better attendance record at his actual job in Congress than everyone else. And yes, Clinton's not in Congress I know. She's busy lying about her contempt for data security and sitting with her advisers perfecting her watered down versions of Bernie's popular planks.
There is nothing Bernie is doing that warrants more coverage than he already gets, and Hillarie gets bonus coverage from her vast high level political career.
You're right that we live in a cynical and fucked up society. Then you lose me when you go on to call surrendering to that mess "pragmatism."
But I'm not, because I'm not the one claiming something is an objective fact. If it's objective, don't sit there telling me to prove it for you. You make the claim, you front the proof.
Unless, of course, it's the Reddit definition of Objective. AKA, "This is An opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine." Matter of opinion, I suppose - I think you're right, but I also think he was kind of pompous - viewing himself as the one awake, the one who could see, while all others were blind.
I'm sure you've got a back end feed that you could search for key words and what have you and maybe meta data according to somebody else's interpretation. I can tell you what I see on the front page of CNN every single day and have no doubt is there right now. But sure, let's pretend it's not happening because I'm not willing to produce a dissertation.
You haven't got to worry about supporting Clinton. She's got quite a collection of the snowed and the supposedly pragmatic ready to fall on their swords already.
Of course, the other option is to just back it down. You misspoke, it wasn't objective, it's just your opinion, fair enough. We've all got opinions, and we all misspeak sometimes. No worries, if that's the case. Putting politics aside for a moment, the tools are much more interesting than that. It's crazy shit, dude, no joke. Don't think Back-end feeds(I technically can access some by exploiting favors, but I can't afford it on the reg), It's less a single tool, more like a toolbox of things for everything from dragging in data, pulling it apart, sorting it, cleaning and refining, mapping, visualization and more.
I'll be honest, I'm not very good with them - not good enough that I'd be confident using them for actual work, I'm still learning. People much more skilled than I am are still discovering new uses and methods essentially on the daily.
Pro-tip - if you want to make some crazy money, then that's an area you want to be looking into. I'm yet to find a really good one that isn't hacked together from a dozen different parts ranging from off-the-shelf tools like Silk, to pushing existing tools in new ways, to weird bespoke tools bashed together for a purpose - if someone could turn that into a single thing, or even a decent suite of things, you'd have enough cash to swim in.
CNN's coverage: objectively leaning crazily in favor of Clinton to the point of deliberately mischaracterizing Bernie's every utterance. Dismiss me for not producing pages of documentation if you like, I don't care. This is a chat not a lawsuit.
The toolset (or collection of toolsets) sounds interesting. I still would wonder who's producing the meta data and how.
Starfox:
Everywhere Bernie goes he draws crowds in the thousands. I don't recall that Nader or Paul ever did, but maybe. I think that if primaries are honest, he's got a chance that's better than assumed, especially considering that polling populations can be more than a little selective. I think that's a big if in and of itself. I don't think we ever got satisfactory resolution of the Diebold controversy among others.
Bernie hadn't attacked any other candidate ever at the point most of those headlines were written. He had commented on policy stances but to call it an "attack" is editorial in the extreme. Especially in the context of the very personal, very petty attacks from other candidates to that point.
Lately he's started to take a potshot at Trump here and there and Hillary I think once. I think that's unfortunate but I think it's pragmatism to expand his base, and he certainly sticks to the issues far more than the others do.
Well OK Clinton also sticks to the issues fairly well but mostly she seems to be making the case for another clusterfuck in Syria because Iraq and Afghanistan went so well.
P.s - Still waiting on that proof of it being objective. We're not looking for courtroom standard of proof, and certainly not an academic standard. Or even enough that it could go to print. To be honest, I think we're mostly waiting for anything other than "Well go find it yourself" in different wrappers. Or, of course, backing down and admitting it was just an opinion rather than objective, also an option, just to remind you.
Even if Bernie's chances are being underestimated, what are his "true" odds? One percent? The math just isn't with you, brother.
Edit: well, you took it out. Fair enough, I suppose.
Sitting in a meeting. CNNs search function sucks. Trying to find it on Reddit is also more difficult than expected.
At any rate, removing polls (while acknowledging that online polls are bullshit) is juvenile and certainly could be argued to be biased. I bet it would have stayed up more than like an hour with different results. Yes they did eventually put it back up, fairly well hidden.
Every story (the few there were) on CNN about Bernie's responses to a Clinton platform plank or issue stance was written as if Bernie was attacking Hillary personally. Tabloid stuff.
Searching now I'm not finding them. Call me senile or a liar I don't care. I won't retract it, because I read it. Seeing as I have to rely on CNN to continue hosting the content I'm talking about in absence of the months ago foresight to screen-cap it, I guess I'm out of luck.
In the UK, Nate Silver finally found an election he couldn’t predict
Nate Silver: Polls are failing us
"But the problem went beyond the UK. "The World May Have A Polling Problem," Silver asserted. "In fact, it’s become harder to find an election in which the polls did all that well." Silver went on to cite four examples where the polls had failed to provide an accurate forecast of the election outcome: the Scottish independence referendum, the 2014 U.S. midterms, the Israeli legislative elections, and even the 2012 U.S. presidential election, where "Obama beat the final polling averages by about 3 points nationwide.""
I don't really care what he is saying about this presidential election because basically no one cares except for the sake of pointless argument at this point but try to hedge a little more before saying that someone is always right.
@gomez: lawd. Is this a serious statement? I'd say one bad result in ~12 years of forecasting is "basically" always, but hey, maybe that's just me.
Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight have been at the political polling analysis game since 2008 so not "12 years" though if you lump in the sports stats analysis it games out to longer than that because he was dabbling in politics while at his sports job. I imagine he was good at the sports stuff but that isn't the point. 538 has participated in 4 American cycles and 1 British Election cycle. They stepped out of the American zone and it went a bit south. Failure happens, but it's statistics so that is the name of the game. "Always" is contrary to the entire tone 538 has about the stuff they put out, which is more than just Nate Silver. Also they have been warning about the increasing unreliability of the polls they use and that they themselves publishing their work might be skewing the polls. They are good analysts for admitting that. You could fill many paragraphs of quotes from 538 in this post as examples of these admissions but anyone with a passing familiarity with their work knows that. What they say should be carefully considered. Let's all just be careful with all of the absolutes and conspiracies this thread seems to be filled with.
when reading this thread?
I think it's inevitable that we're going to end up with some sort of Hunger Games scenario where the rich build walled gardens and the rest of us are mostly fucked, but sure, levity is good.
Agree with Gomez that Sanders' bid for a political movement to spring out of his campaign is far fetched, but it certainly is what we need. Sadly there's no shortage of agitators in young Socialist groups right now pointing out that Sanders isn't actually Socialist because REAL Socialists ought to be shooting people by now. Sadly, this actually seems to silence a lot of the more moderate ones out of embarrassment that they're not hardcore enough. I mean seriously? I will say that /r/socialism has been the subject of probably the most successful infiltration/trolling effort I've ever seen in my life, going on 3 years now. First alienating everyone with crazily over the top SJW-styled stuff beyond credibility, then following that up with a mock banning of those mods and replacing them with militant anarchists who say that anything but pulling a trigger is meaningless.
People are stupid.
That's not to say that I think extreme left communities are the only source of Sanders' support, just that they'd be the strongest, most vocal ones if they weren't busy having a dick measuring contest with agitation trolls.