PoliGAF 2016 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
CCS said:
Hillary won, by virtue of not having a Rubio style meltdown, which is what Sanders needed.
Click to expand...

Sanders seemed characteristically more like Rubio.....in the sense that they keep repeating the same shit and try to shoehorn their stump speeches in everything
 
Macho Madness said:
I didn't realize GOOD MAN had a Twitter: https://twitter.com/hagoodmanauthor/status/720802363942916096

Lmao
Click to expand...

Read Orwell's 1984. Then listen to Hillary Clinton. You'll then do EVERYTHING humanly possible to ensure BERNIE SANDERS IS ELECTED PRESIDENT
Click to expand...

Caps his.

One of the most ludicrous posts I've read in a while :P

BotoxAgent said:
Sanders seemed characteristically more like Rubio.....in the sense that they keep repeating the same shit and try to shoehorn their stump speeches in everything
Click to expand...

That's one of Sanders biggest problems, the fact that he's unwilling or incapable of moving away from his stump speech.
 
excelsiorlef said:
So you mean nuanced and imperfect?


Doesn't fit the Sanders purity requirements but I guess impurity is allowed when the agreement is economical and the disagreement social.
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble seeing this line of argumentation both in terms of Bernie pushing for the Pope's support and also in terms of this idea that social issues take a backseat here. Basically, why should the Pope matter in this election at all? It's a quote not him staking claim to this man who happens to be a religious leader. Why should the Pope's erroneous views on some social issues (all of which are quite important to me) be used as some justification to claim Bernie supporters don't care said views? Basically, why do you have this belief that Bernie/supporters of his don't care about social issues? That's a pretty big aspect of the matter. Many people who prefer Bernie have similar feelings to me regarding a few big social issues so the constant swathing makes me just tilt my head and wonder how you could even draw these conclusions.
 
There were a few Bernie missteps, actually. The gun thing was obviously a big one. But, he wasn't able to come up with a single time Hillary had changed her positions on an issue because there weren't any. He wasn't able to explain how he was going to release people from prison (because he can't).

Hillary only really screwed up on the transcript issue...which, at this point, I just grab my ass when it comes up because she'll find a way to step in it.
 
Good, man has a youtube channel too!
Ha! Good said:
H. A. Goodman: Why George Orwell Would Vote for Bernie Sanders Over Hillary Clinton - 90 seconds
Click to expand...
No I didn't click on the link to begin with.
It's on his twitter.

e: O M G!
He made vids for months and some of these titles :

Dear Hillary Clinton supporter, I don't care what you think of me


I absolutely love his "Dear xxx" titles, I won't even look at the vids because I don't have that much time to waste.
If anyone is interested
 
Ekai said:
I'm having trouble seeing this line of argumentation both in terms of Bernie pushing for the Pope's support and also in terms of this idea that social issues take a backseat here. Basically, why should the Pope matter in this election at all? It's a quote not him staking claim to this man who happens to be a religious leader. Why should the Pope's erroneous views on some social issues (all of which are quite important to me) be used as some justification to claim Bernie supporters don't care said views? Basically, why do you have this belief that Bernie/supporters of his don't care about social issues? That's a pretty big aspect of the matter. Many people who prefer Bernie have similar feelings to me regarding a few big social issues so the constant swathing makes me just tilt my head and wonder how you could even draw these conclusions.
Click to expand...

Sanders tried to use the Vatican for PR. He brought the Pope into the conversation


I've seen people use the Pope thing has a reason to support Sanders over Clinton and the only reason is because of the Pope's economic views.

He's still this guy: http://qz.com/511809/pope-francis-is-not-a-progressive-he-just-has-terrific-pr/

And I didn't say he doesn't care, just that that's where he is willing to compromise.

Ie he compromised on 94 Crime bill but not on the Auto bailout that also had part of the bank bailout.
 
excelsiorlef said:
I've seen people use the Pope thing has a reason to support Sanders over Clinton and the only reason is because of the Pope's economic views.

He's still this guy: http://qz.com/511809/pope-francis-is-not-a-progressive-he-just-has-terrific-pr/

And I didn't say they don't care, just that that's where he is willing to compromise.

Ie he compromised on 94 Crime bill but not on the Auto bailout that also had part of the bank bailout.
Click to expand...

Thank you, never liked cool pope, he just had a good media team.
 
People like Goodman are their own worst enemy. They are doing everything in their power to drive potential voters away from Bernie by being so uncompromising and belligerently biased.
 
excelsiorlef said:
I've seen people use the Pope thing has a reason to support Sanders over Clinton and the only reason is because of the Pope's economic views.

He's still this guy: http://qz.com/511809/pope-francis-is-not-a-progressive-he-just-has-terrific-pr/

And I didn't say they don't care, just that that's where he is willing to compromise.

Ie he compromised on 94 Crime bill but not on the Auto bailout that also had part of the bank bailout.
Click to expand...

I don't see how anecdotal bits can be used as proof that a generalization of many can be used to say they don't feel as strongly on social matters. There are many who even just flat out aren't aware of the Pope's social views in some regards. It's not right and I do wish they could be educated on the matter. But the article is right. His PR is very well done.

I know much about the Pope. My question is why should his lacking social views (which I also don't agree with, same as you) be used as proof that Bernie/his supporters don't have as much investment in social matters? It doesn't feel like it has much of any relation to politics at hand here and is reaching at best even if it did. It's only a quote. If the guy was running out there claiming he had endorsement when he did not that would be another matter. A nuanced matter but it would be a matter that would then make the Pope worth discussing here.

3 out of 4 of my big issues all relate to social matters. Of those 3, only one of those do I generally feel comfortable with in the hands of either of them, women's healthcare/rights. The other two I prefer Bernie.

As far as social matters go with Bernie, yes, he has a history of compromising. On quite a variety of things to be perfectly honest. Be it social and economical. The guy has a history of working across the aisle and getting things done. He fights for what he can. Is he perfect? No, of course not. No one is. Do I recognize where you are coming from? Sure. His message has had a focus on the economical. And frankly that's only one part of my support for the guy. One can prefer a candidate for more than one reason. It's generally how voters are. Of course there are one issue voters but generally speaking I like to believe voters of any candidate on the Democratic side here at least base their decision making in some varied ground.

In regards to social matters, he's frankly a bit ahead on some of those and there are two in particular which are very dear to me that make me veer towards him but I have posted on this already.
 
blackaroni said:
I didn't know that a person who witnessed Lincoln being killed was alive long enough to be on a tv show. Samuel Seymour apparently witnessed it when he was five and went on a TV show called I've Got a Secret in 1956. Thanks Joy Reid. Video.

That cigarette advertising is terrible.
Click to expand...

I first saw that a couple of years ago and it absolutely blew my mind. You do the math and you realize that, yes, someone who was a child at the end of the Civil War would be in their 90s in 1956, but I think we tend to look at history in terms of discrete eras and "Civil War" and "television" sure seem to belong in different eras.

I was similarly surprised to learn a few years ago that John Tyler has living grandchildren.
 
Box of Kittens said:
I first saw that a couple of years ago and it absolutely blew my mind. You do the math and you realize that, yes, someone who was a child at the end of the Civil War would be in their 90s in 1956, but I think we tend to look at history in terms of discrete eras and "Civil War" and "television" sure seem to belong in different eras.

I was similarly surprised to learn a few years ago that John Tyler has living grandchildren.
Click to expand...

That's why I get irrationally upset when people act like the systemic racism in this country isn't a big deal - there are people alive right now who possibly had parents or at the worst, grandparents who were held in human bondage. 1965 wasn't that long ago. Hell, 1865 was't that long ago.
 
Plinko said:
So basically exactly like George W. Bush. How did that work out?
Click to expand...
No republican will ever admit that Bush's economic policy was built on the same foundation as Reagan's. Reagan just happened to preside over a time when the economy was good, so people think his policies were good. They were actually quite bad, but not so bad to actively reverse the track the economy was already on.

Similarly Bush actually had a decent economy for most of his presidency, until shit hit the fan and he had no good answer for how to deal with it. Clinton's economic policy also had little to do with the broader economic trends, but they did take advantage of a good situation.
 
Alright PoliGAF I'm normally a lurker, but today I call for your help.

I just won a Facebook avatar bet against my fiancee and I get control of her profile pic for a week. She's one of the least political people out there, but seeing as something as big as the New York primary is coming up, I was thinking an icon showing her love for the Queen would be most appropriate. You're all a humorous bunch! Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated :)
 
My dad's mother received a Civil War pension until they day she died. Her father fought for the Union and somehow the pension passed on to her. She died in 1989.
 
Mael said:
Good, man has a youtube channel too!
Click to expand...

I haven't actually bothered to read very many of his articles (like a lot of what's in the Onion, I find most of the entertainment value is in the headlines), but the ones I did read were full of links to his Youtube videos (as well as reminders that HE WAS ON CNN!!!!!). It gave me the distinct impression that he churns those things out to try and get people to watch his videos. Which would make sense since he sure isn't making money off of the articles themselves.
 
adam387 said:
Something Something Clinton News Network
Click to expand...

Well, it's not exactly a false representation. Vox has had many misleading graphs and articles that don't truly represent the facts of Bernie's plans and that paint Hillary in a stronger light. Their bias isn't exactly a fiction.
 
Ekai said:
Well, it's not exactly a false representation. Vox has had many misleading graphs and articles that don't truly represent the facts of Bernie's plans and that paint Hillary in a stronger light. Their bias isn't exactly a fiction.
Click to expand...

I think it probably is? Aside from the dumb tax thing, I think that Vox isn't biased against Bernie, just for technocratic analysis, which Bernie basically doesn't like or approve of. So naturally they tend to disagree.
 
Vox fucks up now and again, like any media outlet. I'd argue less.

Bias isn't variance; It's the mean converging to something other than the truth. They've been a great outlet in focusing on data and research IMO, and I'd believe them to be less biased than the vast, vast majority of media outlets out there, simply due to the way that they approach their articles.


Being far from your priors isn't bias.

Having said that, I don't understand the X axis of the plot.
 
TheChocoboCadet said:
Alright PoliGAF I'm normally a lurker, but today I call for your help.

I just won a Facebook avatar bet against my fiancee and I get control of her profile pic for a week. She's one of the least political people out there, but seeing as something as big as the New York primary is coming up, I was thinking an icon showing her love for the Queen would be most appropriate. You're all a humorous bunch! Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated :)
Click to expand...
You have anything in particular in mind, like a specific photo or slogan?
 
It's worth reading the article.

It explains the limitations of the study, and how positive and negative language was encoded. It's a bit similar to the Gentzkow and Shapiro paper on media bias.


Edit: Aaaahhh, I understand the percentages now. They are the percentages of total articles analyzed: This means that, had they included articles coded as Neutral, it would sum up to 100%.

There were MUCH better ways to plot this, Vox.
 
Box of Kittens said:
I first saw that a couple of years ago and it absolutely blew my mind. You do the math and you realize that, yes, someone who was a child at the end of the Civil War would be in their 90s in 1956, but I think we tend to look at history in terms of discrete eras and "Civil War" and "television" sure seem to belong in different eras.

I was similarly surprised to learn a few years ago that John Tyler has living grandchildren.
Click to expand...
Yup.. His dad was one of the younger kids as he had like 12 kids I think. Lives in central va still I believe.

adam387 said:
My dad's mother received a Civil War pension until they day she died. Her father fought for the Union and somehow the pension passed on to her. She died in 1989.
Click to expand...
We are still paying out a pension from the civil war today.. Imagine that.
 
hawk2025 said:
It's worth reading the article.

It explains the limitations of the study, and how positive and negative language was encoded. It's a bit similar to the Gentzkow and Shapiro paper on media bias.


Edit: Aaaahhh, I understand the percentages now. They are the percentages of total articles analyzed: This means that, had they included articles coded as Neutral, it would sum up to 100%.

There were MUCH better ways to plot this, Vox.
Click to expand...

i was literally just about to post this, too!

reading through the vox article right now, laughing my ass off at the fact that a ha! good, man article is their "negative" example
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
Good New Music?
2
2K
bitbydeath replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT15| Orange is the New Black
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
The Technomancer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
PKrockin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT13| For Queen and Country
386 387 388 389 390
19K
2M
Magni replied
Top Bottom