• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down

Status
Not open for further replies.

explodet

Member
Here's another thing about the Daily Show: their guests this week were Marco Rubio, Herman Cain and Michael Steele, all GOP guys. If the show was just a lefty circle jerk, how could it get a guest list like that?

Stewart doesn't invite them on the show to squirt seltzer in their face with a lapel flower. He gives them a forum, treats them with respect (for the most part), and holds a debate.


I will say though, I didn't see Jon Stewart yelling "BULL-FUCKING-SHIT" into the camera last episode coming.
 
Got a question for you folks. Does Silver have any sort of variable in his methodology that accounts for money raised/financial capital in each respective campaign? Or does he sort of rely on polling to deduce spending advantages for each candidate?
 

Clevinger

Member
Got a question for you folks. Does Silver have any sort of variable in his methodology that accounts for money raised/financial capital in each respective campaign? Or does he sort of rely on polling to deduce spending advantages for each candidate?

Just polling and economic data, as far as I know.
 
The problem is when people tell me they actually watch it for news content I'm a little bothered. But once again I just don't find circle jerks to be entertaining generally. I also think there was a diversity of stories that were also non political back in the day. A great one is the story Colbert did that became the inspiration for Wigfield, it had nothing to do with leanings it was just funny. When those stories got overshadowed by a more politics first focus I think the show became less enjoyable. Like I said Colbert's works better because it's an explicit parody of shows like Bill O Reilly and that's been clear since day one, that was not the case with The Daily Show.

You're not concerned people are watching that for news, even if you know people who say they do. What they probably mean is, they watch it to catch up with the biggest or most absurd story in politics, sometimes current events. And regardless of the story, they do a better job than anyone else in the media at getting to the heart of the matter.

Characterizing it as a 'circle jerk' tells me that you really don't get it.
 
Here's another thing about the Daily Show: their guests this week were Marco Rubio, Herman Cain and Michael Steele, all GOP guys. If the show was just a lefty circle jerk, how could it get a guest list like that?

Stewart doesn't invite them on the show to squirt seltzer in their face with a lapel flower. He gives them a forum, treats them with respect (for the most part), and holds a debate.


I will say though, I didn't see Jon Stewart yelling "BULL-FUCKING-SHIT" into the camera last episode coming.

Steele pretty much is exiled from the RNC. Cain is comedy value. I will say with interview Stewart has always been respectful, I never said he wasn't. It doesnt change the overall circle jerk quality of the modern version of The Daily Show.
 
great article by major garrett of National Journal

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-election/the-confidence-game-20120822

CHICAGO—We could lose.”
That’s David Axelrod, President Obama’s chief reelection strategist, injecting an obligatory note of caution into what is in every other way a “there’s-no-way-we-can-lose” assessment of the campaign. From top to bottom, Obama’s team keeps this self-effacing qualifier around mostly for amusement, like a yo-yo, a balsa-wood airplane, or a paper-clip necklace.
Every campaign, of course, believes it’s going to win. Obama’s team, however, conveys such a visceral sense of self-confidence that even protestations to the contrary take on air of comically profane absurdity.
“I don’t want you to leave here thinking I’ve got my feet up on my f------ desk and I’m sanguine,” Axelrod says after a 51-minute interview in which he surveys the landscape and finds nothing but roses for Obama and thorns for GOP nominee Mitt Romney. “I’m not! I treat this as a struggle to the end, and we’re going to fight that way.”

Fight.

There is no end of fight in the Obama campaign. Pugilism has displaced post-partisanship. The president’s aides fastidiously remind every reporter who asks about the brass-knuckle campaign conducted so far that it spent $25 million on “positive” ads in May. Losing track of their own talking points, senior advisers then offer a surgical assessment of the political vivisection they performed on Romney on issues ranging from unreleased tax returns and Bain Capital to outsourcing and a Swiss bank account, wielding TV ads and attack lines in June, July, and August.

“They didn’t give people anything to grab on to, and they allowed us to define him before he could define himself,” Axelrod says of Romney. “And now they are playing catch-up. And now they are running bio ads. The summer is when candidates and races get defined. That’s why we made a strategic decision that it was better to muscle up in the summer. I can’t think of a presidential race determined by paid media after Labor Day.”

As to gravity, Obama’s team has begun preemptively making things look worse in its own polling. For at least two months, the campaign has detected a ripple in the data caused by a spike in voters identifying themselves as Democrats. The numbers that come back on self-identified Democrats don’t match, statistically, voter-registration rolls or historical patterns. This anomaly cropped up in public polls in August. Romney aides have taken careful note and don’t know what to make of it. They take comfort that Democratic voter registration from 2008 is down 800,000 while GOP registration is down less than a tenth of that. Independent registration in the same period is up 207,000. But what if independents are choosing to call themselves Democrats? What if Republicans are? What if people are lying? Obama’s analysts have decided to subtract at least 2 points from Obama’s support in every internal poll.

“We keep weighting our polls down,” Axelrod says. “This has been true of our national polling and state-by-state polling. We’re watching it. We don’t know what it means. We’re not willing to say this means there’s been some kind of conversion. But it certainly doesn’t mean there is a Republican wave.
It’s a real subject for investigation. There’s no doubt there’s a pattern out there. At the very least, it kind of militates against their theory that there’s a big wave coming and the wave is going to move in their direction. There is nothing in the data that would suggest that.”
 
You're not concerned people are watching that for news, even if you know people who say they do.
Yes I am


What they probably mean is, they watch it to catch up with the biggest or most absurd story in politics, sometimes current events.
No they don't.

And regardless of the story, they do a better job than anyone else in the media at getting to the heart of the matter.


Another example of the its not real news but it's better than the news syndrome. So is it a comedy show or news source...or both?
 
Steele pretty much is exiled from the RNC. Cain is comedy value. I will say with interview Stewart has always been respectful, I never said he wasn't. It doesnt change the overall circle jerk quality of the modern version of The Daily Show.

Steele was actually awesome this week. I love his whole shtick now. He despises the RNC :lol
 

Owzers

Member
The Daily Show isn't a 24 hour network devoted to the news, it's 15 minutes devoted to an opening and either a secondary topic or one of their wacky correspondent things along with an interview. To say it's just a "circle jerk" for taking 5 minutes to cover whatever slice of news stands out the most from a day to day basis that they can also get laughs out of is ridiculous. It's not a circle jerk to make a concise point and show some tape to support it. It's not a circle jerk to call someone out for flat out lying. Circle jerks are Hannity's Great Great Great American Panel. Fox's entire "The Five" show. Some of The Ed Show and Al Sharpton's show when they stray from an actual event/topic and settle into a 3 person liberal panel talking about how much the right hates Unions. But there isn't a fair and balanced stamp at the bottom left of the screen in the Daily Show and then proceed to fill 45 minutes worth of content telling people who terrible Obama and all democrats are while hiding the craziness and lies that are coming out of the republican party.
 
The Daily Show isn't a 24 hour network devoted to the news, it's 15 minutes devoted to an opening and either a secondary topic or one of their wacky correspondent things along with an interview. To say it's just a "circle jerk" for taking 5 minutes to cover whatever slice of news stands out the most from a day to day basis that they can also get laughs out of is ridiculous. It's not a circle jerk to make a concise point and show some tape to support it. It's not a circle jerk to call someone out for flat out lying. Circle jerks are Hannity's Great Great Great American Panel. Fox's entire "The Five" show. Some of The Ed Show and Al Sharpton's show when they stray from an actual event/topic and settle into a 3 person liberal panel talking about how much the right hates Unions. But there isn't a fair and balanced stamp at the bottom left of the screen in the Daily Show and then proceed to fill 45 minutes worth of content telling people who terrible Obama and all democrats are while hiding the craziness and lies that are coming out of the republican party.
It doesn't have to be 24 hours or have a stamp at the bottom of the screen.
 

pigeon

Banned
Got a question for you folks. Does Silver have any sort of variable in his methodology that accounts for money raised/financial capital in each respective campaign? Or does he sort of rely on polling to deduce spending advantages for each candidate?

You've gotta rely on polling. Money is meaningless by itself -- it's only valuable inasmuch as it turns into ads and events, and those are only valuable inasmuch as they translate into voters. Romney could have more money than God, but if he spent it all in California, it wouldn't gain him even one electoral vote. So you can only measure the impact of money by the polls.
 

Romney Privately Wondering How In The Name Of Fuck He’s Going To Appeal To Asian Voters

KuGsj.gif


Yeah, I was typing up a list of groups the GOP has alienated (blacks, scientists, latinos, gays, etc.) but I thought about Asians . . . well, I couldn't think of any big thing they've done to alienate them. I guess he's got a shot of getting their vote. But I think a lot of the Christian-centric social-engineering alienates probably many of them a bit.
 
I guess he's got a shot of getting their vote. But I think a lot of the Christian-centric social-engineering alienates probably many of them a bit.
Just from anecdotal evidence, but I get the impression that there are plenty of christian asians and especially the older generation might be voting for Republicans based on things like abortion etc.

Edit: Obviously this is a very small group of course though.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
I like Stewart, but let's not pretend there isn't just as much material that could be drawn from Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Holder, and Napolitano. TDS plays to their audience, however, and while we get the occasional jab at Obama or Biden, let's not be so deluded to think only Republicans provide material worth mocking.

I agree, the RNC convention was going on and that is where the material was this past week. Will the DNC convention be given as much ridicule? My guess is they will simply use lofty Democrat rhetoric and try to juxtapose it with something to ridicule Republicans. Maybe I'll be wrong.

Kosmo post.
 
The most logical expectation at this point is an electoral college rout by Obama, including winning Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. If Romney wins it'll be by a slim margin - there is no winning combination that doesn't include Florida (unless he wins PA, MI, WI? yeah ok).

That's also a boring prediction which is why pundits pretend it's close.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Potential ripple or wave? That occurred in the aftermath of Romney's disasterous foreign trip, and the Akin comments. Hmmm

It could just be that people were embarrassed by Romney's trip overseas and by Akin, in sort of the same way that a lot of Republicans started identifying themselves as independents. They don't want to be associated with the guy who espouses "legitimate rape" or the guy who insulted his way through a foreign trip. It doesn't mean they've changed their votes, just that they are embarrassed. Or it could be a legitimate shift in the electorate, we won't know for sure until November 7.
 

Owzers

Member
Goddamn Obama is good at speaking. He needs to get like this while he's actually in office...

maybe Romney can get the clip of Obama saying " The economy is doing bad and it's all Obama's fault" and make that his next attack ad. Not only is the economy all Obama's fault, but Obama talks in the third person too! Must be all that rage in his heart.
 
heh Drudge is just straight up making up Gallup numbers at this point.

Which is curious, I know the polling for preference is a 7 day average, but we should have seen a little movement on that by now for a bounce, yeah?
 
It could just be that people were embarrassed by Romney's trip overseas and by Akin, in sort of the same way that a lot of Republicans started identifying themselves as independents. They don't want to be associated with the guy who espouses "legitimate rape" or the guy who insulted his way through a foreign trip. It doesn't mean they've changed their votes, just that they are embarrassed. Or it could be a legitimate shift in the electorate, we won't know for sure until November 7.
More people identifying themselves as independents over Republican is good for Democrats - I don't expect a lot of them would change their positions (and voting habits by extension) drastically, but it would open them to possibly voting for a Democrat if the Republican is terrible, as is Mitt Romney or Todd Akin.

StopMakingSense said:
I get it was just misread and posted hastily, but going by twitter its been wrong for a few hours. Just weird.
It still has Romney ahead on their home page.
 

Jackson50

Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOta-YKoGS0&feature=g-all-lsb

Live Stream from Obama's speech in Des Moines is coming up soon.
He's still running from his record.
Got a question for you folks. Does Silver have any sort of variable in his methodology that accounts for money raised/financial capital in each respective campaign? Or does he sort of rely on polling to deduce spending advantages for each candidate?
To the extent that money matters, it's reflected in the polls. The only reason to include a fundraising variable is if the polls fail to account for its effect. And although it's plausible that a money advantage exerts a lagged effect, quantifying the effect is intractably difficult.
 
Drudge still has Romney up 1 on their homepage.

Yes. I know. n/m lol

I really didn't care that much about the error, I was more interested in the question on whether or not we should have seen a bump from the convention by now in the gallup poll, given their seven-day average.
 
via Kos to WP, Virginia does Voter ID the RIGHT way

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...6d609f6-eb2a-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_blog.html

Until the law was changed this year, voters had to present a voter registration card, Social Security card, driver’s license, government-issued identification or photo ID from a private workplace. The new law expands that list to also include utility bills, paychecks, bank statements, government checks or a current Virginia college ID.

When signing the legislation, McDonnell also issued an executive order requiring that every active voter in the state be sent a new voter card.

Good on McDonnell for that executive order and good on VA State representatives for expanding the list of acceptable IDs while they wanted to make sure everybody presented some form of ID.

And this is why the Right is not celebrating the VA law.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
via Kos to WP, Virginia does Voter ID the RIGHT way

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...6d609f6-eb2a-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_blog.html



Good on McDonnell for that executive order and good on VA State representatives for expanding the list of acceptable IDs while they wanted to make sure everybody presented some form of ID.

And this is why the Right is not celebrating the VA law.

That's pretty much how it works in New York, except you only have to show one of those things the first time you go vote in a precinct (basically if you move you have to prove you moved to a new area).
 

RDreamer

Member
via Kos to WP, Virginia does Voter ID the RIGHT way

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...6d609f6-eb2a-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_blog.html



Good on McDonnell for that executive order and good on VA State representatives for expanding the list of acceptable IDs while they wanted to make sure everybody presented some form of ID.

And this is why the Right is not celebrating the VA law.

Seems like a decent law, and I don't really mind this kind of thing as long as it's advertised decently enough so as to let people know things have changed so close to an election. But, yeah, these are the same sorts of things you need to register to vote around here.
 

Jackson50

Member
via Kos to WP, Virginia does Voter ID the RIGHT way

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...6d609f6-eb2a-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_blog.html



Good on McDonnell for that executive order and good on VA State representatives for expanding the list of acceptable IDs while they wanted to make sure everybody presented some form of ID.

And this is why the Right is not celebrating the VA law.
It's voter ID the RIGHT'S way, sure. It's not as blatant as the other voter restriction laws. But the previous system was fine.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
It's voter ID the RIGHT'S way, sure. It's not as blatant as the other voter restriction laws. But the previous system was fine.

Pretty much, if there was an actual problem with voting fraud, then this would be a method that I might approve of.

Key point being, "If there was an actual problem".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom