Officerrob
Banned
Is Nate Silver bored?
PPP twitter just retweeted this gem:
PPP twitter just retweeted this gem:
-
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
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
This got a chuckle out of me. Heh
It might if that was accompanied by a full identity change, facial reconstruction surgery etc.
Romney has always trailed "generic republican" in the polls. Becoming "generic republican" and then just staying off the campaign trail and not saying anything would probably give him a better shot at this point.
NullPointer
Member
If Romney legally changed his name to "Generic Republican" how much of a boost you think he'd get in the polls?
Were I Mitt Romney I'd honestly consider it.
None, he is a generic Republican.
There's going to be so much internet angst, I had to make a thread.
Either the Unskewed Polls guy really offends him, or he's seen a big bump in troll tweets/emails/comments since he hit it big, because he's been tweeting about Mr. Chambers all day.
These people should be pissed at Romney for being such a weak, gaffe prone nominee and running an inept campaign. The polls are just a reflection of his deep flaws and numerous campaign mistakes.
Like the Atlanta mayor said on MTP, Romney's a defective candidate that's like a NASCAR driver that slams into the wall every time he gets into the race.
Meh, the dude is a monarch whose line were given this country because they helped the British in World War I (see: Lawrence of Arabia) even though they're not really from Jordan.
Sure, being a prince, he was sent to Oxford and he knows how to talk like a white man, but don't forget who he is and what he is.
Much like Syria, it's an ethnic minority that controls a country.
Unlike Syria, Jordan always looked for the west for support, and as such, they weren't villified as much.
Now to be fair, as dictators goes, he's a pretty decent one, not nearlly as brutal as Assad, but he wasn't tested in a while.
He isn't though.
"generic republican" evokes a set of assumed positions in the mind of the individual voter, even if those can't be reconciled against the profile assumed by other individual voters.
Romney has said enough and been all over the map enough that he isn't meeting the expectations for what a generic republican should be.
Come now, don't act as though the media has no effect on how voters view politics, or on how politicians conduct themselves to appeal to fans of the narrative being spun by the media.
Ya know what, fine, I don't care, he's gonna lose either way.
Black Mamba
Member
oh man, the O'Reilly interview with Kasich was hilarious.
O'Reilly kept going "I just don't understand how Obama is doing well in Ohio when you've done so well there! They voted in a republican for governor, why wouldn't they put one for President?"
lol.
Oh Dick Morris is up next. yay!
O'Reilly kept going "I just don't understand how Obama is doing well in Ohio when you've done so well there! They voted in a republican for governor, why wouldn't they put one for President?"
lol.
Oh Dick Morris is up next. yay!
PhoenixDark
Banned
Maybe he likes Mr Chambers, and this is like a middle school-esque way of expressing it. Like a guy who tramples a girl's flower garden because he can't just say "Hi I like you."
This analysis ignores decades of Republicans blasting the media for not being in their pocket and consequentially retreating into their own party-approved information bubble.
Yes, that's why the Republicans took up the Southern Strategy -- because of how well it played on CBS News.
You have the cause and effect completely backwards here. Politicians have been pandering since before the media existed. The media's stuck with the things they say and the information they want put out -- and now, more than ever, the politicians can shape the narrative in such a way that the media will suffer pushback if it doesn't go along with them.
Black Mamba
Member
lol, Dick Morris alleging the fix is in.
O'Reilly refuses to mention the Fox News Polling.
"you can't poll how many blacks are going to vote." loldickmorris
O'Reilly refuses to mention the Fox News Polling.
"you can't poll how many blacks are going to vote." loldickmorris
StopMakingSense
Member
I don't know if I can take 40 days of this.
What, people liveblogging cable news? I know the feel.
RustyNails
Member
Why Dick Morris is in the business of polling is universe's greatest mysteries. Go be a train conductor, unicyclist, or a cattle puncher. Leave polling to fucking statisticians.
Republicans have been masterful with setting the media narrative over the last four years, with everyone in the party in lockstep, and repeating the same catch phrases over and over.
Only recently (like in the past few weeks) is the mass media making the effort to do the research and finding the balls to call people out. Even then, such instances seem sporadic, perhaps opportunistic on the back of the swing of the election, and it wouldn't surprise me if this was just a fleeting minor foray into quality journalism which will just collapse back into parroting party talking points post election.
If you'll notice, I did not limit myself to cable news (almost did, though, as it has exacerbated the problem). Newspapers have been around since the beginning of U.S. politics.
The Right's bashing of MSNBC is seriously so god damn ironic. It's like the Left finally figured out what the Right was doing, and copied it, and the Right is determined to tear it down because it realizes how dangerous it is.
When the only options were Total Right Wing Propaganda and Center based CNN, they drove the narrative because Jon Stewart was the only guy counter programming an entire network.
Now there's another network that basically fights 24/7 to refute or fact check, or counter, or flat out insult every single position that Fox takes on any issue that they're losing their foothold.
While it's making our country more partisan, it's also making Fox News less powerful I would argue and as a result, it's a good thing.
As for CNN, their problem is, in an effort to be truly fair and biased, they are too scared to call out real BS from either side, so they just seem soft.
As for the hyper partisanship, while I think the media is partly to blame, I look at what happened in this country in the south after the end of the civil war and a few years of Reconstruction. By the early 20th century, the right had veered so far to the right because African Americans were winning government positions and gaining some power that they instituted Jim Crow, Poll Taxes, Literacy Tests, and all sorts of other voter suppression, flat out racist tactics in an effort to regain total control. The First Black President was inevitably going to bring about the same result as, without a doubt, 80% of conservatives are racist bigots.
When the only options were Total Right Wing Propaganda and Center based CNN, they drove the narrative because Jon Stewart was the only guy counter programming an entire network.
Now there's another network that basically fights 24/7 to refute or fact check, or counter, or flat out insult every single position that Fox takes on any issue that they're losing their foothold.
While it's making our country more partisan, it's also making Fox News less powerful I would argue and as a result, it's a good thing.
As for CNN, their problem is, in an effort to be truly fair and biased, they are too scared to call out real BS from either side, so they just seem soft.
As for the hyper partisanship, while I think the media is partly to blame, I look at what happened in this country in the south after the end of the civil war and a few years of Reconstruction. By the early 20th century, the right had veered so far to the right because African Americans were winning government positions and gaining some power that they instituted Jim Crow, Poll Taxes, Literacy Tests, and all sorts of other voter suppression, flat out racist tactics in an effort to regain total control. The First Black President was inevitably going to bring about the same result as, without a doubt, 80% of conservatives are racist bigots.
I like CNN the best because it isn't bias, but unfortunately they are way too afraid of calling out either side in order to maintain neutrality.
The unbiased neutral station should be the one that aggressively fact checks both sides and holds everyone accountable, not the one that lets both sides say whatever they want unchallenged.
The unbiased neutral station should be the one that aggressively fact checks both sides and holds everyone accountable, not the one that lets both sides say whatever they want unchallenged.
Politicians have been pandering since before paper, let alone newspapers. I didn't limit myself to America! Remember Cleon? They've always used the media as a tool, too.
I'm probably too optimistic, but I'm hoping the media is finally waking up to the realities of the post-social media age. Television towers and printing presses cost money; bloggers are way cheaper, and offer analysis too. If they want to compete for eyes and for cash, the traditional media outlets need to offer something the average blogger can't. I'm hoping that's research and fact-checking.
We're way past that, we're now down to discussing random people's facebook pages.
We already had twitter fueds.
Next stage, getting into violent political arguments in youtube's comments section.
This is a complete misread of the situation.
It's politicians who have an incentive to cast politics in good vs evil terms, because nothing motivates like the prospect of a thousand years of socialist darkness (and politicians have been trying to get their supporters to look at things in good vs evil terms for a long, long, long time).
The mainstream media has actually been incredibly slow to follow along, and to this day hasn't really bought into that. Even Fox is still officially "fair and balanced", and doesn't want to proclaim itself publicly for one side. Everybody else has only very, very recently shown signs of departing from totally non-judgmental he-said-she-said reporting.
It's the democratization of communication that has allowed the shift. You don't need a whole lot of money to get started in talk radio, and all you have to do is say things people want to hear. Websites are basically free to set up, but if you've got content people like, you can hit it big. There's an alternative media which is very invested in politics as good vs evil, but the only reason there can be such an alternative is that lots and lots of people were thirsting for this kind of narrative. And it's primarily politicians who are responsible for creating that demand.
despite cnn's primetime problems, the cable company is doing more than fine. better than fox or msnbc when it comes to profit and viewership, thanks to its worldwide presence. it's neutrality is actually a huge selling point. think about it, what news channel is most likely going to be on a loop at hospitals, or at any other waiting room?
having said that, all three are terrible and people should just stop watching. i pretty much gave up on cable news late in 2008 and haven't felt better.
Ugh CNN is the worst. Just nodding along allowing whatever party to spout the crap is not journalism.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Already posted once in this thread but it feels appropriate
UnSkewed!
UnSkewed!
There was a story shortly before the 2008 election where Obama visited a military base in Iraq or Afghanistan, and when he saw Fox News on the TVs there, he asked if the Commander-in-Chief gets to decide which cable news channel they show at military bases. If so, it would be interesting if that's changed in the last 4 years.
TheHeretic
Banned
One look at the modern electoral college tells you cultural identity and civil war dividing lines are an enormous part of modern politics. Democratic politics reflects society much better than people are willing to recognise, you get what you deserve.
Even though I lean left, I can barely stomach anything on MSNBC outside of Morning Joe these days cos there's too much Dem cheerleading. However, there is NO WAY they are as bad as Fox. They revel in GOP misfortune but I rarely see them making things up or skewing stats to fit an agenda.
Also, you don't really see Obama going on there because I'm sure he feels uncomfortable with it. The last interview I remember him doing with MSNBC was with Maddow years ago and even though she's obviously a supporter, she didn't just lob him softballs all day. Bush/McCain/Romney are/were on Fox every other week.
All that said, MSNBC will never be as successful as Fox even if they become a total mouthpiece for Dems. Why? Cos most Democrats/Liberals want to hear different points of view.
Also, you don't really see Obama going on there because I'm sure he feels uncomfortable with it. The last interview I remember him doing with MSNBC was with Maddow years ago and even though she's obviously a supporter, she didn't just lob him softballs all day. Bush/McCain/Romney are/were on Fox every other week.
All that said, MSNBC will never be as successful as Fox even if they become a total mouthpiece for Dems. Why? Cos most Democrats/Liberals want to hear different points of view.
It is possible extreme partisanship crumbles if the Republican party implodes post election and many of their talking points are exposed.
Beyond that, to be honest, looking from the outside the US political system just seems fundamentally broken. The electoral college system, elections happening constantly, district gerrymandering etc all have politicians constantly focused on re-election more than actually getting anything done. That sees them pandering to special interest groups as well as failing to take bold stands on policy.
Sweeping electoral reform is probably needed before politicians actually start doing their jobs properly. Throw filibuster reform in there too while you are at it.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Which is why you don't vote for the Masshole who enacted an Assualt weapon ban. Stupid douchebag Romney.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Heaven forbid we are allowed to make are own choices and conclusions.
I actually think this is worse than the influx of money in politics.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I don't think we need to go over this, but not everything is an opinion.
And when you are dealing with an issue over facts, the news media should step in.
When dealing with a disagreement over an opinion, the news media should step out.
That too
\/
Bullshit must be called out and confronted. A guy like Tim Russert allowed the viewer to make their own choices only after challenging the interviewee
Aaron Strife
Banned
When Romney drums up false charges against Obama (like the welfare attack) I think it's intellectually lazy for reporters to just be like "Well gee, Romney says Obama's gutting welfare reform and Clinton says he's not! We report you decide!" and leave it at that. If something is objectively false they should make a point of saying so.
Part of that is being given enough information to actually do so. Spin vs spin leaves people lost in confirmation bias.
You don't allow someone to say 2+2=5 as fact. Factually false stuff should be called out on both sides. Heaven forbid we actually ask our media to do something.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll