• 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 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
I remember when Chuck Todd was Chuck God in the 2008 primary season because iirc he was one of the first pundits to show that Obama had a huge advantage in the primary race even though the individual votes were fairly close. After that he seems to have just become another hack pundit.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
So who isnt a hack?? I will be following Sabato and Silver next year. Todd overblows his analysis too much for me to take seriously anymore. Same goes for Halperin. His partner John Heilmann is a lot more tame in his analysis.

The only thing I am looking forward from Todd now is Election Night Analysis and the "Magic Wall". I will probably watch his new show however. I enjoyed the Daily Rundown
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
kingkitty said:
I will be following Dick Morris.
Click to expand...
God yes.
FoxNews-DickMorris.png
Click to expand...

My coworkers saw this map in 2012 and downright panicked. I had to assure them repeatedly through the rest of the election that Obama was a sure winner. I hope that Dick entertains us again next year, hell yes!
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
HylianTom said:
God yes.


My coworkers saw this map in 2012 and downright panicked. I had to assure them repeatedly through the rest of the election that Obama was a sure winner. I hope that Dick entertains us again next year, hell yes!
Click to expand...

LOL...I still find the fact he thought Pennsylvania would go Romney hilarious.
 
D

dramatis

Member
Rubenov said:
Of course, she wants to win after all. I can't trust her character or intentions though. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Sooooo...When Obama was running for president, he didn't want to win? I'm pretty sure he wanted to win. So why could you trust the character and intentions of someone who wants to win? How could you ever trust the character and intentions of anyone who runs for political office then?

More weirdly, why would you want to vote for someone who doesn't want to win? Why would you want to vote for someone who doesn't want to be president? Would you hire a plumber that doesn't want to be a plumber to fix your toilet?

Rubenov said:
Because to me, she seems more bent in making history / becoming the first woman President than actually governing. Also, I genrally mistrust those that focus in one segment or aspect. I prefer candidates who try to be as inclusive as possible.
Click to expand...
Since the start of Hillary's campaign, she has talked about: 1) voting rights, 2) race issue/criminal justice, 3) equal pay, 4) immigration reform, 5) climate change, 6) economics, with some specific plans pushed. And these weren't lip service to interviews or something, these were talked about in long speeches.

Well, I guess she hasn't talked about foreign policy yet, so she clearly focused too much on one segment or aspect.


The complaints about Hillary always seem to stem from distrust. It's fine to admit that you just don't like a candidate. Don't come up with false excuses.

It's also extra unpleasant when the first complaint you leveled against Hillary was "feminism".
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
If anything, the three major policy through lines you can see through Hillary's career are health care, middle class growth, and women's rights. If we go back to the 90s, she lost almost all of his public goodwill on healthcare alone. To say that she doesn't care about any of these issues besides "being the first woman president" is ridiculously silly.

She wants to be president. Jeb Bush wants to be president. Marco Rubio wants to be president. Bernie Sanders wants to be president. Hell, every single sitting Senator probably has flirted with the idea. Who cares?
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
NeoXChaos said:
So who isnt a hack?? I will be following Sabato and Silver next year. Todd overblows his analysis too much for me to take seriously anymore. Same goes for Halperin. His partner John Heilmann is a lot more tame in his analysis.

The only thing I am looking forward from Todd now is Election Night Analysis and the "Magic Wall". I will probably watch his new show however. I enjoyed the Daily Rundown
Click to expand...

I built a twitter list for supplimenting Real Clear Politics, Huffington Post, or Wikipedia's poll agregators when following the horse races. AP's Nick Riccardi (@NickRiccardi) and WP's Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) are both great too, but tweet out non-election stuff far too often.

I was too hard on Cillizza in 2014. Guy followed fundamentals, I criticized him for it and followed polls instead, and the polls killed me while proving him right. Not completely dismissing fundamentals is one of the big lessons learned from 2014.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Oh.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/updates/2015/07/30/letter-to-nyt/

Letter to the New York Times’ Dean Baquet
Dean Baquet
Executive Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, New York

July 28, 2015

Dear Mr. Baquet:

I am writing to officially register our campaign’s grave concern with the Times' publication of an inaccurate report related to Hillary Clinton and her email use.

I appreciate the fact that both you and the Public Editor have sought to publicly explain how this error could have been made. But we remain perplexed by the Times' slowness to acknowledge its errors after the fact, and some of the shaky justifications that Times' editors have made. We feel it important to outline these concerns with you directly so that they may be properly addressed and so our campaign can continue to have a productive working relationship with the Times.

I feel obliged to put into context just how egregious an error this story was. The New York Times is arguably the most important news outlet in the world and it rushed to put an erroneous story on the front page charging that a major candidate for President of the United States was the target of a criminal referral to federal law enforcement. Literally hundreds of outlets followed your story, creating a firestorm that had a deep impact that cannot be unwound. This problem was compounded by the fact that the Times took an inexplicable, let alone indefensible, delay in correcting the story and removing "criminal" from the headline and text of the story.

To review the facts, as the Times itself has acknowledged through multiple corrections, the paper's reporting was false in several key respects: first, contrary to what the Times stated, Mrs. Clinton is not the target of a criminal referral made by the State Department’s and Intelligence Community's Inspectors General, and second, the referral in question was not of a criminal nature at all.

Just as disturbing as the errors themselves is the Times' apparent abandonment of standard journalistic practices in the course of its reporting on this story.

**First, the seriousness of the allegations that the Times rushed to report last Thursday evening demanded far more care and due diligence than the Times exhibited prior to this article's publication.**
The Times' readers rightfully expect the paper to adhere to the most rigorous journalistic standards. To state the obvious, it is hard to imagine a situation more fitting for those standards to be applied than when a newspaper is preparing to allege that a major party candidate for President of the United States is the target of a criminal referral received by federal law enforcement.

This allegation, however, was reported hastily and without affording the campaign adequate opportunity to respond. It was not even mentioned by your reporter when our campaign was first contacted late Thursday afternoon. Initially, it was stated as reporting only on a memo – provided to Congress by the Inspectors General from the State Department and Intelligence Community – that raised the possibility of classified material traversing Secretary Clinton's email system. This memo — which was subsequently released publicly — did not reference a criminal referral at all. It was not until late Thursday night – at 8:36 pm – that your paper hurriedly followed up with our staff to explain that it had received a separate tip that the Inspectors General had additionally made a criminal referral to the Justice Department concerning Clinton's email use. Our staff indicated that we had no knowledge of any such referral – understandably, of course, since none actually existed – and further indicated that, for a variety of reasons, the reporter's allegation seemed implausible. Our campaign declined any immediate comment, but asked for additional time to attempt to investigate the allegation raised. In response, it was indicated that the campaign "had time," suggesting the publication of the report was not imminent.

Despite the late hour, our campaign quickly conferred and confirmed that we had no knowledge whatsoever of any criminal referral involving the Secretary. At 10:36 pm, our staff attempted to reach your reporters on the phone to reiterate this fact and ensure the paper would not be going forward with any such report. There was no answer. At 10:54 pm, our staff again attempted calling. Again, no answer. Minutes later, we received a call back. We sought to confirm that no story was imminent and were shocked at the reply: the story had just published on the Times' website.

This was, to put it mildly, an egregious breach of the process that should occur when a major newspaper like the Times is pursuing a story of this magnitude. Not only did the Times fail to engage in a proper discussion with the campaign ahead of publication; given the exceedingly short window of time between when the Times received the tip and rushed to publish, it hardly seems possible that the Times conducted sufficient deliberations within its own ranks before going ahead with the story.

**Second, in its rush to publish what it clearly viewed as a major scoop, the Times relied on questionable sourcing and went ahead without bothering to seek corroborating evidence that could have supported its allegation.**
In our conversations with the Times reporters, it was clear that they had not personally reviewed the IG's referral that they falsely described as both criminal and focused on Hillary Clinton. Instead, they relied on unnamed sources that characterized the referral as such. However, it is not at all clear that those sources had directly seen the referral, either. This should have represented too many "degrees of separation" for any newspaper to consider it reliable sourcing, least of all The New York Times.

Times' editors have attempted to explain these errors by claiming the fault for the misreporting resided with a Justice Department official whom other news outlets cited as confirming the Times' report after the fact. This suggestion does not add up. It is our understanding that this Justice Department official was not the original source of the Times' tip. Moreover, notwithstanding the official's inaccurate characterization of the referral as criminal in nature, this official does not appear to have told the Times that Mrs. Clinton was the target of that referral, as the paper falsely reported in its original story.

This raises the question of what other sources the Times may have relied on for its initial report. It clearly was not either of the referring officials – that is, the Inspectors General of either the State Department or intelligence agencies – since the Times' sources apparently lacked firsthand knowledge of the referral documents. It also seems unlikely the source could have been anyone affiliated with those offices, as it defies logic that anyone so closely involved could have so severely garbled the description of the referral.

Of course, the identity of the Times' sources would be deserving of far less scrutiny if the underlying information had been confirmed as true. However, the Times appears to have performed little, if any, work to corroborate the accuracy of its sources' characterizations of the IG's referral. Key details went uninvestigated in the Times' race to publish these erroneous allegations against Mrs. Clinton. For instance, high in the Times' initial story, the reporters acknowledged they had no knowledge of whether or not the documents that the Times claimed were mishandled by Mrs. Clinton contained any classified markings. In Mrs. Clinton's case, none of the emails at issue were marked. This fact was quickly acknowledged by the IC inspector general’s office within hours of the Times' report, but it was somehow left unaddressed in the initial story.

**Even after the Times' reporting was revealed to be false, the Times incomprehensibly delayed the issuance of a full and true correction.**
Our campaign first sought changes from the Times as soon as the initial story was published. Recognizing the implausibility that Mrs. Clinton herself could be the subject of any criminal probe, we immediately challenged the story's opening line, which said the referral sought an investigation into Mrs. Clinton specifically for the mishandling of classified materials. In response, the Times' reporters admitted that they themselves had never seen the IG's referral, and so acknowledged the possibility that the paper was overstating what it directly knew when it portrayed the potential investigation as centering on Mrs. Clinton. It corrected the lead sentence accordingly.

The speed with which the Times conceded that it could not defend its lead citing Mrs. Clinton as the referral's target raises questions about what inspired its confidence in the first place to frame the story that way. More importantly, the Times' change was not denoted in the form of a correction. Rather, it was performed quietly, overnight, without any accompanying note to readers. This was troubling in its lack of transparency and risks causing the Times to appear like it is trying to whitewash its misreporting. A correction should have been posted promptly that night.

Regardless, even after this change, a second error remained in the story: the characterization of the referral as criminal at all. By Friday morning, multiple members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (who had been briefed by the Inspectors General) challenged this portrayal—and ultimately, so did the Department of Justice itself. Only then did the Times finally print a correction acknowledging its misstatement of the nature of the referral to the Justice Department.

Of course, the correction, coming as it did on a Friday afternoon, was destined to reach a fraction of those who read the Times' original, erroneous report. As the Huffington Post observed:

"…it's unlikely that the same audience will see the updated version unless the paper were to send out a second breaking news email with its latest revisions. The Clinton story also appeared [on] the front page of Friday's print edition."
Most maddening of all, even after the correction fixed the description of the referral within the story, a headline remained on the front page of the Times' website that read, “Criminal Inquiry is Sought in Clinton Email Account." It was not until even later in the evening that the word "criminal" was finally dropped from the headline and an updated correction was issued to the story. The lateness of this second correction, however, prevented it from appearing in the paper the following morning. We simply do not understand how that was allowed to occur.

**Lastly, the Times' official explanations for the misreporting is profoundly unsettling.**
In a statement to the Times' public editor, you said that the errors in the Times' story Thursday night were "unavoidable." This is hard to accept. As noted above, the Justice Department official that incorrectly confirmed the Times' initial reports for other outlets does not appear to have been the initial source for the Times. Moreover, it is precisely because some individuals may provide erroneous information that it is important for the Times to sift the good information from the bad, and where there is doubt, insist on additional evidence. The Times was under no obligation to go forward on a story containing such explosive allegations coming only from sources who refused to be named. If nothing else, the Times could have allowed the campaign more time to understand the allegation being engaged. Unfortunately, the Times chose to take none of these steps.

In closing, I wish to emphasize our genuine wish to have a constructive relationship with The New York Times. But we also are extremely troubled by the events that went into this erroneous report, and will be looking forward to discussing our concerns related to this incident so we can have confidence that it is not repeated in the future.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Palmieri
Communications Director
Hillary for America

Cc: Margaret Sullivan,
Public Editor
New York Times
Click to expand...
 
P

pigeon

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
Oh.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/updates/2015/07/30/letter-to-nyt/
Click to expand...

Interesting choice to go after the Times so aggressively. I wonder if this story moved internal polls. Also interesting to indirectly admit that they hunted down and grilled the Justice official who was the NYT's second source (especially since I doubt Hillary's campaign could do that so quickly without help from the White House).

It definitely seems like this story was treated exceptionally poorly by the Times, and I am actually surprised by it. What's the point of even having a liberal media if shit like this happens?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Further evidence of Hillary's frustration on this issue: Vox just published a story which is two paragraphs of background followed by reprinting the letter in its entirety and without further comment. Hitting those media outlets hard!
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
pigeon said:
Further evidence of Hillary's frustration on this issue: Vox just published a story which is two paragraphs of background followed by reprinting the letter in its entirety and without further comment. Hitting those media outlets hard!
Click to expand...

She doesn't even get the page views! Thanks, Vox.
 
A

adamsappel

Member
watershed said:
The issue with the house is that no compromise interests them. They are against raising the minimum wage flat out and many are against the existence of the minimum wage at all. I'm not down on Murray's proposal but I would rather Hillary be for $15 like virtually every democrat is, instead of compromising from the start.
Click to expand...
Even as big a shit-show as minimum wage threads are, you usually find people saying, "$15 is outrageous! I could support $10, but $15?" Going for $12 might make her seem more reasonable to the people who won't support $15.
 
T

Trouble

Banned
adamsappel said:
Even as big a shit-show as minimum wage threads are, you usually find people saying, "$15 is outrageous! I could support $10, but $15?" Going for $12 might make her seem more reasonable to the people who won't support $15.
Click to expand...

Yep, there's a ton of political calculation in that $12 number.
 
M

Maledict

Member
pigeon said:
Interesting choice to go after the Times so aggressively. I wonder if this story moved internal polls. Also interesting to indirectly admit that they hunted down and grilled the Justice official who was the NYT's second source (especially since I doubt Hillary's campaign could do that so quickly without help from the White House).

It definitely seems like this story was treated exceptionally poorly by the Times, and I am actually surprised by it. What's the point of even having a liberal media if shit like this happens?
Click to expand...

Hillary has a very, very bad relationship with the Times going back to the 2008 campaign. They were the paper that (after huge amounts of digging and waiting) ran a big story about her and Bills marriage, about how it was fake etc etc. They didn't have the sources for it and ended up looking incredibly stupid, but it pissed the Clintons off no end. Don't also forget Maureen Dowd's column where she went to town on Clinton and how they were hated by many liberals. The Times has a bad record when it comes to the Clintons.

Also, I think people are forgetting how the 2008 primary went down. Obama won because he had better organisation, and inspired people. Clinton had a much stronger mastery of policy and detail than he did - through the debates he was critisced, whereas she generally performed very well (barring the one debate where the taxi driver license issue came up). Hilary has *always* had a great grasp of policy and detail - it's what she does. Her healthcare proposals were far better than Obama's during the primary.

(Disclosure - I was absolutely wishing Obama to win in the primary season, not Hillary!).
 
F

Farmboy

Member
Yes, Hillary was very good in the debates and not at all bad on the stump (except when compared to the amazing ability of Obama and her husband). She would have crushed both McCain and Romney (who really was supremely awkward, as watching the Daily Show Month of Zen reminded me).

Still, her opponents will paint her as an out-of-touch career pol who will do or say anything to win. And some of it will stick, as it's not completely inaccurate.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
NYCmetsfan said:
CLLe_7TUwAAuhnG.jpg:large


Its so transparent the anti-abortion movement is about punishing sex
Click to expand...

"Millions" of babies? Planned Parenthood much be a fucking enormous business if they can manage to do millions of abortions a year with only 3% of their resources. Dat efficiency. HIllary should appoint Cecile Richards as fed chairwoman.

dramatis said:
Perry's apparently actually talking about policy.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/30/907234...out-a-surprisingly-progressive-agenda-on-wall
Click to expand...

One of the greatest ironies of the 2008 crash is that Texas was relatively unscathed, thanks to, ironically and hilariously enough, strong regulations on housing and banking (which I still don't understand how they were in place under Perry's watch).
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
pigeon said:
Interesting choice to go after the Times so aggressively. I wonder if this story moved internal polls. Also interesting to indirectly admit that they hunted down and grilled the Justice official who was the NYT's second source (especially since I doubt Hillary's campaign could do that so quickly without help from the White House).

It definitely seems like this story was treated exceptionally poorly by the Times, and I am actually surprised by it. What's the point of even having a liberal media if shit like this happens?
Click to expand...

Diablos said:
This hurt Hillary, no doubt. They're worried.
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure this has anything to do with it hurting her but more a warning and an attempt to prevent a more damaging misreporting of future stories.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Farmboy said:
Yes, Hillary was very good in the debates and not at all bad on the stump (except when compared to the amazing ability of Obama and her husband). She would have crushed both McCain and Romney (who really was supremely awkward, as watching the Daily Show Month of Zen reminded me).

Still, her opponents will paint her as an out-of-touch career pol who will do or say anything to win. And some of it will stick, as it's not completely inaccurate.
Click to expand...
No, Romney was charismatic as heck! He just needed to be himself more on the campaign trail!
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Scott Walker should say yes. You know Bush will say no, the goal should be to outflank him whenever possible - as long as it's not too ridiculous. No one will remember this in a few months except for republicans, which is what matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom