|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States44392 Posts
On November 02 2016 01:20 oneofthem wrote:this is all debunked a few times. muh exit polls on repeat
But Brad put it on his blog. Brad wouldn't lie to us!
|
On November 02 2016 01:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 01:00 farvacola wrote:
When Ailes and Murdoch got high off of what CNN was smoking during the mid 90s, I think it's fair to say that CNN was relatively less biased than it is today and was overall a more even keel production; Crossfire, though a horrible show concept looking back, certainly did its part in giving both liberals and conservatives their air time, and the reporting focused on real time events, limiting the scope of any potential partisanry in presentation. Similarly, many TV media consumers still got most of their news from daily evening programs on main cable networks, and though Dan Rather is quite the public liberal nowadays, I think it's hard to dispute that folks like him and Peter Jennings were moderate in their reading of the evening news.
However, once Fox News started seeing returns on its "Fair & Balanced" and "Real Journalism" slogans during the early to mid 2000s, other media organizations tried to counter Fox's growing market share through imitating what was very clearly reporting that agreed with a particular worldview. Getting down to who exactly fired the first shot here doesn't seem very useful, and yes, the above doesn't address the other media trends manifest in print and internet forms, but I think the whole "the media at large is biased towards liberals" spiel requires a lot of disclaimer before it carries much weight. I have a different perspective. The rise of FNC's editorial board journalistic style aside, FNC (and other elements of conservative media -- ie talk radio) wasn't the first organization to jump into biased journalism so much as it was the first conservatively-biased new organization. As such, FNC polarized the debate, thereby showing and making obvious the liberal bias that was always there among the mainstream journalistic elements. The Drudgereport became a thing because it broke the Lewinsky story when the mainstream media sat on the story.
I guess, but it isn't exactly hard to come up with non-partisan reasons why mainstream media held onto a story like that while a no-namer basically staked his fame on it. Furthermore, it could also be argued that much of Bill Clinton's public success can be attributed to the washing that outlets like the NYT and CNN performed while reporting on his bipartisan agenda actions. Particularly when it came to welfare reform, you'd never have guessed that many liberals were incredibly pissed off by Bill's reach across the aisle if you only consumed mass media during that time.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 01:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 01:00 farvacola wrote:
When Ailes and Murdoch got high off of what CNN was smoking during the mid 90s, I think it's fair to say that CNN was relatively less biased than it is today and was overall a more even keel production; Crossfire, though a horrible show concept looking back, certainly did its part in giving both liberals and conservatives their air time, and the reporting focused on real time events, limiting the scope of any potential partisanry in presentation. Similarly, many TV media consumers still got most of their news from daily evening programs on main cable networks, and though Dan Rather is quite the public liberal nowadays, I think it's hard to dispute that folks like him and Peter Jennings were moderate in their reading of the evening news.
However, once Fox News started seeing returns on its "Fair & Balanced" and "Real Journalism" slogans during the early to mid 2000s, other media organizations tried to counter Fox's growing market share through imitating what was very clearly reporting that agreed with a particular worldview. Getting down to who exactly fired the first shot here doesn't seem very useful, and yes, the above doesn't address the other media trends manifest in print and internet forms, but I think the whole "the media at large is biased towards liberals" spiel requires a lot of disclaimer before it carries much weight. I have a different perspective. The rise of FNC's editorial board journalistic style aside, FNC (and other elements of conservative media -- ie talk radio) wasn't the first organization to jump into biased journalism so much as it was the first conservatively-biased new organization. As such, FNC polarized the debate, thereby showing and making obvious the liberal bias that was always there among the mainstream journalistic elements. The Drudgereport became a thing because it broke the Lewinsky story when the mainstream media sat on the story.
it's not really about fox news and whatnot. polarization is one thing, expanding how far the poles are going is another. ideologies that justify insurrection, see radical evil behind the social order, and so on develop independently of fox news. it's the expanding influence of internet and self created media by cranks.
the education of cranks is a blog/video by another crank. this is why terms like globalism and cuck are so prevalent. the narrative is that the monied elites(jews) selling out white america.
|
Give me a link for the refutations. I would like to have a look,
And no it's not only about exit polls. Although I have yet to see a plausible explanation for the exit poll discrepancy.
|
On November 02 2016 01:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 01:00 farvacola wrote:
When Ailes and Murdoch got high off of what CNN was smoking during the mid 90s, I think it's fair to say that CNN was relatively less biased than it is today and was overall a more even keel production; Crossfire, though a horrible show concept looking back, certainly did its part in giving both liberals and conservatives their air time, and the reporting focused on real time events, limiting the scope of any potential partisanry in presentation. Similarly, many TV media consumers still got most of their news from daily evening programs on main cable networks, and though Dan Rather is quite the public liberal nowadays, I think it's hard to dispute that folks like him and Peter Jennings were moderate in their reading of the evening news.
However, once Fox News started seeing returns on its "Fair & Balanced" and "Real Journalism" slogans during the early to mid 2000s, other media organizations tried to counter Fox's growing market share through imitating what was very clearly reporting that agreed with a particular worldview. Getting down to who exactly fired the first shot here doesn't seem very useful, and yes, the above doesn't address the other media trends manifest in print and internet forms, but I think the whole "the media at large is biased towards liberals" spiel requires a lot of disclaimer before it carries much weight. I have a different perspective. The rise of FNC's editorial board journalistic style aside, FNC (and other elements of conservative media -- ie talk radio) wasn't the first organization to jump into biased journalism so much as it was the first conservatively-biased new organization. As such, FNC polarized the debate, thereby showing and making obvious the liberal bias that was always there among the mainstream journalistic elements. The Drudgereport became a thing because it broke the Lewinsky story when the mainstream media sat on the story. I guess, but it isn't exactly hard to come up with non-partisan reasons why mainstream media held onto a story like that while a no-namer basically staked his fame on it. Furthermore, it could also be argued that much of Bill Clinton's public success can be attributed to the washing that outlets like the NYT and CNN performed while reporting on his bipartisan agenda actions. Particularly when it came to welfare reform, you'd never have guessed that many liberals were incredibly pissed off by Bill's reach across the aisle if you only consumed mass media during that time.
This is easy to explain. It's a bit of misnomer to call the mainstream media the "liberal" media. The better term is the "democratic party" media. Or the "establishment" media. These news organization were perfectly willing to whitewash Slick Willy's deviations from liberal orthodoxy (and his sexual deviations) because, at the end of the day, he was their guy and they wanted to preserve the symbiotic relationship that they had with him and his party. This is what's great about these email dumps from Wikileaks. They are showing exactly what conservatives have suspected all along.
|
On November 02 2016 01:26 Hagen0 wrote:
Give me a link for the refutations. I would like to have a look,
And no it's not only about exit polls. Although I have yet to see a plausible explanation for the exit poll discrepancy.
There's a very easy explanation for exit poll discrepancies, which is sampling bias. If people are more enthusiastic about candidate A than candidate B, they are probably more likely to be willing to participate in an exit poll instead of just leaving, leading A to be overrepresented relative to their vote share. Exit polls are also less likely in inner-city areas, which distorts their estimation.
(this is why the Trump campaign's plan to have conduct their own exit polls is extra-stupid)
|
On November 02 2016 01:26 Hagen0 wrote:
Give me a link for the refutations. I would like to have a look,
And no it's not only about exit polls. Although I have yet to see a plausible explanation for the exit poll discrepancy.
here's a bunch
|
On November 02 2016 01:26 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 01:00 farvacola wrote:
When Ailes and Murdoch got high off of what CNN was smoking during the mid 90s, I think it's fair to say that CNN was relatively less biased than it is today and was overall a more even keel production; Crossfire, though a horrible show concept looking back, certainly did its part in giving both liberals and conservatives their air time, and the reporting focused on real time events, limiting the scope of any potential partisanry in presentation. Similarly, many TV media consumers still got most of their news from daily evening programs on main cable networks, and though Dan Rather is quite the public liberal nowadays, I think it's hard to dispute that folks like him and Peter Jennings were moderate in their reading of the evening news.
However, once Fox News started seeing returns on its "Fair & Balanced" and "Real Journalism" slogans during the early to mid 2000s, other media organizations tried to counter Fox's growing market share through imitating what was very clearly reporting that agreed with a particular worldview. Getting down to who exactly fired the first shot here doesn't seem very useful, and yes, the above doesn't address the other media trends manifest in print and internet forms, but I think the whole "the media at large is biased towards liberals" spiel requires a lot of disclaimer before it carries much weight. I have a different perspective. The rise of FNC's editorial board journalistic style aside, FNC (and other elements of conservative media -- ie talk radio) wasn't the first organization to jump into biased journalism so much as it was the first conservatively-biased new organization. As such, FNC polarized the debate, thereby showing and making obvious the liberal bias that was always there among the mainstream journalistic elements. The Drudgereport became a thing because it broke the Lewinsky story when the mainstream media sat on the story. it's not really about fox news and whatnot. polarization is one thing, expanding how far the poles are going is another. ideologies that justify insurrection, see radical evil behind the social order, and so on develop independently of fox news. it's the expanding influence of internet and self created media by cranks. the education of cranks is a blog/video by another crank. this is why terms like globalism and cuck are so prevalent. the narrative is that the monied elites(jews) selling out white america.
You don't have to go to the alt right to find complaints of liberal media bias. You'll find plenty among regular republicans.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 01:26 Hagen0 wrote:
Give me a link for the refutations. I would like to have a look,
And no it's not only about exit polls. Although I have yet to see a plausible explanation for the exit poll discrepancy.
538 had something on it. it's not serious enough for people like andrew gelman to get into though.
exit polls are small samples, meaning it's extrapolating from a few precinct results, and biased towards enthusiasm, age divide and so on. it's really not that good.
|
On November 02 2016 01:32 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 01:26 Hagen0 wrote:
Give me a link for the refutations. I would like to have a look,
And no it's not only about exit polls. Although I have yet to see a plausible explanation for the exit poll discrepancy. here's a bunch
LMGTFY-ception?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 01:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 01:26 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 01:00 farvacola wrote:
When Ailes and Murdoch got high off of what CNN was smoking during the mid 90s, I think it's fair to say that CNN was relatively less biased than it is today and was overall a more even keel production; Crossfire, though a horrible show concept looking back, certainly did its part in giving both liberals and conservatives their air time, and the reporting focused on real time events, limiting the scope of any potential partisanry in presentation. Similarly, many TV media consumers still got most of their news from daily evening programs on main cable networks, and though Dan Rather is quite the public liberal nowadays, I think it's hard to dispute that folks like him and Peter Jennings were moderate in their reading of the evening news.
However, once Fox News started seeing returns on its "Fair & Balanced" and "Real Journalism" slogans during the early to mid 2000s, other media organizations tried to counter Fox's growing market share through imitating what was very clearly reporting that agreed with a particular worldview. Getting down to who exactly fired the first shot here doesn't seem very useful, and yes, the above doesn't address the other media trends manifest in print and internet forms, but I think the whole "the media at large is biased towards liberals" spiel requires a lot of disclaimer before it carries much weight. I have a different perspective. The rise of FNC's editorial board journalistic style aside, FNC (and other elements of conservative media -- ie talk radio) wasn't the first organization to jump into biased journalism so much as it was the first conservatively-biased new organization. As such, FNC polarized the debate, thereby showing and making obvious the liberal bias that was always there among the mainstream journalistic elements. The Drudgereport became a thing because it broke the Lewinsky story when the mainstream media sat on the story. it's not really about fox news and whatnot. polarization is one thing, expanding how far the poles are going is another. ideologies that justify insurrection, see radical evil behind the social order, and so on develop independently of fox news. it's the expanding influence of internet and self created media by cranks. the education of cranks is a blog/video by another crank. this is why terms like globalism and cuck are so prevalent. the narrative is that the monied elites(jews) selling out white america. You don't have to go to the alt right to find complaints of liberal media bias. You'll find plenty among regular republicans.
i am saying media bias does not fully explain the rise of extreme politics. traditional media only feeds information, but the bias generating ideology formed outside of the traditional media network.
a guy who reads jewsdid911.blogspot and watches tv didn't get his worldview from the tv, even though the tv presentation may confirm his biases.
|
On November 02 2016 01:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 01:23 farvacola wrote:On November 02 2016 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 01:00 farvacola wrote:
When Ailes and Murdoch got high off of what CNN was smoking during the mid 90s, I think it's fair to say that CNN was relatively less biased than it is today and was overall a more even keel production; Crossfire, though a horrible show concept looking back, certainly did its part in giving both liberals and conservatives their air time, and the reporting focused on real time events, limiting the scope of any potential partisanry in presentation. Similarly, many TV media consumers still got most of their news from daily evening programs on main cable networks, and though Dan Rather is quite the public liberal nowadays, I think it's hard to dispute that folks like him and Peter Jennings were moderate in their reading of the evening news.
However, once Fox News started seeing returns on its "Fair & Balanced" and "Real Journalism" slogans during the early to mid 2000s, other media organizations tried to counter Fox's growing market share through imitating what was very clearly reporting that agreed with a particular worldview. Getting down to who exactly fired the first shot here doesn't seem very useful, and yes, the above doesn't address the other media trends manifest in print and internet forms, but I think the whole "the media at large is biased towards liberals" spiel requires a lot of disclaimer before it carries much weight. I have a different perspective. The rise of FNC's editorial board journalistic style aside, FNC (and other elements of conservative media -- ie talk radio) wasn't the first organization to jump into biased journalism so much as it was the first conservatively-biased new organization. As such, FNC polarized the debate, thereby showing and making obvious the liberal bias that was always there among the mainstream journalistic elements. The Drudgereport became a thing because it broke the Lewinsky story when the mainstream media sat on the story. I guess, but it isn't exactly hard to come up with non-partisan reasons why mainstream media held onto a story like that while a no-namer basically staked his fame on it. Furthermore, it could also be argued that much of Bill Clinton's public success can be attributed to the washing that outlets like the NYT and CNN performed while reporting on his bipartisan agenda actions. Particularly when it came to welfare reform, you'd never have guessed that many liberals were incredibly pissed off by Bill's reach across the aisle if you only consumed mass media during that time. This is easy to explain. It's a bit of misnomer to call the mainstream media the "liberal" media. The better term is the "democratic party" media. Or the "establishment" media. These news organization were perfectly willing to whitewash Slick Willy's deviations from liberal orthodoxy (and his sexual deviations) because, at the end of the day, he was their guy and they wanted to preserve the symbiotic relationship that they had with him and his party. This is what's great about these email dumps from Wikileaks. They are showing exactly what conservatives have suspected all along. You're right with regards to the 90s, though the media's celebration of Reagan during the 80s suggests that their bias preference tended to shift in line with what they perceived to be the zeitgeist of the time, though that clearly changed with the election of George W. I think much of the conservative anti-media zeal stems from that period above all else personally.
|
On November 02 2016 01:33 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 01:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 01:26 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 01:00 farvacola wrote:
When Ailes and Murdoch got high off of what CNN was smoking during the mid 90s, I think it's fair to say that CNN was relatively less biased than it is today and was overall a more even keel production; Crossfire, though a horrible show concept looking back, certainly did its part in giving both liberals and conservatives their air time, and the reporting focused on real time events, limiting the scope of any potential partisanry in presentation. Similarly, many TV media consumers still got most of their news from daily evening programs on main cable networks, and though Dan Rather is quite the public liberal nowadays, I think it's hard to dispute that folks like him and Peter Jennings were moderate in their reading of the evening news.
However, once Fox News started seeing returns on its "Fair & Balanced" and "Real Journalism" slogans during the early to mid 2000s, other media organizations tried to counter Fox's growing market share through imitating what was very clearly reporting that agreed with a particular worldview. Getting down to who exactly fired the first shot here doesn't seem very useful, and yes, the above doesn't address the other media trends manifest in print and internet forms, but I think the whole "the media at large is biased towards liberals" spiel requires a lot of disclaimer before it carries much weight. I have a different perspective. The rise of FNC's editorial board journalistic style aside, FNC (and other elements of conservative media -- ie talk radio) wasn't the first organization to jump into biased journalism so much as it was the first conservatively-biased new organization. As such, FNC polarized the debate, thereby showing and making obvious the liberal bias that was always there among the mainstream journalistic elements. The Drudgereport became a thing because it broke the Lewinsky story when the mainstream media sat on the story. it's not really about fox news and whatnot. polarization is one thing, expanding how far the poles are going is another. ideologies that justify insurrection, see radical evil behind the social order, and so on develop independently of fox news. it's the expanding influence of internet and self created media by cranks. the education of cranks is a blog/video by another crank. this is why terms like globalism and cuck are so prevalent. the narrative is that the monied elites(jews) selling out white america. You don't have to go to the alt right to find complaints of liberal media bias. You'll find plenty among regular republicans. i am saying media bias does not fully explain the rise of extreme politics. traditional media only feeds information, but the bias generating ideology formed outside of the traditional media network. a guy who reads jewsdid911.blogspot and watches tv didn't get his worldview from the tv, even though the tv presentation may confirm his biases.
I'm not sure who is arguing that the mainstream media bias gives rise to extreme politics. It's certainly not my argument. I'm just pointing out that Krugman is a twat for failing to acknowledge mainstream media bias.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 01:33 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 01:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 01:26 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 01:00 farvacola wrote:
When Ailes and Murdoch got high off of what CNN was smoking during the mid 90s, I think it's fair to say that CNN was relatively less biased than it is today and was overall a more even keel production; Crossfire, though a horrible show concept looking back, certainly did its part in giving both liberals and conservatives their air time, and the reporting focused on real time events, limiting the scope of any potential partisanry in presentation. Similarly, many TV media consumers still got most of their news from daily evening programs on main cable networks, and though Dan Rather is quite the public liberal nowadays, I think it's hard to dispute that folks like him and Peter Jennings were moderate in their reading of the evening news.
However, once Fox News started seeing returns on its "Fair & Balanced" and "Real Journalism" slogans during the early to mid 2000s, other media organizations tried to counter Fox's growing market share through imitating what was very clearly reporting that agreed with a particular worldview. Getting down to who exactly fired the first shot here doesn't seem very useful, and yes, the above doesn't address the other media trends manifest in print and internet forms, but I think the whole "the media at large is biased towards liberals" spiel requires a lot of disclaimer before it carries much weight. I have a different perspective. The rise of FNC's editorial board journalistic style aside, FNC (and other elements of conservative media -- ie talk radio) wasn't the first organization to jump into biased journalism so much as it was the first conservatively-biased new organization. As such, FNC polarized the debate, thereby showing and making obvious the liberal bias that was always there among the mainstream journalistic elements. The Drudgereport became a thing because it broke the Lewinsky story when the mainstream media sat on the story. it's not really about fox news and whatnot. polarization is one thing, expanding how far the poles are going is another. ideologies that justify insurrection, see radical evil behind the social order, and so on develop independently of fox news. it's the expanding influence of internet and self created media by cranks. the education of cranks is a blog/video by another crank. this is why terms like globalism and cuck are so prevalent. the narrative is that the monied elites(jews) selling out white america. You don't have to go to the alt right to find complaints of liberal media bias. You'll find plenty among regular republicans. i am saying media bias does not fully explain the rise of extreme politics. traditional media only feeds information, but the bias generating ideology formed outside of the traditional media network. a guy who reads jewsdid911.blogspot and watches tv didn't get his worldview from the tv, even though the tv presentation may confirm his biases. I'm not sure who is arguing that the mainstream media bias gives rise to extreme politics. It's certainly not my argument. I'm just pointing out that Krugman is a twat for failing to acknowledge mainstream media bias.
i was just addressing the centrality of traditional media bias in looking at the present situation for people like krugman. traditional media bias did not give rise to trump.
on the issue of media bias, the polisci literature which krugman repeats mostly measure polarization in terms of relative leaning, not how far the leaning is. that missing dimension is needed to explain extreme politics.
|
On November 02 2016 01:38 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 01:33 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 01:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 01:26 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2016 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2016 01:00 farvacola wrote:
When Ailes and Murdoch got high off of what CNN was smoking during the mid 90s, I think it's fair to say that CNN was relatively less biased than it is today and was overall a more even keel production; Crossfire, though a horrible show concept looking back, certainly did its part in giving both liberals and conservatives their air time, and the reporting focused on real time events, limiting the scope of any potential partisanry in presentation. Similarly, many TV media consumers still got most of their news from daily evening programs on main cable networks, and though Dan Rather is quite the public liberal nowadays, I think it's hard to dispute that folks like him and Peter Jennings were moderate in their reading of the evening news.
However, once Fox News started seeing returns on its "Fair & Balanced" and "Real Journalism" slogans during the early to mid 2000s, other media organizations tried to counter Fox's growing market share through imitating what was very clearly reporting that agreed with a particular worldview. Getting down to who exactly fired the first shot here doesn't seem very useful, and yes, the above doesn't address the other media trends manifest in print and internet forms, but I think the whole "the media at large is biased towards liberals" spiel requires a lot of disclaimer before it carries much weight. I have a different perspective. The rise of FNC's editorial board journalistic style aside, FNC (and other elements of conservative media -- ie talk radio) wasn't the first organization to jump into biased journalism so much as it was the first conservatively-biased new organization. As such, FNC polarized the debate, thereby showing and making obvious the liberal bias that was always there among the mainstream journalistic elements. The Drudgereport became a thing because it broke the Lewinsky story when the mainstream media sat on the story. it's not really about fox news and whatnot. polarization is one thing, expanding how far the poles are going is another. ideologies that justify insurrection, see radical evil behind the social order, and so on develop independently of fox news. it's the expanding influence of internet and self created media by cranks. the education of cranks is a blog/video by another crank. this is why terms like globalism and cuck are so prevalent. the narrative is that the monied elites(jews) selling out white america. You don't have to go to the alt right to find complaints of liberal media bias. You'll find plenty among regular republicans. i am saying media bias does not fully explain the rise of extreme politics. traditional media only feeds information, but the bias generating ideology formed outside of the traditional media network. a guy who reads jewsdid911.blogspot and watches tv didn't get his worldview from the tv, even though the tv presentation may confirm his biases. I'm not sure who is arguing that the mainstream media bias gives rise to extreme politics. It's certainly not my argument. I'm just pointing out that Krugman is a twat for failing to acknowledge mainstream media bias. i was just addressing the centrality of traditional media bias in looking at the present situation for people like krugman. traditional media bias did not give rise to trump.
No, traditional media bias did not directly give rise to Trump. However, traditional media bias whitewashed the pressing issues that did give rise to Trump. And they continue to do so, which is a huge mistake, both for themselves and for the country as a whole. The cat's out of the bag.
|
You guys do know that exit polls are routinely used as a check for third-world elections? Or that here in Germany their marigin of error is a fraction of one percent point consistently?
How about the obvious voter purges in New York and California. You guys have some glib dismissal for those too?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 01:43 Hagen0 wrote:
You guys do know that exit polls are routinely used as a check for third-world elections? Or that here in Germany their marigin of error is a fraction of one percent point consistently?
How about the obvious voter purges in New York and California. You guys have some glib dismissal for those too?
it's not a glib dismissal. it's a fact that hispanics and other minorities were disproportionately affected in the brooklyn purge, mostly to influence local city politics.
http://www.wnyc.org/story/brooklyn-voter-purge-age-clinton-sanders/
In raw numbers, 60,523 Democrats were purged in districts that went for Clinton, and 15,527 were purged where Sanders won.
exit polling methodology in the u.s. is different. it extrapolates from a small sample based on historical results, so even worse than a small random sample. given fairly extreme demographic polarization during the primaries, more sampling of radical sanders precincts could have distorted the exit polls, and systematically.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/upshot/exit-polls-and-why-the-primary-was-not-stolen-from-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0
|
I'm not sure what your point is, It looks like you do admit that the New York election got manipulated. I never even hinted at a possible perpretrator or even made a judgement on who profited from the manipulation.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 01:48 Hagen0 wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is, It looks like you do admit that the New York election got manipulated. I never even hinted at a possible perpretrator or even made a judgement on who profited from the manipulation.
the point is you need a systemic bad actor to establish a point about the system. if it's just one election official in a city then it's a local problem, which do exist. but this does not support your view on systemic manipulation.
|
I disagree. For one thing the way US elections work they can hinge on individual states, even individual preccincts this kind of thing can have a large impact. More importantly, the election didn't get thrown out as they needed to be. That's the main problem. There should have been a re-election (and a criminal investigation obviously).
That still leaves the heavily deviant cumulative vote share stuff though. And the fact that Hillary Clinton performed vastly better on voting machine technology than in paper counts.
Edit: Also, voter purging was in no way restricted to New York. Similar things on a smaller scale happened elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
