EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6200
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9316 Posts
| ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On November 12 2016 05:49 zlefin wrote: pmh -> do you have proof of that? or merely your claims and allegations? that you claim it was extremely biased doesn't make it so. People claim biases all the time, often they are wrong. if you think current media wouldn't report on watergate, then I question your understanding of the media. I'm seriously disappointed with the media. Were you prepared for Trump winning the election? What did you think the chances were? Did you think it was a 50:50 chance? For myself, I blame the media misinforming about the situation. I've bet 60€ on Trump winning in October because I thought he might actually have a chance (betting odds were 5:1). This was really hard to do. I was seriously scared while betting and the only reason for that was mainstream media. While reading and watching commentary about events, I couldn't help but think he can't possibly win. Meanwhile, when watching his rallies or Clinton rallies, watching the debates, reading around on left and right forums, I got to thinking he had a serious chance. I thought I was going crazy and that's why I'm kind of hating "the media" right now. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:12 Ropid wrote: I'm seriously disappointed with the media. Were you prepared for Trump winning the election? What did you think the chances were? Did you think it was a 50:50 chance? For myself, I blame the media misinforming about the situation. I've bet 60€ on Trump winning in October because I thought he might actually have a chance (betting odds were 5:1). This was really hard to do. I was seriously scared while betting and the only reason for that was mainstream media. While reading and watching commentary about events, I couldn't help but think he can't possibly win. Meanwhile, when watching his rallies or Clinton rallies, watching the debates, reading around on left and right forums, I got to thinking he had a serious chance. I thought I was going crazy and that's why I'm kind of hating "the media" right now. I wasn't prepared for it cuz I was'nt thinking that hard. But 538 gave Trump something like 1/3 chance near the end, I forget the actual number. And I think they've done good work so their numbers were reliable. him having a weaker, but real chance was very estimable, and that's what the estimators were showing. Why would you think he can't possibly win? you weren't relying on german, or other foreign media were you? 5:1 odds still means a 1/6 chance of winning (or something like that, I forget how betting odds work). and 1/6 is far from nothing. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:09 Sent. wrote: You check how much time the media spend on covering news about each candidate. For example something would be very wrong if they spent more time discussing mildly x-ist tweet of Trump than discussing that story about giving Clinton debate questions in advance. That has nothing to do with if Trump is sexists or not. That has to do with a totally different issue that's now 100% irrelevant because Clinton lost. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:19 zlefin wrote: I wasn't prepared for it cuz I was'nt thinking that hard. But 538 gave Trump something like 1/3 chance near the end, I forget the actual number. And I think they've done good work so their numbers were reliable. him having a weaker, but real chance was very estimable, and that's what the estimators were showing. Why would you think he can't possibly win? you weren't relying on german, or other foreign media were you? 5:1 odds still means a 1/6 chance of winning (or something like that, I forget how betting odds work). and 1/6 is far from nothing. Last 538 forecast had it 71% chance Hillary 29% Trump (roughly, it was like 70.6 to 29.4 or something) Well a 30% chance is not exactly a small and extremely unlikely chance that something is going to happen. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14151 Posts
If they were really trying to get clinton elected then they're shitty at their jobs. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9316 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:21 Logo wrote: That has nothing to do with if Trump is sexists or not. That has to do with a totally different issue that's now 100% irrelevant because Clinton lost. Sorry, the first post in the chain was about the media coverage being one-sided and I was trying to discuss that. You're correct, my reply was offtopic. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:27 Sent. wrote: Sorry, the first post in the chain was about the media coverage being one-sided and I was trying to discuss that. You're correct, my reply was offtopic. No worries, I think at some point the thread got tangled between the two ideas (coverage of both candidates comparatively and whether or not the coverage of Trump included factual things that made him look bad). | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
I don't think Trump ever led in a single poll of Wisconsin the entire race, and the final RCP average was +6.5 Clinton. But it ended up +1 Trump. How could the media expect that? Psychic powers? Predicting turnout that was not predictable based on the primaries? Michigan? 1 poll in the entire race had Trump up. The average was +3.5 Clinton. He won + 0.3. You can argue Pennsylvania could have been covered more, but the reality was that all the data pointed to a Clinton win. It's not like the LAtimes poll was right and they should have looked at it; it actually missed by considerably more than the average poll. It isn't the media's fault the data were biased (it also isn't the Clinton campaign's fault the data were biased, either, but that's another topic). Maybe they should have put more stock on gut feelings or something...but that seems like a great way to introduce bias. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:19 zlefin wrote: I wasn't prepared for it cuz I was'nt thinking that hard. But 538 gave Trump something like 1/3 chance near the end, I forget the actual number. And I think they've done good work so their numbers were reliable. him having a weaker, but real chance was very estimable, and that's what the estimators were showing. Why would you think he can't possibly win? you weren't relying on german, or other foreign media were you? 5:1 odds still means a 1/6 chance of winning (or something like that, I forget how betting odds work). and 1/6 is far from nothing. I wasn't relying on German media. I was already around following US elections a bit when W. Bush won against Gore which was the point where I got disappointed in foreign media reporting on US things. At that time the news and commentary in magazines here made it appear as if it would be completely impossible for Gore to lose. They didn't really describe reasons for anyone to vote for Bush. This change to a more respectable chance was pretty recent for fivethirtyeight.com, I think? It was originally super low. I remember it didn't help rationalize my bet. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
And it's known in general that polls are sometimes off, for a variety of systemic reasons, foreseeable or unforeseeable. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8264 Posts
| ||
|
sharkie
Austria18675 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:30 TheTenthDoc wrote: It's hard to blame the media for painting Clinton as the favorite when the only objective data they (or anyone else) had access to pointed to a Clinton win. I don't think Trump ever led in a single poll of Wisconsin the entire race, and the final RCP average was +6.5 Clinton. But it ended up +1 Trump. How could the media expect that? Psychic powers? Predicting turnout that was not predictable based on the primaries? Michigan? 1 poll in the entire race had Trump up. The average was +3.5 Clinton. He won + 0.3. You can argue Pennsylvania could have been covered more, but the reality was that all the data pointed to a Clinton win. It's not like the LAtimes poll was right and they should have looked at it; it actually missed by considerably more than the average poll. It isn't the media's fault the data were biased (it also isn't the Clinton campaign's fault the data were biased, either, but that's another topic). Maybe they should have put more stock on gut feelings or something...but that seems like a great way to introduce bias. I somewhere read that a model correctly predicted each election since 1984? Maybe media should have used that model? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:37 sharkie wrote: I somewhere read that a model correctly predicted each election since 1984? Maybe media should have used that model? I read somewhere something along the lines of "guy who predicted all elections correctly since 1980 predicts Trump win" about a month ago. Guess he keeps his record | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:37 sharkie wrote: I somewhere read that a model correctly predicted each election since 1984? Maybe media should have used that model? His "keys" predict the popular vote winner, not the Electoral College winner (he predicted Gore in 2000), and he was wrong this time since Trump is on track to lose the popular vote by like 1.5% or something. Assuming you mean this guy. So yeah...there goes another octopus-like streak. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:30 TheTenthDoc wrote: It's hard to blame the media for painting Clinton as the favorite when the only objective data they (or anyone else) had access to pointed to a Clinton win. I don't think Trump ever led in a single poll of Wisconsin the entire race, and the final RCP average was +6.5 Clinton. But it ended up +1 Trump. How could the media expect that? Psychic powers? Predicting turnout that was not predictable based on the primaries? Michigan? 1 poll in the entire race had Trump up. The average was +3.5 Clinton. He won + 0.3. You can argue Pennsylvania could have been covered more, but the reality was that all the data pointed to a Clinton win. It's not like the LAtimes poll was right and they should have looked at it; it actually missed by considerably more than the average poll. It isn't the media's fault the data were biased (it also isn't the Clinton campaign's fault the data were biased, either, but that's another topic). Maybe they should have put more stock on gut feelings or something...but that seems like a great way to introduce bias. On the flip side lets not pretend there's much to defend from the media either. We're talking about the same media that at times literally laughed at people saying Trump could win the nomination & election. This is why this argument is ridiculous, there's a lot that people from all sides can totally agree on in terms of how awful the media is, but instead everyone wants to bicker over the small scraps because all they really care about is if their horse (both candidate and ideals) was shown in a good light or not instead of actual media responsibility. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:34 Ropid wrote: I wasn't relying on German media. I was already around following US elections a bit when W. Bush won against Gore which was the point where I got disappointed in foreign media reporting on US things. At that time the news and commentary in magazines here made it appear as if it would be completely impossible for Gore to lose. They didn't really describe reasons for anyone to vote for Bush. This change to a more respectable chance was pretty recent for fivethirtyeight.com, I think? It was originally super low. I remember it didn't help rationalize my bet. well, I found an article with a graph over time of what 538's estimates were. http://www.vox.com/2016/11/3/13147678/nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump-forecast it looks like around october it was around 15%, so around 5:1 odds. I'm not paying much attention to the rest of that article, I just needed a graph over time for 538. I'm interested what your response is after reviewing that. and which media your complaint is about. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:30 TheTenthDoc wrote: It's hard to blame the media for painting Clinton as the favorite when the only objective data they (or anyone else) had access to pointed to a Clinton win. I don't think Trump ever led in a single poll of Wisconsin the entire race, and the final RCP average was +6.5 Clinton. But it ended up +1 Trump. How could the media expect that? Psychic powers? Predicting turnout that was not predictable based on the primaries? Michigan? 1 poll in the entire race had Trump up. The average was +3.5 Clinton. He won + 0.3. You can argue Pennsylvania could have been covered more, but the reality was that all the data pointed to a Clinton win. It's not like the LAtimes poll was right and they should have looked at it; it actually missed by considerably more than the average poll. It isn't the media's fault the data were biased (it also isn't the Clinton campaign's fault the data were biased, either, but that's another topic). Maybe they should have put more stock on gut feelings or something...but that seems like a great way to introduce bias. I would have wished for media to find people like this here and interview them before the election: Instead I could only get similar views described in shitty forums so there was no way to know what to think about it as everything felt broken with massive partisanship that divided the two camps. Like on reddit for example, you couldn't have normal discussions on /r/politics as it turned weird with the primaries, and the other side was the retarded /r/the_donald. Here on TL things felt also a bit weird. | ||
| ||
