2012 Election Thread

[VDB]

LOL at the right's idiocy over the "less than optimal" comment.

Yeah, you mean this bullshit?



Here's a great example of ignoring context in order to just score quick, lazy points (both sides are guilty of it). Stewart suggested that the administration's response to the episode was "not optimal." I think Obama was simply turning that analysis back on Stewart to say, the real problem is that people got killed; screw the commentariat's response to our response. His use of "optimal" in that context was to suggest that the very word and that flavor of assessment is simply inadequate given the severity of the episode.

[runawayjimbo]

Yeah, it wa obviously a response to the question and calling him out on it is bullshit (although you could kinda see on Obama's face the "oh shit, shouldn't have said that" look almost immediately).

Also, god bless Jon Stewart. He asked tougher, more important questions of Obama in 15 mins than the WH press corps did in 4 yrs (warantless wiretapping, for example).

[VDB]

The latest Gallup poll has Romney up 7 points. Not so surprisingly, FoxNews.com has been exclusively trumpeting this poll the last couple days. (Remember earlier when they made a huge deal out of a Pew poll that also contained a favorable little nugget for Mitt? I'm beginning to sense a pattern here.)

But Nate Silver uses -- pffft -- reason and analysis to take a look at just how much stock one should put into Gallup, based on its methodology and its history of being not so accurate after all. Worth a read.

[runawayjimbo]

Most GOP strategists are dismissing the Gallup +7 results. And then there's Fox... (fucking Dick Morris)

Still, for all the fancy predictive modeling and rationalization about polling bias and bitching about sampling error this cycle, it's worth noting the national head-to-head RCP Average was just 0.3 pts off in 2008 and their electoral map correctly predicted the outcome in every state except IN (because really, who saw that coming?). So while as an actuary I appreciate a good Monte Carlo simulation as much as the next statistician (read: nerd), a lot of times simplicity really is better.

The difference, obviously, is the electoral environment is vastly changed from last time when it became clear Obama would win once the Dow began plunging hundreds of points a day. Voting patterns are likely to be much harder to pick up this time, but it seems to me that Silver's model may be understating the impact of the economy on the eventual outcome.

[Guyute]

Can someone please get MSNBC a time clock? Chris Matthews again pushing that Romney crowded out Obama's speaking time. CNN has Obama +3:15.

And now for my sadistic ritual of flipping back between Fox and MSNBC. Then I punch myself in the balls and call it a night.

I do the same thing.  I have found that over the last year MSNBC has become more biased than Fox, which I didn't think was possible.  Really? Al Sharpton is your post debate commentator, he's the biggest Obama fan-boy in the country.  Let me turn to Fox and see if they have Rush or O'Reilly on for their side to balance it out.

Don't tell that to V00D00BR3W :wink:

Hey, I heard that!

I know you know I regard an important distinction between the MSNBC model/approach and the Fox News model/approach. That doesn't mean I think MSNBC is completely immune to criticism for what it does (I'm no partisan), but they are different beasts.

Obviously there is something I don't about you and MSNBC.    Would be curious as to what you see as the difference other than ends of the spectrum.  Odd that now CNN is the least biased.

I believe that both Fox News and MSNBC have made business-based decisions to appeal to the ideological bents of their respective audiences. But they go about it in different ways.

MSNBC loads up their airtime with opinion/commentary personalities, who all pretty much swing left except for the departed Pat Buchanan and his replacement "Silent" Steve Schmidt. So, if you check into MSNBC during prime time, you're going to hear liberal viewpoints. But they are clearly delivered as opinions. Now, what I think is inappropriate for a news channel is the fact that MSNBC also stocks their election desk with those same opinion personalities. But the coverage and commentary there is still being delivered by opinion people as opinion people. Rachel Maddow is not purporting to take off her "commentator" hat and don the role of "chief hard news anchor" or anything like that. They still are who they are.

Fox News, meanwhile, takes great pains to inject every aspect of their operation with their right-leaning inclinations. This is manifested not only in the makeup of their talking heads (same as MSNBC) but also in the kind of stories they cover and the way they cover them. Spend any amount of time consuming Fox News and it's clear what narratives they are pushing; and they push them hard. Go check out my brilliant Fox News thread for a glimpse into the ways FN lets ideology infect the very core of their hard "news" operation. It's OK that they play to their audience -- hey, they gotta make money -- but you get the distinct sense that they aren't just honoring their audience's confirmation bias, they are actively feeding them material and coverage that props up Republican narratives and perpetuates the whole thing. (Maybe this is just FN's way of ensuring the audience will always be there, holding the views that they hold... holy shit, that's brilliant!) Oh, and the fact that they still try and pay lip service to their own "fair and balanced" self-applied label is just beyond disingenuous.

FN was essentially started as a response to CNN, which was viewed by some on the right as being "too liberal." FN turned out to be wildly successful by just going straight for one side of the spectrum. I think the charges of bias have spooked CNN over the years into trying as hard as possible to just shoot straight down the middle and not offend anyone (namely, conservatives who hate them anyway). So MSNBC saw an opportunity to provide the left-leaning option, and I believe they've been rewarded in the marketplace for that. But they do so with much less, and much less insidious, pretense, in my opinion.

OK, now I understand where you are coming from.  It's funny, because the way you describe Fox is how I feel about MSNBC (and Fox).  The 1 credit I actually give to Fox is that they will actually get people from prominent Democratic think tanks on for the other side of the argument.  I know of 1 who is on a 2-3 times a week right now during their morning show.    I find that MSNBC tends to bring in people who just chant Mantra and can't have an intelligent discussion for the other side of things.

You are right, they both made business decisions and they are working.  I will say I do listen to Morning Joe a lot because they will have intelligent debates with both sides, its my dirty little secret.

[Hicks]

RealClearPolitics is definitely pretty accurate. 

[PIE-GUY]

I can say without hesitation that I have spent less than ten minutes total between MSNBC and Fox in the last year.

[sls.stormyrider]

^^^
same here.

this is gonna be close.

Also, while Nate Silver still shows Obama with a 66% chance to win, two U of Colorado political science profs give Romney a 77% chance of winning the popular vote. And while Silver's model was very accurate in 2008 and again in the midterms, the Colorado model has accurately predicted the outcome in every election since 1980.

the CO model is interesting - seems like it's based entirely on the economy, as if the debates / speeches didn't happen (if I'm reading it right).

Intrade down to 61.8%

[runawayjimbo]

Also, while Nate Silver still shows Obama with a 66% chance to win, two U of Colorado political science profs give Romney a 77% chance of winning the popular vote. And while Silver's model was very accurate in 2008 and again in the midterms, the Colorado model has accurately predicted the outcome in every election since 1980.

the CO model is interesting - seems like it's based entirely on the economy, as if the debates / speeches didn't happen (if I'm reading it right).

I mean, they're political scientists so I gotta believe polling data is factored into the model somehow. The difference I believe is that they take a much deeper look at state by state variations in employment, etc. As far as I know, Silver's only economic variable (or at least the predominant one) is the S&P 500. Now, in some years (maybe even most), that's probably going to be a close enough proxy for people's perception about the economy's overall health. But this year is obviously different with the S&P approaching  its 2007 peak while unemployment is at 7.8%, so a more granular look at the data may provide a more meaningful insight; OH and MI both LOST about 13k jobs in Sept, for example. All I know is if the Colorado model predicted the popular vote for Gore in 2000, it's pretty goddamned on point.

Also, Taibbi is on Bill Maher starting in 10 mins to shit all over Romney (paging Hicks).

[sls.stormyrider]

I'm not saying they're wrong- what the hell do I know about political forecasting.
Just that it's interesting.

[runawayjimbo]

Can't tell you how excited I am to not have to do this again for 4 yrs.

jeremy scahill ‏@jeremyscahill
Mitt Romney: If I'm elected, the drones will have a commander in chief who speaks their language.

[twatts]

Let me know how the debate is going...  I'm going to weigh watching that versus the game...

Terry

[runawayjimbo]

Let me know how the debate is going...  I'm going to weigh watching that versus the game...

Don't bother, foreign policy during a presidential election is the WORST. "I can bomb more countries." "No I can bomb more countries!!" "What do you know, you've never even drone attacked anyone!"

Recurring theme:

Romney: The president has not led on any issue.

Obama: I did this, this, and this. Now's here's what you said, which is clearly crazy. (Pretty sure he threw an abortion shout out in there at one point as well)

[Guyute]

Wife is watching the debate so I am watching the debate. 

This should be interesting.  Obama is much more well versed on foreign policy so now it is how well did Romney study.

[twatts]

Let me know how the debate is going...  I'm going to weigh watching that versus the game...

Don't bother, foreign policy during a presidential election is the WORST. "I can bomb more countries." "No I can bomb more countries!!" "What do you know, you've never even drone attacked anyone!"

Recurring theme:

Romney: The president has not led on any issue.

Obama: I did this, this, and this. Now's here's what you said, which is clearly crazy. (Pretty sure he threw an abortion shout out in there at one point as well)

LOL!  I'm half expecting OB to walk in with mic in hand, say "Bin Laden bitches!", drop the mic on the floor, and then walk out...

Terry