View Poll Results: What will be the result of the Midterms (vote twice!!)

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • GOP holds the House

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the House by less than 12 seats

    20 41.67%
  • Dems win the House by 12-25 seats

    12 25.00%
  • Dems win the House by 25-38 seats

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the House by 38+ seats

    1 2.08%
  • GOP gains 1 or more seats in the Senate (52-48 or more)

    29 60.42%
  • GOP holds the same number of seats in the Senate (51-49)

    7 14.58%
  • GOP loses seats but still holds the Senate (50-50 with Pence breaking tie)

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the Senate (49-51 or more)

    2 4.17%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 13 of 94 FirstFirst ... 311121314152363 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 1870
  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by gus View Post
    You are forgetting the first rule of politics in today's world, "If you aren't with us, you are against us."

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by luvdahops View Post
    To the point where his most ardent supporters are skeptical, or worse, around even the most basic fact reporting by outlets like the WSJ and Wa Post.
    The remarkable thing is how much they disdain outlets like the WSJ and USA Today, who have consistently been seen as conservative or at least "leaning right."
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    I found this interesting chart from Pew about the political leanings of the consumers of various outlets. I don't see any of it as surprising, but it is still interesting.



    -Jason "this was done in 2014, and it does feel like the nation has become more polarized since then so perhaps this data is too old as to be useful in Trump's America" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  4. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I found this interesting chart from Pew about the political leanings of the consumers of various outlets. I don't see any of it as surprising, but it is still interesting.



    -Jason "this was done in 2014, and it does feel like the nation has become more polarized since then so perhaps this data is too old as to be useful in Trump's America" Evans
    I think the chart here (has it been on this thread before? not sure) is a little better because it plots news sources along two axis: the partisanship of the source and the quality (or at least facts vs opinions) of the source. I find it hard to disagree with much of the placement here.

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Special election in Ohio's 12th coming up.

    The seat has been held by a Republican since Reagan was in the White House.

    (The Congressman then was a guy named John Kasich.)

    The Republican candidate was the more moderate in the primary, but he has wrapped his arms around Trump ever since. He was up comfortably by double digits when the first public polls came out in June, but it's now within the margin of error. The alarm in the GOP is evidenced by Mike Pence's campaigning in the region earlier this week, and the occupant of the White House's arrival on Saturday.

    Early turnout has been surprisingly favorable to the Democratic candidate, a 31-year old lawyer who has been the Franklin County Recorder since January 2017. The Republican candidate, a state legislator, has been criticized by the far right wing of the Republican Party in Ohio as recently as this week.

    In a district that went +37 for the Republican incumbent in 2016, this is a staggering shift no matter the ultimate outcome which will require a do-over on November 6th anyway.

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I found this interesting chart from Pew about the political leanings of the consumers of various outlets. I don't see any of it as surprising, but it is still interesting.



    -Jason "this was done in 2014, and it does feel like the nation has become more polarized since then so perhaps this data is too old as to be useful in Trump's America" Evans
    Why isn't the "average respondent" the midpoint? I think the scale needs to be recalibrated a little.

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    I think the chart here (has it been on this thread before? not sure) is a little better because it plots news sources along two axis: the partisanship of the source and the quality (or at least facts vs opinions) of the source. I find it hard to disagree with much of the placement here.
    This is definitely an interesting chart - but it's answering a different question: Jason's graph is about the bias of the consumers, not the source.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by gus View Post
    Why isn't the "average respondent" the midpoint? I think the scale needs to be recalibrated a little.
    I think it merely means that the average respondent (aka, the average person who watches any news) is a little more liberal than the average person in America. At least that is how I interpreted the "average respondent" being slightly off from the 0 point on the graph.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by luvdahops View Post
    True enough, as the alleged bias and demonization of the mainstream media has been a major right-wing rallying cry since the advent of popular conservative talk radio and news shows in the 90s, if not earlier. But that rallying cry has grown far more intense with the Trump campaign and Presidency so far, given Trump's constant attacks on the MSM. To the point where his most ardent supporters are skeptical, or worse, around even the most basic fact reporting by outlets like the WSJ and Wa Post.
    We've been skeptical about "fact reporting", as you call it, since well before Trump came along and things like this lovely lady from the NYT editorial board are just the latest in our list of grievances. Trump just recognizes what's there and channels it.

    Look, everybody has a narrative in their head that helps to interpret the world and provide context to new information. Some of us have a left-wing narrative and some of us have a right-wing narrative and other people have other narratives. Some narratives are indeed plain loony, and there are plenty of loony right-wingers out there... and plenty of loony left-wingers. But let's not any of us pretend we are free of cognitive bias, or that "the other guys", whoever they may be, are more prone to it than one's own side. Is it possible that's the case? Sure. But that's not the way to bet. It's trivial to recognize cognitive bias in others but very difficult to do it in oneself. Radiohead has a nice heuristic for getting at the truth if anybody's interested.

    (Jason, far be it from me to tell you how to moderate, I think you do a fine job herding all of us cats, but as one of the few Trump supporters here I'm seeing a little too much partisan stuff here from the left in the past few pages.)

    (And yes, I know those tweets I linked to were doctored, but they were doctored in a specific way which I think is pertinent to the matter at hand.)

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    We've been skeptical about "fact reporting", as you call it, since well before Trump came along and things like this lovely lady from the NYT editorial board are just the latest in our list of grievances. Trump just recognizes what's there and channels it.

    Look, everybody has a narrative in their head that helps to interpret the world and provide context to new information. Some of us have a left-wing narrative and some of us have a right-wing narrative and other people have other narratives. Some narratives are indeed plain loony, and there are plenty of loony right-wingers out there... and plenty of loony left-wingers. But let's not any of us pretend we are free of cognitive bias, or that "the other guys", whoever they may be, are more prone to it than one's own side. Is it possible that's the case? Sure. But that's not the way to bet. It's trivial to recognize cognitive bias in others but very difficult to do it in oneself. Radiohead has a nice heuristic for getting at the truth if anybody's interested.

    (Jason, far be it from me to tell you how to moderate, I think you do a fine job herding all of us cats, but as one of the few Trump supporters here I'm seeing a little too much partisan stuff here from the left in the past few pages.)

    (And yes, I know those tweets I linked to were doctored, but they were doctored in a specific way which I think is pertinent to the matter at hand.)
    I'm trying to figure out why you posted something you admit is false. I don't have the time to figure out what in your post was doctored, and you didn't bother to explain how it is pertinent. If you don't explain what portion was doctored, how are we supposed to understand your point? I don't even know what imgur.com is. Did they doctor it? Did the New York Times doctor it? Maybe I'm stupid and don't get it. Is it hypocrisy that the New York Times hired her after she tweeted these things? Which, if doctored, she did not tweet. Even so, that's a far cry from not reporting facts. Please explain.

  11. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    I think the chart here (has it been on this thread before? not sure) is a little better because it plots news sources along two axis: the partisanship of the source and the quality (or at least facts vs opinions) of the source. I find it hard to disagree with much of the placement here.
    That chart is generated by one person who is definitively on the left side of the equation. The whole thing is skewed off center at least one sigma as a result.

  12. #252
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston area, OK, Newton, right by Heartbreak Hill
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    https://www.politico.com/blogs/media...ublican-188053

    Only 7% of Journalists identify as Republican. Is it any surprise the Republicans who participate actively in the party might think the other 93% are really out to get them?
    64% of journalists identify as neither Republican nor Democrat. So yeah - it is a surprise that Republicans who participate actively in the party think that only 7% of journalists will treat them fairly and that the rest are out to get them. I hope that most of them understand math better than that. I, for one, have been operating under the assumption that they do.

  13. #253
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston area, OK, Newton, right by Heartbreak Hill
    That chart was also published in 2014!! The headline is also extremely misleading. It should read "More than half of all journalists are neutral"! I suspect that the person who wrote the headline leans right, an objective headline writer would not have come up with such a biased description of those survey results.

  14. #254
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston area, OK, Newton, right by Heartbreak Hill
    The more examples I have of this kind of stuff, the more convinced I am that any kind of bias present in reporting is completely swamped by the confirmation biases present in the receivers of the information.

  15. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by BigWayne View Post
    That chart is generated by one person who is definitively on the left side of the equation. The whole thing is skewed off center at least one sigma as a result.
    I recommend you read her posts about her methodology and biases if you haven't done so already. She openly admits the issue of personal bias, and specifically addresses your "everything is shifted one column from where it should be" criticism.

  16. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    I recommend you read her posts about her methodology and biases if you haven't done so already. She openly admits the issue of personal bias, and specifically addresses your "everything is shifted one column from where it should be" criticism.
    Yes she states she is moderately liberal. Almost everyone feels they themselves are more moderate than they really are and that people on the other side of the middle are more extreme than they really are.

    She specifically states that many people, whom she characterizes as having conservative leanings, have suggested it should be shifted to the left. I'm sure if I were to do a chart like this, I would shift it farther to the left than would be correct. The most accurate chart would probably be shifted to the left a little bit less than I would do.

  17. #257
    Quote Originally Posted by BigWayne View Post
    Yes she states she is moderately liberal. Almost everyone feels they themselves are more moderate than they really are and that people on the other side of the middle are more extreme than they really are.

    She specifically states that many people, whom she characterizes as having conservative leanings, have suggested it should be shifted to the left. I'm sure if I were to do a chart like this, I would shift it farther to the left than would be correct. The most accurate chart would probably be shifted to the left a little bit less than I would do.
    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure you read the posts I was referencing. She does more than simply state her political views – it is far more thoughtful than that. Some of the factors she considers are objective. Many of them are not, and she attempts to correct for that. As a result, the chart may just as well be biased to the right, because of a potential overcorrection on her part (let's call it the Jay Bilas effect), as it is to the left. Personally, I think the chart is pretty accurate, but that's obviously subjective (and I'm not familiar with every organization on the chart).

    But the real point I was getting at is that if you simply think the chart should be shifted one column to the left or to the right... you're basically agreeing with the chart. Shifting the whole thing to the right or to the left doesn't change the overall shape of the chart, or the relative positions of the news organizations to each other. Which is really the whole point of the exercise.

  18. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post

    But the real point I was getting at is that if you simply think the chart should be shifted one column to the left or to the right... you're basically agreeing with the chart. Shifting the whole thing to the right or to the left doesn't change the overall shape of the chart, or the relative positions of the news organizations to each other. Which is really the whole point of the exercise.
    That's like someone from Chapel Hill telling me that if I agree that Carolina blue is blue, albeit the wrong shade, I am agreeing with them that it is the right shade of blue because at least it is a form of blue. The whole point of a chart like this is where it is centered.

    My whole point is that to throw such a chart out as any sort of authority must be colored by the bias since it is being generated by ONE person, regardless of how convinced that ONE person is of their ability to correct for their own bias.

    The Y axis of that chart is also quite problematic and influenced by the bias of the author. If the chart were shifted to the left, without also shifting many of the left side down, it also wouldn't be right.

  19. #259
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    We've been skeptical about "fact reporting", as you call it, since well before Trump came along and things like this lovely lady from the NYT editorial board are just the latest in our list of grievances. Trump just recognizes what's there and channels it.
    There is an ocean of difference between objecting to news reporting and calling those reporters "the enemies of the people."

    Or rather, it's one thing to criticize journalists as "nattering nabobs of negativity," and quite another to assert that the media "can cause War."

  20. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    I'm trying to figure out why you posted something you admit is false. I don't have the time to figure out what in your post was doctored, and you didn't bother to explain how it is pertinent. If you don't explain what portion was doctored, how are we supposed to understand your point? I don't even know what imgur.com is. Did they doctor it? Did the New York Times doctor it? Maybe I'm stupid and don't get it. Is it hypocrisy that the New York Times hired her after she tweeted these things? Which, if doctored, she did not tweet. Even so, that's a far cry from not reporting facts. Please explain.
    I agree that Nick's graphic was needlessly confusing. While Sarah Jeong was a big topic of discussion on political sites this week, one shouldn't assume that everyone reading this thread is keeping up with those sites. (Indeed, folks might very well come to this thread in lieu of reading political sites). To answer some of your questions, here is my short summary: Sarah Jeong has a long history of making anti-white tweets. She says the tweets were satire and a mimicking of people who harassed her online. The New York Times has hired her to be part of their editorial board and stands by that decision.

Similar Threads

  1. Oscars 2018
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-10-2018, 12:23 AM
  2. 2017-2018 team vs 2018-2019 team
    By proelitedota in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-25-2018, 06:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •