You can call me a right-wing wingnut or whatever. But this makes sense to me, and this does not. And it's been pretty consistent during the current election season.
There's a war on. And a recession. And an attempt by the executive branch to usurp the powers of the other two. And the biggest problem the author sees is campaign finance?
Washington Post is biased pro-Obama, WSJ is biased pro-McCain, and the voters are already subscribed to whichever newspaper reflects their own bias anyway. I'm sorry, but the media bias is basically a republican excuse for being disliked by the majority of the population.
Really? Which polls? Even Fox News, which no one could accuse of being anti-republican, gives pre-election poll results which show Obama leading by 7%.
More or less respectable polling organizations show the unstable picture, with both candidates below 50% and the gap oscillating withing the margin of error. So the the idea about majority of population disliking Republicans can be explained only as a severe distortion of the reality. BTW, I expect Obama to win the elections.
Well, 6 points gap is quite close to the margin of error and during the campaign we have already seen similar oscillations. So, while Obama will, perhaps, be the next President, the idea about anti-Republican majority remains wild exaggeration.
Sounds like you are can't provide links to these respectable polling organizations which show both candidates under 50% and, being unable to substantiate your claim, are switching positions from "both candidates are under 50%" to "6% is close to the margin of error".
I'm not going to even discuss your second claim until you admit your first one to have been wrong or substantiate it. When I start discussing it I'll ask you to prove it by showing the margin of error for the specific poll to which you have referred.
Sounds like you are can't provide links to these respectable polling organizations which show both candidates under 50% The link shows the polling chart ( I am seldom wrong 8-) ). Now, when you can see with your own eyes that for the most of campaign both candidates were below 50% and the gap was smaller than in the latest poll, we can talk about imaginary anti-Republican majority and the deep emotional reasons that make you distort the reality in a such an unexciting way.
This link shows Obama at 51.4%. You claimed that both candidates "are" (that's present tense, not "were for the most part of the campaign") under 50%. You may be seldom wrong, but this is one of these seldom occasions.
I didn't claim that today or yesterday Obama polled below 50%. What I said was that overall picture doesn't prove the еxistence of the anti-Republican majority. If it was not clear enough, I meant the whole campaign and not just the latest poll.
I'll take that to be the closest you can get to "I've used the wrong verb tense and failed to make my meaning explicit". Accepted. On to your next point:
"Polling as a measurement technique has an intrinsic margin of error, around 3-4%. " So, 6% would be anywhere from 30% to 50% outside the margin of error, right? If, of course, one forgot for the nonce that you can't actually discuss margin of error without first stating the level of confidence (which is usually either 95% or 90%, and which one is used makes a large difference). This sounds like another one of those unsubstantiated... oops, sorry... unclearly stated opinions of yours. Care to restate? Using polls that look at all candidates, not just the ones that remained standing at the end of the campaign, or, better yet, at parties?
And, btw, when you say "latest poll" do specify the poll if you want to say anything meaningful about its margin of error. And stay away from ad-hominem attepts if you want to get a response.
And, btw, when you say "latest poll" do specify the poll if you want to say anything meaningful about its margin of error Polling as a measurement technique has an intrinsic margin of error, around 3-4%.
Насчёт "окружения" это да. (Если не ошибаюсь, в психологии это называется референтной группой.) Но вот у меня в этой группе большинство не совпадает со мной по этому вопросу. Что же делать? :-)
Не читать русских газет по утрам :) шучу, я лучшего мнения о вашем интеллектуальном уровне. Когда мнения еще нет, оно может формироваться и на основе сознательного выбора, но когда оно уже есть, изменить его очень трудно. Я стараюсь с этим в себе бороться.
Да, изменить мнение бывает трудно, если нет хороших контраргументов. Лучший контраргумент — это, так сказать, контрфакт. Что-то важное, что было раньше неизвестно или упущено из рассмотрения. Либо если действуешь, исходя из какой-то гипотезы, а результаты не совпадают с предсказанными. Научный подход в быту.
Хороший тест на самоосмысленность - "постпопперьянский": менял(а) ли я когда-нибудь свою точку зрения на (условно) противоположную на основании расхождения между действительностью и своим представлением о ней. Почти всегда до определённого предела можно можно прогибать либо действительность, либо представление, но случаются пороговые значения. Если они вызвали фазовый переход, - можно жить дальше. Если нет, - сидеть в ЖЖ и учить (других) албанскому.
Я знаком с гипотезой про здоровые тело и дух. :-) Вот рядом два здоровых тела, оба интеллигенты и интеллектуалы, оба противоположных политических взглядов. Как же так, дорогая редакция?
amazing display of ignorance by Victor Davis Hanson.
"So we are about to elect a vice president about whom we know only that he has been around a long time, but little else — and nothing at all why exactly Joe Biden says the most astounding and often lunatic things." - says someone who is accusing journalists of not doing their job while himslef not even trying to do it.
Joe Bidens record is public; available to be accessed on the web or through more formal "harcopy" channels. All his speeches, all his initiatives, all his meetings, all his mistakes, including the ones Mr. Hanson mentioned, all his trips around the country and abroad, etc.
The problem is that Victor Davis Hanson didn't really do anything of what he is preaching, which really does prove his point in a very sad kind of way...jouranlism is dead, if the ones making the statement don't even bother to be journalists themselves.
Hansen is wrong. His facts are right but the conclusion is wrong. Yes, the media doesn't follow the GOP talking points and focuses on Palin more than Binden. It's not because they are "infatuated with Obama" though.
The media is not focusing at the campaign financing because guess where the money end up being spent? That's right! TV ads. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Biden is old and boring. Nobody wants to see Biden. Palin, on the other hand, is a walking rating increase. People want her, people want to know the color of her underwear. People love her or hate her but they get engaged either way, good for the ratings.
Ayers, Right, Fleger, Khalidi, ACORN, etc. It's like a right wing obsession with the whole guilt by association thing. Nobody cares! Even McCain campaign was smart enough to drop it eventually. Why would the media tell a story that nobody wants to hear where there are plenty of stories that people do want to hear? For instance, what's the color of Sarah Palin's underwear. Now, here is a good story.
"The socialist" and "the wealth spreader" thingy is no more than a name calling. The media will not call your opponent names for you, unless you pay them. Also, like a good republican strategist said, Obama featured a 30 min infomercial and a join rally with Bill Clinton. McCain featured Joe The Plumber that didn't show up. The media covered both.
Don't blame the media, blame the campaign, IMO. McCain ran a shitty campaign so Obama dominated the news cycle, got more money, didn't gamble with his VP, got his message out better.
P.S. Hanson's article is very ignorant and one sided. He calls out the media on the very things that he does himself.
VDH is in many ways part of the media, isn't he? But I disagree that the "guilt by association" is a one-sided thing. What is one-sided is the way the media tend to investigate one side much more than the other, and that is the crucial thing here and the gist of the article too. And it makes perfect sense, to me, frankly (which is what I mentioned in the posting).
Now, McCain may have run a shitty campaign (I am aware of this meme), but look at the way he bounced since one year ago.
Don't forget, he had a much harder nomination than McCain. When Obama was running against Clinton he was investigated just fine. Hillary threw everything at him and many connections were investigated, including Wright, including Ayers. In case of Ayers they didn't find enough substance and dropped it.
What I find interesting is how the right wing complains about Palin being investigated so much. She wasn't vetted to make the negatives "old news" which good campaigns do. She was completely unknown before the convention, she was introduced like a great achiever, don't you think it was _natural_ for the media to drop a lot of resources on her since so many people on both sides of the political spectrum wanted to know so much about her?
Also, shitty campaign is not a "meme". He did run a pretty bad campaign, even his big time supporters complain about it. His message was all over the place, the fund raising was weak when it was clear he would need lots of money to be competitive. We are yet to see how his ground operation turns out, a lot of republicans complain that Obama's campaign has a better voter turn out mechanism.
About "bouncing back". McCain had a very straight forward and easy nomination, he was done in March. After the St' Paul Convention he was up 8 points, then Lehman Brothers happened and 2 weeks down the road he dropped 12 points.
IMHO, the guy had a very decent shot at the presidency but instead of hammering a consistent conservative message he veered all over the place. I think he would be so much better off picking up Romney but McCain hated him since the primaries so the country didn't get to be first there, I suspect.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
be-bebe-be-be!
no subject
no subject
Правильно: "от такой же слышу!"
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The polls and elections show slightly different numbers, but fact should never distract the true believer.
no subject
no subject
BTW, I expect Obama to win the elections.
no subject
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/ Obama at 50% (those are _heavy_ Republicans, in case you were wondering)
http://zogby.com/ (Obama at 50.9%)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/state_toplines/pennsylvania/toplines_pennsylvania_presidential_election_november_1_2008 (Obama at 52%)
http://www.muhlenberg.edu/studorgs/polling/ (Obama at 52.2%)
no subject
no subject
I'm not going to even discuss your second claim until you admit your first one to have been wrong or substantiate it. When I start discussing it I'll ask you to prove it by showing the margin of error for the specific poll to which you have referred.
no subject
The link shows the polling chart ( I am seldom wrong 8-) ). Now, when you can see with your own eyes that for the most of campaign both candidates were below 50% and the gap was smaller than in the latest poll, we can talk about imaginary anti-Republican majority and the deep emotional reasons that make you distort the reality in a such an unexciting way.
no subject
no subject
no subject
"Polling as a measurement technique has an intrinsic margin of error, around 3-4%. "
So, 6% would be anywhere from 30% to 50% outside the margin of error, right? If, of course, one forgot for the nonce that you can't actually discuss margin of error without first stating the level of confidence (which is usually either 95% or 90%, and which one is used makes a large difference). This sounds like another one of those unsubstantiated... oops, sorry... unclearly stated opinions of yours. Care to restate? Using polls that look at all candidates, not just the ones that remained standing at the end of the campaign, or, better yet, at parties?
no subject
no subject
Polling as a measurement technique has an intrinsic margin of error, around 3-4%.
Ooops!
The 52% is correct.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
шучу, я лучшего мнения о вашем интеллектуальном уровне.
Когда мнения еще нет, оно может формироваться и на основе сознательного выбора, но когда оно уже есть, изменить его очень трудно. Я стараюсь с этим в себе бороться.
no subject
Да, изменить мнение бывает трудно, если нет хороших контраргументов. Лучший контраргумент — это, так сказать, контрфакт. Что-то важное, что было раньше неизвестно или упущено из рассмотрения. Либо если действуешь, исходя из какой-то гипотезы, а результаты не совпадают с предсказанными. Научный подход в быту.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
"So we are about to elect a vice president about whom we know only that he has been around a long time, but little else — and nothing at all why exactly Joe Biden says the most astounding and often lunatic things." - says someone who is accusing journalists of not doing their job while himslef not even trying to do it.
Joe Bidens record is public; available to be accessed on the web or through more formal "harcopy" channels. All his speeches, all his initiatives, all his meetings, all his mistakes, including the ones Mr. Hanson mentioned, all his trips around the country and abroad, etc.
The problem is that Victor Davis Hanson didn't really do anything of what he is preaching, which really does prove his point in a very sad kind of way...jouranlism is dead, if the ones making the statement don't even bother to be journalists themselves.
no subject
Yes, he is "preaching", as you said, and I do not like it. But his points are valid.
no subject
McCain's horrible VP choice and a very bad campain have nothing to do with the media...
again, those who can't do preach...
no subject
no subject
The media is not focusing at the campaign financing because guess where the money end up being spent? That's right! TV ads. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Biden is old and boring. Nobody wants to see Biden. Palin, on the other hand, is a walking rating increase. People want her, people want to know the color of her underwear. People love her or hate her but they get engaged either way, good for the ratings.
Ayers, Right, Fleger, Khalidi, ACORN, etc. It's like a right wing obsession with the whole guilt by association thing. Nobody cares! Even McCain campaign was smart enough to drop it eventually. Why would the media tell a story that nobody wants to hear where there are plenty of stories that people do want to hear? For instance, what's the color of Sarah Palin's underwear. Now, here is a good story.
"The socialist" and "the wealth spreader" thingy is no more than a name calling. The media will not call your opponent names for you, unless you pay them. Also, like a good republican strategist said, Obama featured a 30 min infomercial and a join rally with Bill Clinton. McCain featured Joe The Plumber that didn't show up. The media covered both.
Don't blame the media, blame the campaign, IMO. McCain ran a shitty campaign so Obama dominated the news cycle, got more money, didn't gamble with his VP, got his message out better.
P.S. Hanson's article is very ignorant and one sided. He calls out the media on the very things that he does himself.
no subject
Now, McCain may have run a shitty campaign (I am aware of this meme), but look at the way he bounced since one year ago.
no subject
What I find interesting is how the right wing complains about Palin being investigated so much. She wasn't vetted to make the negatives "old news" which good campaigns do. She was completely unknown before the convention, she was introduced like a great achiever, don't you think it was _natural_ for the media to drop a lot of resources on her since so many people on both sides of the political spectrum wanted to know so much about her?
Also, shitty campaign is not a "meme". He did run a pretty bad campaign, even his big time supporters complain about it. His message was all over the place, the fund raising was weak when it was clear he would need lots of money to be competitive. We are yet to see how his ground operation turns out, a lot of republicans complain that Obama's campaign has a better voter turn out mechanism.
About "bouncing back". McCain had a very straight forward and easy nomination, he was done in March. After the St' Paul Convention he was up 8 points, then Lehman Brothers happened and 2 weeks down the road he dropped 12 points.
IMHO, the guy had a very decent shot at the presidency but instead of hammering a consistent conservative message he veered all over the place. I think he would be so much better off picking up Romney but McCain hated him since the primaries so the country didn't get to be first there, I suspect.
no subject
OK, very soon all of this will be just academic. Let's wait a little. :-)