Media, Polling, and Pundits

[Dark Holy Elf]

I have many issues with the media, but I don't think this

honestly hope the media is having a wake up call right now. Their job is supposed to report everything from a non biased pov. Report the facts, and let the reader decide. For the past 10 or more years though, they have been in the pockets of the highest bidder, and in the case of this recent election, Hillary.

is accurate or fair. If they were trying to be in the bag for Hillary, they did a horrible job. Go look at how state-controlled media works in dictatorships: they don't give their opponents the time of day. The US media did the opposite, giving Trump lots of attention. (And much of the attention they did give Clinton, just as for Trump, was negative!) This is true of the media outlets who obviously wanted Clinton to win (MSNBC, etc.), of those who obviously wanted Trump to win (Breitbart, parts of Fox News), and everyone in between.

They are driven by money, certainly, but it's not money from candidates: it's their own ratings. They report what's entertaining (in this case: the crazy things Trump said). I would absolutely love to see them report more facts, and particularly more about policy, since at the end of the day that's what matters in an election.

[Punished Dayni]

I fully expect to see a bill introduced to have all future elections use True Hit instead of single RNG.

Is it alright to add this to my sig? Asking as I really do like this line.

Also, it's interesting to see reaction over here. Of course, it was pretty unanimously Clinton, and I have to wonder if there was an intentional bias (at least for all the media under INM, whose owner has been brought up as someone supporting Clinton financially). Either way, a bunch of either regret or rage. I honestly am alright with this (as someone who'd consider himself liberal), as long as it causes a realisation and improvement in reporting.

[Tolvir]

I have many issues with the media, but I don't think this

is accurate or fair. If they were trying to be in the bag for Hillary, they did a horrible job. Go look at how state-controlled media works in dictatorships: they don't give their opponents the time of day. The US media did the opposite, giving Trump lots of attention. (And much of the attention they did give Clinton, just as for Trump, was negative!) This is true of the media outlets who obviously wanted Clinton to win (MSNBC, etc.), of those who obviously wanted Trump to win (Breitbart, parts of Fox News), and everyone in between.

They are driven by money, certainly, but it's not money from candidates: it's their own ratings. They report what's entertaining (in this case: the crazy things Trump said). I would absolutely love to see them report more facts, and particularly more about policy, since at the end of the day that's what matters in an election.

Sure they gave Trump s lot of attention, but only on the stupid things he said, not the actual policies and things he is trying to do. With Hillary, the gave her the questions before the debate, let the dnc decide the questions, let Hillary's campaign review the articles about her, etc. They were paid off to give her an edge. Something they should never do. Their job is supposed to be unbiased, but clearly they weren't.

And you are correct, they are focused on their ratings. It's why they focus so much on the protesters, but not the full facts on it. They are make by those protests out to be way worst than they actually are, because it sells. People will tune in to watch when it's crazy and exciting, or at least that's what they think. They focused so much on Trump's crazy quotes, but not his actual policies and points. Often times the things he said were taken out of context, or in some ways they were from Years ago, but because it would create drama, and therefore views, they did it.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Tolvir

[Crysta]

His policies and points either sucked or were vague as fuck. They still are. You are oversimplifying it. The emphasis on his crazy antics helped him more than it hurt him, probably, and the media gets the full blame for that: it gave him plenty of air coverage and us liberals were confident that if we oversaturated the coverage with the latest idiotic thing he's said then there is no way anyone sensible could elect an idiot into the highest office in our country.

And then they did, because what he says doesn't matter to the people who voted for him: they either dismiss it, justify it, or it's simply not the highest thing on their priority list.

That and a good portion of the Obama coalition decided to just stay home. They may have been polled but they did not go out and vote like the Trumpets did. Also not very sympathetic towards them.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Crysta

[Rezzy]

Is it alright to add this to my sig? Asking as I really do like this line.

Go ahead. I'm glad you found it funny.

[Tolvir]

His policies and points either sucked or were vague as fuck. They still are. You are oversimplifying it. The emphasis on his crazy antics helped him more than it hurt him, probably, and the media gets the full blame for that: it gave him plenty of air coverage and us liberals were confident that if we oversaturated the coverage with the latest idiotic thing he's said then there is no way anyone sensible could elect an idiot into the highest office in our country.

And then they did, because what he says doesn't matter to the people who voted for him: they either dismiss it, justify it, or it's simply not the highest thing on their priority list.

That and a good portion of the Obama coalition decided to just stay home. They may have been polled but they did not go out and vote like the Trumpets did. Also not very sympathetic towards them.

And you oversimplified the reasons why people voted for Trump. People voted for Trump because they are tired of being called bigots, homophobes, racists, sexist , privileged, patriarchal, sexist, or whatever insult was thrown at them for not agreeing with the Democrats. People's voices were shut down and thrown out because it may "hurt someone's feelings". They were demonized because they may not agree with something, with no one asking the reasoning or for a full explanation.

Just look at what happened at a college recently. A conservative group came by for the conservative students to hold a small event. The liberal students, not all of them though, decided they were going to protest it. We now have safe spaces on in colleges, which do nothing else but allow someone to shut out other views because they find them offensive.

Not just that either though, because that reason alone would be an oversimplification. Some voted because they didn't trust the establishment. Hillary was representing the typical politician. Trump, while not much better, represented the outside. He isn't a career politician, and brings in a fresh perspective on matters that a career politician might not. Some were angry at the dnc for doing what they did to Bernie. Some voted for him because they were angry with the DNC overall. Some voted because they are angry with the curren direction.

There were a lot of reasons, and saying that the Obama voters didn't come out and that is why he won, or that they outright ignored what he said is an oversimplification of the reasons.

[Crysta]

And you oversimplified the reasons why people voted for Trump. People voted for Trump because they are tired of being called bigots, homophobes, racists, sexist , privileged, patriarchal, sexist, or whatever insult was thrown at them for not agreeing with the Democrats.

I don't believe these are the reasons for all of Trump's votes: I believe these are your reasons.

People's voices were shut down and thrown out because it may "hurt someone's feelings". They were demonized because they may not agree with something, with no one asking the reasoning or for a full explanation.

The reason behind your disagreement means everything. If it is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. and you don't like it when confronted about it, then it is your feelings that are being hurt and it is you who is lashing out and being triggered.

I can acknowledge that colleges are fucking ridiculous and reactionary but I do not think every Trump supporter deserves to be given more respect than the very people they demonize.

I didn't oversimply: I certainly didn't go into GREAT DETAIL about all the reasons Trump triumphed, but even the reasons you're giving are part of it: you didn't like being ignored/demonized and prioritized that above another group being demonized (because Trump has done that plenty!). You are not the only one who has done that, nor is the Republican party the only political party who does that.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Crysta

[Rezzy]

Hopefully, there will be a bit more objectivity next time.

[Life]

Hopefully, there will be a bit more objectivity next time.

Us on the right have been skewering the MSM for a long time. I myself am considering buying CRTV just to be able to actually hear the Conservative take on news since all my friends send me liberal stuff and I read The National Post and Globe & Mail (both Canadian papers but still heavily leftist that are still deriding Trump supporters) almost daily.

​But Joe Scarborough has occasionally gotten it right. I don't agree with his opinions a lot of time but he tried his best to be objective. Can't say the same about CNN. Or the WP/NYT/Politico... list goes on.

[Rezzy]

Us on the right have been skewering the MSM for a long time. I myself am considering buying CRTV just to be able to actually hear the Conservative take on news since all my friends send me liberal stuff and I read The National Post and Globe & Mail (both Canadian papers but still heavily leftist that are still deriding Trump supporters) almost daily.

​But Joe Scarborough has occasionally gotten it right. I don't agree with his opinions a lot of time but he tried his best to be objective. Can't say the same about CNN. Or the WP/NYT/Politico... list goes on.

It's really hard to get anything that's really objective. People call Fox out all the time for being on the right, but pretty much everything else has at least a slight left bias. I try to watch/read both sides. I mostly do CNN and Fox, with the occasional MSNBC and read the Huffington Post, and I figure the truth is somewhere in the middle, but I wish I didn't have to do that. Plus, I'm not really on the right or left, strictly speaking, more of a Libertarian. Almost to the extreme. I think we should legalize pretty much any drug you can name. I want gay marriage, heck legalize polygamy, or even gay polygamy. I think the government has no business regulating morality.

Leading up to the election, I followed Nate Silver at 538 the closest, since he seemed to be the most objective and his 70/30 odds seem to have turned out to be the most accurate of all the major new groups. Even Fox was predicting a Hillary win.

[eclipse]

In the days leading up to the elections, most media sites and polls were united on the idea of a win for Hillary Clinton. Even Fox News thought that Hillary would win. But then the election results came out and showed all of them that they were terribly wrong. I'm still confused on what caused this large discrepancy between predicted and actual results and more importantly, I wonder if the media can regain the trust of people who subscribe to them. What are your opinions on the matter?

Edit: Now that I see what people said below, I should probably change the title to "Media, Polling and Pundits". Or maybe just "Media and Pundits". Does anyone know how to do that?

Sure~!

1. Go to the first post, and click on Edit.

2. Click on Use Full Editor.

3. Change the title! SF rules and all apply, but what you suggested is fine!

---

If I trusted the media to report straight facts, I'd have more to say. Alas, I think they're more interested in entertainment than news, so I didn't pay much attention to them.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Us on the right have been skewering the MSM for a long time. I myself am considering buying CRTV just to be able to actually hear the Conservative take on news since all my friends send me liberal stuff and I read The National Post and Globe & Mail (both Canadian papers but still heavily leftist that are still deriding Trump supporters) almost daily.

The National Post certainly isn't leftist. They consistently support right-wing economic positions and the Conservative Party of Canada, and have unequivocally endorsed them (or the Canadian Alliance) in every single election since their inception. If you consider them leftist it says far more about your own political views.

They may not like Trump (I've not read them this year; I don't really do newspapers any more though I made an exception during the Canadian election last year), but liking or disliking Trump isn't necessarily a left/right thing, especially for a Canadian (if Trump followed through on his worst protectionist threats, that would be pretty bad for us; Canada does an insane amount of its trade with the US).

Regardless, I do definitely agree that it's a good idea to get news from different sources, including at least one with politics you find at least mildly opposed to your own. Liberals who surround themselves with MSNBC/Huffington Post and conservatives who watch nothing but Fox News both end up with rather twisted views of reality; I've personally seen too much of both (some of my own family is very far left; some of my partner's is very far right).

[Life]

The National Post certainly isn't leftist. They consistently support right-wing economic positions and the Conservative Party of Canada, and have unequivocally endorsed them (or the Canadian Alliance) in every single election since their inception. If you consider them leftist it says far more about your own political views.

They may not like Trump (I've not read them this year; I don't really do newspapers any more though I made an exception during the Canadian election last year), but liking or disliking Trump isn't necessarily a left/right thing, especially for a Canadian (if Trump followed through on his worst protectionist threats, that would be pretty bad for us; Canada does an insane amount of its trade with the US).

Not the articles I've been reading. I've seen more praise for Trudeau from the NP than the G&M in recent weeks and a LOT of disdain for anyone who was supporting Trump. That being said, it's not like the CPC is as right wing as I wish it would be (it will be if/when Mad Max Bernier wins the leadership race).

Trust me, I know the NP well. They've done an article on me and my sister personally (interviewed her, got the skinny on me from her and my mother). I have no problem giving them praise when they deserve it but right now, there are only two people writing pieces for the NP that don't insult the public. That's Conrad Black and Rex Murphy. A criminal and goddamn Rex Murphy.

Go read Jonathan Kay's latest piece if you don't believe me.

[Phoenix Wright]

on the original question, the polls weren't really completely wrong. clinton did win the popular vote, which was projected since the beginning. because of the electoral college, though, it matters where the support comes from, and so pollers also need to model how counties/states will go. vote modeling is difficult and is expected to be imprecise because there's too many uncontrollable and chaotic parameters.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Rezzy]

on the original question, the polls weren't really completely wrong. clinton did win the popular vote, which was projected since the beginning. because of the electoral college, though, it matters where the support comes from, and so pollers also need to model how counties/states will go. vote modeling is difficult and is expected to be imprecise because there's too many uncontrollable and chaotic parameters.

Yeah, it was more a problem of overconfidence in slim lead that was within the margin of error.

And also, the Popular vote means nothing if you're only running up the score in a state you've already won. Clinton is winning California at a 2 to 1 margin, but the only thing that does it let her win the national popular vote. She also won the popular vote by a thin margin, and by no means a landslide.

An analogy is say, the Cubs and Yankees meet in the World Series next year. The Yankees Outscore the Cubs 30-20 overall, but say the scores of the games are

Cubs 5-4

Yankees 15-0

Cubs 6-5

Cubs 4-3

Cubs 5-3

The Cubs take the series 4-1. Sure the Yankees scored more runs overall, but they scored half of their runs in a game that was already a blow-out, while the Cubs won 4 squeakers.

The Electoral College is a flawed system, but everyone knew the rules going in. If people want to reform it, that could be a project for the next election cycle. But for now, we have to live with the result. I wish the election had turned out differently, but it's not the end of the world, either.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Not the articles I've been reading. I've seen more praise for Trudeau from the NP than the G&M in recent weeks and a LOT of disdain for anyone who was supporting Trump. That being said, it's not like the CPC is as right wing as I wish it would be (it will be if/when Mad Max Bernier wins the leadership race).

Trust me, I know the NP well. They've done an article on me and my sister personally (interviewed her, got the skinny on me from her and my mother). I have no problem giving them praise when they deserve it but right now, there are only two people writing pieces for the NP that don't insult the public. That's Conrad Black and Rex Murphy. A criminal and goddamn Rex Murphy.

Go read Jonathan Kay's latest piece if you don't believe me.

-The CPC may not be as right-wing as you are, but they are unquestionably right of centre. If you call them and their supporters "leftist", the term loses all meaning, except as defined relative to your own personal views. (And at that point, of course almost all media will be "leftist" to you.)

-Justin Trudeau has a ~65% approval rating, last I checked, which implies that a lot of centre-right Canadians approve of what he's doing (since some of his disapproval comes from the far left, though more comes from the right I'd hazard). It's entirely possible to praise him without being a leftist, particularly if you praise him on fronts such as his getting the CETA trade deal done with the EU (a deal which started being drawn up under Harper). I will also remind you that leading up to the election, they were strongly in favour of Harper over Trudeau, so at worst you can argue they fall politically between the two, i.e. right of centre.

-I read that article you mentioned. I can see why you take issue with it (it is certainly dismissive and disdainful of Trump supporters, and I won't defend that), but it is definitely a conservative intellectual's criticism of Donald Trump, not a left-wing one. Again, you can't define left- and right- wing solely by one's opinion of Trump. Mitt Romney, Evan McMullen, and the Bush family are not suddenly left-wing just because they spoke out against Trump. I keep saying this, but in many ways Trump isn't even that right-wing: he's a protectionist on trade, he wants to increase government spending on infrastructure, etc. Similarly, I'm not trying to defend the National Post wholesale; you read it regularly and I don't, and it sounds like you have some valid complaints. It just isn't left-wing (or if it is, this is a sudden change which is very out of line with its previous history).

[UNLEASH IT]

Yeah, it was more a problem of overconfidence in slim lead that was within the margin of error.

And also, the Popular vote means nothing if you're only running up the score in a state you've already won. Clinton is winning California at a 2 to 1 margin, but the only thing that does it let her win the national popular vote. She also won the popular vote by a thin margin, and by no means a landslide.

An analogy is say, the Cubs and Yankees meet in the World Series next year. The Yankees Outscore the Cubs 30-20 overall, but say the scores of the games are

Cubs 5-4

Yankees 15-0

Cubs 6-5

Cubs 4-3

Cubs 5-3

The Cubs take the series 4-1. Sure the Yankees scored more runs overall, but they scored half of their runs in a game that was already a blow-out, while the Cubs won 4 squeakers.

The Electoral College is a flawed system, but everyone knew the rules going in. If people want to reform it, that could be a project for the next election cycle. But for now, we have to live with the result. I wish the election had turned out differently, but it's not the end of the world, either.

I like the analogy, but I feel like it plays down the fact that there were also blowouts in Trump's favour in the places he was expected to win. I feel like this was more like the 2016 NBA finals, where there were huge wins for both sides, but the decisive game was won by a very small margin, with the Rust Belt states and Florida being game 7. Though I guess my analogy is flawed as well, since if you add up the all points, the Cavs still narrowly beat the Warriors 703-699 and and the final result was 4-3

Edited November 13, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Rezzy]

EDIT: There should be an Oxford comma in the thread title.

I like the analogy, but I feel like it plays down the fact that there were also blowouts in Trump's favour in the places he was expected to win. I feel like this was more like the 2016 NBA finals, where there were huge wins for both sides, but the decisive game was won by a very small margin, with the Rust Belt states and Florida being game 7. Though I guess my analogy is flawed as well, since if you add up the all points, the Cavs still narrowly beat the Warriors 703-699 and and the final result was 4-3

True, and the wider the margin is is popular vote (or runs or points, in the analogy's case) the less likely you are to have a split between popular vote and Electoral College, but when the margin is only 1-2% points, winning the Electoral College, while losing the popular vote is a very possible reality.

Including this year, a candidate has never won more then 50% of the popular vote and lost the Electoral College (unless you count 1876). Every time the winner of the popular vote lost, they had only won a plurality, and a close plurality at that.

1824: Jackson won a plurality of 41.4% of the popular vote among a crowded field of 4 presidential candidates, but the vote went to the House and he lost.

1876: This is one were the election actually had a dubious winner, due to the Republicans giving questionable states over to Hayes. States in the south were ripe with fraud so even though Tilden won on paper, there was no way to know how legitimate his win was, and the committee sided with Hayes.

1888: Grover Cleveland won 48.6% against Benjamin Harrison's 47.8%

2000: Everyone knows about Bush vs Gore, or at least should. It was only 16 years ago.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Rezzy

[UNLEASH IT]

2000: Everyone knows about Bush vs Gore, or at least should. It was only 16 years ago.

It's something I certainly know about, but not something I consciously lived through, because I was only 5 years old at the time, too young to really understand. Please don't take this the wrong way, but the way you refer to 16 years as 'only 16 years' when it's been about three quarters of the time I've existed on this planet suggests to me that:

1) You're a lot older than me. By more than 10 years, at the very least, if I were to guess.

2) You're a lot older than the average age of the people on this site, something that I believe myself to be slightly older than as well.

Edited November 13, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Res]

I'm definitely guilty of the above; 16 years is less than half the time I've been alive, haha.

[Rezzy]

It's something I certainly know about, but not something I consciously lived through, because I was only 5 years old at the time, too young to really understand. Please don't take this the wrong way, but the way you refer to 16 years as 'only 16 years' when it's been about three quarters of the time I've existed on this planet suggests to me that:

1) You're a lot older than me. By more than 10 years, at the very least, if I were to guess.

2) You're a lot older than the average age of the people on this site, something that I believe myself to be slightly older than as well.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be condescending. I am a bit old, I even remember the fall of the Soviet Union.

I'm definitely guilty of the above; 16 years is less than half the time I've been alive, haha.

Yeah, I'm feeling a bit old, now. The first presidential election I really paid attention to was 1996. I sort of remember 1992, but didn't really have enough awareness of the world at large at that time. I only remember the fall of the Soviet Union, because it was on a whole 'nother scale of historic importance. If it weren't for 9/11, it would probably have been the biggest event of the last 50 years.

EDIT: Yay, Oxford comma

Edited November 13, 2016 by Rezzy

[UNLEASH IT]

EDIT: Yay, Oxford comma

I actually had to look up what that was. Learned something new today.

[Life]

-The CPC may not be as right-wing as you are, but they are unquestionably right of centre. If you call them and their supporters "leftist", the term loses all meaning, except as defined relative to your own personal views. (And at that point, of course almost all media will be "leftist" to you.)

-Justin Trudeau has a ~65% approval rating, last I checked, which implies that a lot of centre-right Canadians approve of what he's doing (since some of his disapproval comes from the far left, though more comes from the right I'd hazard). It's entirely possible to praise him without being a leftist, particularly if you praise him on fronts such as his getting the CETA trade deal done with the EU (a deal which started being drawn up under Harper). I will also remind you that leading up to the election, they were strongly in favour of Harper over Trudeau, so at worst you can argue they fall politically between the two, i.e. right of centre.

-I read that article you mentioned. I can see why you take issue with it (it is certainly dismissive and disdainful of Trump supporters, and I won't defend that), but it is definitely a conservative intellectual's criticism of Donald Trump, not a left-wing one. Again, you can't define left- and right- wing solely by one's opinion of Trump. Mitt Romney, Evan McMullen, and the Bush family are not suddenly left-wing just because they spoke out against Trump. I keep saying this, but in many ways Trump isn't even that right-wing: he's a protectionist on trade, he wants to increase government spending on infrastructure, etc. Similarly, I'm not trying to defend the National Post wholesale; you read it regularly and I don't, and it sounds like you have some valid complaints. It just isn't left-wing (or if it is, this is a sudden change which is very out of line with its previous history).

Actually, the PC sits just left of center in Canada, but just barely. The Liberals are firmly left, the NDP are hardcore and the rest are inconsequential. It's actually a common mistake because the country leans towards socialism even with the PCs in charge. Republicans are far more right wing than the PC and the Democrats aren't as left wing as the Liberal Party.

It is possible to praise Trudeau but I find little reason to do so considering that I don't like his immigration and economic policies. Trudeau claimed that he was going to put the country only $10 billion in debt, the number is now sitting at $25 billion and he's going to half to raise taxes and enforce a carbon tax to make money. The country is accepting a lot of Syrian refugees wholesale (and providing fucking housing on the average Canadian's dime) while Eritreans wait 5 years for visas when they could probably integrate into the country's social fabric a lot better than the Syrians. He's fine on social issues (aside from Bill C-16) but fiscal policy and immigration is going to kick in by early 2018 and hopefully drive voters to the PCs.

As for the NP, I know that Trump isn't right wing. But no conservative should find a reason to criticize Trump voters. They should be able to sympathize at the very least. They don't have to support Trump themselves but it's not difficult to see the sway of Trump in the conservative base because of who his opponent was.

​Though if the NP wants to go after Kellie Leitch and sink her campaign, I'll be more than thrilled. I do NOT want that woman running the PCs.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Life

[Dark Holy Elf]

Actually, the PC sits just left of center in Canada, but just barely. The Liberals are firmly left, the NDP are hardcore and the rest are inconsequential. It's actually a common mistake because the country leans towards socialism even with the PCs in charge. Republicans are far more right wing than the PC and the Democrats aren't as left wing as the Liberal Party.

Well at this point, it really depends how we define what centre is. I was using the median political views of Canadians, since the politics of Canadians are what matters for the opinion of Canadian newspapers, not those of Americans.

Certainly I agree that Canada is to the left of America on average, but so are many (likely most) other democracies. It's very difficult, and arguably pointless, to try to define an international political "centre" point, but if you have a logic for how you're doing so I'm curious to hear it.

I'm not surprised you don't like Trudeau because you are extremely far right, based on your opinions voiced in this and other threads. However, a newspaper having good things to say about a PM who has the approval of a wide array of Canadians doesn't prove they are biased towards the left. It just proves they are to the left of you.

[Rezzy]

I don't know how the pollsters made their national polls, but I wonder if next election, they will take the polls exclusively from the swing states. Clinton won the popular vote, but most of that came from California going 2:1 for Clinton, when did nothing for her in the Electoral College.