Media, Polling, and Pundits

[tuvarkz]

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.

They should keep polls on the rest of states as well-chances are a few of them might become swing states in the near future, and polls could help to see if a trend is forming.

[Rezzy]

They should keep polls on the rest of states as well-chances are a few of them might become swing states in the near future, and polls could help to see if a trend is forming.

True, they can still poll other states, but the main poll they release should be a "swing" poll, because that's how the president is decided, as long as we have the electoral college.

[Nobody]

True, they can still poll other states, but the main poll they release should be a "swing" poll, because that's how the president is decided, as long as we have the electoral college.

Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin weren't really considered swing states and they decided the election

[Dark Holy Elf]

Swing states are already polled much more often and in much greater detail than non-swing states, for what it's worth. National polls are still useful because they reveal overall trends quite well. If someone wins the popular vote by 5% or more they're going to win the election every time.

Pollsters are going to use observations from 2016 to tinker with their methods but broadly speaking they're already doing the right thing, as best we know it. Serious misses like Dewey/Truman are (most likely) a thing of the past.

[Rezzy]

Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin weren't really considered swing states and they decided the election

They were considered long-shots, but still in play. Pennsylvania especially, has been considered a swing state in every election I've paid attention to, it just never swung until now.

To better explain what I mean, I would suggest reading what Nate Silver has written about "tipping point" states.

[Life]

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.

I'm actually not far right.

The last time I completed a political compass test, I came out with a 1.88 lean to the right and 1.23 lean to libertarian.

I just seem far right here in contrast.

[Dark Holy Elf]

You say that, but that's very much at odds with your claim that the Conservative party isn't far enough to the right for you; you're actually claiming that you are significantly to their left!

https://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2015

You frequently put forward the furthest right-wing view of any poster in threads here, that I've seen (e.g. you seem to oppose taxation and public spending in nearly all forms, though correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not attacking you, as you're obviously entitled to your views; I am just stating the facts as I see them. I'm actually quite surprised you got so close to the centre on Political Compass (quite close to me, in fact! My lean is slight left instead of slight right) and am curious what views of yours you would identify as left-wing, since you must have some to account for that score.

[Life]

The "taxation is theft" argument is more of a libertarian stance instead of pure right-wing, to be quite honest. I don't like the idea of paying for something that A) I won't benefit from and B) I don't think that society gains more from than losing. Do I think about the poor? Sure. But throwing money at the symptom seems less effective to me than understanding the root problem and attempting to tackle that.

​If you go by "left-wing views" as per the general consensus, I'm pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-marriage equality (even though I do believe the nuclear family is vital for a child's upbringing)... pretty much libertarian on social issues. There's room to debate on all of them. Where I don't budge is on firearms but as I've stated before, I've been using guns for about 15 years including a 2 1/3 year stint in the IDF.

​What sends me right-wing is really the concept that big government will inherently screw up and smaller government will mitigate those mistakes. That is where I differ from libertarians. I recognize the need for state level governments because those are more responsive to the people's wants.

[Time the Crestfallen]

The "taxation is theft" argument is more of a libertarian stance instead of pure right-wing, to be quite honest. I don't like the idea of paying for something that A) I won't benefit from and B) I don't think that society gains more from than losing. Do I think about the poor? Sure. But throwing money at the symptom seems less effective to me than understanding the root problem and attempting to tackle that.

Leaving aside the 'fuck you, got mine' mentality, how do you suppose the 'root of the problem' is dealt with? Realistically, the only difference is how the money is being spent. Are you saying that you wouldn't support your taxes paying for, say, affirmative action, but you would support your taxes paying for a plan to improve schools in disadvantaged areas? By your own logic, neither of those things would benefit you, so you wouldn't support either. And this is only for education, not even getting into things like Medicare and other such things.

(even though I do believe the nuclear family is vital for a child's upbringing)...

Please explain this.

Edited November 20, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Life]

Leaving aside the 'fuck you, got mine' mentality, how do you suppose the 'root of the problem' is dealt with? Realistically, the only difference is how the money is being spent. Are you saying that you wouldn't support your taxes paying for, say, affirmative action, but you would support your taxes paying for a plan to improve schools in disadvantaged areas? By your own logic, neither of those things would benefit you, so you wouldn't support either. And this is only for education, not even getting into things like Medicare and other such things.

Please explain this.

Regarding the first point, it works like this. This is an example.

​I think that the public school system is completely crap because it has absolutely no accountability for when it fails. This is across the board in Canada and Israel too, by the way, just not as pronounced. The problem is that when they fail, they cry about the issue being that they don't have enough money and so the government tosses more money at them. Same exact thing that caused the sub-prime mortgage failure, just substitute "sub-prime mortgage from banks" in for "public schools". The system is flawed to begin with and more money is not going to help because the problem isn't funding. It is lack of accountability. And I don't want any of my money to go to this vicious cycle which A) doesn't benefit me (it wouldn't anyway due to me actually being post-secondary) and B) it doesn't benefit society more than the damage it does. The same two points that I mentioned above.

​How do you fix this? Honestly, I'm not so cold hearted to say "well, the poor kids should just get fucked" in actuality. I do think that every person should have some level of education because the trade-off would be worth it (because while they might not become millionaires and that's fine, they'd at least be skilled workers in some trade who can be of use to society and in turn contribute back). When I say "the root of the problem", it's the accountability and the most important thing to do is to cut off funding to public schools that don't produce. After that, the charter school system would be much better with the ability for parents to choose the school. If the school succeeds, they get more money if they need it. If they don't, slice the funding and scrap that school.

​Remember John Oliver's shots at charter schools? The one point that he fails to address is the head-on comparison between charter schools and public schools. Public schools are worse than charter schools in almost every measurable category, if not every single one. There's discussion to be had here about this topic.

Oh and I am absolutely against AA but we've had that argument before here.

​Second point refers to how, statistically, children who grow up in a nuclear family succeed much more than single-parent households. I'm interested to see the data vs. two gay parent households when it comes out in the USA, mind you. But it won't be out for at least 30 years (we need to see at least one generation if not two before we can make hypotheses about that comparison and I'm not sure that children of same-sex households will statistically succeed to the same level as a nuclear family.

​I could absolutely be wrong and if I am, I'll change my position. But reasonable data won't be available for another generation at least.

One of the best ways (if not the best) to escape poverty is to not have children before marriage. It's that simple.

[Lord Raven]

Remember John Oliver's shots at charter schools? The one point that he fails to address is the head-on comparison between charter schools and public schools. Public schools are worse than charter schools in almost every measurable category, if not every single one. There's discussion to be had here about this topic.

You are aware his point was that Charter Schools are great but there are some that are complete trash and there's very little to hold them accountable right?

Also I'm still waiting on a response to my argument from the other thread and I highly suggest we don't engage in arguments with Life until he addresses all of the points against him that happened previously. Do not start this argument from scratch.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Phoenix Wright]

The "taxation is theft" argument is more of a libertarian stance instead of pure right-wing, to be quite honest. I don't like the idea of paying for something that A) I won't benefit from and B) I don't think that society gains more from than losing. Do I think about the poor? Sure. But throwing money at the symptom seems less effective to me than understanding the root problem and attempting to tackle that.

you aren't american, but american tax dollars indeed directly benefit every payer.

there is no single root problem to being poor that's fixable. moreover, in a capitalist system, poor people will always exist because of the exploitation that capitalism relies on. so, you're very wrong on both points a and b. i could go into depth but i'm not convinced it's worth it yet.

​If you go by "left-wing views" as per the general consensus, I'm pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-marriage equality (even though I do believe the nuclear family is vital for a child's upbringing)... pretty much libertarian on social issues. There's room to debate on all of them. Where I don't budge is on firearms but as I've stated before, I've been using guns for about 15 years including a 2 1/3 year stint in the IDF.

why

What sends me right-wing is really the concept that big government will inherently screw up and smaller government will mitigate those mistakes. That is where I differ from libertarians. I recognize the need for state level governments because those are more responsive to the people's wants.

you have voiced support for laissez-faire capitalism, which is about as far right as you can get economically. in support of that view, you cannot be economically centrist. if you don't support taxation, you aren't centrist. it is as simple as that.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Time the Crestfallen]

​How do you fix this? Honestly, I'm not so cold hearted to say "well, the poor kids should just get fucked" in actuality. I do think that every person should have some level of education because the trade-off would be worth it (because while they might not become millionaires and that's fine, they'd at least be skilled workers in some trade who can be of use to society and in turn contribute back). When I say "the root of the problem", it's the accountability and the most important thing to do is to cut off funding to public schools that don't produce. After that, the charter school system would be much better with the ability for parents to choose the school. If the school succeeds, they get more money if they need it. If they don't, slice the funding and scrap that school.

In addition to what Raven said, is your solution for tackling the root of education problems really to cut funding to schools with poor results? I believe that's what happens in the US to a degree (http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/more-40-low-income-schools-dont-get-fair-share-state-and-local-funds-department-), and look how that turns out:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/american-schools-vs-the-world-expensive-unequal-bad-at-math/281983/

http://theconversation.com/how-american-schools-are-making-inequality-worse-49270

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/public-school-funding-and-the-role-of-race/408085/

You say that you're not cold-hearted to tell poor kids to get fucked, but your opinions say otherwise. Especially considering that scrapping schools, no matter how bad they are, can have devastating consequences for a poor community, since that means many kids might wind up not going at all.

Oh and I am absolutely against AA but we've had that argument before here.

I'm assuming this is something to do with Health Care, which I brought up in regards to your 'deal with the root problem'. What even is the root problem for Health Care in your opinion and how would you fix that.

​Second point refers to how, statistically, children who grow up in a nuclear family succeed much more than single-parent households. I'm interested to see the data vs. two gay parent households when it comes out in the USA, mind you. But it won't be out for at least 30 years (we need to see at least one generation if not two before we can make hypotheses about that comparison and I'm not sure that children of same-sex households will statistically succeed to the same level as a nuclear family.

You realise I could easily find studies that say otherwise, yes? Even then, correlation does not equal causation. Attributing the lesser odds of success directly to being raised by a same-sex couple is a pretty out-there thing to suggest, especially considering that you yourself said in this very post that the data won't be good for another generation, potentially two.

One of the best ways (if not the best) to escape poverty is to not have children before marriage. It's that simple.

I fail to see what this has to do with anything I said.

Edited November 20, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[eclipse]

. . .what the hell does this have to do with the original topic?

[Rezzy]

This sort of goes with this topic, so I guess I'll post here.

The last week or so has seen Hillary and others decrying "fake" news as influencing the election. I haven't seen a good definition of what "fake" news is. The biggest damage came not from false stories, like Pizza-gate, but from factual leaks, like the DNC and CNN collaborating with Hillary's campaign to get her elected.

This also goes along with the claims that Russian hackers influenced the election. Hillary has been blaming Russia for the hacks for months now, which Wikileaks denied came from Russia.

I'm very wary about any attempts to limit freedom of the press. "Fake" news seems to be along the same lines as tabloids in credibility, but we've had tabloids for decades, if not centuries, and no one has ever tried to blame them when an election didn't go their way. Considering CNN was considered the gold standard for news, and we found out they were colluding with Hillary, I'm hesitant to give outlets like them a monopoly on news coverage.

[Res]

There's been a lot of discussion of actual fake news - that is, news from sites that end in .com.co; not just news articles and opinion pieces that people disagree with. These fake news links actually outperformed actual news links on social media. Here's an interview the Washington Post did with one creator.

It's difficult to judge because online media has changed the way we consume our news; at least tabloids have whole crews, usually actual reporters, editors, and they have to find an audience willing to buy their papers. A lot of the fake news sites are run by a single person and cost nothing to put up. They're below the level of National Enquirer truthfulness. Freedom of the press doesn't really apply here because they're not press - just literal fake news (sometimes parody/satire sites, but many aren't even aiming for satire).

[Dark Holy Elf]

Russia was absolutely behind some of the hacking. I'm not sure why you'd believe anything Wikileaks has to say about the subject.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-russian-officials-shift-away-from-denying-dnc-hack-1476295233

No one media organisation should be considered an unimpeachable "gold standard" but we absolutely should demand all forms of media continue to properly source their findings and try to avoid reporting untruths. I do think the internet seems to have given rise to an awful lot of "reporting" that falls shamefully short of this standard, but I have no idea what the solution is.

[Rezzy]

Russia was absolutely behind some of the hacking. I'm not sure why you'd believe anything Wikileaks has to say about the subject.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-russian-officials-shift-away-from-denying-dnc-hack-1476295233

No one media organisation should be considered an unimpeachable "gold standard" but we absolutely should demand all forms of media continue to properly source their findings and try to avoid reporting untruths. I do think the internet seems to have given rise to an awful lot of "reporting" that falls shamefully short of this standard, but I have no idea what the solution is.

There's a pay wall on your link.

[Dark Holy Elf]

WSJ works for me. Is it because I'm in Canada? Regardless:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/russia-hacking-james-clapper-230085

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/09/technology/trump-russia-hackers-cia

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/

Also, while not proof, Russia being behind the hacking makes sense, as they're one of the few parties with both the means and the desire to do them. Whatever you think of Putin and Clinton, there's no question the latter loathes the former, who as Secretary of State was extremely critical of them, and had extremely good reason to want her to not become president (even before it became clear her opponent would be the relatively isolationist Trump who wants to roll back the US' role in NATO). And all the major powers have extensive cyber espionage capabilities, far moreso than Trump's "some guy in New Jersey".

[Lord Raven]

My main issue with all of this is that it's ultimately just details that exist to kind of cloud the democratic party's follies throughout this election cycle. I really don't give a shit about fake news or Russian hacks in the context of our election, because there are fundamentally other issues that the party needs to address.

All I'm saying is that I hope it doesn't serve as a distraction to another issue entirely, and that is what it feels like it's being used as.

[Res]

I was actually feeling the opposite way. I've seen so much criticism being hurled at the DNC and Green Party for this, and meanwhile no one's commenting on Trump's cabinet and some of the laws that are beginning to be pushed through by states emboldened by Trump's win.

[Lord Raven]

In all honesty, we can go over Trump's cabinet in detail in the other thread, but what I'm trying to argue is that I feel like as of late the party has been placing too much blame on what amounts to Russian hacking and fake news instead of seeing what they did.

Though now all energy should be dedicated to a) Trump's cabinet and b) the DNC itself discussing what it needs to do in order to make sure this shit doesnt happen again.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Res]

I agree with that!

[Rezzy]

In all honesty, we can go over Trump's cabinet in detail in the other thread, but what I'm trying to argue is that I feel like as of late the party has been placing too much blame on what amounts to Russian hacking and fake news instead of seeing what they did.

Though now all energy should be dedicated to a) Trump's cabinet and b) the DNC itself discussing what it needs to do in order to make sure this shit doesnt happen again.

I agree with that. I see his State pick getting the most opposition. I think the DNC and the RNC, if possible having all those backroom dealings brought to light would be a good thing, since I think the elections should be kept on the up-and-up. I think all this hacking and recount drama is just a distraction from the Democratic party rebuilding itself.

I think the hacking did more damage than the fake news drama did, because the hacking revealed actual corruption within the DNC and Hillary's campaign. The RNC may have been hacked as well, I've heard conflicting reports. At least some Republicans, like Colin Powell, did get hacked, but they didn't really reveal anything groundbreaking. And I doubt the RNC colluded to get Trump the nomination, if anything, they probably would have tried to keep him away from the nomination. As for whether the Russians were behind the hack, at this point, it's a he-said, she-said until we get further evidence, since Assange has denied it came from Russia, and it's hard to say whether he has a reason to lie about that. He has nothing to really gain or lose. And Russia's not our biggest enemy, anyway, it could have been another nation or terror group making their attack look like it came from Russia. I've an open mind until I see compelling evidence. I guess we'll have to wait until the official report gets released next month.