Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#527 Jan 05 2016 at 4:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You do realize that roughly 30% of Fox viewers identify themselves as Democrats, right?

So what? What does that have to do with Fox's partisan identification and likely voter screens?


Because Fox viewers are less partisan than other cable news sources. I thought that was kinda obvious. I mean, your whole post was about making it seem as though because this was a *gasp* Fox Poll, it must somehow be a more accurate representation of conservative views than other polls. I'm just pointing out that there's no reason to make this assumption. Other than silly name association, that is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#528 Jan 05 2016 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Trump is so much a liberal and unsupported by the GOP that they spent months defending his decision to send interns to Hawaii to look for Kenyan birth certificates. Wait ...


The GOP did?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#529 Jan 05 2016 at 4:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
My understanding is that Fox polls are pretty inaccurate (which is why I don't believe I've ever used one here), because they aren't scientific polls. They're online polls and have no control in place.
Hence your reliance on the Heritage Foundations' totally unbiased sources.


I'm 99% certain I have never used a Heritage poll as a source for anything (do they even do polling?). You're mixing up different types of data here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#530 Jan 05 2016 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You do realize that roughly 30% of Fox viewers identify themselves as Democrats, right?

So what? What does that have to do with Fox's partisan identification and likely voter screens?
Because Fox viewers are less partisan than other cable news sources.

Wow. You have no idea how polling works Smiley: laugh

Which... explains a lot, actually.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#531 Jan 05 2016 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You do realize that roughly 30% of Fox viewers identify themselves as Democrats, right?

So what? What does that have to do with Fox's partisan identification and likely voter screens?
Because Fox viewers are less partisan than other cable news sources.

Wow. You have no idea how polling works Smiley: laugh


Sigh... This is where I remind you that *you* were the one assuming that the makeup of Fox News viewers had any effect on the poll. I'm trying to get you to realize how absurd your claim was.

Quote:
Which... explains a lot, actually.


Yes. That you have no ability to discern when someone is taking your own logic and showing how it fails. Wow. Just... wow.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#532 Jan 05 2016 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sigh... This is where I remind you that *you* were the one assuming that the makeup of Fox News viewers had any effect on the poll. I'm trying to get you to realize how absurd your claim was.
I actually said no such thing.

But if you want to embarrass yourself by flaunting your ignorance of polling (again) and pretend you were just playing Devil's Advocate, you rock on with your bad self Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#533 Jan 05 2016 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
leaps to conclusions (often very wrong) before facts are in
I'm not denying this, but can you provide an example? I can't think of situation where this would apply.


Oh. Thought of another one (cause I mentioned it in another thread). Ahmed's clock. Obama jumped right into the issue on day one declaring it to be a "neat clock" and inviting him to the White House. He did this before he knew any of the facts except that a Muslim kid had been arrested for bringing a clock that looked a bit like a bomb to school.

What's interesting is that he tends to be least ambiguous in his statements when he's supporting these sorts of things, and he tends to do them almost exclusively when the scenario involves a minority identity person/group in conflict with a police/authority, and he always make a clear statement in support of the minority. Why this is problematic is for two reasons. First, it shows his thought process is less about what actually happened, and the facts of the situation, but about the identity of those involved (police are always wrong, brown skinned person is always right). Secondly, by being so clear an unambiguous about his support, it puts others in the position of either having to say that the President was wrong, or support him (or just stay silent).

And the result is that we get otherwise intelligent and educated people looking at a picture of a clock clearly deconstructed in a manner that makes it likely to be mistaken for a bomb and insisting that there's just no way anyone could possibly think that. Objective reasoning goes out the window, because to apply it would require a conclusion that the President was completely wrong to say and do what he did. And for many liberals, this is just unthinkable. So they drop their logic and reason on the floor, and just blindly support "their side".


Um... Which is exactly why he does this. He knows that most liberals will defend him, and thus the position he's taken, no matter how absurd it is. He also knows that conservatives will not (cause they have no reason to accept the BS). Thus, he creates a conflict between the two groups. Which benefits him. The more he can divide us, the better things are for his "side". Because the Left lives off of class/group conflict. The more you can make things about "us vs them" and less about "we're all in this together", the more likely people will buy into the identity based political ideology of the Left. If he takes a more modest position, then he loses the opportunity to create that conflict. So yeah, very very deliberate.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#534 Jan 05 2016 at 4:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Fox News poll of likely Republican voters finds Trump at 39% with a 21 point lead over his nearest rival (Cruz at 18%).

Man, Fox is asking a whole lot of secret Democrats what they think. And their filter process must be complete ass since they're only asking total non-voters in their poll of likely Republican voters.


Implication to this post and singling out a Fox poll (as opposed to any others), is that it must somehow magically be better at correctly including a stronger mix of actual likely GOP primary voters. But I wasn't sure, so I tested you:

Quote:
Jophiel wrote:
[quote]You do realize that roughly 30% of Fox viewers identify themselves as Democrats, right?

So what? What does that have to do with Fox's partisan identification and likely voter screens?


And this is you confirming my suspicion that you were singling out Fox because you assumed it would have stronger partisan (conservative) identification, and this would somehow affect their screening process.


You get that I was just responding to your own silly assumption and seeing how far you'd go with it, right? And you went all the way to condemning it, not realizing that it was your own poor logic you were actually attacking.

I wasn't the one who started by singling out a Fox poll Joph. You were. I wasn't the one who made any assumptions at all about the makeup of those participating in the poll, or how that might affect the accuracy of said poll result. You were. Do you get this? All I did was point this out to you. Spectacularly, I might add.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#535 Jan 05 2016 at 5:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Implication to this post and singling out a Fox poll (as opposed to any others), is that it must somehow magically be better at correctly including a stronger mix of actual likely GOP primary voters. But I wasn't sure, so I tested you:

Man, you did a shitty job of it. That wasn't my implication at all. For me to bother implying that would be to say that I know as little about polling as you do. And I would never try to convince people of that.
Quote:
And this is you confirming my suspicion that you were singling out Fox because you assumed it would have stronger partisan (conservative) identification, and this would somehow affect their screening process.

"Partisan identification" and "likely voter" screens. As in the two basic screens pollsters use -- especially when they're, you know, polling primary elections. Holy fuck, you're stupid.

Normally, I'd toss in a "you do know...", but of course you don't know so I'll just say it: Fox doesn't conduct their own polls, they outsource to a firm consisting of both a Republican and a Democratic aligned pollster. And they don't poll "Fox viewers" so the makeup of Fox viewers is completely irrelevant.

Jesus Christ Smiley: laugh

Edited, Jan 5th 2016 5:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#536 Jan 05 2016 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Implication to this post and singling out a Fox poll (as opposed to any others), is that it must somehow magically be better at correctly including a stronger mix of actual likely GOP primary voters. But I wasn't sure, so I tested you:

Man, you did a shitty job of it. That wasn't my implication at all. For me to bother implying that would be to say that I know as little about polling as you doI want others to think you do. And I would never try to convince people of that.


Not intentionally, no. But it's clear that you singled out the Fox poll and made a specific point that this somehow meant that this must be a "better" representation of "true GOP opinion" because it was a Fox poll. I could present several theories as to why you did this, but ultimately it's your post, so you can claim whatever explanation you want. My response was to play along with your assumption and see where it lead us. Thus, I went with the whole "but Fox news is less partisan than other cable news sources". I wanted to see if you'd argue what I felt was your obvious attempt, not to make a point about Trump really, but to make a point about Fox news, and conservatives in general.

And yeah. You took the bait.


Quote:
"Partisan identification" and "likely voter" screens.


Ok. Then explain why you made a point about the likelihood of a Fox News poll including folks who don't normally vote in GOP primaries. Let's review the history on this. I have repeatedly argued that Trumps polling numbers are as high as they are, not because traditional GOP voters (or even "likely GOP voters") support him, but because he's getting a lot of fair weather quasi-conservatives who poll for him, another number of people who don't follow politics, but recognize Trumps name, and some other number of people who would normally vote in the Dem primary, but see no competition there, so figure it's funny to support the worst GOP candidate in the list.

Your post earlier seemed to be to be a direct dig at this. And the only way it works if if there's some assumption that a Fox poll would consist of mostly Fox viewers, and that these viewers are less likely to include those groups (and thus be free of the effect I've spoken of before), than other polls. Hence my response. That only works if Fox viewers are:

A) More represented in a Fox poll than people polled by other sources.

and...

B) More likely to be regular GOP primary voters than people polled by other sources.


What's funny is when I argued about Fox viewers being less partisan than other cable news source, you countered that by arguing that either A or B (or both) were false. Um... Which nullifies your original statement. So great job arguing against yourself there Joph.


Quote:
As in the two basic screens pollsters use -- especially when they're, you know, polling primary elections.


So a Fox News poll is no more or less likely to be affected by the factors I've mentioned in the past than any other poll? Great. That's all I was trying to get you to admit. One might ask then, why you made such a point about how since it was a Fox News poll, its results can't be influenced by likely non GOP primary voters saying they're going to vote in the primary and supporting Trump. Because you've basically just argued yourself in a circle and proven your own assumption false.

Get it yet?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#537 Jan 05 2016 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Not intentionally, no. But it's clear that you singled out the Fox poll and made a specific point...

No, you just missed the point. Then threw yourself into a tizzy because that's pretty much what you do.
Quote:
Then explain why you made a point about the likelihood of a Fox News poll including folks who don't normally vote in GOP primaries

I was mocking your previous assertion that everyone polled who was supporting Trump wasn't really a voter. Fox's poll was of likely voters. I used the Fox poll because, well, it was that day's most recent poll. Not my fault it took you a week to come by and start having conniptions.

You know, this stuff should have been pretty obvious if you were more interested in reading than you were about throwing fits. The part where you thought Fox News polls were online, uncontrolled polls of Fox News viewers and then frantically insisted you were just testing me was pretty funny though so thanks for that.

Edited, Jan 5th 2016 7:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#538 Jan 05 2016 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
It did seem pretty bad, even for gbaji.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#539 Jan 05 2016 at 10:55 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I'd put it down to him recovering from a weeklong eggnog bender.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#540 Jan 06 2016 at 8:09 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
My response was to play along with your assumption and see where it lead us.
"I was just pretending to be retarded" never actually works.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#541 Jan 06 2016 at 8:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Trump is so much a liberal and unsupported by the GOP that they spent months defending his decision to send interns to Hawaii to look for Kenyan birth certificates. Wait ...


He has FINALLY played the Birther card against Cruz. Smiley: popcorn

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#542 Jan 06 2016 at 1:14 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
After all the furor over Obama how exactly did a Cuban-Canadian get this far anyways?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#543 Jan 06 2016 at 3:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Because it was never actually about Obama's citizenship.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#544 Jan 06 2016 at 3:54 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
What do you mean, Jophiel? I don't understand.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#545 Jan 07 2016 at 8:22 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
The GOP did?
You did, and by your own constant assertions and claims you're in sync with the pulse of the party.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#546 Jan 07 2016 at 9:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not intentionally, no. But it's clear that you singled out the Fox poll and made a specific point...

No, you just missed the point. Then threw yourself into a tizzy because that's pretty much what you do.


No. I perfectly got the point. And there's no tizzy. I do find it funny that you constantly feel the need to inject the assumption of some kind of emotional response on my part though. It's like you can't respond to the logic of my argument, so you just pretend that I'm "in a tizzy". Um... How about actually just responding to what I write instead of speculating about my mindset when I wrote it? Speaks volumes when you do this btw.

Quote:
Quote:
Then explain why you made a point about the likelihood of a Fox News poll including folks who don't normally vote in GOP primaries

I was mocking your previous assertion that everyone polled who was supporting Trump wasn't really a voter.


That was not my assertion. That's your straw man version of my assertion. Everyone? Really?

Quote:
Fox's poll was of likely voters. I used the Fox poll because, well, it was that day's most recent poll.


Ok. Again. Explain why you made a point to say this:

Jophiel wrote:
Man, Fox is asking a whole lot of secret Democrats what they think. And their filter process must be complete *** since they're only asking total non-voters in their poll of likely Republican voters.


Sure looks to me like you were attempting to argue that since it was a Fox poll, this meant it could not be affected by the factors I have previously asserted are contributing to Trump's high polling numbers. Your argument only makes sense if you assume there cannot be any people in the list of categories that I previously stated are contributing to Trumps numbers in a Fox poll (presumably as opposed to other polls which we've previously discussed). I don't recall you ever singling out a given poll source and discounting it as something that could be influenced by those factors before. You only did it here, and only with a Fox poll.

Given the knee jerk "Faux News" jokes that run rampant in liberal circles, I find it hard to believe that you weren't going there with this. I mean, I suppose it's possible, but I'm sure you can see why I'd assume you were making this about the fact that it was a Fox poll and not CNN or Newsweek, or some other source.

Quote:
Not my fault it took you a week to come by and start having conniptions.


And here's you doing the projected emotion thing again.

Quote:
You know, this stuff should have been pretty obvious if you were more interested in reading than you were about throwing fits.


And again. I get that it's easier to dismiss someone's disagreement with you by just labeling it as an emotional response, but that only speaks to your own state of mind, not mine.

Quote:
The part where you thought Fox News polls were online, uncontrolled polls of Fox News viewers and then frantically insisted you were just testing me was pretty funny though so thanks for that.


Nothing frantic about it. Again, you're arguing every single thing *except* the actual question here. Is a Fox news poll more or less likely to be influenced by the factors I have previously mentioned regarding Trump? Yes, or no? If yes, then there was zero reason for you to make the post. If no, then you were, in fact, suggesting some kind of bias towards "true conservatives" in a Fox poll.

All I did was attempt to explore those possibilities by asking you some questions. Your response has been pretty amusing. The phrase "desperately back pedaling" comes immediately to mind.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#547 Jan 07 2016 at 9:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The GOP did?
You did, and by your own constant assertions and claims you're in sync with the pulse of the party.


So the GOP didn't. Just checking. The GOP, as a party, never officially took any position at all. I'm sure you recall Joph's constant posts about how no one in the party was making this a big deal, including McCain, so it wasn't really an issue. Right? Kinda can't have it both ways.

The irony is that the only actual candidate in that race who raised the issue was... wait for it... Hillary Clinton.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#548 Jan 07 2016 at 10:10 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
670 posts
gbaji wrote:
but ironically, Fox is the most broadly viewed news source (at least for cable news stations).
Edited, Jan 4th 2016 7:02pm by gbaji

So what you are saying is that Fox is the evil mainstream media I'm always hearing about.
#549 Jan 07 2016 at 10:38 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
xantav wrote:
gbaji wrote:
but ironically, Fox is the most broadly viewed news source (at least for cable news stations).
So what you are saying is that Fox is the evil mainstream media I'm always hearing about.
What he's saying is that since Fox:

a) Successfully won a lawsuit against a reporter's wrongful firing lawsuit by asserting (correctly and disturbingly) that lying on your news show is totally legal you guys, and

b) Had their most influential face (O'Rielly) declaim fucking twice that the Malmedy massacre was committed by US troop against SS troops


that they are the most accurate and trustworthy news program in the universe.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#550 Jan 07 2016 at 11:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Holy cats, Gbaji is just flailing now Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#551 Jan 08 2016 at 12:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Maine's Gov. LePage is mad that drug dealers keep coming into his state and banging the young white girls, which is a "real sad thing".
Portland Press Herald wrote:
About 30 minutes into the meeting, which was rebroadcast Thursday night, LePage responded to a question about how he was tackling substance abuse in Maine. He began talking about how much of the heroin is coming into Maine from out-of-state drug dealers.

“These are guys with the name D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty – these types of guys – they come from Connecticut and New York, they come up here, they sell their heroin, they go back home,” LePage told a large crowd. “Incidentally, half the time they impregnate a young white girl before they leave, which is a real sad thing because then we have another issue we have to deal with down the road.”
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 280 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (280)