|
SedanChair posted:Mexican-Americans aren't racial minorities. Mitt's grandfather was a Mexican national, his father was born in Mexico, he is Mexican-American. He's not Latino. *slaps with white glove*
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Mexican-Americans aren't racial minorities. Mitt's grandfather was a Mexican national, his father was born in Mexico, he is Mexican-American. He's not Latino. That's the entire point I was making, but also pointing out that it's lovely to blur the two in an attempt to seem sympathetic to the plight of Latinos in America, especially at the hands of people like "self-deportation" Mitt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Did the Fox Poll Come pre Un-Skewed? What on earth are you even talking about? You can quite easily look up the MOE if you'd like ( +- 3%). Also skewing is a normal polling procedure that literally every polling company uses since weighted sampling increases polling efficiency, among other things. When it is done wrong, however, you can greatly increase polling bias so it's not entirely incorrect to question whether or not the polls were weighted correctly. It was fairly easy to see that the "un-skewing" guy was completely off base though and his complaints had little merit. But there's a huge difference between talking heads on fox news and their actual scientific polling which is done in conjunction with other reputable polling agencies. There's no reason to assume a poll is wrong just because it doesn't say what you want. e: It's also really easy to tell what the approx. margin of error is, polling companies most often just give the conservative one which is just 1/sqrt(n) tsa fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Predictably, every single second of the Rand Paul 2016 pre-(?)announcement video is hilarious. I'd say declaring yourself the "frontrunner" in your pre-announcement video is the strangest choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Please respect Bush's race preference and pronouns. Use "él", thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Mitt is actually Mexican-American though. Like many old white people from Texas, Bush buys into the idea that the coexistence of different races naturally leads to the degradation and eventual loss of whiteness. The difference is that while Jeb agrees, he loves his Latino family so much he's embraced the change. Soy el Ciudad de Mexican!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Rand Paul is announcing his new seat on the board of directors for Coca-Cola? Naw what you're thinking of is an Ipod commercial. All that's missing is a U2 song.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
The Donald is nothing if not predictable.quote:Donald Trump wants to leave a more ritzy impression. The billionaire real-estate mogul, if he runs, said he is eyeing his gleaming Manhattan skyscraper, adorned with pink marble and brass [for the announcement]. “Trump Tower is fantastic — 57th Street and Fifth Avenue, with an atrium that can hold thousands of people,” he said. “In the history of running for president, no one has the sites I have.” The yoogest, classiest, most luxurious Presidential campaign announcement site ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Donald is nothing if not predictable. I am consistently amazed that people are amazed/impressed by this stuff. The shtick is so incredibly transparent and... just cliched!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Trump is their idea of what they want from life, they don't care how he got there and they think that if they try hard enough they'll have what he has. How else would he keep scamming people with his real estate classes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Trump is their idea of what they want from life, they don't care how he got there and they think that if they try hard enough they'll have what he has. How else would he keep scamming people with his real estate classes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQWAsWmBRF4 Can you not embed a video and have it start at a specific time, it just wipes that part off when I go to post - anyway, starts at 1:03...
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Too much black, not enough white for most of Rand's supporters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
tsa posted:What on earth are you even talking about? You can quite easily look up the MOE if you'd like ( +- 3%). Im saying that the skew is so pants on head that the actual numbers would fall outside even the MOE of their terrible poll, they couldn't even accidently be right with miscalculation. Fox polls are not about accuracy they are about GOTV and Echo chamber in equal parts. They were regularly quite close to Mr. Unskewed, so yeah its perfectly valid to assume its wrong because they have never been right. That's what you do with unreliable sources with no redeeming quality, disregard them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Like many old white people from Texas, Bush buys into the idea that the coexistence of different races naturally leads to the degradation and eventual loss of whiteness. The difference is that while Jeb agrees, he loves his Latino family so much he's embraced the change. Soy el Ciudad de Mexican! A candidate after my own heart. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Im saying that the skew is so pants on head that the actual numbers would fall outside even the MOE of their terrible poll, they couldn't even accidently be right with miscalculation. Fox polls are not about accuracy they are about GOTV and Echo chamber in equal parts. They were regularly quite close to Mr. Unskewed, so yeah its perfectly valid to assume its wrong because they have never been right. That's what you do with unreliable sources with no redeeming quality, disregard them. Fox News uses two pollsters, with a Republican tilt of R+0.4 and R+0.5 respectively. What are you even talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Fox News uses two pollsters, with a Republican tilt of R+0.4 and R+0.5 respectively. What are you even talking about. did you just post the ratings where every other major broadcaster is rated several grade letters higher than fox and then ask me why I was making fun of the accuracy of Fox news Polls?  Ive said twice now but its really simple, you could take the margin of error for fox news polls, add or subtract that percentage from whatever percentage they are broadcasting, and they would still be innacurate as far as the end result. I sad nothing about the margin of error in the polling itself, obviously they are calculating properly for the questions they are asking, which are calculated to give them the result they want, not an accurate one, which is why they had Romney up so hard until the very second he lost. Its propaganda, nothing more or less. Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:did you just post the ratings where every other major broadcaster is rated several grade letters higher than fox and then ask me why I was making fun of the accuracy of Fox news Polls? You're ranting about them being skewed towards Republicans to drive the narrative, or whatever. They're not top-tier polls by any means, but they're certainly not systematically biased to make Republicans look better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:You're ranting about them being skewed towards Republicans to drive the narrative, or whatever. They're not top-tier polls by any means, but they're certainly not systematically biased to make Republicans look better. They absolutely are, just because the numbers they report are accurate for the questions they ask does not mean that they are asking questions that will get them anything but the result they are looking to broadcast which is why they have been so separated from reality in the last couple executive cycles. I mean, are you really making the argument that even though they have not been accurate, and that while they have not been accurate their numbers have still supported their narrative in contradiction of reality and that despite all that they are not exhibiting any kind of bias? God drat that wording is clunky as gently caress, there is a smarter way to argue this I just know it, I am not a smart man. Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
OctoberBlues posted:Can you not embed a video and have it start at a specific time, it just wipes that part off when I go to post - anyway, starts at 1:03... Use the `start` attribute. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQWAsWmBRF4&t=63s
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:They absolutely are, just because the numbers they report are accurate for the questions they ask does not mean that they are asking questions that will get them anything but the result they are looking to broadcast which is why they have been so separated from reality in the last couple executive cycles. You're asserting a conspiracy when "they're just kind of mediocre pollsters" is a far simpler explanation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Don't be willfully naive. Laziness in this context drifts towards bias in favor of the author's opinions. It takes integrity and actual effort to counteract it. Laziness isn't an excuse, it's a contributing cause.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
To be fair, while there's no proof obviously, I wouldn't put it past Roger Ailes to mandate some sort of inherent bias in Fox's polling data.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:They absolutely are, just because the numbers they report are accurate for the questions they ask does not mean that they are asking questions that will get them anything but the result they are looking to broadcast which is why they have been so separated from reality in the last couple executive cycles. You're right, you aren't. Fox hasn't been particularly inaccurate, and definitely haven't been particularly skewed to republicans, they just haven't been using top tier polling firms. 538's ratings reflect this - one of their polling forms is essentially average and the other slightly below average. Neither one exhibits a strong R bias. Fox's deceptiveness comes in how they present the data, not in the data itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
According to the leaked info about the way that newsroom is run, and the production graphics "errors" they have constantly with their graphs and polls not adding up correctly or displaying in odd skewed ways, I wouldn't even think he would need to make it explicit. Still not saying that's what's going on here because there's no direct evidence, but I wouldn't exactly flip my wig if I found out fudging goes on somewhere before they hit the air. It's like someone sorting through their fake bills before paying you with a real one. Yeah this 20 might be fine but it's not exactly best policy to just keep taking bills from that same person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
OctoberBlues posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQWAsWmBRF4 Yeah pretty much. He's like Scrooge McDuck, but stupider.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You're right, you aren't. Fox hasn't been particularly inaccurate, and definitely haven't been particularly skewed to republicans, they just haven't been using top tier polling firms. 538's ratings reflect this - one of their polling forms is essentially average and the other slightly below average. Neither one exhibits a strong R bias. So, despite the fact that their data is inaccurate and has in the past and has been presented in a way to support their preconcieved notions, both of which you acknowledge in this post, you call me out for posting that their data is not accurate and that they use it to support their pre conceived notions. The gently caress? Do you honestly believe that Fox regularly gets results from polls, inaccurate results, and that despite that happening a regular basis it is just because they are an awful pollster and that the fact that their inaccuracies always match their messaging is just a happy coincidence? And youre willing to grant that benefit of the doubt to a "news" organization that has defended its right to lie to you freely in court. There are no words. Even if you buy that whole cock and bull, my entire point was that their polls were inaccurate, a point which you open your post by conceding. Its just bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:preconcieved notions The 538 ratings put their accuracy as better than quite a few of the popular polls, including Gallup, Harris, Zogby, or YouGov, and leagues above the known crap like Rasmussen. So, no, your idea that their polling is so inaccurate it should be disregarded is actually completely wrong. Their data is not awful; it is less reliable than several major sources but still useful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
disheveled posted:The 538 ratings put their accuracy as better than quite a few of the popular polls, including Gallup, Harris, Zogby, or YouGov, and leagues above the known crap like Rasmussen. So, no, your idea that their polling is so inaccurate it should be disregarded is actually completely wrong. Their data is not awful; it is less reliable than several major sources but still useful. Note that I said they are poo poo, not they are poo poo unlike Gallup who is also poo poo. There are lots of bad polsters, especially in the last decade who cant adapt to magic such as cell phones and the internet existing. Saying "well poo poo there are OTHER bad polls too" doesent help your argument. Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You're right, you aren't. Fox hasn't been particularly inaccurate, and definitely haven't been particularly skewed to republicans, they just haven't been using top tier polling firms. 538's ratings reflect this - one of their polling forms is essentially average and the other slightly below average. Neither one exhibits a strong R bias. StagnantDecliningUnemploynentRate.jpg
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:A cursory check of wikipedia tells me that George HW Bush is the son of Prescott Bush, a former Senator, whereas neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton have any other relations involved in US politics. Incredible. What you mean you don't believe the (stupid rumor sputtered by idiots like Rush) that Bill's actually the bastard son of a Rockefeller (because his mom's a whore, you see) and that's why he became such a political player? WHERE'S YOUR REAL DAD, BILL? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
I think we know where Drudge has decide to hitch his wagon. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:I think we know where Drudge has decide to hitch his wagon. Eh. I wouldn't put that much weight in that. He was going a bit gaga for Walker a few weeks back too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Mexican-Americans aren't racial minorities. Mitt's grandfather was a Mexican national, his father was born in Mexico, he is Mexican-American. He's not Latino. Can you really even say he's Mexican-American when Gaskell Romney was born and raised in Utah in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, to a white father from Illinois (I don't know where Miles Park Romney's one wife is from but she sure wasn't Mexican either)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
For Kentucky Pol, A New Handle 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:So, despite the fact that their data is inaccurate and has in the past and has been presented in a way to support their preconcieved notions, both of which you acknowledge in this post, you call me out for posting that their data is not accurate and that they use it to support their pre conceived notions. The gently caress? "Fox's deceptiveness comes in how they present the data, not in the data itself." It's not that hard of a concept - lying with data doesn't require the data to be bad. Their data is not particularly inaccurate, which is backed up by 538 saying one of their firms is dead average and the other slightly below average. Once it goes into the newsroom and graphics department, it becomes lies. You really aren't very smart, a fact you have already conceded; perhaps you should embrace it and admit you were wrong originally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:A cursory check of wikipedia tells me that George HW Bush is the son of Prescott Bush, a former Senator, whereas neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton have any other relations involved in US politics. Incredible. quote:According to Skull and Bones lore, Prescott Bush was among a group of Bonesmen who dug up and removed the skull of Geronimo from his grave at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in 1918.[2] According to historian David L. Miller, the Bonesmen probably dug up somebody at Fort Sill, but not Geronimo.[3] quote:He was involved with the American Birth Control League as early as 1942, and served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood in 1947. He was also an early supporter of the United Negro College Fund, serving as chairman of the Connecticut branch in 1951. Quantitatively the Bush family is more of a dynasty than even the loving Kennedys, two presidents versus one president and one candidate. If you ignore genetic lineage then what's more important is the passing of political allies, like Cheney, Rummy et al passing from Bush to Bush. HRC had a definite advantage there as well but she has been building her own career and gathering her own supporters since then and at this point I doubt she'd bring Bill's secretaries to the White House.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
 Ron Paul will attend Rand's announcement event tomorrow. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Joementum posted:
How senile do you have to be to have people clapping at your ability to kick balloons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
site posted:How senile do you have to be to have people clapping at your ability to kick balloons? Ron Paul's fanbase views him literally in the way swaths of the right thinks every Democrat views Obama.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
site posted:How senile do you have to be to have people clapping at your ability to kick balloons? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn48_9C7tbY&t=25s
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:45
|
|