tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post5203164783838710082..comments2024-03-28T08:51:18.908-04:00Comments on the daily howler: SLOWEST CHILDREN OF THE PRESS CORPS: Rachel Maddow!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-19199764775982424272022-01-15T05:07:10.795-05:002022-01-15T05:07:10.795-05:00Our stock alerts provide you with the latest Truf...Our stock alerts provide you with the latest <a href="https://servlogin.com/category/truff-stock/" rel="nofollow"> Truff Stock </a> market trends so that you can stay up-to-date on all of the latest Truff Stock market moves.<br />Oliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17593697443248118586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-37691322113955529142012-11-10T12:57:40.772-05:002012-11-10T12:57:40.772-05:00Let me make this simple for the knee-jerk Somerby ...Let me make this simple for the knee-jerk Somerby haters: it's a red-flag for us liberals that Maddow believes her presentation proved her point. It didn't prove her point. The fact that her point may have been correct is irrelevant here. What Bob is looking at is her judgment that her argument supported the thesis she advanced. Again, it didn't. <br /><br />So we have two choices here: <br /><br />1. Rachel believes her argument proved her point and isn't nearly as smart as most of us think she is. <br /><br />Or - <br /><br />2. She knows it didn't prove her thesis but didn't think the rubes that watch her would care or notice. <br /><br />Pick your poison, Maddow defenders. It's one or the other. oldmancoyote22noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-19047172371281403092012-11-10T08:51:57.346-05:002012-11-10T08:51:57.346-05:00http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76063373228293199102012-11-10T08:51:12.948-05:002012-11-10T08:51:12.948-05:00Maddow's point was that polls show the claim t...Maddow's point was that polls show the claim that "Sandy" gave Obama the edge are wrong. She was and is right.<br /><br />Just look at 538's chart of probability of Obama's election (that probability derived from a composite of the polls). The lines, upward for Obama, downward for Romney, begin diverging about the second week on Oct, and continue with consistent slopes of those lines right up to the election.<br /><br />There is no change at all associated with Sandy and Maddow was correct.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-14049820284379691342012-11-10T00:02:23.882-05:002012-11-10T00:02:23.882-05:00Bob, I also watched Maddow that night, and I could...Bob, I also watched Maddow that night, and I could have written your post. I was seething at her half-wit presentation of something that is actually quite easy to explain. I can't overemphasize how stupid it is for her to choose 3 data points from a single tracking poll when her producers could have gotten a shot of trend lines from any of the polling aggregators. Not only did she obviously misstate what was on the screen, but she also made her case look incredibly suspicious by the strange selection of the 3 dates that she chose to present. It was screamed of shabby reporting fraud -- for no good reason! Also, the claim that we now know that Ipsos/Reuters is "totally accurate" because they were on the money for the final poll vs actual is idiotic. She is indeed smarter than this, but not smart enough to realize that BS is transparent?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-8571646438919867322012-11-09T19:35:07.583-05:002012-11-09T19:35:07.583-05:00If reading about Gore and the 2000 election bores ...If reading about Gore and the 2000 election bores you to tears then why in hell would you keep reading this blog every day? This is in response to Confused but if the shoe fits anyone else please just slip your foot into it. I just don't understand why anyone would read ,watch or listen to something or someone they don't enjoy reading, watching or listening to. I really don't. oldguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-16211367143123421532012-11-09T14:26:31.526-05:002012-11-09T14:26:31.526-05:00Because if it were Somerby himself who mocked your...Because if it were Somerby himself who mocked your idiocy, that would be illegitimate?<br /><br />But anyway it isn't Somerby. It's just me. <br /><br />"imperfections"<br /><br />Yeah, that's it! <br /><br />Somerby should stop insisting that Maddow be perfect. <br /><br />Let that whole "making shit up" imperfection of hers alone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72809765013640612172012-11-09T14:22:55.662-05:002012-11-09T14:22:55.662-05:00...and therefore Bob Somerby should leave Maddow a......and therefore Bob Somerby should leave Maddow alone when she's bullshitting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-87395682420703999282012-11-09T14:21:17.918-05:002012-11-09T14:21:17.918-05:00Cleverly put, Bob.Cleverly put, Bob.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-19784359961279882362012-11-09T14:04:49.904-05:002012-11-09T14:04:49.904-05:00"Margin of error" means exactly that -- ..."Margin of error" means exactly that -- "margin of error."<br /><br />It means that if the difference is one point, and the margin of error is two, then yes, the poll is pretty much a statistical tie.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72867953417161314902012-11-09T14:02:31.611-05:002012-11-09T14:02:31.611-05:00So how is your vote influenced? By viewers of Madd...So how is your vote influenced? By viewers of Maddow or O'Reilly, or listeners of Rush?<br /><br />I am not saying that any of the above are totally without influence. But I am saying that their influence isn't nearly as powerful as Somerby imagines in his fevered, lizard brain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-67121345966863364742012-11-09T13:41:15.890-05:002012-11-09T13:41:15.890-05:00Suffern,
You need to read up on the definition o...Suffern, <br /><br />You need to read up on the definition of "margin of error."(Hint: it doesn't mean that anything within the margin of error has no meaning and hence it's "too close to call.")cacambonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-23861661389976110482012-11-09T12:53:26.508-05:002012-11-09T12:53:26.508-05:00Small point: Re the "1 million or so who regu...Small point: Re the "1 million or so who regularly tune into Bill O'Reilly, and the 700,000 or so who regularly tune into Rachel Maddow". Don't those people turn into "influencers" who affect a larger number people? steve riederernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-23577500397756353522012-11-09T12:42:14.627-05:002012-11-09T12:42:14.627-05:00"real or imagined"
BWAW HAHAHAHA HA!!!..."real or imagined" <br /><br />BWAW HAHAHAHA HA!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-11950079580248161622012-11-09T12:35:22.444-05:002012-11-09T12:35:22.444-05:00Let the record show: The Democratic Party has now ...Let the record show: The Democratic Party has now achieved re-election of a president, gains in the Senate, and realignment of the political map WITHOUT FOLLOWING ANY OF BOB'S ADVICE.<br /><br />I can predict this with Nate Silverian accuracy: Bob will become increasingly cranky about this. The Dems have ignored his racism-denying, cracker-coddling wisdom, won big, and are poised for much success in the future.<br /><br />Well, as Bob lives in the past, there's always Campaign 2000 and the War on Gore to go on about.Confusednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-24124510103260120452012-11-09T12:18:46.612-05:002012-11-09T12:18:46.612-05:00I'm thinking both polls show that the national...I'm thinking both polls show that the national race is "too close to call" as the press likes to put it whenever the totals are within the margin of error. Although if one is a more partisan press member, they show a clear lead. Or not a clear lead. But regardless, the two polls don't show much change one way or the other. It's not smart to keep telling the public to read polls like they are votes. Romney may have gained two points. He may have not gained (no Romentum!). Heck, he actually might have been fading.<br /><br />It's fun to laugh at Romney's campaign for not reading polls correctly. But if we're presented with the same load of gibberish about polls, what advantage is there to that. Bob is right. It's not how she said it. It's how she supported her claims. Obama's clear lead in the polls the way she presents them is not really much different than Peggy Noonan's much mocked "gut" feeling.Suffern AChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03744649280608955375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-21261956116959066362012-11-09T11:54:11.084-05:002012-11-09T11:54:11.084-05:00Well now Bob, I just look in here every week or tw...Well now Bob, I just look in here every week or two to see if you're still insane over Maddow's imperfections, real or imagined, and still attacking those who point out your foolishness.<br /><br />And I see by your post and by "anonymous" 10:42 that nothing has changed. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-52690037208039476962012-11-09T11:21:07.419-05:002012-11-09T11:21:07.419-05:0010:42, I know how much it disturbs Bob's tribe...10:42, I know how much it disturbs Bob's tribe when we interrupt their lowing on the sweet hay Bob serves them about Maddow, but Bob just wrote a post talking about how stupid Maddow is for calling a 3 point poll lead the same as a 1 point poll lead.<br /><br />Heavens to Betsy, does not Rachel Maddow realize that Bob has put the entire fate of Western Civilization in her hands, and that it will all come crashing down upon us if she keeps making such egregious errors?<br /><br />Oh, and just to remind you, Bob has warned you about using the word "lie". I guess that only applies when you are talking about Republicans, however.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-18574613628808276622012-11-09T11:08:55.409-05:002012-11-09T11:08:55.409-05:00Anon. 10:42
Way to take the high road in your ref...Anon. 10:42<br /><br />Way to take the high road in your refutation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-57200941754213448532012-11-09T11:04:18.819-05:002012-11-09T11:04:18.819-05:00Ipso facto?Ipso facto?Michael Janavelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-25146950823874212822012-11-09T10:23:25.790-05:002012-11-09T10:23:25.790-05:00So once again, you are agreeing with what Maddow s...So once again, you are agreeing with what Maddow said, but taking issue with the way she said it?<br /><br />Here's another take. Clearly, Nate Silver's data showed that Romney's "momentum" which actually began a few days before the first debate, ended and started reversing itself somewhere around the Biden-Ryan debate (although I am not attributing cause and effect to that). From that point on, the momentum was all Obama, and all the post-second debate right-wing echo chamber bullroar about Benghazi could not stop it.<br /><br />But . . . at the same time, the image of Obama and Christie standing side by side before a nation who at least gives lip service to its desire for bipartisanship certainly didn't hurt Obama nor help Romney.<br /><br />Now I hate to break this news once again to you, Bob, but this election was decided by far more people than the 1 million or so who regularly tune into Bill O'Reilly, and the 700,000 or so who regularly tune into Rachel Maddow.<br /><br />And it certainly wasn't decided by the 5 or 6 people who regularly comment here, present company included.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com