Is this true? I don't watch it so I don't know
They don't cover bad news relating to Republicans. A reporter on twitter claimed that in some phone interviews or polling or whatever with republican women more than a few claimed that she made up the pussy grabbing tapes because they had never heard about them and they watch Fox News all day so they consider themselves very informed about the news
They started too.
Cut it off after Northan was 15k up on the other guy.
They then ran a hit job on CNN for some reason.
They are going to "not cover the election" a lot next year, which is shaping up to be a wave for Democrats.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...crats-in-2018/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...crats-in-2018/
Democrats’ results were consistent enough, and their margins were large enough, that Tuesday’s elections had a wave-like feel. That includes how they performed in Virginia, where Ralph Northam won by considerably more than polls projected. When almost all the tossup races go a certain way, and when the party winning those tossup races also accomplishes certain things that were thought to be extreme long shots (such as possibly winning the Virginia House of Delegates), it’s almost certainly a reflection of the national environment.
But we didn’t need Tuesday night to prove that the national environment was good for Democrats; there was plenty of evidence for it already. In no particular order of importance:
- President Trump’s approval rating is only 37.6 percent.
- Democrats lead by approximately 10 points on the generic Congressional ballot.
- Republican in bents are retiring at a rapid pace; there were two retirements (from New Jersey Rep. Frank LoBiondo and Texas Rep. Ted Poe) on Tuesday alone.
- Democrats are recruiting astonishing numbers of candidates for Congress.
- Democrats have performed well overall in special elections to the U.S. Congress, relative to the partisanship of those districts; they’ve also performed well in special elections to state legislatures.
- The opposition party almost always gains ground at midterm elections. This is one of the most durable empirical rules of American politics.
So while Northam’s 9-point margin of victory was a surprise based on the polls, which had projected him to win by roughly 3 points instead1, it was right in line with what you might expect based on these “fundamental” factors. For instance, a simple model we developed based on the generic ballot and state partisanship forecasted a 9-point win for Democrats in Virginia and a 13-point win in New Jersey, pretty much matching their actual results in each state.
The figures I found particularly eye-popping are mentioned above:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...for-the-party/
The number of Democrats who have gotten out of the gate with enough seed money to start a serious congressional campaign is 8 times that of the GOP, when the normal ratio for that has sat at 1:1, 3:2, etc.
Democrats are stepping up, and some good candidates are going to emerge out of that class.
.
Fox ignores Dem wins and celebrates Trump’s ‘historic victory’ by playing highlights from 2016 election night
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/fox-ignores-dem-wins-and-celebrates-trumps-historic-victory-by-playing-highlights-from-2016-election-night/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-08-2017 at 11:10 AM.
Ah yes, the same FiveThirtyEight that was wrong about the 2014 midterms, insisted Trump had no chance of winning the GOP nomination, and picked Hillary to win the election.
Yeah, can't really gloat any Nate Silver prognostications anymore tbh
If you think FiveThirtyEight said Trump had "no chance" of winning the GOP nomination, and "no chance" to win the election, you didn't really read it, nor do you understand how statistics work.
Most people don't understand statistics, so that isn't too unusual. There is a reason that stat is a weed out class for several financial degrees.
Yeah, the website is run by different people than the TV show. Was talking about the station
Fair criticism, somewhat.
They basically try to get baselines of odds. If someone says there is a 70% chance of "X" happening, you have to realize there is still a fair chance of something other than "X" happening.
The larger test is whether, over the long run, "X" happens at a 70% rate, which is the best you can get in large-scale, real-world events.
The entire multi-trillion dollar insurance industry is based on this principle, and it works well enough to make money predictably. Occasionally you get what I heard a CEO call "lumpy results", but that just... happens.
Silver's website doesn't put %'s out there or factors without data. That is light-years ahead of most talking jackasses on the TV, and in another dimension entirely from some of the delusional quacks that post here.
.
Fox News Went 100 Minutes Tuesday Night Without Discussing the Republican Loss in Virginia
By Ben Mathis-Lilley
The biggest political story of the hour is that Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie went down big in Virginia after running a Trump-esque campaign fixated on inflammatory culture-war issues, losing to Democrat Ralph Northam by what looks like it will end up as a nine-point margin. It's the biggest story of the hour, that is, unless you're watching Fox News: As observed by political writer Chris Hooks, Donald Trump's favorite network spent more than 90 minutes in prime time on Tuesday—Election Night!—between discussions of election results.
Just before 9 p.m., Tucker Carlson read an update about the loss in Virginia and another Democratic gubernatorial win in New Jersey. At 9, Sean Hannity took over and slipped in a comment about why said Republican losses don't reallycount:
Those results in New Jersey and Virginia—not states Donald Trump won.
For what it's worth, Northam appears to have exceeded Hillary Clinton's margin of victory in Virginia by four points; Hannity, in any case, spent the entire hour of his show previewing and broadcasting a Trump speech in South Korea. (Hannity described the president's habit of referring derisively to Kim Jong-un as "Rocket Man" as an example of "strength.") Laura Ingraham's show began at 10, and Ingraham used the majority of her hour on segments about the armed civilian who attempted to intervene during this weekend's Texas shooting, the question of why liberals are "so offended and bothered by prayer," disgraced O.J Simpson detective Mark Fuhrman's opinions about gun control, and Trump's achievements in "confronting evil." She finally made it to Virginia at 10:50, whereupon viewers learned that Gillespie lost because he actually didn't imitate Trump enough:
Gillespie never jumped on board the Trump train. He's an old Bush hand. I think he gave it his best shot. He is who he is—not a populist conservative.
Later in the segment, Ingraham noted that Democrats will overreact to Northam's win because "they need something to be excited about," adding that, and I quote, "Hillary's emails!"
Fox News
They have Mark Fuhrman on air? Isn't he the guy from the OJ case where theres a tape of him using n word over and over?
OMG! He must be the worst person ever!
yep, Fox pleasing their old white racists with the guy who went after the black OJ.
Why would you not be offended by the n word?
Yeah, OJ was guilty obviously. But iirc there are tapes talking about how he likes to stomp n words so maybe go away and don't come back
So you are offended by Charles Barkley, Kevin Garnett, Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy...or just white people?
Mark Fuhrman was a police officer. He was in charge of policing.
It's not ideal to have racially impartial officers tasked with serving and protecting the public or determining who to charge in a crime.
I mean, or we could have the "Why can't white people say it if black people can" argument from 1991. It would certainly be nostalgic.
White people pretty much yeah and white cops especially yeah. And lol at you trying to make me out to be anti-white because I don't like white cops talking about how like they like to stomp on the ******s in interviews
OJ wasn't black from the mid 60s til 95 and he hates it. Even more than Jordan, Colin Powell and the Williams sisters hate being black.
They must have Fuhrman on air precisely because of the tapes and infamy. I mean it's not like they couldn't find another cop in America to spout out right wing views. Cops are overwhelmingly Republican
What does that have to do with Fuhrmans n word tapes which iirc were from the 1980s before he even met OJ?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
