Why don’t these twitter geniuses cure cancer?
because they’re (probably) social scientists … A LOT of statistical wiggle room in the social sciences as opposed to medical or hard sciences
I dont know where you are going with your argument, unless it it to say I somehow don’t know what non white populations are/do/think.
You will just have to accept that bears no semblance to my life.
I’m saying that if you don’t have a Democrat mayor you are at least one step above a city that does. So if you look around and think, this place sucks, you can add, but at least our mayor isn’t a Democrat. People in Somalia can do the same.
Couldn’t stand CNN coverage. I went and streamed NBC which I felt did a pretty good job across the board in actual coverage (except their “in break” commercials were AWFUL). No hysterics.
Lol! Man, it is just as bad when you live IN the USA. Even worse because saturation is reached much quicker. Like trying to be in fight-or-flight response 24/7.
I think this was one of my surprises. I didn’t expect the congressional races to tally like they did. I’m more surprised by that than the status of the POTUS race.
Ok, l don’ t get this whole non argument.
97% of adults in US have a cell phone. No one had to come to their house with a contract and selection of phones. They willfully got off their ass and somehow got to the Verizon store or Walmart, showed some sort of id, filled in their info, and shuffled off with a phone plan and phone.
But there has to be a 1000 different and constantly changing methods to cast a vote?
No. Just waddle on down where there are not 100 different ways to lose your ballot, have it thrown away because it was mailed, have someone fill in what they want (i already told everyone my parents got 4 ballots for 2 people), have postmen burn, stash, trash stacks of ballots. No postmark-no problem.
And dozens of ways that open up the system to temptation.
Look at maverick’s example - seriously, no one is suspicious of 138,000-0 tally change? No alarm? Just citizens getting their vote on?
Yep. I would definitely have supported the typical republican, no question. Words and stuff matter (see below).
Absolutely nobody. And that’s why this shit talking from Truml about not counting votes bothers me. Under no circumstances does a country that wants to be taken seriously cast doubt on its election process as “stealing” or “fraud”. Most especially when that country also happens to be the biggest and earliest example of representative government to most of the world. The “City on a hill” as it were.
As much as Trump says shitty things, a lot of them I could just be irritated about. But when he says stuff about the First amendment or the election it absolutely enrages me on a fundamental level for precisely this reason.
No, and this is specifically because of how the votes are being counted, as pointed out by 538 (where he got that graph from), which I have been following.
From 9:02 ET this morning:
" I’m seeing a lot of questions like this one, which was directed to the Wisconsin Elections Commission on Twitter. That weird-looking bump in the Wisconsin results is what happened when [170,000 absentee votes from the city of Milwaukee] poured in all at once. It’s not nefarious. It’s just counting."
Bumps like this also occurred in Michigan and other states when absentee ballots were batched. Which some states were barred from doing earlier than election day, so of course you’re going to see weird bumps.
1 Like
Actually the initial claim was yours. You also failed to support that claim. You attempted to use ancillary data to incorrectly make assumptions that could then be used to support your claim. The fact that you attempted to use your incorrect assumptions on viewership as the evidence to support your initial claim means you already put forward and accepted the same assumptions on viewership and influence that I used in my argument. Either you accept that viewer ship is important for influence or you’d have to admit that you reject the data and assumptions you offered to support your original claim. It seems highly disingenuous for you to have used the same assumptions in your argument you now seem to want to deny when I point out that the direct data contradicts your estimations.
Basically, you said that media influence doesn’t skew left because viewership is pretty similar. I then noted that your data wasn’t about viewership and corrected you that the left wing media does in fact have much larger viewership. Now suddenly larger viewership doesn’t mean larger influence? At the very least you’ve changed your mind on the reasoning for your original claim.
People are biased. Even good honest people suffer implicit bias. Humans on the left and right are all still people. 97% of the media is on the left. The only logical conclusion is that there is a healthy does of left wing bias in the average media outlet. Which of those suppositions do you not believe? It’s either that people on the left are 30+ time less biased, that people in the media in general aren’t biased, or that viewership of networks doesn’t exert influence. And to be frank, any of those claims seems foolish to the point of disingenuous.
You can get a phone online. Also, there isn’t only one day a year to get a phone.
No this is not factual. You tried to use “evidence” to support Twojar’s claim (taking the burden on yourself). My post was a rebuttal to that claim. This is in writing in this thread.
Sure, I take that back. I no longer make any claim. Support your claim. I am not convinced. We have now gone through this a couple of times. It wasn’t a initial claim. It was contrary evidence to your claim. Those are different things.
You caught my mistake I have admitted it. Now show what you are saying to be true (that the left media has a larger influence).
This is separate from impact (larger influence) from said media. I care about the impact. You need to quantify that somehow.
Additionally, you are ignoring other media: online and radio. Could those even things out? If it is a possibility, then the claim that it is the only logical conclusion is unsubstantiated.
This is not factual. I was only responding to rebut your rebuttal which is done directly by the data and your own paradigm.
Nope. I’m satisfied that you have now admitted you were wrong and no longer claim that media coverage is relatively impartial.
97% of the media is liberal. Liberal outlets have multiples the viewership that conservative voices do. I have laid out the base assumptions necessary to conclude that those facts constitute a bias advantage in media for the left. Assumptions you already used previously yourself and which you now refuse to contradict.
I feel no need to “support” anything further. I would however like to recommend you re-think your personal implicit bias and how firmly a seeker of truth you claim to be. This discussion would not lead me to evaluate your impartiality in likeness to your claims. However, to be fair I think most people vastly overestimate their impartiality. Values are not based in fact and yet your values highly influence not only the way you see facts, but the facts that you see. This isn’t a ding on you, it’s just how humans are built. The human mind works based on viewing everything as a tool, an obstacle, or unimportant. What is a tool or obstacle is dictated by your value system. Our brains do not work in a fact/object based paradigm. Look into the invisible gorilla experiment if you are interested.
US is actually often stated as “flawed democracy” in world democracy index. So its not the best system, its just above average.
But anyway, good that Trump is not likely winning the show. US is still the most powerful faction around, and the rest of the west need you guys against the rising tide of authoritarian regimes and global instability.
Sure, and in my rebuttal to Twojar I never made a claim. I had the position of not being convinced. You tried to support Twojar’s claim did you not?
Stop strawmanning me. Please. My position from the conversation with twojar was that I am not convinced either side has more impact / influence. Not being convinced of something doesn’t mean that I am convinced of the opposite. Think of a trial. As a juror to rule not guilty, do you need to be convinced the defendant is innocent?
Here is the text from post 570 (My rebuttal to twojar, that you replied to as a rebuttal to me).
“I am not convinced one side is more at fault here. Both are certainly guilty if I am a juror in the case against Fox and CNN.”
Do you see any claim that the media is impartial (regarding left and right balancing out)?
Source? I have given this to you, but I don’t actually believe it.
You have ignored a lot of stuff too. Like online media and radio. Additionally, your assumptions require faith on my part to believe, and faith is not a good pathway to truth. Why should I believe your assumptions?
That is why I am asking for evidence to support the claim. I don’t want bias to convince me that the left or right wing media has more influence without good reasons to believe that.
Maybe it is better to not get hung up on past mistakes. Do you believe the left wing media has more influence? Based on your posts I assume so. Now I think there are too many things left out, and too many assumptions made to be convinced. Is that fair?
I feel compelled to correct this. The invisible gorilla experiment looks at how the minds “attends” (pays attention), and not so much at cognitive bias. It’s relevant to multi-tasking, learning, focus.
3 Likes
from 538 live feed earlier today:
“Remember that case yesterday where USPS was ordered to complete a sweep of postal facilities to make sure no ballot was left behind in a number of key states by mid-afternoon and later told the judge it couldn’t be completed until later? The judge isn’t happy with USPS and said in a hearing today that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy may need to testify in his courtroom about what happened. Data filed to the judge earlier this morning suggested that the agency fell short of its 97 percent processing target yesterday, leaving the possibility open that some ballots may not have been delivered in key states — although the scope of the problem isn’t clear (i.e., how many ballots were actually affected). And notably, the focus in the hearing was on the states — including Pennsylvania — where there is an upcoming ballot deadline, not the states where the ballot receipt deadline passed yesterday”
Looks like Arizona is likely to stay blue. About 600,000 ballots (~16% total ballot count) remaining to be counted and of those 450,000 come from Maricopa county (Phoenix), which includes 250,000+ early ballots. The 450,000 will probably continue to lean towards Biden, who has 3 ish point lead.
The AP called it already.
They are usually pretty good when it comes to making correct calls. They haven’t called Florida yet from 2000.
1 Like
LOL. Nice.
Yeah I posted before I checked the AP, since I was following 538s feed.
I think Wisconsin goes blue, pending recount notwithstanding, since Biden is leading by about 20,000 with basictnothing left
The white chick strutting down the hall is stunning, in the video…
1 Like