Jump to content
The Education Forum

Hillary blames FBI Director Comey for her loss


Douglas Caddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

One good thing -- maybe the only good thing -- to come out of this election is the destruction of Republican claims to patriotism -- Russia helped rig an American election in favor of the GOP -- and white evangelical claims to "family values" given their support of a pedophile rapist.

Those myths are finished.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dan:

Thanks so much for posting that story about Facebook and Fake News.  That is by far the best essay I have read on the subject.

I don't go to Facebook very much.  So I was not aware of how serious this problem is.  I was always curious about where those ridiculous stories came from.  Now I know. 

I hope there is a way to make Facebook do something about it.  The American public is dumbed down enough from its education system, its culture and its media.  

But now fake news from Macedonia?  Geez.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on the Bradley Effect in this election.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-2016-polls-upset-214461

Fascinating, because one of these guys got 47 states right!  Amazing for this election.  And he picked those Rust Belt states that Trump so surprisingly won.

And they picked the Electoral College pretty well.  Although they missed the popular vote, which really does not matter in reality.  And Trump understood that and played for it.

Revealingly, they talk about a herding effect.  So much of the media, and  the liberal blogosphere, bought into HRC's inevitability that these guys were called outliers.  The worst disasters were Huffpo and TPM and Daily Kos.   But if you compare this discussion with the WSJ one, you will see that these guys also latched onto the so called "invisible Trump voter"--the one Huffpo said did not exist-- except these guys detected it even sooner.

 Very interesting observation:  they got onto it because of the difference between the online polls and the phone polls.  They concluded the online polls were more honest because of anonymity, for women, blacks and Latinos.  Also the question of "Who is your neighbor voting for?" was also a giveaway of Trump's real but hidden strength.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

From the article:

emphasis added

<quote on>

[T]he team behind the USC-Dornsife/LA Times Daybreak poll, which followed a fixed pool of 3,200 respondents every week over the course of the campaign; their final forecast on Election Day had Trump leading 46.8 percent to 43.6 percent.

<quote off>

So that's 3.2 percent for Trump in an election he'll lose the popular vote by something like 1.5%

They were off by close to 5%.

Wow.

And Jim DiEugenio continues to ignore the impact of cable news turning into the Crooked Hillary Clinton Show featuring Weiner's E-Mails over the last 11 days of the campaign, and he continues to pretend that voter suppression doesn't exist..

Gentle reader, please google "Bradley Effect persistent myth"...Just say'n...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Thanks for the thanks.  I'm seeing lots of parallels between the "Castro did it" disinformation campaign right after 11/22/63 and this Fake News phenomena on FB........which begs the question of a professional (Russian?) Intelligence operation/operator(s). 

"But now fake news from Macedonia?  Geez. " couldn't agree more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2016 at 7:13 PM, Robert Prudhomme said:

Call me stupid but. unless there names were on their ballots, how do we know 26% of Latinos and 53% of women voted for Trump?

And James D

You say HRC voted for the Iraq War. I seem to recall that an awful lot of people voted for that war, given the false evidence they were presented. Your point?

Demographics come from exit polls.

BTW, not only did HRC vote for the Iraq war, so did Bernie Sanders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, from that important article I linked to above--which I hope everyone reads, so I will ink to it again,   http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-2016-polls-upset-214461

--one can make a very much data driven deduction.  HRC made the same mistake in this election that Romney did four years ago.  In 2012, Romney and his backers and his echo chamber in the media--Fox News-- thought they were going to win, really.  In plain English, they fell for their own BS.  

That is what happened here.  HRC never picked up on this analytic the way these guys did, or the way Trump's data analysis company Cambridge Analytics did. Which is really weird. Since she spent so much more money than he did.  Data micro analysis is important these days, especially in close elections.

But I think this is where the other part of that article comes into effect.  They talk about a bubble that was created, and boy was it ever.  From about the Democratic convention on, the media was on Trump's case.  I think it began with the Khan speech.  And so this media spectacle started to play itself out, especially with all the groping allegations and Gloria Allred press conferences etc.   And that GOP hispanic lady Navarro telling the Dems to try and go into states outside their citadel, like Arizona, because there were more Latinos there.

All this uproar and polemics against Trump contributed to this massive prediction error in two ways;

1.) It made it harder for Trump voters in certain groups--e.g. white women-- to reveal who they really planned on voting for.

2.) The avalanche against Trump  in the media distracted the pollsters from digging deeper. (Many of whom work for the media.)  Instead they just dismissed the discrepancy between the online polls and the phone polls. And the "Who did your neighbor vote for?"  question.  Which these guys found so puzzling they pursued it.  That's professionalism.

To me, there is no excuse for that on Podesta and Mook's part.  It indicates a real carelessness born of overconfidence.  A real professional team would not have been a sucker for it.   But since the DNC gave them the red carpet, and the media was so accommodating, they drank the Kool AId. 

And BTW, that idiot Josh Marshall at TPM kept on saying about this overconfidence, "The Clinton team must know something more".  That is one more indication of the utter failure of the so called liberal blogosphere.  It turned out he was exactly wrong.  They actually knew less, which is why they got blindsided by an electoral college truck.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, from that important article I linked to above--which I hope everyone reads, so I will ink to it again,   http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-2016-polls-upset-214461

--one can make a very much data driven deduction.  HRC made the same mistake in this election that Romney did four years ago.  In 2012, Romney and his backers and his echo chamber in the media--Fox News-- thought they were going to win, really.  In plain English, they fell for their own BS.  

That is what happened here.  HRC never picked up on this analytic the way these guys did, or the way Trump's data analysis company Cambridge Analytics did. Which is really weird. Since she spent so much more money than he did.  Data micro analysis is important these days, especially in close elections.

But I think this is where the other part of that article comes into effect.  They talk about a bubble that was created, and boy was it ever.  From about the Democratic convention on, the media was on Trump's case.  I think it began with the Khan speech.  And so this media spectacle started to play itself out, especially with all the groping allegations and Gloria Allred press conferences etc.   And that GOP hispanic lady Navarro telling the Dems to try and go into states outside their citadel, like Arizona, because there were more Latinos there.

All this uproar and polemics against Trump contributed to this massive prediction error in two ways;

1.) It made it harder for Trump voters in certain groups--e.g. white women-- to reveal who they really planned on voting for.

2.) The avalanche against Trump  in the media distracted the pollsters from digging deeper. (Many of whom work for the media.)  Instead they just dismissed the discrepancy between the online polls and the phone polls. And the "Who did your neighbor vote for?"  question.  Which these guys found so puzzling they pursued it.  That's professionalism.

 

Over the last 11 days there was no avalanche against Trump.

There was an avalanche against Hillary.

Is DiEugenio ever going to get this factually correct?

Ever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul:

From years of experience, CV is a shameless cherry picker.  

In that fine long interview with the only people who got it right, those guys reveal that they picked up on this "hidden Trump voter" a long time ago.  He or she was there, but did not want to say who he or she was.  Not until they voted. Or if they were part of an online poll.

Here is the part that deals with this:  "The avalanche against Trump  in the media distracted the pollsters from digging deeper. (Many of whom work for the media.)  Instead they just dismissed the discrepancy between the online polls and the phone polls. And the "Who did your neighbor vote for?"  question.  Which these guys found so puzzling they pursued it.  That's professionalism."

But I guess both groups, the correct pollsters and the hidden voters, are also fascist pigs.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

From years of experience, CV is a shameless cherry picker.  

Not that we'd ever know from your actually quoting me.

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

In that fine long interview with the only people who got it right, those guys reveal that they picked up on this "hidden Trump voter" a long time ago.  He or she was there, but did not want to say who he or she was.  Not until they voted. Or if they were part of an online poll.

Here is the part that deals with this:  "The avalanche against Trump  in the media distracted the pollsters from digging deeper. (Many of whom work for the media.)  Instead they just dismissed the discrepancy between the online polls and the phone polls. And the "Who did your neighbor vote for?"  question.  Which these guys found so puzzling they pursued it.  That's professionalism."

But I guess both groups, the correct pollsters and the hidden voters, are also fascist pigs.

Those who cannot acknowledge the avalanche of negative coverage Comey generated against Clinton and cannot acknowledge the roll of widespread voter suppression are fascism-apologists.

Note I include left-wingers in that -- another nuance Jim D. can't wrap his head around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul:

Even the brain dead Huffpo is starting to understand what happened:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/this-ohio-town-voted-for-obama-by-huge-margins-then-it-flipped-to-trump-heres-why_us_582c9e20e4b099512f804de2

This is an Ohio, working class, 30K a year town.  What are they doing voting for Trump?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...