Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »
Reply To Thread

YOU'RE FIRED!Follow

#327 Sep 14 2015 at 9:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Or maybe, they covered the whole story and that screenshot represented the segment of the article of her strength in the party. You said yourself that the article was focused on her losing ground. Again, you obviously don't watch the show. Neither of the two hosts are Clinton fans.


You're missing the point I'm making. You used the screenshot as proof that Clinton was a strong candidate, in direct response to my statements that she was weak. If the show in question had been primarily about arguing how weak she was, then why did you apparently walk away from it with the impression that she was strong? So much so that when faced with my argument that Clinton is a weak candidate, you thought of this very episode on this very show as a means to obtain data proving that she is, in fact, a strong candidate.

This is kind of a funny bit of behavior I've commented on before, where people pull out some media source as evidence of some position, but when the actual source is examined, it turns out that it was saying the exact opposite. Then fun comes in when I point out that the media source presented the information in a way designed to make their audience come away with the wrong impression, and those who just a post ago were claiming it as support for X insist that the media did not at all spin the data to make X seem to be true. Um... Then why did you think what you did?

If this show was really trying to make you see how weak Clinton is, shouldn't you have thought of it as a source showing how weak Clinton is? Even if you disagreed with the shows conclusions, you should never have thought to go to that show for evidence of her strength. That makes no sense. You'd have gone to some show you saw, or article you read, that was speaking positively about Clinton and then googled for that source to find something to support your "Clinton is strong" position. The very fact that something on this show stuck in your mind as showing Clinton is strong is evidence that this was precisely what they meant to do. You have to remember that most media are pretty clever about messaging. They're very good at saying one thing, but doing so in a way designed to get people to arrive at a specific conclusion, even if that conclusion isn't supported by the raw statements contained in the media report itself. Written sources do this with clever placement of information in the article, and quotes that are designed to weaken certain facts in the mind of the reader, while strengthening implied conclusions at the same time. Video sources do this with inflection of the voice, body language of the people while speaking, and yes, graphics being displayed while they're talking.


It's one of the reasons I've learned to ignore inflection and implication when reading, watching, or listening to any sort of news or opinion source. I pay very careful attention just to what is actually said, not what was implied or suggested. I've found that it can be amazing how different your take away from a media source can be when you do this. It's kind of a pet thing I do when I ingest any form of media, and I also try to pay attention to how other people view the same information and look for those differences. As I said, it's shocking how frequently someone will say "this source says X", and I'll go to the same source and notice that it doesn't really say X at all. It's just written/said/whatever in a way designed to make people *think* X is true. And again, it's funny as heck when you confront that person about this, and then they jump around trying to deny that they got played by cleverly worded language. The same person will simultaneously insist that they both didn't misunderstand the source *and* that the source wasn't designed to make people come to a specific misunderstanding but rather actually said the opposite of what they thought it said all along. And yes, I'm aware that this results in a completely nonsensical bit of rationalization on their part. But I run into it all the time.

Just like you just did.

Edited, Sep 14th 2015 8:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#328 Sep 15 2015 at 4:42 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
You're missing the point I'm making. You used the screenshot as proof that Clinton was a strong candidate, in direct response to my statements that she was weak.
Wrong. The screenshot (followed by the actual link of the survey) was in direct response of you asking me to cite the study. In my explanation on why she is strong, I mentioned that she had 80% of the party's support as A (not the) reason. There's an entire list of reasons on why she is a strong candidate. The fact that she has 80% is only a factor.

Gbaji wrote:
This is kind of a funny bit of behavior I've commented on before, where people pull out some media source as evidence of some position, but when the actual source is examined, it turns out that it was saying the exact opposite. Then fun comes in when I point out that the media source presented the information in a way designed to make their audience come away with the wrong impression, and those who just a post ago were claiming it as support for X insist that the media did not at all spin the data to make X seem to be true. Um... Then why did you think what you did?


YOU DON'T WATCH THE SHOW. Are you telling me that a Republican host, who held office in Congress, was spinning the numbers to favor Clinton? Are you telling me that the "anti-establishment" co-host spun the numbers to favor Clinton (an established candidate)? There is no show on that network that is more critical of her. The story was presented in full.

Gbaji wrote:
The same person will simultaneously insist that they both didn't misunderstand the source *and* that the source wasn't designed to make people come to a specific misunderstanding but rather actually said the opposite of what they thought it said all along. And yes, I'm aware that this results in a completely nonsensical bit of rationalization on their part.
You're just easily confused. The source that I quoted wasn't used to support her overall strength, only that she had 80% of the party's support, which is what you asked me to prove. When I proved that to you, instead of admitting that you were wrong, you're now trying to pivot to the rest of the article.

Again, since you evidently don't watch the news... NEWS FLASH!!!! There is no media outlet claiming that she is strong. There are individuals on networks who will defend her strength, but as previously mentioned, most of the media is how weak she and Bush are and how much momentum Trump and Sanders are gaining. With the bump of Carson and Fiorina in the polls, there's also a lot of "anti-establishment" talk.
#329 Sep 15 2015 at 5:28 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's one of the reasons I've learned to ignore inflection and implication when reading, watching, or listening to any sort of news or opinion source.
FALSE: I have it good authority that you don't get your news from anywhere.





Yeah, low-hanging fruit, but he started it.Smiley: tongue
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#330 Sep 15 2015 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Inflection, implications, information, intelligence, facts, laws, experience, evidence, verification, authenticity, data, truth, reality, sources, citations, common sense ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#331 Sep 15 2015 at 4:01 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

So observation absent formally collated data is acceptable when claiming that the conservative pundits and campaign spokespeople do this, but not when someone merely says "both sides do that". Is that really where you want to go on this one? You've apparently forgotten that all I said was that democrats do this too. I'll note that you have not demanded that anyone show data proving that conservatives do, which was what I originally responded to. Strange bit of one-sidedness you've got going on there.
You have apparently forgotten what "this" was referencing. "This" references attacking the obvious strongest candidate pretending that the candidate is actually weak, while simultaneously PROMOTING the weaker candidates as if s/he were actually strong. Democrats aren't don't that, only Republicans.

Gbaji wrote:
You're mixing up cause and effect again. I'm saying that some sort of deal was struck well before this election season in which the DNC (and all serious candidates who want DNC support for their campaigns in the future) would support Clinton as their chosen candidate from day one. We can speculate about what sort of deal making occurred behind the scenes, but it's becoming abundantly obvious that a deal was made well before the opinions of potential primary voters were weighed. Polls after that point, where Clinton is presented to those being polled as the only viable Democrat candidate are somewhat meaningless in terms of determining whether Clinton is actually the best candidate for Dem voters to support. She's the only candidate. By design.
There is no deal, just the reality of promoting the strongest candidate. It's a common practice among the GOP. It's what the donor class tried with JEB.


Gbaji wrote:
The other candidates that are running. That's the key point you keep ignoring. She's weak because the only reason she's polling as well as she is is because there are no other strong candidates with even a chance of winning the general in the race. I keep explaining this to you, and you keep not getting it. The Dems have rigged the primary to ensure that Clinton gets the nomination. We can speculate about what sorts of favor swapping occurred behind the scenes to make this happen, but it's pretty obvious that the powers-that-be have declared that Clinton shall be the nominee.

I suspect they're starting to regret this. I also suspect that this is at least partly behind Trumps rise. But that's an even more speculative proposition.


Gbaji wrote:
Stop flipping back and forth between primary and general polls. You're talking about primary polling in your post, but linked to a source that includes general polling. Those are not the same thing. But here's the thing, if we were to take general election poll numbers as an indication of who might be a better candidate to nominate, the page you linked shows Biden only a small amount below Clinton. Certainly close enough that you'd expect him to be in the race, right?

The problem is that those are not good sources. As I've mentioned a few times, polling on the general election while still in the relatively early stages of the primary is iffy at best. Doubly so when there is only one serious candidate actually in the primary on one side. When Clinton is the only real choice on the Dem side of such a poll, all Democrats polled are going to tend to poll for her. But when there are other GOP candidates in the race, Republican who are polled may tend to poll as undecided in a match up between Clinton any any GOP candidate who is not their preferred candidate. Not all of them will do this, but enough of a percentage to skew the results a bit.

You don't think this is true? But look at what you just did. You are trying to use relative general election poll match ups to show that Clinton is a stronger candidate than say Biden, Warren, or Sanders. Get it? Your argument is that since Clinton matches up better against <insert GOP candidate here> than Warren does, then Clinton is a stronger primary candidate. But the same works on the other side, right? If I'm a GOP voter, and I'm taking a poll matching up GOP candidates against Dem candidates, while the primary is still going, I'm motivated to make my preferred candidate look the strongest, right? As long as anyone looks at these general election match ups as a way of determining relative strength of primary candidates, we must also allow for the fact that this will influence the match ups themselves with an eye towards helping each persons candidate of choice in the primary.

How big is that factor? No way to be sure. But there's no way it *isn't* a factor. As I said above, the very fact that *you* place weight on such general match ups to determine primary strength means that others must as well.
If she is "weak", but beats all of the GOP in a general poll, then what does that make the GOP? Either she is strong or the GOP is incredibly weak.


Gbaji wrote:

Again. Why don't you link the source for this? I assumed you were talking about in the general, not in the primary. Um... But even in a primary, that makes no sense (and also does not indicate a "strong" candidate). Primaries are not winner take all propositions (like most state general elections are). If 23% wont show up to vote because "she can't win", then those are a ton of delegates she wont get from that state, which may very well (will very well) hurt her in the quest for the nomination.

I'm still scratching my head about this data. It makes no sense, but no matter how I look at it, it does not indicate a strong candidate, and nothing you've said has clarified the matter.
No point if you can't conceptually understand how choosing not to vote because your candidate is losing is positive support, not negative. So, answer the question. Would you vote in that scenario? If not, then why? If so, then who and why?


Gbaji wrote:
You're... kidding, right? Let me suggest again that you maybe get your head out of whatever liberal echo chamber it's in. The GOP candidates are hardly expending any energy at all attacking Clinton. The media and other sources have, but they'd do that regardless of what's going on with the GOP candidates, and certainly regardless of how many GOP candidates there are in the race.

Excepting Trump is a total cop-out. He's the front runner. Of course he's going to get most of the attacks from the rest of the field. And of course, he's going to spend most of his energy responding to (and dishing out his own) attacks. That's my point though. The net effect of this is that all the GOP candidates are going to have higher negative numbers during this process. It's an unfortunate side effect of an open primary field. I'll also point out that this is almost certainly why the Dems have chosen to run Clinton more or less unopposed.
Excluding Trump isn't a cop out when he is the only common factor in an 18 candidate race. Look at this and ctrl +F "clinton" to see how the GOP used their first debate to criticize Clinton.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 199 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (199)