The Real Clear Politics National Average was removed by Wikipedia before the election and the New York Times denounced its failure to skew data. A solution to the "mystery" of crappy polling?
NPR and NYT are the Sacklers of news. They sell hopium and copium to exacerbate mental illness. Slanted polls made blueanons think the election is close, now they are devastated but will still swallow the propaganda and lies.
Holy jeebus, that NPR CEO is beyond hokum. Why hasn't she been fired by now. That talk of hers is alien level. Somebody from the WH on day one has to just eliminate her. She's a walking parody. Who talks like that?
“this radical openness… did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be.” I think she stole it from Kamala's stash of bright things to say once she was elected.
I have tried in earnest multiple times to carefully interpret the meaning of this postmodern-sounding turn of phrase. I have come up empty every time. Seriously WTF IS THIS PERSON SAYING?
She's just using buzzwords to express the standard lefty attitude toward free speech: Anything THEY think is acceptable is legitimate free speech; everything else is not legitimate and should be suppressed. It's exactly how all the Warsaw Pact countries insisted they had freedom of speech for the entire Cold War, and how the UK insists it has freedom of speech today.
A public square moderated to allow one set of controlling voices is the intentional state. Allowing all voices in the public square is radical openness.
What is sad is there are lefties that understand her phrasing as written. They are true believers in hate speech and believe the gov has the authority to stop speech it does not condone. - like the UK is now doing with fines and jail time.
The entelechy of actual openness is allowing winners to win, the meritocracy of the fittest. Like Manifest Destiny and Israel's future total victory, that is seen as a bad thing that must be slowed by the tyranny of governing authority.
Someone tell me...is "Corporate Buzzword Speak" an option on Google Translate now? Makes me wonder if these people really talk about this, or feed it into Google/ChatGPT and get these kinds of word salads.
These kinds of reactions are human nature...if your livelihood and social standing were in jeopardy, what would you do?
PBS/NPR needs to go the way of the Dept of Ed and FEMA. Even if we are broadcast opera via PBS, apparently we rubes can't be salvaged. So, what's the point?
That's it. We're rubes ... filthy, unwashed, probably gangrenous. And anyone--left, right, center, lopsided, whatever--who is a bit skeptical of establishment polling is a rube, by definition.
One Mike to another - as a thought: Are we still surprised at poll manipulation to psyop an election after the 2008 crash revealed the fraud valuation of junk stocks and bonds as AAA by rating agencies? It's a rigged game. What part of "the greatest upward transfer of wealth in human history" do we the people refuse to understand. DNC/Soros/Davos thugs working to rig the American judiciary. WEF/EU owned English totalitarian perps like Kier Starmer boastfully sending operatives to our nations capitol to "canvas" for Harris and bring down Elon Musk. J.Kerry and the toilet paper NYT declaring our Constitution an impediment to modern governance. The size of the LIE reveals the size of the corruption behind it. There is the American Republic, the Constitution and the free citizen. Everything else is psyop. Hold the line.
I was listening to Winston Marshall's podcast with Ashley Rindsberg. Wikimedia doesn't need our money any more. If I recall correctly, Rindsberg said that the organization has a war chest numbering in the hundreds of millions now.
They're all like that in the bureaucracy. If you think that's horrifying, understand that there are hundreds of thousands of people in government doing things that control your life, who think and talk precisely like her.
Government bureaucracies are basically upscale sheltered workshops. This is how they talk to one other in order to blunt self-awareness, to hide from themselves while manipulating others. In the end it's quite a balancing act. People used to take government jobs for the security but once they are in them long enough that morphs into revenge on society, on the real world, for their own inadequacies.
She absolutely deserves such a sexist remark. She is the epitome of the dumb blonde, intensified to moronic imbecile level with a heavy dose of deceived demonic deceiver. She's evil beyond the point of insanity. Instead of giggling dizziness she oozes pure nonsense disguised as competence. Whichever ism you choose to employ to deflate her, go right ahead. Be hateful! She deserves it!
Musk wants federal funding for NPR stopped. A good start, but yes that NPR CEO is loaded with toxic phrases and woke ideology. I found her rhetoric odious, but why wouldn't I, a white male object to all that venom tossed my way. Liberals can't seem to pee out all that woke kool-aid.
Benny, I'm guessing she would be outraged that you ask who talks like that. She will retort that she does not talk. She speaks. And she will immediately sniff you out as a misogynist.
I found myself quickly falling asleep as I listened to her drone.
Listening is one thing understanding is totally something else, I might not be the brightest bulb in the bunch, but that was one hell of a unique word salad. I did very much understand she’s not keen on white men🤣
Now I understand why DEI universities are so prolific and important. It must take years of "education" to come up with a convulated a statement as she made and only those in the "norm" (fellow lefty degree holders) to understand what the hell it means. That circular word salad would make Kamala so proud.
Concur. Creepy as hell -- not only what she says, but also how she says it. Pathological to an extreme. The most definitive example ever for not giving another dollar to NPR and shutting it down immediately.
The mouthpieces of institutional America have been damaged, but are intact. Most important is that the institutions the mouthpieces represent are intact. Institutions have been preparing for a second Trump presidency since January 2017.
What we are witnessing now are the early stage skirmishes of an all-out assault by the Trump insurgency on America's institutions. Expect casualties, defeats, and compromises on both sides. Rick Scott is not in control of the Senate - right now the American people are. Thune is the placeholder of America's institutions and understands well the threat Trump represents.
Institutional America will play rope-a-dope with Trump and his allies - to the degree they can. The polls don't matter, nor does Wiki. What matters are clean streets and safe schools. Americans are looking for results.
Expect Trump to use the media to make his us versus them case - all institutions remain highly vulnerable - the entire array of America's institutions failed to stop the American people from electing their change agent. That's Trump's mandate.
Expect Trump to press home his case for his nominees aggressively - all the facts COVID, endless wars, chronic health problems, waste, theft, graft, inefficiency are on the side of the insurgents.
Trump's only hope is to go for the throat. Trump's picks confirm he's going to do exactly that - polls and the NYT be damned. Elon and Vivek are just the first of many likely to support the reform of America's institutions towards efficiency. Thank god.
Best practices: choose a radically polarizing person like Schiff as your leader; deputize legislators with extremely limited power and electorates to answer to; broadcast your secret plan to everyone and expect no legal ramifications to arise once you implement it. Yeah, it could work.<sarcasm>
The question is whether America's institutions (essentially the 1%) will remain in control of it all and continue to let politics be a proxy for their internecine economic warfare. They have their own version of 'clean' nuclear weapons which generate cultural EMP's via IT and the Media. Is Trump actually a renegade oligarch or is he just marshalling the power of the neglected majority for advantage in that war? Or their pied piper acting on the behalf of the 1%? Or both?
That is the best description of these two that I've ever heard. It does follow the big pharma playbook. First develop a need (TDS) and then feed the fever until...oops, the jigs up!
The one pole that matters is the election. Ban poles for at least two weeks before the election and exit poles until at least 2 weeks after. Let the people decide!
This is why they fill the air with conspiracy theories about musk using Starlink satellites to reprogram voting machines, because they were told Harris was leading and going to win so a Trump blowout must be a fix.
Maybe they could instead ask where the other 11 million votes Biden got in 2020 went?
Well, the die-hard partisans actually are asking where those votes went. However, they do it with a completely unironic lack of recognition that such votes have never surfaced before, or since, 2020.
We need to embrace “living into the intentionality of what openness can be.” and very intentionality, right out in the open, proceed to strip ALL federal funding from NPR immediately, and then auction all their assets off, and give it to Alex Jones to launch NPI (National Public Infowars). Meanwhile that wikistain of a charlatan that’s runs NPR can go get a job at the NYCrimes. All Things Considered that would be a breath of Fresh Air.
Yuri — If NPR and the Times published accurate polls (or accurate news, for that matter), their progressive audiences would go someplace else, where they would get the fake news they really want.
That’s why they are fleeing X for more “moderated” social media, where dissident voicee are muted.
If you're a fan of a great author would you want to read adulterated versions of that author's works? So why would you want to read honest news once you've committed to the crap churned out by the MSM?
I caught the tail end of an NPR radio story today which seemed to be reporting poll results on how folks rated President-elect Trump's performance (?!) No kidding. According to these guys, "91% of Republicans viewed his performance favorably, while less than a quarter of Democrats did so."
This whole article makes too big a deal of two things:
1) The importance of a Wikipedia page that got 30,000 views a day compared to a polling aggregation page (RCP) that had many dedicated readers already and >1,000,000 views a day (just for the polling page realclearpolling.com, not the main RCP content links pages)
2) what four volunteer Wikipedia editors did without significant discussion or thoroughness. Matt's phrasing seems to misunderstand and misstate how WP works.
𝐎 𝐧𝐨---𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐛𝐢𝐠 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭. The Wikipedia article as it exists is what most people read. Determined editors can and do change the narrative.
Or, to my point, one dude in an offhand way without discussing with others. These guys weren't at a table and the discussion they had took days and was light. Hardly fair to call anything like that representative.
Sorry Kelly, but it is representative- because they all agree to stuff things that mess w/ their narrative and the outcome THEY WANT!! Highly unscientific!!
It is not true to say “Wikipedia editors decided it had a “strong Republican bias” that made it “suspect,””. It was a light discussion and that was one person’s opinion. No “decision” can even be claimed. There was not discussion to a consensus, there were simply a few opinions stated.
Do you work for them? You seem to have some kind of first hand knowledge of what took place here. To the majority of us, it’s, well, just Wikipedia being typical bias Wikipedia.
It’s fairly well known, at least in my business hemisphere, that we should not reference Wikipedia EVER due to their bias. And I worked for various non profit organizations.
But it is the #1 website for people to get information and the AI systems and Personal Assistant devices use it so even if inaccurate it is the defacto "final word on many topics for many people. If everyone were skeptical and read the history of a page shows how it is constructed...we would not have to think about its undue influence--but most do not.
But the way Taibbi writes you'd think there was a desk of Vice Presidents at WP making these decisions and actually discussing them before publishing. It's just unfair to call two days of no RCP representation anything other than an edit made by one dude that others reversed when they got around to looking at it.
Glenn Greenwald has reported on CIA manipulation of Wikipedia. If it were free and independent it would not be promoted at the top of Google search results.
I'm talking about this case, not in general or things the CIA would care more about. It doesn't take the CIA to do what happened here, it took like three people with TDS... plenty of those out there. Pretty much one dude deleted it and that was enough.
Well, if someone had been fired for that from WP, then maybe that explanation would fly. But no one was fired, which means the top brass were totally ok with it.
Well it's safe to say that I don't let my judgment of the high level cloud my judgment of the particulars. I leave that to partisans. When Matt started on Substack, his pages weren't filled with them.
That's like saying that because Trump is a whackjob, everything said about him is fair, which is pretty much 50% of what Matt's substack has been focused on disproving.
Matt illuminates the need to look at the page history of Wikipedia articles that seem wrong. You can review exactly how the people who edit remove things they don't like. If you make an account, you can"watch" any entry (there is a tab at the top that says "watch"). I watched the "Twitter Files" entry at Wikipedia when it was scheduled to be deleted and was able to help that it be saved. But Matt is correct. There are parties that will try to change the narrative.
Here is the history of the Twitter Files at Wikipedia.
I know, Burt. Sometimes I feel like I've been in a cage match. some of the really contentious editors have hundreds of thousands of edits. And they are really mean.
Although that response sounds extremely stupid, and arguably is extremely stupid (since the technical definition of "bias" literally is a measurement's divergence from reality), the way Wikipedia is set up is to reflect authoritative sources, and one can find any number of authoritative sources asserting that Rasmussen is biased.
IOW, the real problem is much larger than Wikipedia. W is merely reflective of a much larger left-wing media ecosystem that cannot and will not perceive ITSELF as biased in any sense of the word.
I looked at the history of the Wikipedia page Matt linked to, but I noticed that some of the "talk" links were invalid. I'm not familiar with this aspect of Wikipedia. Is it common for "talk" links to become invalid, or was someone trying to hide something?
wiki is cooked. its so washed and so woke its basically useless for any topic that even tangentially touches on identity politics. my kid (6th grade) was doing something in school about somalia. i went to wiki and specifically on womens rights (its the 4th worst in the world, tragically atrocious) the wiki page basically says "womens rights are protected by the koran." and thats basically the whole page. anything else (like the truth) would be "racist" or "islamophobic".
I tried to add a bit about libraries in Pakistan (how could THAT be controversial?) but used an image of children and many people deleted it as images of children not acceptable. Seems like many editors watch on that topic. After a while I gave up on adding anything about libraries in most Islamic countries.
Thank you for this information. I'm especially curious how these editors decide who gets a Wikipedia page.
For example, a movie producer told me that every time someone made a Wikipedia page for Michael Harris-- the Death Row Records founder whom Trump eventually pardoned-- it would get deleted. This was years before the pardon
The reason this mattered was the producer was trying to interest studios in a project relating to Harris and not having him be "Wikipedia worthy" made it a hard sell.
The hardest rule is that someone from a "reliable source" has to write about them first. If they haven't had an article written about them Notability usually gets vetoed. Also, you can't say someone won an award unless the award has been written about in what they call a reliable source. And the articles have to be organic. You can't be paid to write them, you can't write about someone you are close to or work with.
Very astute. The "Reliable sources" accepted are mainly MSM. And that list is the absolute arbiter. The page history on acceptable "reliable sources" is telling.
However, for smaller spheres like "Book History" they do accept citations from scholarly sources w/in the field.
Yet another example of how the NYT no longer exists to inform the public, but to move the world as it is closer to the world as it should be. The point isn’t to deliver the news, or to even convey true information. The point is to express the right attitude. Wrong information is tolerated when it allows the right attitude. And the right information is ignored if it supports the wrong attitude.
grotesque this government agency takes public money & uses it to attack the ideas of the very people that fund it. everyone on the right deserves reparations from NPR.
Let’s rid ourselves of NPR. My only worry, am I promoting censorship of an outlet I don’t like for partisan reasons.? I can’t believe I just wrote that……
NPR should be rid of its financing model, not lose its right to lie. go ahead & spew the far left talking points: but take money from george soros not republican taxpayers.
Just don't listen to NPR anymore. I was an avid listener for decades. I listened to Morning and Weekend Editions every day. I also purchased and read the NYT every day. The biases of each of these news outlets were clear, even before the turn of the century, but they were not as overt then as they are now.
I gradually rid myself of NPR starting around 2004 when the country was debating whether water boarding was torture. It was easy to drop Scott Simon when he (a Quaker) openly supported the war on Iraq. I still listened to NPR occasionally until Trump came on the scene. It was when Trump started to be a serious candidate that all pretense of honesty and fairness was dropped by NPR and the MSM.
To be better informed, take the time to read/listen/watch the news from news outlets outside your own country. You will be better informed, not well informed. Keep listening to your internal bullshit sensors. All major news outlets support the ruling classes of their own countries. The ruling classes of all countries control their media.
And, to stay on topic, polling is just a pretense to accuracy and honesty that the MSM never had and will never have.
You have to be thorough. They get oodles of corporate money as well. So first, take the IP of the name for the government so they can’t go “independent.” Lmao. Second, cut all funding. Third, decertify them as a charity so donations no longer qualify as write offs. Fourth require disclosure of their output as democrat advertising; we could do the same for the NYT as well.
Yeah, NPR has been a waste of money for at least a decade. They are good for nothing🖕🏽. They need to be shut down permanently. Please DJT, shut down NPR forever‼️No more💰for them.
Well, why can’t they just stay out of politics and simply promote American ideals, history our country. Cultural programming, they’ve ventured offf the range
I think you sadly underestimate the mental illness of those that follow it. If the Post does go back to being mildly fair and balanced, the crowd that wants to believe in the mush being spewed by the NYT and MSNBC for the last 2 decades will double and triple down.
It is truly amazing that so many people are now holding on desperately to the sources of propaganda and indoctrination. I share your belief that when one of the MSM prints an ever so slightly dissenting article from the approved Party line, the readership actually turns on the media company, and accuses WaPo, the NYT, or whichever of not telling the truth. Democrats are immersed in a belief that the MSM are the source of truth, but at the same time will throw their media under a bus if any articles appear that critique Democratic Party leaders. Then they become more paranoid, attributing the source of the MSM's deviation from the Party line to disloyalty.
The NYT was under fire as well for talking about Biden's cognitive problems prior to his ousting. Democrats I know viewed this as the NYT promoting false information about Biden with the intention of undermining his campaign.
But then there is the flipiside, ie, those who swallow whole WHATEVER the MSM says as absolute truth and change direction accordingly, literally becoming "more useful" idiots.
Joe Rogan and Twitter (X) reach an audience that's at least a whole order of magnitude larger than all legacy media combined. Once the orthodox progressives lose their grip on the government censorship apparatus, those "MSM" outlets will shrivel to complete irrelevance.
I'm not sure many of them then accuse their erstwhile favorite propaganda organ of not telling the truth. I think it's more like they're angry their pet mouthpiece published something "harmful". Like Trump repeating a sports score will "get people killed".
There is that, too. But the Democrats I speak with all truly believe the stuff they are told on CNN, etc. Once the belief system is in place, the same media can't reverse course.
They are totally invested in it for sure. You cannot take away their addiction or they will crumble to furious pieces in a dangerous way. Some are truly mentally ill.
Perhaps I’m underestimating them, as you say. And perhaps I’m hedging my bets because the last 4 years has taught me that anything is possible, if nothing else. I certainly would love it if they collapsed in 5 months instead.
Even that, I'm afraid, is an unreachable star because those people have at some point had their brains "flashed" MiB-style. They have crossed the point of no return where analytical thinking became impossible. And now all that's left to the thinking folks is to stand up unafraid in their faces and move ahead.
The games and the athletes are great. But the mainstream coverage? Every bit as openly biased as NYT and MSNBC. The leagues themselves? Playing the so-called "Black National Anthem" prior to events speaks volumes.
Except the Upper West Side readers all suffer from terminal narcissistic mass formation psychosis and there’s no way out for this crowd. They’ll keep reading and suffering.
There are millions of people who support the NYT lying to them. In fact, their turn in recent years is because there is more money in preaching to the college-educated choir than representing the public at large. The reason the top 10% are overrepresented in culture and media is precisely because they are so well off.
we can summarize the bias into a single idea: democrats good, republicans bad. any information to the contrary of that totem is defacto misinformation to the leftoids.
"If Trump outperforms the polls once again,” the Atlantic concluded this August, “something about his supporters remains a mystery.”
That's honest.
The Atlantic has probably made no effort to actually visit red state America and find out what's there -- looking at the human condition in all its complexity.
If they did, their mystery would be solved and they would know.
It's hard to understand why so-called "journalists" don't understand. But that's where we are folks.
None of these disgruntled Kamala supporters has any interest in learning a damn thing about any of us Trump voters. I have attempted to have discussions with them here in Notes, & they are convinced that all of us are RACIST, misogynist, fascist, white supremacist, Nazi, GARBAGE. They attribute our votes for Trump to "RACISM & bigotry," and an aversion to having a female president.
I tell them, no, I voted for affordable gas & groceries, no censorship, & fewer wars. One of them told me to stop complaining about high gas prices, & "Just buy an EV."
"Under the reign of Anastasius, this popular frenzy was inflamed by religious zeal; and the greens, who had treacherously concealed stones and daggers under baskets of fruit, massacred, at a solemn festival, three thousand of their blue adversaries. 44 From this capital, the pestilence was diffused into the provinces and cities of the East, and the sportive distinction of two colors produced two strong and irreconcilable factions, which shook the foundations of a feeble government. 45 The popular dissensions, founded on the most serious interest, or holy pretence, have scarcely equaled the obstinacy of this wanton discord, which invaded the peace of families, divided friends and brothers, and tempted the female sex, though seldom seen in the circus, to espouse the inclinations of their lovers, or to contradict the wishes of their husbands. Every law, either human or divine, was trampled under foot, and as long as the party was successful, its deluded followers appeared careless of private distress or public calamity."
-Edward Gibbon, DECLINE AND FALL OF ROMAN EMPIRE, 1782
If you can read Gibbon's DECLINE AND FALL you'll have displayed incredible perseverance. He is one of the most prolixiarily (loosely based on "prolix" but expanded for effect, it's not a word but I don't care) orotund writers in the history of books. If something can be said in 100 words he'll use 500. But somehow it works. I think I read most of it, but not all at once.
The part about what happened with Blues and Greens in Constantinople around the time of Justinian got my attention, I read that years ago and I never forgot it. The "colors" derived directly from the colors used to designate chariot racing teams in the Roman circus, believe it or not. That's where it all
comes from. So the "orange revolutions" in our time -- and even red vs. blue states -- have deep atavistic reach all the way back to the time of Ancient Rome. That's sort of interesting.
They don't want to engage, they just want to know what podcasts MAGA folk like.
AOC was specifically asking that podcast question.
If she really wanted to know she'd go back to being a bartender in some shitty, hole in the wall, working class bar. They'd be glad to tell her what's on their minds.
But hey, as far as I can tell, she's the only one trying to find out why people voted for the fascist criminal instead of God's gift to America. Credit where credit is due.
Unless she's just doing it to stake out her territory in the coming struggle of the Donkey party.
It’s a thing.Nor did They want to hear from or see those that chose not to get the vax poison.We were defined, shaped and formed by the media-without having a voice.
As I learned (long, long ago) to be skeptical of the opinions (even bona fides) of "experts" long, long ago, I have become deeply cynical regarding the "highly educated". More and more, my experience is that the"highly educated" are the "highly indoctrinated". Their status greatly reinforces their tendency to ignore anyone else's opinion, facts and logic. They're just so much smahtah than everyone else. (How did the world survive before the incarnation of the Ph. D.?? All hail "Dr." Jill!)
Credentials are very often used as surrogates for knowledge and competence. I have advanced degrees from an "Institute" in a certain Peoples' Republic just north of Boston often listed as the best university in the World. I rarely let people know that. I love to let blowhards pontificate, especially if they "validate" their spewings with reference to their degrees. Then I take truly perverse pleasure in blowing up their BS with a few simple words/questions, especially in front of others. I usually assert how incompetent and stupid I am right at the beginning. So much better when they can be humiliated by a truly stupid person. Usually this is with regard to technical issues (engineering, Physics, thermodynamics, etc.). I am truly a bad person taking so much pleasure in their immolation. Not that it's not deserved. The more pompous and self-congratulatory they are the more satisfying is the outcome.
"Just" buy an EV ... I'm very confident that most (at least 99%+) people who buy/own an EV cannot perform a calculation that compares, for instance, the cost of driving an EV a mile vs. driving a ICE a mile. There are many parameters involved but many can't even understand the relevant concepts. I truly believe a lot of them think the energy used by an EV just "comes out" of a wall socket, like magic. That's all there is tonite.
I've wondered about that myself - how many EV drivers understand what sources of energy are used in charging their car? I'm not putting down EVs, I'm just wondering to what extent people understand what it takes to charge their car.
I once used figures from PJM, a regional transmission organization that covers many Eastern states, to estimate what energy sources are used to generate the electricity for a 240-mile round trip in a Tesla EV. The answer: about 10 pounds of coal (1.5 gallons), 217 cubic feet of natural gas, and nuclear energy creating about 64.4 milligrams of nuclear waste.
I think many of those who believe the crazy things they predict/fear accepted that Trump IS Hitler and, consequently would do Hitlerian things. Rather than Trump will do Hitlerian things, therefore he is Hitler. Since there is no evidence for the latter, it must be the former. It's NUTTY and not supported by evidence or common sense ... but there it is.
To leftist a******s, there is no human life in red states to visit… only farm animals and other barely literate creatures whose votes should not count.
I was born and raised in Minnesnowta, but left a long time ago. Such a pity what that state has devolved to. It did, however give us Stassen, McCarthy, Humphrey, Mondale and Walz. Losers, each and everyone !!!
Look, the good news is not 1 in 1000 Americans gives a shit about polling errors or any of this shit. I appreciate it’s a reasonable beat for Matt Taibbi to write about, but almost nobody gives a damn outside of the media insiders. It’s inside baseball. If you’re inside, OK, it matters. But if you’re one of the other 999 living a real life nobody cares.
It gives us something to comment about.
OH these idiots! Oh My! Look at how idiotic they are!
THEy are. No doubt.
But let’s face it, nobody cares. It just doesn’t matter. Didn’t impact the election result DIdn’t change anything. It won’t matter. Most people I know laugh at this stuff, if they even think about it, and most don’t. They live in their reality. Jobs, kids, rent, activities, etc.
Of course, 1 out of 1000, if the population is 300 million, is 300 thousand. THAT”S Still a lot of people, so it’s not zero. But seriously, they’re heading for zero.
You can see all their butts running as they head to zero.
Matt’s main focus is on calling out dishonesty and suppression of voices in media. I’m not on X, but I sure as hell care about government interference with it. The NYT isn’t a government agency, I know, but RCP is a business with employees and I care if their livelihood is affected by big media liars that sell themselves as fair and balanced.
If you think the election is close, you might be more likely to vote. Voting in Calif and New York might be depressed if folks think the result is a done deal. This could be checked by looking at turnout percentages in the “swing states”.
This is true. I live in a suburb of Dayton, Ohio and work and have numerous friends in Middletown, Ohio, home of JD Vance.
In 2008, Ds blitzed Dayton-I worked at a polling place in West Dayton, and actually met “independent election observers” from the Bay Area-they were looking for evidence of GOP skullduggery against Obama. They didn’t find any, mainly b//c Ohio’s ID standards for voting are basically anything north of a Chuck E Cheese rewards card.
This year-nothing-they-the national media-weren’t poking around Middletown, and, surprise, nobody cared. People thought it was cool Vance was from Middletown, but didn’t act in a mob frenzy or whatever woke-coastal idiots suspected would happen. People around Middletown see enough fentanyl, and interact on a normal, everyday basis with Hispanics from all over, to steer away from bizarro grad school bs cultural assumptions. The election here was like everywhere else-people were sick of the commercials, thought Brandon and Kamala were in lala land, and the individuals who always voted D, voted for Harris.
The on,y mystery from my vantage point is that The Atlantic is a partisan rag. It’s insulting for them to say Trump voters are a “ mystery” Implied in their comments are “ too dumb for us to read them.”
In a poker game, if you have not figured out in the first 15 minutes who the sucker is, you’re the sucker. The Atlantic pundits are ****ty poker players.
You should talk to Mark Mitchell at Rasmussen Reports (whose results were more accurate than any of the reliable pollsters) and/or Rich Barris at Big Data (The People's Pundit on YouTube). Or watch a few of his videos. Rich and Mark are both clearly "to the right" in the modern era, but their polls have a track record that consistently beats "the high quality pollsters" over and over again, and not just with Trump. Apparently Nate Silver tried to get Barris black listed and smeared him (Barris refers to this a lot) and he's very judgmental about the quality of the polls these other pollsters come up with. He's 100% transparent with his data, and the crosstabs, and again--has results much closer to what the actual elections look like than any of the big guys, and does it more consistently. But he would be consisered partisan, which is apparently much more important for the media now than having a record of amazing accuracy. ;) But I have no doubt Rich would talk with you and it would be a fascinating conversation.
I had the same thought reading this article. I didn’t follow Rich Barris—this is the first I heard of him—but did follow Rasmussen, who turned out to be pretty accurate!
Rich Baris is a delightful spaz of a numbers nerd. And he seldom misses by enough to get excited about, unless there's a viral panic, and bizarro rules take over. He's worth a look because he often explains how the data is obtained and then analyzed. He was calling a Trump victory all summer, explained the response bias bump for Kamala, and seldom forgets to remind us that Nate Silver is a bought buffoon. In early October he was telling us to expect a 300+ electoral victory.
I was excited that Matt was covering this, then incredibly disappointed to see nothing from Rich Baris nor Mark Mitchell. Nate Silver's inclusion....well, the man should find a different line of work. Both Barris and Mitchell were much more accurate, and take their jobs seriously, politics be damned.
I really hope the Trump Administration looks into whether there was any direct ties between Katherine Maher’s tenure at Wikipedia and the intelligence agencies.
From what I can tell about who edits Wikipedia there are people who want their viewpoint to be the accepted viewpoint. Wikipedia does ok with non-controversial topics.
Is she a speechwriter for Kamala? Sounds suspiciously like " unburdened from what has been". This "new english" is as confusing and useless as the "new math".
The intentionality of what openness can be is definitely unburdened by what openness has been. In 1984, the government deleted words from the language, but redefining words is even more effective.
Please allow me to translate for the unwashed: "Free speech is great until assholes start thinking they have it too. Ruins it for everybody, as we therefore have to shut down free speech."
Is intentionality a non-word word like "physicality," when dunces like Jason Kelce comment on a game and say dumbass things like "the defense's level of physicality has improved after halftime." (OK, technically physicality is a word, but it doesn't mean what they think it means.)
Listening to that NPR lady sounds like nails on a chalkboard wile being forced to chug a room temperature barium enema cocktail. The goobley-garb language and lack of logic is astonishing. There’s some kind of “logic” there I suppose…I mean who would want to leave the perspective of a starfish colony on the ocean floor out of everyone's discourse…because they’ve historically been marginalized by “white men”, or something. Calgon take me away…
I swear, the only reason I ever go to Wiki now is when my husband and I are watching a movie and want to look up a celebrity. We were re-watching Tremors the other day and it was like, "Huh, is Kevin Bacon still married to whats-her-name?" "Yeah, thay have that daughter who was in that Smile movie." "Is that thier only kid?" "Let me check...<goes to Wikipedia>...nah, she's got an older brother named Travis."
Isn't it funny that there are people who put so much effort into movies and celebrities and everything sports? But they do. people who edit have their own worlds.
I NEVER use it, & I scoff at goofballs who post a Wikipedia link to prove something to me.
For all I know, they just got done editing that entry.
I sent one of them a link to a site, & she replied with a screen cap of the Wikipedia entry for the site, which declared it a "right wing hoax site." It's like she was afraid she'd morph into a MAGA person if she dared actually click on it.
She's right to be afraid. One time, I clicked on an article and learned that President Obama had not only authorized the assassinations of American citizens without the trivialities of arrest, arraignment, indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing, but then bragged about his kill list. Ever since then I don't trust drones.
I gave them five dollars maybe ten years ago, but recently? No, nada, none, zilch. It's still a fine place to read some older articles about some historical thing or another to pass a rainy Monday afternoon, but anything current? They've lost the plot entirely. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy it isn't (anymore).
I think you meant to write, "And hark, alas, these long-suffering denizens of truth gaze subtly at their own navels, and despair at the inaccuratality of the elections of XXIV."
Our intention was to have free speech for those perspectives we supported. Others thought this freedom applied to them as well, and fucked it up for everyone.
I continue to find myself amazed. Imagine if you were a "journalist" and your job was to wake up every day and find some bullshit to highlight among your enemies. Today's headline is people bitching about some Republicans thinking the economy is ok (sure, NOW) and the election wasn't rigged. I'm sorry, but is there a story here? I could write that my wife went to get a propane tank today, but no one else on earth cares. Kind of like who cares if Republicans think the election wasn't rigged. Doesn't it make people happy to learn that we all think the election was fair?
It is the CORPORATE news for a reason. NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, WSJ isn’t leftist or liberal, they are pro-corporate consensus. This has to do with the changing business models/utility of large, expense-heavy journalistic outfits. Selling ad space doesn’t pay the bills. These old news agencies have lost their business model in the internet age, and trust is no longer a currency which can support their bureaucratic bloat, so they turned to the players who cannot afford to have the news not in their favor (aka corporations that are doing fishy/illegal things and need to control the narrative to support their biz models). The old bastions of truth (I’m sure they were always loosely affiliated with that ethic) are now bastions of corporate power.
We shouldn’t even pretend that any of these “news” outlets are trying to report on facts. To the postmodern feminist urbanite journalist facts are conveniently subservient to ideology, so any story can be authentically rewritten to serve whichever narrative is the most profitable for the position of the journalist within the ideological hierarchy of the newsroom she inhabits or most profitable to the business model of the newsroom itself.
Sorta. "Liberal" has always been pro-business, though the Democrats were make-believe workers for a while (back when labor was strong enough to force them to legislate for the people). FDR counted his greatest success as "saving capitalism" from the unions and communists and socialists who almost took over after the depression struck = something usually neglected or retconned in US history classes.
And they had a record of this exact thing happening with the polls in 2016. And changed nothing of substance, did nothing to admit or confront their terrible 2016 polling, and they DEFINITELY did not consult the pollsters who actually called 2016 correctly. And they also ELIMINATED those pollsters in 2024, again, saying their accuracy demonstrated a "partisan bias".
I had a free subscription to Nate Silver's SubStack, and if I recall correctly, he said several times that his model indicated *either* candidate sweeping the swing states was the most likely outcome (his final projection map pretty much matched the actual EC map). I think he had Trump as more likely to sweep than Harris. Basically all of the swing states were fundamentally similar enough that if a candidate won a majority of them it was highly likely they were going to win them all.
I hope the guy who was pissing on Nate earlier reads this. The problem with models like Silver's is that he tells you who won what % of the tens of thousands of variations he runs. He did 80,000 for Trump/Harris, and showed Trump winning 40,001 of them. So even that was off. Everyone's still pissed because they say he predicted Hillary would win in 2016, when all he actually said was that of the scenarios he ran, Hillary won about 70%. Which means there's a 30% chance Trump will win. He was the most accurate in 2016, just like he was in '08 and '12.
Silver’s models use weightings which are based on judgement calls. The RCP average is just the average of the polls they track. There must be polls RCP doesn’t include, and some extra insight Matt might add is how does RCP draw the line at what polls to include. Although weights sound more sophisticated, there is a danger of folks fooling themselves.
Regarding fake polls, I read somewhere that internal polling by the Biden campaign before he dropped out, showed Trump winning 400 electoral votes. That's why they were panicking.
NPR and NYT are the Sacklers of news. They sell hopium and copium to exacerbate mental illness. Slanted polls made blueanons think the election is close, now they are devastated but will still swallow the propaganda and lies.
Holy jeebus, that NPR CEO is beyond hokum. Why hasn't she been fired by now. That talk of hers is alien level. Somebody from the WH on day one has to just eliminate her. She's a walking parody. Who talks like that?
“this radical openness… did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be.” I think she stole it from Kamala's stash of bright things to say once she was elected.
I'll give it credit: Quite an original turn of phrase. Something like "radical breathing" keeps mammals alive.
Wading into “aggressively neutral” territory.
Actually that makes more sense than "radical goodness".
I have tried in earnest multiple times to carefully interpret the meaning of this postmodern-sounding turn of phrase. I have come up empty every time. Seriously WTF IS THIS PERSON SAYING?
She's just using buzzwords to express the standard lefty attitude toward free speech: Anything THEY think is acceptable is legitimate free speech; everything else is not legitimate and should be suppressed. It's exactly how all the Warsaw Pact countries insisted they had freedom of speech for the entire Cold War, and how the UK insists it has freedom of speech today.
Bit you ARE FREE ... to say anything of which they approve ... What more could you want?
A public square moderated to allow one set of controlling voices is the intentional state. Allowing all voices in the public square is radical openness.
What is sad is there are lefties that understand her phrasing as written. They are true believers in hate speech and believe the gov has the authority to stop speech it does not condone. - like the UK is now doing with fines and jail time.
The entelechy of actual openness is allowing winners to win, the meritocracy of the fittest. Like Manifest Destiny and Israel's future total victory, that is seen as a bad thing that must be slowed by the tyranny of governing authority.
Someone tell me...is "Corporate Buzzword Speak" an option on Google Translate now? Makes me wonder if these people really talk about this, or feed it into Google/ChatGPT and get these kinds of word salads.
These kinds of reactions are human nature...if your livelihood and social standing were in jeopardy, what would you do?
What can you say about that that hasn't already been said by Dr. Lexus from Idiocracy?
It's a big world Ryan.
PBS/NPR needs to go the way of the Dept of Ed and FEMA. Even if we are broadcast opera via PBS, apparently we rubes can't be salvaged. So, what's the point?
That's it. We're rubes ... filthy, unwashed, probably gangrenous. And anyone--left, right, center, lopsided, whatever--who is a bit skeptical of establishment polling is a rube, by definition.
The polls are in. 89% (with a margin of error of 92%) of Commiecratz say we're deplorables and garbage.
One Mike to another - as a thought: Are we still surprised at poll manipulation to psyop an election after the 2008 crash revealed the fraud valuation of junk stocks and bonds as AAA by rating agencies? It's a rigged game. What part of "the greatest upward transfer of wealth in human history" do we the people refuse to understand. DNC/Soros/Davos thugs working to rig the American judiciary. WEF/EU owned English totalitarian perps like Kier Starmer boastfully sending operatives to our nations capitol to "canvas" for Harris and bring down Elon Musk. J.Kerry and the toilet paper NYT declaring our Constitution an impediment to modern governance. The size of the LIE reveals the size of the corruption behind it. There is the American Republic, the Constitution and the free citizen. Everything else is psyop. Hold the line.
I am not sure how much of that is true ... but enough probably is to be terrifying.
She's the reason Uri Berliner had to tell his story
She's also the reason i stopped donating to wikimedia this year.
I was listening to Winston Marshall's podcast with Ashley Rindsberg. Wikimedia doesn't need our money any more. If I recall correctly, Rindsberg said that the organization has a war chest numbering in the hundreds of millions now.
It was a fascinating and deeply disturbing episode: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-winston-marshall-show/id1727337401?i=1000667967804
I enjoy Winston--thanks for the link Maggie
Likewise. And wish I could recover past donations, although they were not large.
The woke upspeak is strong with this one.
They're all like that in the bureaucracy. If you think that's horrifying, understand that there are hundreds of thousands of people in government doing things that control your life, who think and talk precisely like her.
Government bureaucracies are basically upscale sheltered workshops. This is how they talk to one other in order to blunt self-awareness, to hide from themselves while manipulating others. In the end it's quite a balancing act. People used to take government jobs for the security but once they are in them long enough that morphs into revenge on society, on the real world, for their own inadequacies.
…upscale shelter workshops… ahahahaha!
It would surprise me to see those "hundreds of thousands" shrink down to far more manageable numbers in the next 4-8 years.
While they're holding steaks and leaning into the fire.
Kamala Harris's verbal twin.
They share a single iq point.
Let me be clear.........Everything, ... is part of something else.
The reason she hasn’t been fired is the same reason she was hired.
At least she's decent to look at.
That's why she was hired, but whatever happened to "a face for radio?"
or a face only a mother could love?
Bruh...
That's the mistake countless men have made, I am sure.
She absolutely deserves such a sexist remark. She is the epitome of the dumb blonde, intensified to moronic imbecile level with a heavy dose of deceived demonic deceiver. She's evil beyond the point of insanity. Instead of giggling dizziness she oozes pure nonsense disguised as competence. Whichever ism you choose to employ to deflate her, go right ahead. Be hateful! She deserves it!
how does she keep that couch clean tho
At least. For sure. But also at most.
Though perhaps revealingly accompanied by myriad pointy graphics in her furnishings and clothing. Such passive-aggressive decor!!😉
Please do not reproduce with her!
Musk wants federal funding for NPR stopped. A good start, but yes that NPR CEO is loaded with toxic phrases and woke ideology. I found her rhetoric odious, but why wouldn't I, a white male object to all that venom tossed my way. Liberals can't seem to pee out all that woke kool-aid.
Benny, I'm guessing she would be outraged that you ask who talks like that. She will retort that she does not talk. She speaks. And she will immediately sniff you out as a misogynist.
I found myself quickly falling asleep as I listened to her drone.
Could you imagine the long meetings? Shoot me.
Thinning the herd ... Mooooo ...
Listening is one thing understanding is totally something else, I might not be the brightest bulb in the bunch, but that was one hell of a unique word salad. I did very much understand she’s not keen on white men🤣
I’M TALKING (my best Kamala imitation)
She's speaking.
Someone should try asking her to explain her "speech" in "other words". The result would be both cringy and hilarious.
She IS an ALIEN.
Now I understand why DEI universities are so prolific and important. It must take years of "education" to come up with a convulated a statement as she made and only those in the "norm" (fellow lefty degree holders) to understand what the hell it means. That circular word salad would make Kamala so proud.
Concur. Creepy as hell -- not only what she says, but also how she says it. Pathological to an extreme. The most definitive example ever for not giving another dollar to NPR and shutting it down immediately.
Kamala does 😆
I think they just hired her this year lol
Yup. After listener numbers were tanking, and I'll bet those numbers are still going south. And you and I are paying for that.
The mouthpieces of institutional America have been damaged, but are intact. Most important is that the institutions the mouthpieces represent are intact. Institutions have been preparing for a second Trump presidency since January 2017.
What we are witnessing now are the early stage skirmishes of an all-out assault by the Trump insurgency on America's institutions. Expect casualties, defeats, and compromises on both sides. Rick Scott is not in control of the Senate - right now the American people are. Thune is the placeholder of America's institutions and understands well the threat Trump represents.
Institutional America will play rope-a-dope with Trump and his allies - to the degree they can. The polls don't matter, nor does Wiki. What matters are clean streets and safe schools. Americans are looking for results.
Expect Trump to use the media to make his us versus them case - all institutions remain highly vulnerable - the entire array of America's institutions failed to stop the American people from electing their change agent. That's Trump's mandate.
Expect Trump to press home his case for his nominees aggressively - all the facts COVID, endless wars, chronic health problems, waste, theft, graft, inefficiency are on the side of the insurgents.
Trump's only hope is to go for the throat. Trump's picks confirm he's going to do exactly that - polls and the NYT be damned. Elon and Vivek are just the first of many likely to support the reform of America's institutions towards efficiency. Thank god.
“And you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone…”~R. Dylan
"The mouthpieces of institutional America have been damaged, but are intact...."
Think of the Death Star after Star Wars 5.
Expect this also - https://x.com/LaNativePatriot/status/1857454977201152509?t=ZxWoPUoAQy4L5NMgpnTV-A&s=19
Best practices: choose a radically polarizing person like Schiff as your leader; deputize legislators with extremely limited power and electorates to answer to; broadcast your secret plan to everyone and expect no legal ramifications to arise once you implement it. Yeah, it could work.<sarcasm>
It's just a repeat of what they did between 2017 thru 2020 - all out in the open. Need to save our democracy you know..
AbsoF&lutely Delusional!
There's no need to insult yourself like this.
Interesting
The question is whether America's institutions (essentially the 1%) will remain in control of it all and continue to let politics be a proxy for their internecine economic warfare. They have their own version of 'clean' nuclear weapons which generate cultural EMP's via IT and the Media. Is Trump actually a renegade oligarch or is he just marshalling the power of the neglected majority for advantage in that war? Or their pied piper acting on the behalf of the 1%? Or both?
That is the best description of these two that I've ever heard. It does follow the big pharma playbook. First develop a need (TDS) and then feed the fever until...oops, the jigs up!
The one pole that matters is the election. Ban poles for at least two weeks before the election and exit poles until at least 2 weeks after. Let the people decide!
This is why they fill the air with conspiracy theories about musk using Starlink satellites to reprogram voting machines, because they were told Harris was leading and going to win so a Trump blowout must be a fix.
Maybe they could instead ask where the other 11 million votes Biden got in 2020 went?
Well, the die-hard partisans actually are asking where those votes went. However, they do it with a completely unironic lack of recognition that such votes have never surfaced before, or since, 2020.
We need to embrace “living into the intentionality of what openness can be.” and very intentionality, right out in the open, proceed to strip ALL federal funding from NPR immediately, and then auction all their assets off, and give it to Alex Jones to launch NPI (National Public Infowars). Meanwhile that wikistain of a charlatan that’s runs NPR can go get a job at the NYCrimes. All Things Considered that would be a breath of Fresh Air.
This can only lead to National Public Onion. Sounds good to me.
Washington Bee.
Yuri — If NPR and the Times published accurate polls (or accurate news, for that matter), their progressive audiences would go someplace else, where they would get the fake news they really want.
That’s why they are fleeing X for more “moderated” social media, where dissident voicee are muted.
If you're a fan of a great author would you want to read adulterated versions of that author's works? So why would you want to read honest news once you've committed to the crap churned out by the MSM?
I have never heard of “hopium” and “copium.” Perfect descriptors for unethical Demoncrats.
Crapium.
The Hopiod Epidemic started under president Obama was mind-twerking shit. The inferior-grade hokium and wokium we see now is ideological fentanyl.
eventually the 'folks' will come to realize having one/s head up one's @$$ is indeed a burden.
Burdened by what is behind. LOL. 😁
Total truth!!
I caught the tail end of an NPR radio story today which seemed to be reporting poll results on how folks rated President-elect Trump's performance (?!) No kidding. According to these guys, "91% of Republicans viewed his performance favorably, while less than a quarter of Democrats did so."
wtaf
This whole article makes too big a deal of two things:
1) The importance of a Wikipedia page that got 30,000 views a day compared to a polling aggregation page (RCP) that had many dedicated readers already and >1,000,000 views a day (just for the polling page realclearpolling.com, not the main RCP content links pages)
2) what four volunteer Wikipedia editors did without significant discussion or thoroughness. Matt's phrasing seems to misunderstand and misstate how WP works.
𝐎 𝐧𝐨---𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐛𝐢𝐠 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭. The Wikipedia article as it exists is what most people read. Determined editors can and do change the narrative.
Or, to my point, one dude in an offhand way without discussing with others. These guys weren't at a table and the discussion they had took days and was light. Hardly fair to call anything like that representative.
Sorry Kelly, but it is representative- because they all agree to stuff things that mess w/ their narrative and the outcome THEY WANT!! Highly unscientific!!
It is not true to say “Wikipedia editors decided it had a “strong Republican bias” that made it “suspect,””. It was a light discussion and that was one person’s opinion. No “decision” can even be claimed. There was not discussion to a consensus, there were simply a few opinions stated.
“This whole article makes too big a deal of what four volunteer wikipedia editors did without significant discussion or thoroughness”
Uhmm. And, you can’t detect the big problem with this?And ,the timing?
The proof is in the pudding.
“Or, to my point, one dude in an offhand way without discussing with others”
How exactly would you know this?
The point is regardless how it happens the bias only goes in one direction
Because all Wikipedia pages retain a complete record of their editing history and a talk page where discussion of the content takes place.
Do you work for them? You seem to have some kind of first hand knowledge of what took place here. To the majority of us, it’s, well, just Wikipedia being typical bias Wikipedia.
It’s fairly well known, at least in my business hemisphere, that we should not reference Wikipedia EVER due to their bias. And I worked for various non profit organizations.
But it is the #1 website for people to get information and the AI systems and Personal Assistant devices use it so even if inaccurate it is the defacto "final word on many topics for many people. If everyone were skeptical and read the history of a page shows how it is constructed...we would not have to think about its undue influence--but most do not.
WP works that way consistently. It's not like this was an aberration.
Maybe we could crowdsource here all the times "the way WP works" inadvertently misrepresented the positions or statements of the Left.
It shouldn't take long.
We can do this.
If by "it shouldn't take long" you mean several years, then yes.
Unless you count making leftist issues look rosier than they are….then, there is not enough time in the world…
But the way Taibbi writes you'd think there was a desk of Vice Presidents at WP making these decisions and actually discussing them before publishing. It's just unfair to call two days of no RCP representation anything other than an edit made by one dude that others reversed when they got around to looking at it.
Glenn Greenwald has reported on CIA manipulation of Wikipedia. If it were free and independent it would not be promoted at the top of Google search results.
I'm talking about this case, not in general or things the CIA would care more about. It doesn't take the CIA to do what happened here, it took like three people with TDS... plenty of those out there. Pretty much one dude deleted it and that was enough.
Well, if someone had been fired for that from WP, then maybe that explanation would fly. But no one was fired, which means the top brass were totally ok with it.
Linda, my point is that this audience seems to completely misunderstand what Wikipedia even is, and you have fed heavily into that point.
Good Lord, wake up.
What do you think the Lord would say to you if he did wake up? Go ahead, give me your version of his direct quote to you:
Wow. You are well and truly lost.
You didn’t watch the video of the Orwellian ex Wiki CEO did you?
Well it's safe to say that I don't let my judgment of the high level cloud my judgment of the particulars. I leave that to partisans. When Matt started on Substack, his pages weren't filled with them.
Matt’s eyes have opened
In light of what I said, what you said is "Matt is now very partisan and non-objective" which I don't find to be true at all.
If you allow easy access to woke censors ( or any other kind) Wikipedia deserves all the criticism it gets.
That's like saying that because Trump is a whackjob, everything said about him is fair, which is pretty much 50% of what Matt's substack has been focused on disproving.
Matt illuminates the need to look at the page history of Wikipedia articles that seem wrong. You can review exactly how the people who edit remove things they don't like. If you make an account, you can"watch" any entry (there is a tab at the top that says "watch"). I watched the "Twitter Files" entry at Wikipedia when it was scheduled to be deleted and was able to help that it be saved. But Matt is correct. There are parties that will try to change the narrative.
Here is the history of the Twitter Files at Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter_Files&action=history
Thanks so much to Kathleen, who taught me about Wikipedia editing and is an amazing resource on that front. Thanks Kathleen!
Just look at the "Talk" tab on any remotely controversial Wikipedia page for the inevitable foisting of Dunce caps on any editors who dare to dissent.
Most of it is a pure Progressive echosphere. Just look at the Talk tab for Rasmussen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rasmussen_Reports
"The closeness of a pollster's numbers to the final election result is entirely unrelated to questions of whether or not they're biased."
Like every other institution they run Progressives are experts at using the rules to ferret out and expunge dissent.
I know, Burt. Sometimes I feel like I've been in a cage match. some of the really contentious editors have hundreds of thousands of edits. And they are really mean.
Although that response sounds extremely stupid, and arguably is extremely stupid (since the technical definition of "bias" literally is a measurement's divergence from reality), the way Wikipedia is set up is to reflect authoritative sources, and one can find any number of authoritative sources asserting that Rasmussen is biased.
IOW, the real problem is much larger than Wikipedia. W is merely reflective of a much larger left-wing media ecosystem that cannot and will not perceive ITSELF as biased in any sense of the word.
I looked at the history of the Wikipedia page Matt linked to, but I noticed that some of the "talk" links were invalid. I'm not familiar with this aspect of Wikipedia. Is it common for "talk" links to become invalid, or was someone trying to hide something?
wiki is cooked. its so washed and so woke its basically useless for any topic that even tangentially touches on identity politics. my kid (6th grade) was doing something in school about somalia. i went to wiki and specifically on womens rights (its the 4th worst in the world, tragically atrocious) the wiki page basically says "womens rights are protected by the koran." and thats basically the whole page. anything else (like the truth) would be "racist" or "islamophobic".
I tried to add a bit about libraries in Pakistan (how could THAT be controversial?) but used an image of children and many people deleted it as images of children not acceptable. Seems like many editors watch on that topic. After a while I gave up on adding anything about libraries in most Islamic countries.
It’s controversial to anti-Malala types-funny how the wokesters ignore her and Ayan Hirsi Ali.
Thank you for this information. I'm especially curious how these editors decide who gets a Wikipedia page.
For example, a movie producer told me that every time someone made a Wikipedia page for Michael Harris-- the Death Row Records founder whom Trump eventually pardoned-- it would get deleted. This was years before the pardon
The reason this mattered was the producer was trying to interest studios in a project relating to Harris and not having him be "Wikipedia worthy" made it a hard sell.
There are a lot of rules about "Notability" and they are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
The hardest rule is that someone from a "reliable source" has to write about them first. If they haven't had an article written about them Notability usually gets vetoed. Also, you can't say someone won an award unless the award has been written about in what they call a reliable source. And the articles have to be organic. You can't be paid to write them, you can't write about someone you are close to or work with.
One I created was for the Atlanta Braves organist who I never met only heard at ball games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Kaminski_(musician)
Reliable = Leftist
Very astute. The "Reliable sources" accepted are mainly MSM. And that list is the absolute arbiter. The page history on acceptable "reliable sources" is telling.
However, for smaller spheres like "Book History" they do accept citations from scholarly sources w/in the field.
If you have made 500 edits you can access the Wikipedia Library which gives you a way to go behind paywalls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library
I work at a university so have that access in my work.
"Reliable" can also mean "dependable", as in "You can depend on XXX to toe the Party Line.".
Just looked that up. Interesting
Thank you! I got my eyes opened on this one
Yet another example of how the NYT no longer exists to inform the public, but to move the world as it is closer to the world as it should be. The point isn’t to deliver the news, or to even convey true information. The point is to express the right attitude. Wrong information is tolerated when it allows the right attitude. And the right information is ignored if it supports the wrong attitude.
It's point (as is NPR's) is to be the propaganda arm of the DNC!!!
grotesque this government agency takes public money & uses it to attack the ideas of the very people that fund it. everyone on the right deserves reparations from NPR.
Let’s rid ourselves of NPR. My only worry, am I promoting censorship of an outlet I don’t like for partisan reasons.? I can’t believe I just wrote that……
NPR should be rid of its financing model, not lose its right to lie. go ahead & spew the far left talking points: but take money from george soros not republican taxpayers.
Just don't listen to NPR anymore. I was an avid listener for decades. I listened to Morning and Weekend Editions every day. I also purchased and read the NYT every day. The biases of each of these news outlets were clear, even before the turn of the century, but they were not as overt then as they are now.
I gradually rid myself of NPR starting around 2004 when the country was debating whether water boarding was torture. It was easy to drop Scott Simon when he (a Quaker) openly supported the war on Iraq. I still listened to NPR occasionally until Trump came on the scene. It was when Trump started to be a serious candidate that all pretense of honesty and fairness was dropped by NPR and the MSM.
To be better informed, take the time to read/listen/watch the news from news outlets outside your own country. You will be better informed, not well informed. Keep listening to your internal bullshit sensors. All major news outlets support the ruling classes of their own countries. The ruling classes of all countries control their media.
And, to stay on topic, polling is just a pretense to accuracy and honesty that the MSM never had and will never have.
What news outlets outside the US? The Canadian, European and British news just seems to parrot the NYT. I'd really like to know.
NPR is federally subsidized. Something tells me they’re not long for this world.
I agree. Their slant to blue is obvious in many ways
As does the cbc here in canada
Except our colors are reversed.
At least here the communists are red while the conservatives are blue
Which is how things should be chromatically.
What’s the story on the guy who reads the riot act to your prime minister? I like that dude…
https://youtu.be/-0ALPaQFTzo?si=i2f68IMDCau69vXG
Let NPR find its own funding. Not my $.
Your wish will be granted sir. https://youtu.be/-0ALPaQFTzo?si=i2f68IMDCau69vXG
You have to be thorough. They get oodles of corporate money as well. So first, take the IP of the name for the government so they can’t go “independent.” Lmao. Second, cut all funding. Third, decertify them as a charity so donations no longer qualify as write offs. Fourth require disclosure of their output as democrat advertising; we could do the same for the NYT as well.
No. NPR is taxpayer-supported propaganda. We already have the Federal Register to report on the doings of Government.
Yeah, NPR has been a waste of money for at least a decade. They are good for nothing🖕🏽. They need to be shut down permanently. Please DJT, shut down NPR forever‼️No more💰for them.
Well, why can’t they just stay out of politics and simply promote American ideals, history our country. Cultural programming, they’ve ventured offf the range
It's not censorship. They are free to do what they wish but they have not entitlement to taxpayers funds to do so.
I give it 5 years max on this trajectory before it doesn’t exist at all.
I think you sadly underestimate the mental illness of those that follow it. If the Post does go back to being mildly fair and balanced, the crowd that wants to believe in the mush being spewed by the NYT and MSNBC for the last 2 decades will double and triple down.
It is truly amazing that so many people are now holding on desperately to the sources of propaganda and indoctrination. I share your belief that when one of the MSM prints an ever so slightly dissenting article from the approved Party line, the readership actually turns on the media company, and accuses WaPo, the NYT, or whichever of not telling the truth. Democrats are immersed in a belief that the MSM are the source of truth, but at the same time will throw their media under a bus if any articles appear that critique Democratic Party leaders. Then they become more paranoid, attributing the source of the MSM's deviation from the Party line to disloyalty.
Exactly what happened to WAPO and LA Times for not endorsing Harris.
The NYT was under fire as well for talking about Biden's cognitive problems prior to his ousting. Democrats I know viewed this as the NYT promoting false information about Biden with the intention of undermining his campaign.
But then there is the flipiside, ie, those who swallow whole WHATEVER the MSM says as absolute truth and change direction accordingly, literally becoming "more useful" idiots.
Joe Rogan and Twitter (X) reach an audience that's at least a whole order of magnitude larger than all legacy media combined. Once the orthodox progressives lose their grip on the government censorship apparatus, those "MSM" outlets will shrivel to complete irrelevance.
I'm not sure many of them then accuse their erstwhile favorite propaganda organ of not telling the truth. I think it's more like they're angry their pet mouthpiece published something "harmful". Like Trump repeating a sports score will "get people killed".
There is that, too. But the Democrats I speak with all truly believe the stuff they are told on CNN, etc. Once the belief system is in place, the same media can't reverse course.
Yes, I have experienced that and have heard about the same thing experienced by many other people. And they can't be "reasoned" out of those beliefs.
They are totally invested in it for sure. You cannot take away their addiction or they will crumble to furious pieces in a dangerous way. Some are truly mentally ill.
Yes, like the daughter that butchered her father
Marie, what story is this??
Yikes. Hadn’t heard that.
Perhaps I’m underestimating them, as you say. And perhaps I’m hedging my bets because the last 4 years has taught me that anything is possible, if nothing else. I certainly would love it if they collapsed in 5 months instead.
Hmmm ... I am not sure I want them to totally disappear. More like I want them viewed as SNL skits.
Even that, I'm afraid, is an unreachable star because those people have at some point had their brains "flashed" MiB-style. They have crossed the point of no return where analytical thinking became impossible. And now all that's left to the thinking folks is to stand up unafraid in their faces and move ahead.
A lot of these people never developed the wiring/circuitry for real critical/realistic thinking.
Isn’t football, baseball, and basketball designed for the mentally ill of the USA?
The games and the athletes are great. But the mainstream coverage? Every bit as openly biased as NYT and MSNBC. The leagues themselves? Playing the so-called "Black National Anthem" prior to events speaks volumes.
Can't take mush more of this ...
Except the Upper West Side readers all suffer from terminal narcissistic mass formation psychosis and there’s no way out for this crowd. They’ll keep reading and suffering.
Groupie think ...
There’s been an encouraging uptick in self elimination.
There are millions of people who support the NYT lying to them. In fact, their turn in recent years is because there is more money in preaching to the college-educated choir than representing the public at large. The reason the top 10% are overrepresented in culture and media is precisely because they are so well off.
The NYT has always been a business. It never made profit by "informing the public." It sells ads. Today, the ads target rich elites.
Narrative control.
we can summarize the bias into a single idea: democrats good, republicans bad. any information to the contrary of that totem is defacto misinformation to the leftoids.
Did you read in the Time that the Chocolate ration is increasing to 20 grams per week! Thanks to BB.
"Right" and "wrong" being in quotation marks, naturally . . . because the public figured out who is really right and wrong.
"If Trump outperforms the polls once again,” the Atlantic concluded this August, “something about his supporters remains a mystery.”
That's honest.
The Atlantic has probably made no effort to actually visit red state America and find out what's there -- looking at the human condition in all its complexity.
If they did, their mystery would be solved and they would know.
It's hard to understand why so-called "journalists" don't understand. But that's where we are folks.
None of these disgruntled Kamala supporters has any interest in learning a damn thing about any of us Trump voters. I have attempted to have discussions with them here in Notes, & they are convinced that all of us are RACIST, misogynist, fascist, white supremacist, Nazi, GARBAGE. They attribute our votes for Trump to "RACISM & bigotry," and an aversion to having a female president.
I tell them, no, I voted for affordable gas & groceries, no censorship, & fewer wars. One of them told me to stop complaining about high gas prices, & "Just buy an EV."
reds/blues, blues/greens, Ecce Homo:
"Under the reign of Anastasius, this popular frenzy was inflamed by religious zeal; and the greens, who had treacherously concealed stones and daggers under baskets of fruit, massacred, at a solemn festival, three thousand of their blue adversaries. 44 From this capital, the pestilence was diffused into the provinces and cities of the East, and the sportive distinction of two colors produced two strong and irreconcilable factions, which shook the foundations of a feeble government. 45 The popular dissensions, founded on the most serious interest, or holy pretence, have scarcely equaled the obstinacy of this wanton discord, which invaded the peace of families, divided friends and brothers, and tempted the female sex, though seldom seen in the circus, to espouse the inclinations of their lovers, or to contradict the wishes of their husbands. Every law, either human or divine, was trampled under foot, and as long as the party was successful, its deluded followers appeared careless of private distress or public calamity."
-Edward Gibbon, DECLINE AND FALL OF ROMAN EMPIRE, 1782
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/25717/pg25717-images.html
How appropriate
How brilliant- from back in 1782!!!!
Wow!
I keep wanting to study the fall of the Roman empire. . .
If you can read Gibbon's DECLINE AND FALL you'll have displayed incredible perseverance. He is one of the most prolixiarily (loosely based on "prolix" but expanded for effect, it's not a word but I don't care) orotund writers in the history of books. If something can be said in 100 words he'll use 500. But somehow it works. I think I read most of it, but not all at once.
The part about what happened with Blues and Greens in Constantinople around the time of Justinian got my attention, I read that years ago and I never forgot it. The "colors" derived directly from the colors used to designate chariot racing teams in the Roman circus, believe it or not. That's where it all
comes from. So the "orange revolutions" in our time -- and even red vs. blue states -- have deep atavistic reach all the way back to the time of Ancient Rome. That's sort of interesting.
That is really cool!
Thanks for the info!
god!
They don't want to engage, they just want to know what podcasts MAGA folk like.
AOC was specifically asking that podcast question.
If she really wanted to know she'd go back to being a bartender in some shitty, hole in the wall, working class bar. They'd be glad to tell her what's on their minds.
I don't think she'd like it though.
But hey, as far as I can tell, she's the only one trying to find out why people voted for the fascist criminal instead of God's gift to America. Credit where credit is due.
Unless she's just doing it to stake out her territory in the coming struggle of the Donkey party.
She removed her pronouns from her Twixter page so I'm thinking that a deal with the Devil can only be moments away.
Jackasses!
She is trying to build a hit list
It's pretty clear that AOC still hasn't figured out the garbage disposal in her DC condo.
She's correctly afraid to get to close to it. She's worried it might be self-feeding.
Lol
It’s a thing.Nor did They want to hear from or see those that chose not to get the vax poison.We were defined, shaped and formed by the media-without having a voice.
Don’t forget “low information “. “Uneducated “.
STUPID is as STUPID does.
I don't know. . . I suspect that many of them may be highly educated.
They just have no sense of inquiry.
As I learned (long, long ago) to be skeptical of the opinions (even bona fides) of "experts" long, long ago, I have become deeply cynical regarding the "highly educated". More and more, my experience is that the"highly educated" are the "highly indoctrinated". Their status greatly reinforces their tendency to ignore anyone else's opinion, facts and logic. They're just so much smahtah than everyone else. (How did the world survive before the incarnation of the Ph. D.?? All hail "Dr." Jill!)
Oh, yeah, I just roll my eyes when these “experts” post all their academic credentials along with their opinions. I’m not impressed.
Credentials are very often used as surrogates for knowledge and competence. I have advanced degrees from an "Institute" in a certain Peoples' Republic just north of Boston often listed as the best university in the World. I rarely let people know that. I love to let blowhards pontificate, especially if they "validate" their spewings with reference to their degrees. Then I take truly perverse pleasure in blowing up their BS with a few simple words/questions, especially in front of others. I usually assert how incompetent and stupid I am right at the beginning. So much better when they can be humiliated by a truly stupid person. Usually this is with regard to technical issues (engineering, Physics, thermodynamics, etc.). I am truly a bad person taking so much pleasure in their immolation. Not that it's not deserved. The more pompous and self-congratulatory they are the more satisfying is the outcome.
"Just" buy an EV ... I'm very confident that most (at least 99%+) people who buy/own an EV cannot perform a calculation that compares, for instance, the cost of driving an EV a mile vs. driving a ICE a mile. There are many parameters involved but many can't even understand the relevant concepts. I truly believe a lot of them think the energy used by an EV just "comes out" of a wall socket, like magic. That's all there is tonite.
I've wondered about that myself - how many EV drivers understand what sources of energy are used in charging their car? I'm not putting down EVs, I'm just wondering to what extent people understand what it takes to charge their car.
I once used figures from PJM, a regional transmission organization that covers many Eastern states, to estimate what energy sources are used to generate the electricity for a 240-mile round trip in a Tesla EV. The answer: about 10 pounds of coal (1.5 gallons), 217 cubic feet of natural gas, and nuclear energy creating about 64.4 milligrams of nuclear waste.
... all there is to it.
I know!
They won’t listen, they disown you as family/friend. Who does that? A person that truly believes he is Hitler incarnate
I think many of those who believe the crazy things they predict/fear accepted that Trump IS Hitler and, consequently would do Hitlerian things. Rather than Trump will do Hitlerian things, therefore he is Hitler. Since there is no evidence for the latter, it must be the former. It's NUTTY and not supported by evidence or common sense ... but there it is.
You're such a racist, misogynist, fascist, white supremacist, Nazi, garbage, bigot hater. Shame on you.
💯
Thank G'd, Madame President didn't get a chance to run another D(N)C brothel ...
This.
To leftist a******s, there is no human life in red states to visit… only farm animals and other barely literate creatures whose votes should not count.
Or as Tim Walz refers to everyone outside of Minneapolis/St Paul, rock and cows. And rocks and cows don't vote.
Well they sure don't vote for you and Harris, you disingenuous sonofabitch.
I was born and raised in Minnesnowta, but left a long time ago. Such a pity what that state has devolved to. It did, however give us Stassen, McCarthy, Humphrey, Mondale and Walz. Losers, each and everyone !!!
Gosh, you’re right. Flew into twin cities years ago . Everybody looks alike. All Nordic, I guess
This.
Look, the good news is not 1 in 1000 Americans gives a shit about polling errors or any of this shit. I appreciate it’s a reasonable beat for Matt Taibbi to write about, but almost nobody gives a damn outside of the media insiders. It’s inside baseball. If you’re inside, OK, it matters. But if you’re one of the other 999 living a real life nobody cares.
It gives us something to comment about.
OH these idiots! Oh My! Look at how idiotic they are!
THEy are. No doubt.
But let’s face it, nobody cares. It just doesn’t matter. Didn’t impact the election result DIdn’t change anything. It won’t matter. Most people I know laugh at this stuff, if they even think about it, and most don’t. They live in their reality. Jobs, kids, rent, activities, etc.
Of course, 1 out of 1000, if the population is 300 million, is 300 thousand. THAT”S Still a lot of people, so it’s not zero. But seriously, they’re heading for zero.
You can see all their butts running as they head to zero.
True, that. In fact, polls should be run on strict statistical analysis, applying sampling data theory. Not happening
Matt’s main focus is on calling out dishonesty and suppression of voices in media. I’m not on X, but I sure as hell care about government interference with it. The NYT isn’t a government agency, I know, but RCP is a business with employees and I care if their livelihood is affected by big media liars that sell themselves as fair and balanced.
If you think the election is close, you might be more likely to vote. Voting in Calif and New York might be depressed if folks think the result is a done deal. This could be checked by looking at turnout percentages in the “swing states”.
They're not journalists.
They're partisan turd-polishers.
And the turds don’t even need to be of a solid material
This is true. I live in a suburb of Dayton, Ohio and work and have numerous friends in Middletown, Ohio, home of JD Vance.
In 2008, Ds blitzed Dayton-I worked at a polling place in West Dayton, and actually met “independent election observers” from the Bay Area-they were looking for evidence of GOP skullduggery against Obama. They didn’t find any, mainly b//c Ohio’s ID standards for voting are basically anything north of a Chuck E Cheese rewards card.
This year-nothing-they-the national media-weren’t poking around Middletown, and, surprise, nobody cared. People thought it was cool Vance was from Middletown, but didn’t act in a mob frenzy or whatever woke-coastal idiots suspected would happen. People around Middletown see enough fentanyl, and interact on a normal, everyday basis with Hispanics from all over, to steer away from bizarro grad school bs cultural assumptions. The election here was like everywhere else-people were sick of the commercials, thought Brandon and Kamala were in lala land, and the individuals who always voted D, voted for Harris.
They had it so easy. All they had to do was:
LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE....
Exactly!
Amen!
I’m guessing there are no direct flights to middle America, so a visit is problematic.
The on,y mystery from my vantage point is that The Atlantic is a partisan rag. It’s insulting for them to say Trump voters are a “ mystery” Implied in their comments are “ too dumb for us to read them.”
In a poker game, if you have not figured out in the first 15 minutes who the sucker is, you’re the sucker. The Atlantic pundits are ****ty poker players.
It's actually kind of an admission. They're too STUPID to figure out the obvious.
People don't know the history of the Atlantic. It is the surviving relic of the A&P chain. Journalism was never in their "DNA'.
Matt,
You should talk to Mark Mitchell at Rasmussen Reports (whose results were more accurate than any of the reliable pollsters) and/or Rich Barris at Big Data (The People's Pundit on YouTube). Or watch a few of his videos. Rich and Mark are both clearly "to the right" in the modern era, but their polls have a track record that consistently beats "the high quality pollsters" over and over again, and not just with Trump. Apparently Nate Silver tried to get Barris black listed and smeared him (Barris refers to this a lot) and he's very judgmental about the quality of the polls these other pollsters come up with. He's 100% transparent with his data, and the crosstabs, and again--has results much closer to what the actual elections look like than any of the big guys, and does it more consistently. But he would be consisered partisan, which is apparently much more important for the media now than having a record of amazing accuracy. ;) But I have no doubt Rich would talk with you and it would be a fascinating conversation.
https://x.com/peoples_pundit?lang=en
Silver definitely had his bias and only grudgingly reported news he didn't like.
I like to say he figured out in 2012 he could make good business selling cope to nervous Democrats and he hasn't deviated from that much.
Cope Dealer ...
I had the same thought reading this article. I didn’t follow Rich Barris—this is the first I heard of him—but did follow Rasmussen, who turned out to be pretty accurate!
Rich Baris is a delightful spaz of a numbers nerd. And he seldom misses by enough to get excited about, unless there's a viral panic, and bizarro rules take over. He's worth a look because he often explains how the data is obtained and then analyzed. He was calling a Trump victory all summer, explained the response bias bump for Kamala, and seldom forgets to remind us that Nate Silver is a bought buffoon. In early October he was telling us to expect a 300+ electoral victory.
Just went to his site. Thanks
And wasn't Rasmussen dismissed in stories we would read? Once again, slanted.
I was polled three times by Rasmussen this election season, not by anyone else. And I'm not a Republican.
I was excited that Matt was covering this, then incredibly disappointed to see nothing from Rich Baris nor Mark Mitchell. Nate Silver's inclusion....well, the man should find a different line of work. Both Barris and Mitchell were much more accurate, and take their jobs seriously, politics be damned.
He did find a different line of work, playing poker for a living. The polling stuff, however, is still too lucrative to pass up.
He wrote a good book recently about risk.
I really hope the Trump Administration looks into whether there was any direct ties between Katherine Maher’s tenure at Wikipedia and the intelligence agencies.
From what I can tell about who edits Wikipedia there are people who want their viewpoint to be the accepted viewpoint. Wikipedia does ok with non-controversial topics.
There's probably nothing there.
Because there doesn't need to be.
She's basically what the editors wanted. Her predecessor and successor are mindless prog. lib types too.
For a long time, the only voice for reason on WMF was the founder Jimmy Wales, but he caught a bad case of TDS in 2016 and hasn't really recovered.
“THE INTENTIONALITY OF WHAT OPENNESS CAN BE”. I hope Katherine Maher becomes the future Kamala for the Dems going forward.
Is she a speechwriter for Kamala? Sounds suspiciously like " unburdened from what has been". This "new english" is as confusing and useless as the "new math".
The intentionality of what openness can be is definitely unburdened by what openness has been. In 1984, the government deleted words from the language, but redefining words is even more effective.
LOL. You seem to have picked up the lingo effortlessly. Does Rosetta Stone have a video course available?
Unburdened by the burden of of past open intentional intentionaliy.
Please allow me to translate for the unwashed: "Free speech is great until assholes start thinking they have it too. Ruins it for everybody, as we therefore have to shut down free speech."
Is intentionality a non-word word like "physicality," when dunces like Jason Kelce comment on a game and say dumbass things like "the defense's level of physicality has improved after halftime." (OK, technically physicality is a word, but it doesn't mean what they think it means.)
The NY Times is so yesterday.
Your old road is rapidly aging
Get put of the new one if you can't lend a hand
'Cause the times, them motherfuckers are a-changin'
Bob D.
"Meet the new New York Times, same as the old New York Times..." Pete T.
Times a waste'n ...
It's only good for Wordle.
Yeah, but the puzzles are good
It’s dead to me
Listening to that NPR lady sounds like nails on a chalkboard wile being forced to chug a room temperature barium enema cocktail. The goobley-garb language and lack of logic is astonishing. There’s some kind of “logic” there I suppose…I mean who would want to leave the perspective of a starfish colony on the ocean floor out of everyone's discourse…because they’ve historically been marginalized by “white men”, or something. Calgon take me away…
I love that "Calgon, take me away" line!! (BTW, my auto correct changed it to "Calvin"!)
I hope your spouse/partner doesn't know about Calvin.
Remember the Calgon commercial at the Chinese laundry, where Calgon makes the clothes soft and lush, not an "ancient Chinese secret"?
Coincidence? The phrase "ancient Chinese secret" is included in Calvin's arsenal of pick-up lines.
And that's an additional why I stiff arm Wikipedia every time it asks for a donation. Nein, nada, nōh, nyet and nope.
I swear, the only reason I ever go to Wiki now is when my husband and I are watching a movie and want to look up a celebrity. We were re-watching Tremors the other day and it was like, "Huh, is Kevin Bacon still married to whats-her-name?" "Yeah, thay have that daughter who was in that Smile movie." "Is that thier only kid?" "Let me check...<goes to Wikipedia>...nah, she's got an older brother named Travis."
Only reason I go there as well or geographical info. I look up tv shows and episodes. That’s it.
Isn't it funny that there are people who put so much effort into movies and celebrities and everything sports? But they do. people who edit have their own worlds.
I NEVER use it, & I scoff at goofballs who post a Wikipedia link to prove something to me.
For all I know, they just got done editing that entry.
I sent one of them a link to a site, & she replied with a screen cap of the Wikipedia entry for the site, which declared it a "right wing hoax site." It's like she was afraid she'd morph into a MAGA person if she dared actually click on it.
She's right to be afraid. One time, I clicked on an article and learned that President Obama had not only authorized the assassinations of American citizens without the trivialities of arrest, arraignment, indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing, but then bragged about his kill list. Ever since then I don't trust drones.
I, admittedly, still use Wikipedia, but I also still use USPS. Much like my mailbox, Wikipedia is also often full of a lot of useless shit.
She seems to have an irony deficiency.
That honestly sounds like you're a goofball who posted a link to a right wing hoax website to try to prove something to someone else.
Uh huh.
Same. I used to donate, but stopped once I learned how captured it is by activist editors.
I gave them five dollars maybe ten years ago, but recently? No, nada, none, zilch. It's still a fine place to read some older articles about some historical thing or another to pass a rainy Monday afternoon, but anything current? They've lost the plot entirely. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy it isn't (anymore).
Nevah!
Living into the intentionality of what openness can be? And these people wonder why their polls are inaccurate and they lose elections?
Is she Kamala's sister?
I really would make a great bumper sticker. I'd put "Living into the intentionality of what openness can be!" right next to "Let's go, Brandon!"
But when drivers' eyes glaze over upon reading it, you're looking at some fender-benders.
I think you meant to write, "And hark, alas, these long-suffering denizens of truth gaze subtly at their own navels, and despair at the inaccuratality of the elections of XXIV."
Poll question 3: Hoe do you feel about open intentionality?
'did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be.'
This kind of bullshit woke word salad sprouts flashing red lights when I see it. OMG.
And the claxons go off.
Our intention was to have free speech for those perspectives we supported. Others thought this freedom applied to them as well, and fucked it up for everyone.
I'm not saying they can't say that. They're welcome to, and it's rather entertaining. And of course, I'm free to call it bullshit woke word salad.
I remember Skokie.
I was just offering a translation of her words in English.
Sorry, I misunderstood!
Pretty good translation, in that case.
No worries.
I continue to find myself amazed. Imagine if you were a "journalist" and your job was to wake up every day and find some bullshit to highlight among your enemies. Today's headline is people bitching about some Republicans thinking the economy is ok (sure, NOW) and the election wasn't rigged. I'm sorry, but is there a story here? I could write that my wife went to get a propane tank today, but no one else on earth cares. Kind of like who cares if Republicans think the election wasn't rigged. Doesn't it make people happy to learn that we all think the election was fair?
And yet there are people who say the MSM leans right. FWIW, I’m dumbfounded by these claims.
Those are mostly people so far to the left that, for them, the MSM *does* lean right.
I'm to the left of Bernie, and I know it leans left.
Anything that's "corporate" to them is Far Right.
It is the CORPORATE news for a reason. NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, WSJ isn’t leftist or liberal, they are pro-corporate consensus. This has to do with the changing business models/utility of large, expense-heavy journalistic outfits. Selling ad space doesn’t pay the bills. These old news agencies have lost their business model in the internet age, and trust is no longer a currency which can support their bureaucratic bloat, so they turned to the players who cannot afford to have the news not in their favor (aka corporations that are doing fishy/illegal things and need to control the narrative to support their biz models). The old bastions of truth (I’m sure they were always loosely affiliated with that ethic) are now bastions of corporate power.
We shouldn’t even pretend that any of these “news” outlets are trying to report on facts. To the postmodern feminist urbanite journalist facts are conveniently subservient to ideology, so any story can be authentically rewritten to serve whichever narrative is the most profitable for the position of the journalist within the ideological hierarchy of the newsroom she inhabits or most profitable to the business model of the newsroom itself.
"isn’t leftist or liberal, they are pro-corporate consensus". Amen. Certainly not by any definition of those words that I would accept.
We mostly speak English here in the US, friend.
makes sense to me!!
Sorta. "Liberal" has always been pro-business, though the Democrats were make-believe workers for a while (back when labor was strong enough to force them to legislate for the people). FDR counted his greatest success as "saving capitalism" from the unions and communists and socialists who almost took over after the depression struck = something usually neglected or retconned in US history classes.
"“currently shows [Donald] Trump winning every swing state,” as if this were inherently absurd."
If polls were consistently underestimating Trump support, then it's not at all absurd he could win every close (swing) state.
"How could Trump win? No one I know voted for him."
Apocryphal Pauline Kael.
And they had a record of this exact thing happening with the polls in 2016. And changed nothing of substance, did nothing to admit or confront their terrible 2016 polling, and they DEFINITELY did not consult the pollsters who actually called 2016 correctly. And they also ELIMINATED those pollsters in 2024, again, saying their accuracy demonstrated a "partisan bias".
The election demonstrated a "partisan bias". Only way to "fix" that ... is deplatforming/cancelling elections.
I had a free subscription to Nate Silver's SubStack, and if I recall correctly, he said several times that his model indicated *either* candidate sweeping the swing states was the most likely outcome (his final projection map pretty much matched the actual EC map). I think he had Trump as more likely to sweep than Harris. Basically all of the swing states were fundamentally similar enough that if a candidate won a majority of them it was highly likely they were going to win them all.
I hope the guy who was pissing on Nate earlier reads this. The problem with models like Silver's is that he tells you who won what % of the tens of thousands of variations he runs. He did 80,000 for Trump/Harris, and showed Trump winning 40,001 of them. So even that was off. Everyone's still pissed because they say he predicted Hillary would win in 2016, when all he actually said was that of the scenarios he ran, Hillary won about 70%. Which means there's a 30% chance Trump will win. He was the most accurate in 2016, just like he was in '08 and '12.
Silver’s models use weightings which are based on judgement calls. The RCP average is just the average of the polls they track. There must be polls RCP doesn’t include, and some extra insight Matt might add is how does RCP draw the line at what polls to include. Although weights sound more sophisticated, there is a danger of folks fooling themselves.
Interesting.
Regarding fake polls, I read somewhere that internal polling by the Biden campaign before he dropped out, showed Trump winning 400 electoral votes. That's why they were panicking.