There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble

[Endus]

I don't really know what to say other than, "but come on" in reply. I can barely fathom the depths of deliberately missing the point of such a statement to reply "ha, he doesn't even know anything about pH!". Here's good ol' FactCheck being equally oblivious:

I can't believe you people aren't shitting me, but you're apparently not shitting me.

As noted, "acid washed" refers to a physical process, when it was a software tool. It wasn't "expensive", as it was claimed to be.

And if you truly want ridiculous, the ridiculous component to this is that her server was ordered to be wiped well before any subpoenas had been issued. She had to copy her e-mail records for archiving, and she did so. That was her only legal requirement. Preserving the server intact was not something that was expected, let alone required, and indeed, could have been construed as an attempt to retain copies of material she didn't have authority to retain.

That anyone gave a shit about what she did with her server at all was the real problem.


Edit: On an unrelated note, with regards to polling numbers, it wasn't that it was a "liberal bubble". It was that Trump needed to win a whole suite of tight races, and polling for each favored Clinton. Even if you've got a 50% chance in each race, the chance of winning all 5 races is about 3%. In many cases, it came down to just a few thousand votes in a given State. It was that need to win ALL those swing states that led to early predictions favoring Clinton, because if they had swung equally between both candidates, then Clinton would be President.

We're in that 3%. Because it being a small chance still means it's a chance, and it doesn't make the predictions "wrong". I can tell you how unlikely any given roll of the dice is to produce a Yahtzee, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong when I finally roll one.

[Kraenen]

Am I really the only one who thought he was being metaphorical? Trump loves him some down to the ground physical metaphors - it gets his base engaged more easily.

[Endus]

Am I really the only one who thought he was being metaphorical? Trump loves him some down to the ground physical metaphors - it gets his base engaged more easily.

Even if he was being metaphorical, he's still objectively wrong about it being expensive, and also that it was something anyone should have found alarming.

[Kokolums]

Trust in the media has basically hit 0% among repubicans. Plus, they've tuned out now - they've stopped visiting their media. They go to Breitbart. There is no point in the mainstream media correcting this because, even if they've did, the republicans have ABANDONED them. That is the point of no return. Myspace could flawlessly execute a redesign of their services to be 1000x better than facebook and it wouldn't make a difference because the public does not go there so the public would not know the redesign even happened. The mainstream media has the same problem now. The republicans have stopped going there.

The public demanded that the media move to the right. There were two options:

1. The media reforms itself and moves to the right.
2. Republicans abandon them and go to right wing media.

#2 finally happened in 2016. The choice has been made. Its out of the media's hands now.

[Deleted]

Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com offers a compelling breakdown of the media bubble in the 2016 election:



Also:



The full article can be read here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-media-bubble/


Until the media moves away from it's echo chamber-based confidence, it will continue to misread the public's concerns and interests, and become more maligned in the minds of Americans.

Bubbles are everywhere. Like, me and my friend, talking in a cafe, agreeing with each other, we are a bubble. It's not media's fault, mankind is just too stupid to care about trying to think objectively about stuff. Everyone just does what they feel like.

[Snorkles]

Surely the purpose of the Media is to tell people what is going on in the world? If that doesn't align with peoples feelings then so what.

[Spiffums]

All that proves is that there was an Anti-Trump Bubble, not a Liberal Bubble ... those aren't the same thing. I know many Republicans that don't support Trump who are otherwise conservative, because they feel he goes too far.

No the polls were showing her in a landslide against ANY opponent. The fact that Bernie ran her a hard race for the nomination should have been a clue to anyone not drunk on the kool aid.

All this election cycle showed is that polling isn't worth a damn.

[Darththeo]

No the polls were showing her in a landslide against ANY opponent. The fact that Bernie ran her a hard race for the nomination should have been a clue to anyone not drunk on the kool aid.

All this election cycle showed is that polling isn't worth a damn.

All this election shows is that people don't understand what a poll actually is. Your post is evidence of that.

[The Stormbringer]

Surely the purpose of the Media is to tell people what is going on in the world? If that doesn't align with peoples feelings then so what.

Well god damn said. Too many people are claiming bias and opinion when a lot of what's reported is simply what's going on in the world.

[Zylos]

In the media's defense, Trump's win was highly unprecedented. Typically if one candidate came out saying even one of the horrible things he said (talking about his comments on women and minorities etc.) they would be ridiculed into withdrawing. Trump somehow got away with it and here we are.

I think people need to take responsibility to get a mix of each point of view on a subject. Personally when I see or read articles on a topic I like to google one opinion then google the exact opposite, (ex. "Trump sucks" followed by "Trump is great") and then see what the arguments are and form my own opinion. Often times one side will present some statistic (ex Trump saves 30 babies and kittens from burning buildings every year) and then I will seek yet even more information on that statistic to see if its BS or inflated or whatever. Fact is when doing this even if one side or both sides has a lot of stupid points, they will often have a few good ones that might change your opinion.

The real problem is that most people just listen to their own echo chamber, and it just reinforces their own opinions and biases, they get news from one source or sources that echo each other and only seek information that reinforces what they already believe. People need to keep an open mind and question themselves more often.

[Kokolums]

In the media's defense, Trump's win was highly unprecedented. Typically if one candidate came out saying even one of the horrible things he said (talking about his comments on women and minorities etc.) they would be ridiculed into withdrawing. Trump somehow got away with it and here we are.

That was a reaction to a perceived stifling of free speech. Many republicans felt a MAJOR problem was they were no longer allowed to say anything without being shunned. In that environment, it makes sense they would flock to a very un-PC candidate.

[Toppy]

Actually looking at the margins of error on the polls, they were pretty much correct in saying Clinton was a cert to win. If your country used any sane method to interpret the vote. The arcane rules of the Electoral College makes close elections extremely hard to predict. Essentially this election was decided by 100k people in Florida.

- - - Updated - - -



But it didn't misread them. More Americans did want Hillary than Trump.

They just didn't predict who'd win the election.

Electoral college systems are fairly common

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college

[Spectral]

Apparently the point is too hard for you to understand. Acid washed is the wrong term to use, because it implies a chemical (an acid) is used physically on the server (or in the case of jeans, it is a physical process on the server) ... therefor Trump is wrong to say Clinton acid washed her servers. Like it or not, he was fucking wrong. Bleached can be taken to mean what white washed means.

So the only person shitting anyone is you. He literally claimed that she used chemicals. Seriously, come on. Trump was wrong, not a bubble.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOPXkeITZzY

A video showing Trump quote.

As noted, "acid washed" refers to a physical process, when it was a software tool. It wasn't "expensive", as it was claimed to be.

And if you truly want ridiculous, the ridiculous component to this is that her server was ordered to be wiped well before any subpoenas had been issued. She had to copy her e-mail records for archiving, and she did so. That was her only legal requirement. Preserving the server intact was not something that was expected, let alone required, and indeed, could have been construed as an attempt to retain copies of material she didn't have authority to retain.

That anyone gave a shit about what she did with her server at all was the real problem.

I can't believe anyone would defend the idea that "acid washed" was intended to refer to literal acid. But hey, I guess this is what people are referring to when it comes to bubbles.

Edit: On an unrelated note, with regards to polling numbers, it wasn't that it was a "liberal bubble". It was that Trump needed to win a whole suite of tight races, and polling for each favored Clinton. Even if you've got a 50% chance in each race, the chance of winning all 5 races is about 3%. In many cases, it came down to just a few thousand votes in a given State. It was that need to win ALL those swing states that led to early predictions favoring Clinton, because if they had swung equally between both candidates, then Clinton would be President.

We're in that 3%. Because it being a small chance still means it's a chance, and it doesn't make the predictions "wrong". I can tell you how unlikely any given roll of the dice is to produce a Yahtzee, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong when I finally roll one.

This is a poor model; state outcomes aren't completely independent variables. This is part of why the 538 modeling had more like a 25% chance of Trump victory and included a pretty decent chance (I think ~10%) of a Trump electoral victory with a popular vote loss. Silver's crew was simply better at analytics than other analysts.

- - - Updated - - -

Am I really the only one who thought he was being metaphorical? Trump loves him some down to the ground physical metaphors - it gets his base engaged more easily.

It was pretty obvious. That's why the image I posted is so comical. Taking that statement as a claim that servers were literally dunked in acid in order to "fact check" him is pants on head retarded and anyone claiming this was what was meant is likely disingenuous.

[Endus]

I can't believe anyone would defend the idea that "acid washed" was intended to refer to literal acid. But hey, I guess this is what people are referring to when it comes to bubbles.

Literally every major use of the term I've heard, from acid washing jeans to acid washing concrete, refers to a physical process, involving actual chemicals (which may or may not be technically acids).

If you're claiming that it's obviously meant to be metaphorical because it's objectively wrong, then you're making excuses rather than just admitting that it's objectively wrong.

This is a poor model; state outcomes aren't completely independent variables. This is part of why the 538 modeling had more like a 25% chance of Trump victory and included a pretty decent chance (I think ~10%) of a Trump electoral victory with a popular vote loss. Silver's crew was simply better at analytics than other analysts.

I wasn't presenting a model of anything, there, I was just highlighting how, even with even races, winning multiple tight competitions as Trump needed to do was statistically unlikely.

Yes, context means you can reduce that further and be more accurate in those predictions, but that wasn't the point.

[Darththeo]

I can't believe anyone would defend the idea that "acid washed" was intended to refer to literal acid. But hey, I guess this is what people are referring to when it comes to bubbles.

This is a poor model; state outcomes aren't completely independent variables. This is part of why the 538 modeling had more like a 25% chance of Trump victory and included a pretty decent chance (I think ~10%) of a Trump electoral victory with a popular vote loss. Silver's crew was simply better at analytics than other analysts.

- - - Updated - - -


It was pretty obvious. That's why the image I posted is so comical. Taking that statement as a claim that servers were literally dunked in acid in order to "fact check" him is pants on head retarded and anyone claiming this was what was meant is likely disingenuous.

Did you watch the video? He literally mentions she used chemicals. The point of making a metaphor is that people should be able to understand it.

The evidence supports Trump is not speaking metaphorical and you are doing mental gymnastics to support that. Acid washed was never used metaphorically, the term used is bleached (and he did use that a few times).

[Alydael]

So you know the difference and yet still claim "they take electoral college into account" when they don't. Polls can take a region into account, but a National Poll will not because the region is the nation itself. When you are talking about taking regional polls and using that to predict the election, that's a projection and not a poll.

You realize that the popular vote doesn't matter at all, right?

When then would anybody use a polling site that doesn't take the electoral college into account? It makes no sense.

You must be reading a different polling site than I do. The site I use broke it down even by every district. The districts weren't on the front page (you had to navigate menus to get to them), but they were there.

[Darththeo]

You realize that the popular vote doesn't matter at all, right?

When then would anybody use a polling site that doesn't take the electoral college into account? It makes no sense.

You must be reading a different polling site than I do. The site I use broke it down even by every district. The districts weren't on the front page (you had to navigate menus to get to them), but they were there.

That isn't just one poll you are looking at. That's my point. You aren't looking a poll, you are looking a projection made of several regional polls. When someone says a national poll, it does not break down to electoral districts.

I am not saying "Regional polls don't exist" ... they do. I am saying National Presidential polls do not factor in electoral collage as the sample size would need to be huge. I found with a quick Google search a CNN poll that asked 1001 people national wide ... 1001 in the entire nation. How would that factor in the Electoral College?

[Alydael]

As I said it was that close, If Hillary had 750k more combined votes, she would have won FL, MI and PA and the election. 750k votes is nothing on a voting eligible population of nearly 129 million people, it's less 0.58%. Even though it didn't look close, it was extremely close, and if you look at the margin of error being around 2%. Like I said, states that predicted one to be ahead by 2% or less, all were close to being tied because the difference in voters was less than 30k.

Also rallies don't really predict winners, because if rallies had any significance than Trump would have won every state on the map because that's how big his rallies were, and yet he didn't. We can go on about why Hillary lost all day, but crowds are unlikely to be the reason why.

The reason she lost is simple, it wasn't really too much about her e-mails but it was more the fact that she didn't champion for the angry white workers, Trump was the one who first said, let me be your champion, and that's what her crucial mistake was, she over-focused the minorities a bit too much.

Crowds are just one part of the equation. I looked at: pre spin news sources (reporter sources), talked to people and listened to the speeches/ rallies. I mainly used rallies to judge momentum/excitement.

If it is two weeks out of the election and you are barely drawing 200 ppl to your rally, regardless- you are in trouble.

As a politician, you need more lives than a cat. Hillary has that, I wasn't sure if Trump did (he is very thin skinned). When he surged in September, despite all the negative attacks- he proved he had those lives. That's when I knew he would win.

That election was only close because: Hillary is a very skilled politician with a well oiled machine in place, the media was all over her like flies on s##t promoting her and Trump kept putting his foot in his mouth.

There was really no excitement for her at all.

In fact, if the DNC doesn't collude with Hillary to screw Sanders (as revealed in the e-mails), I believe Sanders takes that and he would have beat Trump as well. We actually have the DNC's collusion with Hillary to thank for Trump.

[Flatspriest]

Even if he was being metaphorical, he's still objectively wrong about it being expensive, and also that it was something anyone should have found alarming.

But in the end, it was expensive. It cost her the election. How much did she spend trying to get elected?

[Darththeo]

But in the end, it was expensive. It cost her the election. How much did she spend trying to get elected?

Those actions didn't cost her the election. She focused on the wrong areas to campaign in. She should have been more focused elsewhere.