Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

The news media really hates Nate Silver.

They're pissed that he dismantled their myth of "Mittmentum" for Romney, and pissed that his honest analysis may put them and the Beltway pundit class out of a job.

Just now on Joe Scarborough's show, Mika read a long section from this angry, weepy editorial by Michael Gerson, which blasted Silver for his "cold, sterile" analysis that did not focus on the issues and character and feelings. Because as we know, these guys are all about the issues.

Then Mark Halperin - whose face increasingly resembles a blank death mask as he hears poll upon poll proclaiming imminent defeat for Mitt Romney - chimes in with how he's so glad people are reading Gerson's emotional piece.

Get a fucking life, you whores.

by Anonymousreply 4011/06/2012

I'm with you, OP! Although I usually tune in to Morning Joe, each morning, during the first hour, with Halperin and his ilk (your description of his ugly mug is spot on)at the helm, my tolerance for such tripe is fading fast.

by Anonymousreply 111/06/2012

Nate Silver was on Colbert last night in which he talked about not really liking pundits at all -- particularly Scarborough, who had said recently that anyone who says this race is not a tossup is dumb.

Colbert made jokes about how Silver stupidly relies on math to predict the President will win while Scarborough relies on his gut to predict that the President or Romney will win.

The show was much funnier than this synopsis -- my apologies.

by Anonymousreply 211/06/2012

They are frightened of things they don't understand . . . like math and science.

by Anonymousreply 311/06/2012

Nate Silver is essentially an intelligent aggregator. He's not making up the polls, he's analyzing them. Duh.

by Anonymousreply 411/06/2012

[quote]which blasted Silver for his "cold, sterile" analysis that did not focus on the issues and character and feelings.

That's really rich because the pundit class never focus in any meaningful way on issues or even character. Instead, they play a game with the issues and with the numbers: they slice, dice, and select them to make the contest into a race where either candidate might pull to a victory at the last minute and win.

Nate Silver has upended that by pointing to the numbers, which he has carefully analyzed.

Too bad for them.

by Anonymousreply 511/06/2012

The element that makes Nate's model unique is that he weights the individual polls based on his perspective on the quality of the pollster. For example, PPP gets a much higher rating than Rasmussen, etc.

If you change the weighting, you change the answer.

Plus, he includes his other factors around previous voting histories, state economic performance, etc.

So, this isn't simply an average of polls that anyone can replicate.

He has Obama winning big - by more than 2 percent in the popular vote and winning all swing states except North Carolina.

The only swing state that he thinks will be close is Florida. Obama will win Virginia and Colorado by 2 to 3 points and all the other states by more than 3 points.

If the outcome is very close to that, he will be an even bigger celebrity. If the election is much closer with Romney winning 3 or 4 swing states, then he will be a one-hit wonder.

If Romney wins (which won't happen), he will be viewed as a shill hack.

by Anonymousreply 611/06/2012

If Nate's model is even a hair off, they will pounce on him big time in the post election wrap up. What I mean is if he predicts Obama will get 303 and he ends up with 297, the big story will be Nate Silver is wrong in bold letters all cap. They want to bring him down.

by Anonymousreply 711/06/2012

Talk about navel gazing. All they care about is their own jobs, which rely on making the races close, ironically looking at polls daily (which is what Silver does, of course, but he does so with some understanding of what they mean), and presenting both sides all the time "fairly" with no sense of facts and without concern that one side may be completely moronic.

Fuck Mark Halperin.

Exhibit A on why MSNBC is not the bastion of liberal bias common wisdom would have it be.

by Anonymousreply 811/06/2012

I love you, R1, for this

[quote]Then Mark Halperin - whose face increasingly resembles a blank death mask as he hears poll upon poll proclaiming imminent defeat for Mitt Romney...

As for the pundits trashing Nate Silver, you have to excuse them because the Maths "are hard". Just ask Queen Ann.

by Anonymousreply 911/06/2012

Mark Halperin has gone off the deep end. Maybe he's still bitter for being suspended for calling the president 'a dick' on MSNBC.

John Heileman is so more balanced and intelligent. I don't know how he can stand Mark.

by Anonymousreply 1011/06/2012

[quote] Just now on Joe Scarborough's show, Mika read a long section from this angry, weepy editorial by Michael Gerson, which blasted Silver for his "cold, sterile" analysis that did not focus on the issues and character and feelings.

Yeah, he focuses on numbers and facts. OH THE HORROR.

By all means, let's stop that and talk about Gerson's feeeeeeelings.

by Anonymousreply 1111/06/2012

Proof to me that I was right to get out of journalism back in college, when I looked around at my fellow students and heard how many of them wanted to use journalism as a means to establish a career in politics. I decided I was better off learning something and switched to the sciences.

by Anonymousreply 1211/06/2012

[quote]That's really rich because the pundit class never focus in any meaningful way on issues or even character.

Er, R5, Colbert is playing a parody character on his show. He was making the exact same point you are making.

by Anonymousreply 1311/06/2012

Er, R13, what are you talking about? I was not referencing or quoting Colbert -- and I am well aware of the character that he plays.

I was quoting this from the OP:

[quote]Just now on Joe Scarborough's show, [bold]Mika read[/bold] a long section from this angry, weepy editorial [bold]by Michael Gerson,[/bold] which blasted Silver for his "cold, sterile" analysis that did not focus on the issues and character and feelings.

by Anonymousreply 1411/06/2012

Excuse me, miss, but the Mark Halperin death mask line was me.

Thank you for the compliment though.

by Anonymousreply 1511/06/2012

You can't possibly expect these pundits to understand math, can you? Or facts?

They're invested in advancing the horse race narrative, so people will pay attention to them. And they will dismiss and belittle anyone and anything that interferes with that narrative.

Also, Republicans are invested in denying reality, period. And they don't like science or math.

So there we are: The Republican pundits in particular don't like Nate Silver, who deals in math and facts in an analytical, unemotional way.

I have to tell you, any time a major network reports the latest poll without ID'ing it as measuring the popular vote as opposed to the EC vote, I think to myself, it's just a sign they're pandering to the narrative.

by Anonymousreply 1611/06/2012

It's indicative of why there are so many Republicans. They just don't want to deal with facts. In Romney's case they pretty much get in the way.

Yesterday I saw the tail end of Morning Joe and Halperin predicted the election was going to be a landslide. Did something change?

by Anonymousreply 1711/06/2012

[quote]If Nate's model is even a hair off, they will pounce on him big time in the post election wrap up.

Oh, that's a given. I think they'll take it to the next step and blame him for the election.

After all (in concert with the NY Times) he has been working to demoralize Republican voters, and he's been a tool to spread misinformation about the election. He's a regular 5th Column, and he probably reduced Republican turnout by 10% all on his own.

Yeah, he could wind up being a Salman Rushdie when the Republican Party declares a fatwa on his ass.

by Anonymousreply 1811/06/2012

Apologies, R14. Getting my posts muddled up.

by Anonymousreply 1911/06/2012

"They are frightened of things they don't understand . . . like math and science."

And of something they do understand: their own irrelevance and frivolity.

by Anonymousreply 2011/06/2012

A lot of the media whores are already basically blaming him for fucking with their Mittmentum narrative and 'ruining the horse race.' That's the barely-still-subtext.

The Republicans certainly blame him. They're already building natesilveriswrong.com and trying to make it trend on twitter.

by Anonymousreply 2111/06/2012

[quote]Halperin predicted the election was going to be a landslide. Did something change?

This morning Halperin grudgingly admitted Obama has a 'slight' lead but that the Romney campaign is very confident and thinks it has momentum.

Chuck Todd's talking points vary depending on what show he's on. When he's on Morning Joe he talks about how the race is 50/50 but on Chris Matthews' show last night he and Harold Fineman (who I love) both said they think Obama has the edge and will win (and emphasized that the Obama people have the math on their side, the Romney people are just going with their 'gut' and faith).

by Anonymousreply 2211/06/2012

Nate Silver taught numbers how to fuck.

by Anonymousreply 2311/06/2012

These people get paid.

Remember, a Republican will do or say anything for money or the perception of getting money.

by Anonymousreply 2411/06/2012

From the same company that brought you, [italic]"There's NO such thing as Global Warming!" [/italic]and[italic] "Womens' bodies have a way of shutting that thing down!" [/italic]and[italic] "We not going to run this campaign with factcheckers!" [/italic]

by Anonymousreply 2511/06/2012

Nate presently has Obama at 91.6 percent.

by Anonymousreply 2611/06/2012

Already knew Mark Halperin was a colossal douchebag, but then I saw his twitter picture and wondered if he might be in the top 5 of all-time douchebags. His twitter picture is from some black tie event and includes himself and Biz Stone (Twitter founder).

I loathe this DC tool more than words can ever express.

by Anonymousreply 2711/06/2012

Here's Nate's appearance from The Colbert Report last night.

by Anonymousreply 2811/06/2012

Good Polling, Good Analysis and Good Journalism is what keeps this democracy alive.

It's the ONLY firewall between Us and total corporate tyranny.

by Anonymousreply 2911/06/2012

I agree OP. We live in a world of obfuscation for the sake of rating and of course earnings. Money is the bottom line in the press and in politics (K Street.) Hopefully it will change. It will get worse of course with Republicans in power.

The only press I trust, in general are the NY Times, PBS (News Hours), and BBC. While I am of course sympathetic to MSNBC- their journnalism is lousy. FOX is perhaps harmful to the nation spewing lies all day long.

by Anonymousreply 3011/06/2012

The Republican "denial" of facts, figures, and science is their contempt for the world everyone but them lives in.

Romney has NEVER had momentum. Romney has NEVER been favored to win. Romney was not a shoo-in but for the Liberal Hurricane Sandy and her minion Chris Christie, as Newtie would have us believe.

ROMNEY HAS NOT BEEN, IS NOT, AND WILL NOT END UP BEING CLOSE.

by Anonymousreply 3111/06/2012

I've had my issues with the NYT, but the fact that they refuse to participate in that farce of a dinner known as the "White House Corres. Dinner" is why I still respect them.

People like Andrea Mitchell is why I loathe media. She dislikes social media because how dare the "plebes" call out her consistent pushing of neo con memes? How dare "bloggers" point out the media's failings?

I just put on MSNBC and what do I see? Rudy Guiliani. Why is he allowed to taint my television after all of the bullshit he says? These people get to pull bullshit out of their asses, never called out on it, and they're invited back on again like their opinions mean something.

Pro-wrestling has more credibility than punditry.

by Anonymousreply 3211/06/2012

I really should start watching Colbert and Stewart as well- they are brilliant, and very funny. Thanks R28.

by Anonymousreply 3311/06/2012

There is no point in watching any of the TV coverage up until actual results come in because all you're going to hear is:

"It's a tight race."

Like the super bowl, the networks want it close so you watch until the end.

by Anonymousreply 3411/06/2012

Wait, Rudy Giuliani's taint was on MSNBC??

by Anonymousreply 3511/06/2012

I'm not sure, R35. It was either his face or his taint. I couldn't tell the difference.

by Anonymousreply 3611/06/2012

Exactly, r32. I was channel surfing this morning, stopped on MSNBC, watched Mika fawning all over Guiliani, and turned off my set. It was obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the Romney campaign knew it was finished when Guiliani went apoplectic on Piers Morgan Saturday night. "He stinks!" "He should resign!!!!". Lying to the rest of the country by saying FEMA has failed the people of New York while ignoring the ineptness of state and local elected officials. I'm talking to YOU El Bloombito and Governor Cuomo.

by Anonymousreply 3711/06/2012

With Giuliani's new choppers he sounds like Liza, so I'm sure he said, 'He shtinks!', R37.

by Anonymousreply 3811/06/2012

I had never seen Nate Silver before r28's post.

Now that I have seen the man I completely understand why his numbers are so accurate. The man is an absolute and total GEEK. Like a GEEK DEMIGOD.

No wonder the rethugs hate him. He's smart and he obviously knows his shit. What's not to hate if you're a rethug?

by Anonymousreply 3911/06/2012

Nate doesn't seem too thrilled with the NY Times, saying, "it's a nice... Building."

by Anonymousreply 4011/06/2012
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.