Discussion: FOX News II

[Kelly]

I agree that Fox and MSNBC both have agendas. Fox gives conservative views, MSNBC is liberal. It's a free country, so nothing wrong with either. In fact, I like hearing all sides and both networks obviously have a right to exist. But your point that Fox claims to be "fair and balanced" is a huge red flag. Fox not only spins stories, their entire marketing campaign is based on a "f&b" lie. Meanwhile, when I watch a show like Rachel Maddow, my DVR describes her as a liberal commentator, and their marketing focuses on "lean forward," a nod to their progressive roots. So MSNBC's marketing and network descriptions are absolutely true.

Btw, I watch both channels from time to time, especially in the weeks leading up to major elections. And I've found that fact-checkers on MSNBC are light-years beyond Fox. For instance, in the 2012 Presidential elections, Fox had its viewers believing that Romney would win in a landslide. While MSNBC reported on actual legit polls that accurately predicted an Obama win. Then on election night Fox went into meltdown mode (lol) after it became clear that Obama had been fairly re-elected.

Just my two cents.

No one was doing a very good job on election night, I watch all of them on that night....the exit polls were horrible on all stations. BUT, people like Karl Roves as he did his opinion giving on Fox was TOTALLY OFF BASE, that is certainly true....he missed it all the way around.

 

[SV Fan]

No one was doing a very good job on election night, I watch all of them on that night....the exit polls were horrible on all stations. BUT, people like Karl Roves as he did his opinion giving on Fox was TOTALLY OFF BASE, that is certainly true....he missed it all the way around.

I always find the polling firm I had the least amount of faith in was the most correct(ie PPP polling). I think the problem was most polling firms underestimated minority turnout

 

[Bwahaha!]

I always find the polling firm I had the least amount of faith in was the most correct(ie PPP polling). I think the problem was most polling firms underestimated minority turnout

Plus back then the pollsters were notoriously bad at contacting cell phone users, which skew younger, and we all know where the youth vote went. I'm sure polls will catch up to modern technology sooner than later. At least one hopes!

 

[SV Fan]

Plus back then the pollsters were notoriously bad at contacting cell phone users, which skew younger, and we all know where the youth vote went. I'm sure polls will catch up to modern technology sooner than later. At least one hopes!

I think cell phones being the problem was overplayed. As long as your results closely estimates the amount of under 30 voters will vote, doesn't matter if you talk to them on a landline or a cell phone

 

[Kelly]

I think cell phones being the problem was overplayed. As long as your results closely estimates the amount of under 30 voters will vote, doesn't matter if you talk to them on a landline or a cell phone

It is a HUGE problem are you kidding?

Most of those that only have land lines are usually over the age of 50 in rural areas....

When your robo-calls are ONLY going to landlines, THAT IS A PROBLEM in the polling and that was a problem with the internal polling of the Romney campaign as well as the Obama campaign, AND the news media.

The way that it helped the Obama campaign is that it kept them on their toes, the polling looked bad for them in many of the polls that would have normally shown as a positive, so it kept them working hard, whereas the Romney campaign, being run as poorly as it did sat back like idiots and played totally off the polls.

So again, yeah the type of polls that are only by phone which are mainly landlines at the minute does not give good information.

 

[Bwahaha!]

I think cell phones being the problem was overplayed. As long as your results closely estimates the amount of under 30 voters will vote, doesn't matter if you talk to them on a landline or a cell phone

Except I don't personally know many 18-30 yr olds who have landlines. My niece and her husband and all the other youngsters I know only use cells now. And though it might be getting easier to find out peoples' cell numbers, it's still much more difficult than landlines, and was even more difficult to obtain that data two years ago. That said, I'm not the expert on the college-age crowd or mobiles or even polling.

 

[Kelly]

I always find the polling firm I had the least amount of faith in was the most correct(ie PPP polling). I think the problem was most polling firms underestimated minority turnout

All polling companies at the moment are using bad polling procedures if they do not include cell phones, you like PPP because it always showed you want you wanted to see, not necessarily the best or most correct information. Of course polling companies that are historically more democratic leaning faired better in 2008. Again, you need to look closely at each poll how does it lean, cell phone calls, internet polling, etc....Those that do live phone interviews and have cellphone robo-calling as well as land line callingIMO, are your better polls whether they lean one way or the other, now you do have those polling companies that for some reason push HEAVILY one direction like Gallup, which pushes Republican heavily for some reason so that kind of throws off their results even though they do live calls and cell phone calls and of all of the polling companies Gallup was the most off, which is most definitely because they lean so Republican in their focus groups OF COURSE, had Mitt Romney won, they would have been #1 in accuracy, lol....so really looking at the Presidential results doesn't really show us how bad some of these polls are, one has to look at how the campaigns and voters READ the polls is what should be looked at.

Polling companies find it much easier to get to people that use land lines than they do those that use ONLY cell phones because those phones can block them much easier.

Minorities did vote slightly more than they did in 2008, but there was a greater difference in the white vote falling....Republican voters just didn't really care...Independent voters just didn't really care, I certainly didn't. Didn't matter to me who won, neither was anyone I wanted in office, so why vote?

 

[Bwahaha!]

Didn't matter to me who won, neither was anyone I wanted in office, so why vote?

I agree with a lot of what you've written in this thread but I absolutely think citizens have a duty to vote. Humans have been flawed since forever, so no candidate or party is going to please anyone all the time. But surely we must choose the candidate that most closely aligns with our views? Or at least not complain if the country goes in a direction we don't want. With respect, I just can't imagine not voting. I really can't.

 

[Kelly]

I agree with a lot of what you've written in this thread but I absolutely think citizens have a duty to vote. Humans have been flawed since forever, so no candidate or party is going to please anyone all the time. But surely we must choose the candidate that most closely aligns with our views? Or at least not complain if the country goes in a direction we don't want. With respect, I just can't imagine not voting. I really can't.

Oh, I voted, and many of those Republicans and Independents probably voted as well, we just did not vote for President. I voted on all propositions, local, state and national races, but I did not vote for either Romney or Obama which shows up in the "white/non-hispanic" percentage....and there were a lot like me. We were talking specifically about the Presidential race, you can vote for all other races on the ballot and not vote for the R or D for President.

 

[SV Fan]

It is a HUGE problem are you kidding?

Most of those that only have land lines are usually over the age of 50 in rural areas....

In general polling firms will sort out all the people they call into categories and then prorate them when giving out statistics

So say 1000 people are polled but only 100 were 18-30. If it`s believed 20% of the people who will vote will be in that age range they will prorate that 100 people for 20%. As I said I think the biggest problem most polling firms had is they underrated the turnout of minorities and young people(ie 2 Democrat voting blocks). Many polling firms used 2004 turnout patterns as a basis for their results.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't know anyone who still uses a land line. Even friends of my parents don't use a landline anymore.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Land-lines are so dead. The only places that have land-lines nowadays are businesses. Anyone under about 60 or so, uses a cell as their primary phone. It frustrates me that midway into the 2010's, so many polling companies still base their data around land-lines. Seeing a TV show where someone uses a house-phone nowadays is almost as anachronistic as seeing someone use a rotary phone in the 90's.

 

[Kelly]

In general polling firms will sort out all the people they call into categories and then prorate them when giving out statistics

So say 1000 people are polled but only 100 were 18-30. If it`s believed 20% of the people who will vote will be in that age range they will prorate that 100 people for 20%. As I said I think the biggest problem most polling firms had is they underrated the turnout of minorities and young people(ie 2 Democrat voting blocks). Many polling firms used 2004 turnout patterns as a basis for their results.

This article gives you a great list of WHO TO REALLY WATCH, and who to really pass on bye....as for myself, I watch for Pew Polls.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...presidential-race/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

 

[SV Fan]

This article gives you a great list of WHO TO REALLY WATCH, and who to really pass on bye....as for myself, I watch for Pew Polls.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...presidential-race/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Sort of funny that alot of people complained the polls leaned towards the Dems, but if you look at the 23 polls only 4 had results that were better then the Dems performance.

 

[Kelly]

Sort of funny that alot of people complained the polls leaned towards the Dems, but if you look at the 23 polls only 4 had results that were better then the Dems performance.

It really pays to see the following, internet, robo-calling, landlines vs. cell phones. I wish that this showed the age groups of those that stayed on the phone. While I was doing polling back in Clinton days before and after cell phones, oddly enough the people that would "talk" to us, sometimes these phone calls can be as long as 15 minutes, I found that people over the age of 50 would talk, and most of those were registered Republicans. I would also like to see those polls that usually use Registered Voters as their focus group or Likely Voters....that is also very telling. IMO, not enough polls use "Likely Voters".

Also, you will notice that your biggest bias towards Republicans is shown in the robodial category. Young people that will likely be Democrat know ways of blocking those, older adults, even if they have a cell phone are not as equipped to use it as their 4 year old grandson is....lol

Also, something interesting, do you notice what polls are "missing" from these lists?

 

[Destructus86]

I agree with a lot of what you've written in this thread but I absolutely think citizens have a duty to vote. Humans have been flawed since forever, so no candidate or party is going to please anyone all the time. But surely we must choose the candidate that most closely aligns with our views? Or at least not complain if the country goes in a direction we don't want. With respect, I just can't imagine not voting. I really can't.

But if you don't think either side is going to do a better job than the other...is there any point to voting?

 

[Marvolo]

I posted this in the Stupid People Thread, but it belongs here too I guess.

Have yall seen this nonsense?

On Tuesday, "Fox and Friends" cohost Brian Kilmeade went after Robert Bergdahl over the beard the father of freed POW Bowe Berghdal grew while his son was in captivity.

“[Bergdahl] says he was growing his beard because his son was in captivity," Kilmeade said. "Well, your son’s out now. So if you really don’t -- no longer want to look like a member of the Taliban, you don’t have to look like a member of the Taliban. Are you out of razors?”
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5437825

Jon Stewart responded.

"First of all, who the **** are you to judge what a guy does if he thinks it might help him get his son back?" Stewart asked. "And I don't want to complicate your hatred of facial hair there, friend, but my guess is if you gave Bob Bergdahl a bandana and a duck, you'd like him just-****ing-fine."

Its like the anchors on Fox are trying to one up each other to see who can say the dumbest ****.

 

[KevanG]

It's Fox. If they go a week without something that makes me facepalm I just assume they've shushed it up.

 

[Bwahaha!]

But if you don't think either side is going to do a better job than the other...is there any point to voting?

There are so many different issues, IMPORTANT issues, surely we can research and find a candidate that we believe will overall do a better job than their opponent. And again, if we don't vote, we really shouldn't complain, IMO. That goes for any elected office, including (and probably especially) President.

 

[Marvolo]

There are so many different issues, IMPORTANT issues, surely we can research and find a candidate that we believe will overall do a better job than their opponent. And again, if we don't vote, we really shouldn't complain, IMO. That goes for any elected office, including (and probably especially) President.

George Carlin used to say and Im paraphrasing:

I didnt vote the dumbass in so I have every right to complain. You on the other hand voted him in so shut up and sleep in the bed you made.

I think everyone has the right to complain. We all suffer when we have a bad president. And while I try to vote for the lesser of the two evils I dont believe everyone should have to vote to take part in the discussions about our President. If he or she is ****ting the bed then anyone should be able to call him or her on it.

 

[Bwahaha!]

George Carlin used to say and Im paraphrasing:



I think everyone has the right to complain. We all suffer when we have a bad president. And while I try to vote for the lesser of the two evils I dont believe everyone should have to vote to take part in the discussions about our President. If he or she is ****ting the bed then anyone should be able to call him or her on it.

Absolutely everyone has the constitutional right to complain (or compliment). But with all respect to George Carlin, I just tend to roll my eyes when someone sits out an election but then complains about the results later. Just my two cents.

 

[Marvolo]

Absolutely everyone has the constitutional right to complain (or compliment). But with all respect to George Carlin, I just tend to roll my eyes when someone sits out an election but then complains about the results later. Just my two cents.

Sometimes you just cant vote for either candidate. If i ever end up up in that sitiation you better believe Im gonna complain about the asshat who gets in office. Not cause I enjoy it, but because I cant help it. Its politics. *****ing about it is what most of us do whether we vote or not.

I almost didnt vote in the last election cause I wasnt happy with Obama but couldnt vote for Romney. Well then Romney kept saying dumb **** about the middle class so I voted against him just to watch him lose. Im still not overly happy with Obama. But watching Romney not have a concession speech prepared and the complete shock on his and fox news's faces when he lost was worth the time it took me to vote.

 

[SV Fan]

Sometimes you just cant vote for either candidate. If i ever end up up in that sitiation you better beloeve Im gonna complain about the asshat who gets in office. Not cause I enjoy it, but because I cant help it. Its politics. *****ing about it is what most of us do whether we vote or not.

I almost didnt vote in the last election cause I wasnt happy with Obama but couldnt vote for Romney. Well then Romney kept saying dumb **** about the middle class so I voted against him just to watch him lose. Im still not overly happy with Obama. But watching Romney not have a concession speech prepared and the complete shock on his and fox news's faces when he lost was worth the time it took me to vote.

You could always throw a vote towards a third party

 

[Marvolo]

You could always throw a vote towards a third party

The Libertarian party is cookoo for cocoa puffs on foreign policy and social structures here at home and the economy. The Green Party seems a bit hopeless from what I can tell.

Third parties also wont get a single thing done in congress. The republicans and democrats arent going to work with a third party president and our congress is gridlocked enough as it is. The last thing we need is more gridlock.

 

[SV Fan]

The Libertarian party is cookoo for cocoa puffs on foreign policy and social structures here at home and the economy. The Green Party seems a bit hopeless from what I can tell.

Third parties also wont get a single thing done in congress. The republicans and democrats arent going to work with a third party president and our congress is gridlocked enough as it is. The last thing we need is more gridlock.

Simple fact as it stands now third party votes are a protest vote that I like what they are saying(even if it's just 1 or 2 issues)