Hillary

[pettie4sox]

Republicans shoot themselves in the foot time and time again. They need a really really strong candidate to win in 2016.

[Reddy]

Fox = MSNBC

 

all the others do not slant to either side with the same bias of the above.

 

Sorry Y2HH

[Reddy]

And believe it or don't but that makes me sad. I think we benefit the most when both sides have great cadidiates. Instead the GOP nominee, to get elected, will have to make a huge "U" turn after locking up the nomination. A moderate Republican looks conservative to a Dem and a RINO or worse to a Tea Party leaning Republican.

exactly. Until the GOP can get it's message straightened out, they won't win another election.

[Y2HH]

Fox = MSNBC

 

all the others do not slant to either side with the same bias of the above.

 

Sorry Y2HH

 

Again, LOL.

 

The audience split in the ratings amongst anyone not named Fox shows how wrong you are. But that's fine, ignore the ratings, they're not a tell tale sign of an audience or anything.

 

You are right, to a degree, that neither are as slanted nbc or fox, but the others ARE still slanted left, albeit less than nbc.

 

If msnbc was the only opposite of fox, it would command the entire liberal audience, but it doesnt, because it's not the only other avenue liberals have.

 

Now, if we were taking talk radio, maybe you have an argument, or even non prime time Sunday morning shows that nobody watches...but that's not what we're taking about here.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Y2HH

[Reddy]

Again, LOL.

 

The audience split in the ratings amongst anyone not named Fox shows how wrong you are. But that's fine, ignore the ratings, they're not a tell tale sign of an audience or anything.

 

You are right, to a degree, that neither are as slanted nbc or fox, but the others ARE still slanted left, albeit less than nbc.

 

If msnbc was the only opposite of fox, it would command the entire liberal audience, but it doesnt, because it's not the only other avenue liberals have.

 

Now, if we were taking talk radio, maybe you have an argument, or even non prime time Sunday morning shows that nobody watches...but that's not what we're taking about here.

 

since they're owned by republicans, why do you think they slant left?

 

or is it that the facts just happen to always skew to the left?

[Jake]

There is a great deal of academic research on this subject and the vast majority shows a total lack of partisan bias in traditional news sources, and there is more evidence of conservative bias in the news networks than liberal bias. News media tend to give more airtime to opposing viewpoints that are factually false than what they merit, which is a much more significant source of news inaccuracy. There is more evidence that there are significant biases against female and minority politicians. It would be interesting to see if this still applies to Obama, as in the past many minority legislators generally only made the news when they had broken the law (and they are much more likely to be criticized for breaking the law than white legislators) or when they were at the forefront of a racial issue. The POTUS is obviously relevant all the time.

 

What we're seeing here is a manifestation of another line of research, which is strong partisans on both sides finding the same news source to be biased against them. Those who claim bias in media consistently misreport what they remember seeing in a given segment. The offending pieces of info are more impactful and lead the person to forget the parts that backed their point of view. This applies not just to people that are strong ideological partisans, but also those who have opposing views of a particular issue. We call this selective recall. Selective categorization is similar: two sides hear the same sentence, both claim it is biased against them. This happens in law all the time, where defendant and plaintiff both think that jury instructions and things like that are harming them. Then there are different standards; partisans will each have their idea of which facts, opinions, etc deserve the most scrutiny and airtime.

 

Another factor at hand, visible in this discussion, is another insight uncovered by political psychology research. People report more bias and inaccuracy the larger they believe the audience for that information is. Telling people that an article came from a journalist versus a student newspaper, for instance, can make partisans go from strong allegations of bias to relative agreement on non-bias.

 

I've seen two different things that explain the difference between liberal and conservative differences in how much you hear about media bias. For one, Republican elites were the first to make claims about partisan media bias. The cultural association is very important. Beyond that, conservatives (not libertarians, fwiw) generally score much lower on a personality trait that some call "openness to experience." This means that they have a stronger preference for things that are familiar while those who are high on this trait (liberals) will be more apt to search for new experiences. This helps to explain a behavior that is relevant here: conservatives are much more likely to engage in what is called "safe argument," which basically means restricting political discussions to likeminded people. I'm guessing this is part of the reason for the popularity of conservative talk radio and why Fox News was commercially viable long, long before the change in content at MSNBC at continues to be much more successful in its ratings. People that frequently engage in these safe arguments (these are interpersonal interactions) are much more likely to report partisan bias in the media.

 

A last note is that people that feel that they are strongly informed on their views will react to perceived media bias by counteracting it. That is, they will try to promote the information that they perceive as correct with extra gusto to try to correct the harm done by biased media. Conservatives tend to believe in their own political competency quite a bit more than Democrats and thus are a bit louder in their alternative media promotion.

[greg775]

I was at Yellow Sub today for lunch reading a USA Today and came across a good column on how the media is already planning Hillary's easy path to a landslide victory. They said Christie's lies do not deserve this kind of press compared to Obama's lies regarding Obamacare and other matters.

The editorial writer said the media is primed to attack ANY and ALL candidates that might make Hillary sweat a bit.

 

What a f***ing joke. The media wants Hillary?? Under Obama the econony is so bad that media jobs are disappearing. Newspapers are all but dead and buried. And these writers NEED to have a democratic president. I ask these writers, WTF??? It's not working for your profession. You will all be out of jobs soon unless you work for a website.

 

I don't see the nation's love for old Hilly. And don't get on me for being age discriminatory. this whole f***ing country is going with young workers so they can pay them pennies. Anybody over 50 is out of luck in trying to find work outside of fast food. Amazing. "Anybody" might be hyperbole, but there's definitely a trend to send the oldies home for good!

 

Wake up media. Hillary is not god.

[StrangeSox]

Here is your problem: you read editorials in newspapers. They are pretty much universally terrible and dumb.

 

Also, blaming Obama for the changing media landscape, which has been changing for over a decade, seems rather...odd.

[greg775]

I just thought of a good way (at least in my mind) of putting Hillary's being a lock to the the next President in perspective.

 

I feel she is being awarded what amounts to a lifetime achievement award with her being named the next President.

I question whether she will have the energy to be President. I mean let's just give her a lifetime achievement award or make her honorary Queen of the U.S. But not President.

Can't the democrats, who will again win in a landslide, give us a real candidate who can fricking make a difference and help turn around this country?

 

Forgive my pessimism, but I feel like most of our country's inhabitants are starting to think of our beloved USA as Detroit - a bankrupt, decrepit country.

Sure at times we feel patriotic, but with the economy still crap and medical care a fricking joke and the hope of people being able to retire comfortably becoming a pipe dream, we need CHANGE and Hillary will not provide it I'm afraid.

 

Repeat: Give her a nice lifetime achievement award but do NOT give her the Oval Office just because "it's her turn" or "she's had a great life" or "she was a good first lady now she should be President."

Edited February 14, 2014 by greg775

[Reddy]

I just thought of a good way (at least in my mind) of putting Hillary's being a lock to the the next President in perspective.

 

I feel she is being awarded what amounts to a lifetime achievement award with her being named the next President.

I question whether she will have the energy to be President. I mean let's just give her a lifetime achievement award or make her honorary Queen of the U.S. But not President.

Can't the democrats, who will again win in a landslide, give us a real candidate who can fricking make a difference and help turn around this country?

 

Forgive my pessimism, but I feel like most of our country's inhabitants are starting to think of our beloved USA as Detroit - a bankrupt, decrepit country.

Sure at times we feel patriotic, but with the economy still crap and medical care a fricking joke and the hope of people being able to retire comfortably becoming a pipe dream, we need CHANGE and Hillary will not provide it I'm afraid.

 

Repeat: Give her a nice lifetime achievement award but do NOT give her the Oval Office just because "it's her turn" or "she's had a great life" or "she was a good first lady now she should be President."

 

remind us all what you have against Hillary? I could use a chuckle.

[greg775]

remind us all what you have against Hillary? I could use a chuckle.

 

By many accounts, she is a mean spirited B word. She has no real ideas of note. She was blah as secretary of state. She seems to me to be very elitist. What does she bring to the table besides "deserving" to be president after all her years of service. Again ... give her an award.

[Cknolls]

By many accounts, she is a mean spirited B word. She has no real ideas of note. She was blah as secretary of state. She seems to me to be very elitist. What does she bring to the table besides "deserving" to be president after all her years of service. Again ... give her an award.

 

 

She is an incredible commodities trader!

[Balta1701]

By many accounts, she is a mean spirited B word.

You know what? This just isn't ok any more.

[Jenksismyhero]

Ban him! Insinuating foul language will not be tolerated!!!

[Balta1701]

If he were actually interested in making an intelligent point, there's one that could actually be made. Hillary may be the early front-runner but he's correct in that she has given us no real obvious policy statements as of yet, there's no real "here's what we'll get done if you elect me", or even a "here's a decision I was right about that the rest of you f***ed up".

 

IN 2008 there were both of those. The Democrats were debating what they'd do with health care, and at least 1 candidate got to say "the rest of you totally f***ed up the most important international vote of the last several decades, the Iraq debacle". Being able to say that was definitely a key aspect in how that election turned out, and there was a big policy point to deal with.

 

Thus far, Mrs. Clinton has not laid out a justification for a candidacy and has not spelled out any specific thing that she would focus on getting done. The counter-point of course is that at this point, virtually no legitimate candidate has done so because we're nearly 3 years away from the election day so there's time to do those things. But either way, that is a valid point..."why are we electing this person" is a legitimate question right now.

 

Instead we get borderline misogynist, ad-hominem bullcrap. That type of line is beneath a decent person.

[Jenksismyhero]

If he were actually interested in making an intelligent point, there's one that could actually be made. Hillary may be the early front-runner but he's correct in that she has given us no real obvious policy statements as of yet, there's no real "here's what we'll get done if you elect me", or even a "here's a decision I was right about that the rest of you f***ed up".

 

IN 2008 there were both of those. The Democrats were debating what they'd do with health care, and at least 1 candidate got to say "the rest of you totally f***ed up the most important international vote of the last several decades, the Iraq debacle". Being able to say that was definitely a key aspect in how that election turned out, and there was a big policy point to deal with.

 

Thus far, Mrs. Clinton has not laid out a justification for a candidacy and has not spelled out any specific thing that she would focus on getting done. The counter-point of course is that at this point, virtually no legitimate candidate has done so because we're nearly 3 years away from the election day so there's time to do those things. But either way, that is a valid point..."why are we electing this person" is a legitimate question right now.

 

Instead we get borderline misogynist, ad-hominem bullcrap. That type of line is beneath a decent person.

 

You've never had a buddy date a girl and the group all agreed she's a b****, but you could never point to a specific example of why? It's just a vibe.

 

And let's be real. I think to be a woman in 2014 and get to where she's at you have to be to a certain extent. You're dealing with men who are assholes most of the time.

 

edit: I should add that I understand your point and Greg does seem to come into this thread and just say "she's a b****! why is she a candidate?" without offering much else. And he's done it more than once.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

You've never had a buddy date a girl and the group all agreed she's a b****, but you could never point to a specific example of why? It's just a vibe.

 

And let's be real. I think to be a woman in 2014 and get to where she's at you have to be to a certain extent. You're dealing with men who are assholes most of the time.

 

edit: I should add that I understand your point and Greg does seem to come into this thread and just say "she's a b****! why is she a candidate?" without offering much else. And he's done it more than once.

If he were interested in giving me a list of examples as to why he thinks her personality would not be well suited to the role of president as defined in his mind, that's something I'd be willing to listen to and perhaps agree or disagree with. I can very easily do something similar with Christie, for example from the other side. But I'd lump simply calling her that at the same level of insulting Christie's weight. You might be able to pull it off if you're very, very nimble about it and making a joke somehow, but the way it's being done here should be below the dignity of decent human beings.

[southsider2k5]

If he were interested in giving me a list of examples as to why he thinks her personality would not be well suited to the role of president as defined in his mind, that's something I'd be willing to listen to and perhaps agree or disagree with. I can very easily do something similar with Christie, for example from the other side. But I'd lump simply calling her that at the same level of insulting Christie's weight. You might be able to pull it off if you're very, very nimble about it and making a joke somehow, but the way it's being done here should be below the dignity of decent human beings.

 

That is all I heard about Christie until the bridge-gate

[Reddy]

If he were interested in giving me a list of examples as to why he thinks her personality would not be well suited to the role of president as defined in his mind, that's something I'd be willing to listen to and perhaps agree or disagree with. I can very easily do something similar with Christie, for example from the other side. But I'd lump simply calling her that at the same level of insulting Christie's weight. You might be able to pull it off if you're very, very nimble about it and making a joke somehow, but the way it's being done here should be below the dignity of decent human beings.

this has been my point with greg re: Hillary for a long time.

[greg775]

If he were actually interested in making an intelligent point, there's one that could actually be made. Hillary may be the early front-runner but he's correct in that she has given us no real obvious policy statements as of yet, there's no real "here's what we'll get done if you elect me", or even a "here's a decision I was right about that the rest of you f***ed up".

 

IN 2008 there were both of those. The Democrats were debating what they'd do with health care, and at least 1 candidate got to say "the rest of you totally f***ed up the most important international vote of the last several decades, the Iraq debacle". Being able to say that was definitely a key aspect in how that election turned out, and there was a big policy point to deal with.

 

Thus far, Mrs. Clinton has not laid out a justification for a candidacy and has not spelled out any specific thing that she would focus on getting done. The counter-point of course is that at this point, virtually no legitimate candidate has done so because we're nearly 3 years away from the election day so there's time to do those things. But either way, that is a valid point..."why are we electing this person" is a legitimate question right now.

 

Instead we get borderline misogynist, ad-hominem bullcrap. That type of line is beneath a decent person.

 

I agree with your points on Hillary. Your first paragraph is what I'm trying to say as well as the insinuations about her personality that appeared in that book or that long article that people posted on here.

[greg775]

Just out of curiosity. Does Hillary even have a reason to run except that people say it's "her turn?" And she "deserves the office?"

 

Does she have any vision? Does she have any burning desire to lead? Does she have any big-time goals she hopes to accomplish for our once-great land?

Not that I've seen. I see this as a coronation of Hillary. Like she simply deserves this office for being Hillary. Never heard anything like this before.

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm not sure how much of her platform from 2008 is relevant given that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will both be over by the end of 2016 and the other major issue, health care reform, was passed.

 

edit: but it is May 2014. there is still plenty of time for campaign issues to emerge and for the major platform planks to be established. We didn't have the global financial collapse to deal with until a couple of months before the 2008 election.

Edited May 30, 2014 by StrangeSox

[EvilMonkey]

Just out of curiosity. Does Hillary even have a reason to run except that people say it's "her turn?" And she "deserves the office?"

 

Does she have any vision? Does she have any burning desire to lead? Does she have any big-time goals she hopes to accomplish for our once-great land?

Not that I've seen. I see this as a coronation of Hillary. Like she simply deserves this office for being Hillary. Never heard anything like this before.

She is a career politician. Run or die.

[greg775]

She is a career politician. Run or die.

I thought her "husband" was the career politician. It should be very interesting to see her demeanor during the primaries. Will she embark on a rigorous traveling schedule or just assume Americans will vote for her in a landslide no matter what and not even campaign hard? At her age, if she wants to get after it and go stump all over the country, wow, I guess more power to her.

Edited May 31, 2014 by greg775

[StrangeSox]

I'm pretty sure that Hillary Clinton is aware that she can be beaten in a hard-fought presidential primary.