Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[barton]

Good fucking Lord...

https://twitter.com/CRTV/status/1029847045140619265

I know.  People on Twitter all sound like rabid bigoted extremists.   Glad you noticed how toxic that is.

[NeedsAdjustments]

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1029749433129492480

Heh

WISH IT and ya neva know

[oilcan]

FiveThirtyEight blog

In 2010, Nate Silver of The New York Times’ blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article "Is Rasmussen Reports biased?", in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias. However, later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect." He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model, and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.

After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model. FiveThirtyEight currently rates Rasmussen Reports with a C+ grade and notes a simple average error of 5.3 percent across 657 polls analyzed.

Jonathan Chait

Jonathan Chait of the New Republic said that Rasmussen is perceived in the "conservative world" as "the gold standard" and suggested the polling company asks the questions specifically to show public support for the conservative position. They cited an example when Rasmussen asked "Should the government set limits on how much salt Americans can eat?" when the issue was whether to limit the amount of salt in pre-processed food.

  - Wikipedia article, "Rasmussen Poll"

There are a few reasons to be skeptical about the Rasmussen result.
* Rasmussen surveys "likely voters" in their daily approval polls. They argue it gives them a more accurate reading of the actual voting electorate -- and certainly a more accurate one than polling firms that test all adults. The problem, according to Agiesta, is that we have no real idea of how Rasmussen decides who a "likely voter" is. Is it based on the 2016 election? 2012? Some combo? Rasmussen won't say. (Here's what Rasmussen does say about its samples.)
* Rasmussen used an automated voice (as opposed to a real, live person) to conduct their polls. They are, therefore, barred by law from contacting people on cell phones. People who only use cell phones tend to be younger and more diverse than those who have landlines. And younger, more diverse voters have heavily favored Democrats in recent elections.
* Rasmussen doesn't disclose how they conduct the telephone portion of their surveys. (They also do an online poll as a supplement to their phone results, which is a whole other problem.) Most pollsters use a technique called random digit dialing, which is exactly what it sounds like, to build a representative sample. Others -- particularly partisan pollsters -- poll off a privately maintained voter file. (More on that here.) Which one does Rasmussen use? We don't know if they use either -- or some other way to develop a random sample of the public -- because they don't release details on how they do it.
There are other, even more technical and nerdy reasons why you should be somewhat skeptical of Rasmussen, but you get the idea. In an industry in which transparency is the name of the game, Rasmussen just doesn't show very much of how they do what they do. That's not to say what they do is wrong; it's only to say we have no way of knowing how closely they adhere to accepted polling standards.

  - CNN, April 17, 2017, Chris Cillizza

[REDSTATEWARD]

NYU becomes first Medical School to go tuition free, thanks to private fundraising.
 https://www.wsj.com/articles/nyu-offers-full-tuition-scholarships-for-all-medical-students-1534433082?mod=hp_lead_pos4

[barton]

Now, if all those nice rich people will just donate to all the other colleges that are in need of such a program, then all kinds of problems will be solved without the need of that silly federal government.  Of course, if you happen to be born in the millennium in which that glorious Noblesse Oblige hasn't happened, be sure you pick a womb in New York. 


Oil:  Over a period of years, I have pointed out to Kid8 the problems at Rasmussen - leading questions, automated polling over landlines only, lack of transparency on polling criteria, Scott Rasmussen's close ties to GOP campaigns, concealing their "likely voter" filter, etc.  Because he is intellectually dishonest, and has zero respect for the value of real discussion of issues, he has never responded to any of these points, and I doubt he ever will.  The mortar that holds the cement blocks of Trump's base together is ignorance and unwillingness to join in real debate based on facts.  The natural posture of their minds is:  entrenchment. 

[REDSTATEWARD]

Of course, if you happen to be born in the millennium in which that glorious Noblesse Oblige hasn't happened, be sure you pick a womb in New York. 

A trend-spotter you are not.

[barton]

Meanwhile....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/opinion/john-brennan-trump-russia-collusion-security-clearance.html

Probably not, like, a trend or anything....

[FlyingVProd]

There are a lot of damaged people in the world. And we have some mentally ill people in our White House. 

We need more love and kindness in the world, and we need to come from a place of abundance. And the good people must stand up against evil. 

Salute,

Tony V. 

[kiidcarter8]

Comey's been out of the news - looks to get to the top of the chopping block

https://twitter.com/Comey/status/1029893474269777920

[barton]

Kid,  with all due respect:

I don't read Twitter anymore.  If news of Mr. Comey appears in...

Reuters
Washington Post
AP news
The Guardian
The Hill
LA Times
Toronto Star
National Review

....then I will read the quote.   Or,  if you want more eyeballs on such posts,  simply quote the tweet in the text of your post.   That way,  readers can grasp what your attached comment is about.

[LarryBnDC]

Kid,  with all due respect:

I don't read Twitter anymore.  If news of Mr. Comey appears in...

Reuters
Washington Post
AP news
The Guardian
The Hill
LA Times
Toronto Star
National Review

....then I will read the quote.   Or,  if you want more eyeballs on such posts,  simply quote the tweet in the text of your post.   That way,  readers can grasp what your attached comment is about.

Chopping block? As in having clearance revoked? If that’s what you mean then that ship sailed when Comey got fired. Same for McCabe.

Do you realize what you’re rooting for?

[NeedsAdjustments]

Do you realize what you’re rooting for?

He's rooting for Trump over Democracy, and is proud of it.

Hasn't than been obvious for a while now?

[LarryBnDC]

Do you realize what you’re rooting for?

He's rooting for Trump over Democracy, and is proud of it.

Hasn't than been obvious for a while now?

I really hope his kids love him but think his politics suck.

[LarryBnDC]

Hard times befallen
The Soul Survivors...

[kiidcarter8]

Kid,  with all due respect:

I don't read Twitter anymore.  If news of Mr. Comey appears in...

Reuters
Washington Post
AP news
The Guardian
The Hill
LA Times
Toronto Star
National Review

....then I will read the quote.   Or,  if you want more eyeballs on such posts,  simply quote the tweet in the text of your post.   That way,  readers can grasp what your attached comment is about.

Chopping block? As in having clearance revoked? If that’s what you mean then that ship sailed when Comey got fired. Same for McCabe.

Do you realize what you’re rooting for?

I dont root.

Except maybe a little on election day