2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
CNN hammered for hiring ‘right-wing hack’ who pledged loyalty to Trump as political editor for 2020 campaign


CNN is getting crushed online after

Politico reported Tuesday that it has hired longtime Republican operative Sarah Isgur Flores to be a political editor who will “coordinate political coverage for the 2020 campaign.”

Flores had previously served as a spokeswoman at the Department of Justice under former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the Washington Post reported last year that she had to pledge her loyalty to the president and his agenda as a precondition for getting the job.

“Trump’s advisers knew there was only one way Sessions would be able to hire her: If she kowtowed to Trump,” the Post reported. “So she paid her respects to the president in the Oval Office — a cordial visit during which she told the president she was on board with his agenda and would be honored to serve him.”

Flores, who in the past has worked for Republicans ranging from Trump to Sessions to Mitt Romney to Ted Cruz, also has no experience working in journalism.

IMO this is establishment fighting back . No way Bernie and other progressives will get a fair shake now.

 
Kamala Harris' dad not happy she stereotyped Jamaicans as weed smokers on Breakfast Club. Her Dad's name is apparently Donald J. Harris :lol:



 
If you want to know who Not to vote for, just look at Cable Networks and who they support.

Harris would be at the top of that list. Harry Enten at CNN in particular, is the worst. He seems to think Harris is a leading contender for no other reason than she’s a woman, and one of color, and since women fared well in the midterms that this will magically translate into support for Harris. Meanwhile, he was downplaying Sanders chances this morning because Bernie is currently trailing Biden in NH polls. I get the impression that the large corporations that own these news channels are getting a bit nervous about someone like Sanders or Warren snuffing out their preferred establishment choices.
 
Harris would be at the top of that list. Harry Enten at CNN in particular, is the worst. He seems to think Harris is a leading contender for no other reason than she’s a woman, and one of color, and since women fared well in the midterms that this will magically translate into support for Harris. Meanwhile, he was downplaying Sanders chances this morning because Bernie is currently trailing Biden in NH polls. I get the impression that the large corporations that own these news channels are getting a bit nervous about someone like Sanders or Warren sniffing out their preferred establishment choices.

I saw this even last year.
Look at Morning Joe.
To be expected.
It will be the debates.
That is what will separate the candidates. Substance over name recognition.
 
Harris would be at the top of that list. Harry Enten at CNN in particular, is the worst. He seems to think Harris is a leading contender for no other reason than she’s a woman, and one of color, and since women fared well in the midterms that this will magically translate into support for Harris. Meanwhile, he was downplaying Sanders chances this morning because Bernie is currently trailing Biden in NH polls. I get the impression that the large corporations that own these news channels are getting a bit nervous about someone like Sanders or Warren snuffing out their preferred establishment choices.
Just checked him out on Google search and I immediately want to punch his face.
 
Enten's a good analyst, used to work for 538.
 
Harris would be at the top of that list. Harry Enten at CNN in particular, is the worst. He seems to think Harris is a leading contender for no other reason than she’s a woman, and one of color, and since women fared well in the midterms that this will magically translate into support for Harris. Meanwhile, he was downplaying Sanders chances this morning because Bernie is currently trailing Biden in NH polls. I get the impression that the large corporations that own these news channels are getting a bit nervous about someone like Sanders or Warren snuffing out their preferred establishment choices.

Harry Enten used to work on 538 prediction models and found him great on the 538 podcasts during the 2016 run up. Maybe CNN assigns roles and responsibilities to each? That'd be terrible of course

EDIT: Ubik got there first
 
Harry Enten used to work on 538 prediction models and found him great on the 538 podcasts during the 2016 run up. Maybe CNN assigns roles and responsibilities to each? That'd be terrible of course

EDIT: Ubik got there first

He was decent in his 538 days.

He’s probably “playing to management” at CNN - saying things he knows will be well received by the powers that be.
 
Enten is a nerd who earns his living by crunching numbers. He was sceptical of Trump all the way through so this time over-corrects by following the numbers closely, which is fine.

Most of the data analysts don’t put much stocks on Sanders’s chance, now they can be wrong, but it’s not some nefarious plot going on here.
 
Enten's a good analyst, used to work for 538.

He was easily the nastiest to Bernie then too, going beyond predictions and into permanent snark. It's not some new change at CNN. The friendliest was Clare Malone, I don't know what she's like now.
 
New Election Ordered in North Carolina Race at Center of Fraud Inquiry

RALEIGH, N.C. — The North Carolina election authorities on Thursday ordered a new contest for Congress in the state’s Ninth District after the Republican candidate, confronted by days of evidence that his campaign underwrote an illegal get-out-the-vote effort, abandoned his defense and called for a new vote.

The unanimous ruling by the North Carolina State Board of Elections was a startling — and, for Republicans, embarrassing — turn in a case of political chicanery that convulsed North Carolina.

“It’s become clear to me that the public’s confidence in the Ninth District’s general election has been undermined to an extent that a new election is warranted,” the Republican candidate, Mark Harris, said from the witness stand on Thursday afternoon.

Mr. Harris’s announcement represented an abrupt collapse of the Republican effort to stave off a new vote in the Ninth, which includes part of Charlotte and runs through much of southeastern North Carolina. But the evangelical pastor’s political surrender came only after a damaging 24 hours for Mr. Harris and his allies; just before Mr. Harris called for a new election, he acknowledged that some of his earlier testimony had been “incorrect.”


Although Mr. Harris maintained on Thursday that he did not know, in real-time, about any illegal behavior by L. McCrae Dowless Jr., a campaign contractor, or his workers, witnesses this week depicted an operation that was rife with misconduct, including the completion and collection of absentee ballots. Both actions are illegal in North Carolina, and witnesses said that they had occurred repeatedly.

Mr. Dowless, who refused to testify before the board, has not been charged with any crimes in connection with the 2018 election, nor have any of his workers, who were often friends or relatives with little ideological interest in politics. Prosecutors are examining the operation, though, and are considering whether to bring any criminal cases.


The North Carolina board’s decision will leave the Ninth District in a state of protracted limbo: Already the site of the final unsettled House race of last year’s midterms, the district is now poised to remain without representation in Congress for at least several more months. It was not clear whether Mr. Harris, who had a 905-vote lead over his Democratic rival, Dan McCready, in last year’s election would choose to run in the new election.

 


That's a bizarre and completely silly condition to add that makes that map worthless as anything but garbage click bait. Shame on 538 for putting out that rubbish.

Why not also segment out Hilary voters that only went Hilary because she had already technically won the nomination the day before California, South Dakota, New Mexico, New Jersey, North Dakota and Montana voted (due to super delegates)

To anyone that doesn't think super delegates tipped the balance think about that for a second. I knew tonnes of Bernie supporters in California that didn't even bother voting that day because the establishment had already anointed the winner.

"We’re flattered, @AP, but we've got primaries to win. CA, MT, NM, ND, NJ, SD, vote tomorrow!"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nomination-on-tuesday/?utm_term=.488b816efe8c
 
qSJLk1Y.jpg
 
That's a bizarre and completely silly condition to add that makes that map worthless as anything but garbage click bait. Shame on 538 for putting out that rubbish.

Why not also segment out Hilary voters that only went Hilary because she had already technically won the nomination the day before California, South Dakota, New Mexico, New Jersey, North Dakota and Montana voted (due to super delegates)

To anyone that doesn't think super delegates tipped the balance think about that for a second. I knew tonnes of Bernie supporters in California that didn't even bother voting that day because the establishment had already anointed the winner.

"We’re flattered, @AP, but we've got primaries to win. CA, MT, NM, ND, NJ, SD, vote tomorrow!"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nomination-on-tuesday/?utm_term=.488b816efe8c

I don't see the problem here. It's absolutely a fair argument that Bernie's 2016 campaign benefited from being the only not-Clinton game in town, compared to this year's plethora of viable candidates (including on the left). There were obviously other factors that went against him (superdelegates among them), but these things are not exclusive. It very much is FiveThirtyEight's job to find and describe all of these factors.
 
I don't see the problem here. It's absolutely a fair argument that Bernie's 2016 campaign benefited from being the only not-Clinton game in town, compared to this year's plethora of viable candidates (including on the left). There were obviously other factors that went against him (superdelegates among them), but these things are not exclusive. It very much is FiveThirtyEight's job to find and describe all of these factors.

My problem is its a very dubious category that results from a methodology that is not sound. We really have no way of knowing what this effect even means or how it is relevant in any way to 2020. Attempting to measure "never HRC voters" and then extrapolating to conclude its now "harder for Bernie" is simply not valid logic either.

Clinton's campaign also benefited from being the only game in town as well as having hte establishment stack the deck in her favor and bully others. Its not good research to only segment out one aspect and not even recognize the others.

For instance in 2016 I would have counted in their survey as a "never hilary" voter. But then they are now trying to draw imaginary conclusions about my behavior that would be completely false because they insert these silly implications that people only voted for Bernie because they hated HRC. This is really just psuedo-science click bait

This contrasts massively with the effect of super delegates like my map shows. See unlike the much more arbitrary map 538 regurgitated, showing how 6 states (including ones with significant delegates like California and New Jersey) voted after the election was already technically decided by super delegates is nothing but facts with no subjective projection needed.

To show how super-delegates essentially made six states entirely meaningless (none of their votes mattered at all) doesn't rely on speculation or subjective methodology. Six states literally had their primary vote rendered completely meaningless. There is no value to that 538 map whatsoever unlike mapping out the power of superdelegate in pre-selecting Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Fox News running a 'Sanders owns 3 houses and earns a million dollars a year' hit piece. Alright cnuts

He raised 6 million USD in the first day announcing. The establishment is scared and all trying to discredit him any way they can
 
My problem is its a very dubious category that results from a methodology that is not sound. We really have no way of knowing what this effect even means or how it is relevant in any way to 2020. Attempting to measure "never HRC voters" and then extrapolating to conclude its now "harder for Bernie" is simply not valid logic either.

Clinton's campaign also benefited from being the only game in town as well as having hte establishment stack the deck in her favor and bully others. Its not good research to only segment out one aspect and not even recognize the others.

For instance in 2016 I would have counted in their survey as a "never hilary" voter. But then they are now trying to draw imaginary conclusions about my behavior that would be completely false because they insert these silly implications that people only voted for Bernie because they hated HRC. This is really just psuedo-science click bait

This contrasts massively with the effect of super delegates like my map shows. See unlike the much more arbitrary map 538 regurgitated, showing how 6 states (including ones with significant delegates like California and New Jersey) voted after the election was already technically decided by super delegates is nothing but facts with no subjective projection needed.

To show how super-delegates essentially made six states entirely meaningless (none of their votes mattered at all) doesn't rely on speculation or subjective methodology. Six states literally had their primary vote rendered completely meaningless. There is no value to that 538 map whatsoever unlike mapping out the power of superdelegate in pre-selecting Clinton.

Honestly, I don't think you even read the article. Which is supported by the part where you refer to "that 538 map". If you read the actual article, it should be clear that they don't "not even recognize the others". And for that matter, so what if they did? Every FiveThirtyEight article isn't going to cover every subject. This one in particular is about the people who indicated that a major reason for why they voted Bernie was that they didn't want to vote for Hillary.

Also, of course Clinton's campaign also benefited from that. They never said it didn't. But this article isn't about the Clinton campaign, because the Clinton campaign doesn't exist. It goes without saying that if she were running, they would have articles and maps and graphs explaining how the wealth of candidates would make the 2020 nomination path (or: map) more difficult than the 2016 was.

You're tilting at windmills here.
 
Honestly, I don't think you even read the article. Which is supported by the part where you refer to "that 538 map". If you read the actual article, it should be clear that they don't "not even recognize the others". And for that matter, so what if they did? Every FiveThirtyEight article isn't going to cover every subject. This one in particular is about the people who indicated that a major reason for why they voted Bernie was that they didn't want to vote for Hillary.

Also, of course Clinton's campaign also benefited from that. They never said it didn't. But this article isn't about the Clinton campaign, because the Clinton campaign doesn't exist. It goes without saying that if she were running, they would have articles and maps and graphs explaining how the wealth of candidates would make the 2020 nomination path (or: map) more difficult than the 2016 was.

You're tilting at windmills here.

Yes I know it comes from some YouGov polling, a site I am not all that impressed with. But I go after Silver because he posted it under his name, it wasn't some guest post by Yougov.

The problem is these articles are not designed to reflect actual reality. They are designed to influence perception. When Silver tweets out that map that has a lot of viral power, far more than the much smaller number of people clicking on the article. I believe that Silver is posting that to subtly undermine Bernie because he personally prefers the establishment. He chooses what statistics to post. There are billions of ways to segment elections if you dial down into self-reporting opinion polling. The fact he chooses to post this instead of something like my map which is based on facts not extrapolations, to me, doesn't indicate impartiality but rather indicates his subtle (perhaps even subconscious but I doubt it) leaning against Bernie.

The problem with this methodology is that it relies on several layers of assumptions. There is no actual data tracking how people voted. They are simply extrapolating from self-reported polling.
 
Yes I know it comes from some YouGov polling, a site I am not all that impressed with. But I go after Silver because he posted it under his name, it wasn't some guest post by Yougov.

I am not talking about YouGov (even though the data is from them), I am talking about the FiveThirtyEight article that the graph comes from.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...vote-what-does-that-mean-for-his-chances-now/

The problem is these articles are not design to reflect actual reality. They are designed to influence things. When Silver tweets out that map that has a lot of viral power, far more than the much smaller number of people clicking on the article. I believe that Silver is posting that to subtly undermine Bernie because he personally prefers the establishment. He chooses what statistics to post. The fact he chooses to post this instead of something like my map, to me, doesn't indicate impartiality but rather indicates his subtle (perhaps even subconscious but I doubt it) leaning against Bernie.

This is conspiracy-theorist level argumentation. It's nonsense not worth engaging, for me, but maybe consider the fact that Silver also recently tweeted that he thought Bernie would have beaten Trump in 2016, and see how that figures into your model.
 
I am not talking about YouGov (even though the data is from them), I am talking about the FiveThirtyEight article that the graph comes from.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...vote-what-does-that-mean-for-his-chances-now/

This is conspiracy-theorist level argumentation. It's nonsense not worth engaging, for me, but maybe consider the fact that Silver also recently tweeted that he thought Bernie would have beaten Trump in 2016, and see how that figures into your model.

Its not a "model" its just an impression I have from reading fivethirtyeight for years, much longer than they were popular. So chill out with the conspiracy theory crap and we can have a non-aggro, non-intense discussion if you want.

Let me try this from a different angle. This whole hashtag NeverHilary thing (its not like this is the only article about it) is taking a phenomenon that was rather specific to 2016 applying data retroactively and then trying to draw conclusions about 2020.

Perhaps you can explain how and why you feel that point is relevant? What information do you think is gained from this? How are you applying the information from this article and map in a useful way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.