Subscribe via RSS Feed

Of Course, Election Results Are Also Skewed By the Liberal Media

[ 65 ] September 25, 2012 |

I wonder if the “UnSkewed Polls” hack is the same guy who was doing the Real Clear Politics projections that showed California, Illinois, Washington, and Michigan leaning Bush in 2000. And didn’t a similar essay arguing that skewed polls were obscuring an inevitable McCain victory make the wingnut rounds in 2008?

Comments (65)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Malaclypse says:

    I assumed it was JenBob.

    • Robert Farley says:

      Speaking of which, has JenBob been in evidence lately? I haven’t been paying close enough attention. TK421 appears to have given up the ghost.

      • Malaclypse says:

        I’m kind of saddened by the idea that we won’t be able to mock Jennie over Mitten’s recent implosions.

        • Robert Farley says:

          Maybe I’ll have a post about it later, but this really misunderstands the JenBob phenomenon.

          Given that it’s become reasonably clear (or at least that the evidence increasingly tends to favor) that JenBob and TK421 were the same person, it’s also clear that the point of the trolling had little, if anything, to do with ideological conviction. As JFL has argued, it’s conceptually possible that Jen/bob/tk was a paid operative; I don’t buy it, but it could be. But if s/he wasn’t, then it’s obvious that the trolling was the point.

          People may have thought that the awesome quip that they had come up with would JUST DESTROY poor JenBob, or make his/her head explode, or whatever. But that was never true, and it was never going to be true. JenBob won when you decided to hit “submit reply”; the actual matter of the response was utterly irrelevant. There was no way to make JenBob cry, or feel bad, or feel stupid, or feel inadequate; s/he was winning whenever you thought you were doing those things.

          Such is trolling. I just wish that fewer people fell for it.

          • NonyNony says:

            Exactly. Trolls are not there for anything other than their own amusement. And what amuses them is pissing people off. I always kick myself when I get roped into responding to a troll because I know it’s exactly what they want.

            I had a “friend” who enjoyed trolling USENET back in the day and he’d laugh and laugh about how he could have two different sockpuppets going at a time from two different accounts spouting exactly the opposite crap on a forum and he could get all sorts of people mad at him. Didn’t matter what it was about – politics, gender issues, movies, comic books, you name it – he could figure out a way to piss people off and laugh about it. Not a nice guy, and once I knew what he was doing suddenly all of the trolls I’d ever run across made sense in a twisted sort of way.

            • timb says:

              So, by this standard, Manju is not a troll, because, although wrong, he is trying to make a point?

              Or, is there lesser trolling and greater trolling? I enjoy arguing with conservatives on their sites, but, since I stick to the subject of the post, I don’t consider it trolling

              • firefall says:

                I wouldn’t class him as a troll, at all – he’s not trolling, he’s just expressing honest & apparently heartfelt opinions, whatever you (or I) might think of them.

              • djangermous says:

                Or, is there lesser trolling and greater trolling?

                Kind of but trolls like the ones Nony mentions are always and forever completely bullshitting themselves about how invested they are in the argument / people’s reactions and the views they’re expressing and trolls like Manju or whoever are bullshitting themselves about how much their passion for their ‘sincere’ views is motivated by the sheer thrill of being an idiot so it’s a pretty meaningless distinction.

              • Bijan Parsia says:

                I think it’s important to distinguish a troll from someone who sometimes trolls or trolling as an activity. The goals of a pure troll is to generate activity per se, not to make any point. Some people function similarly because they are stubborn and very wrong and energetic about posting. They derail as much as a troll, but they aren’t doing so for the sake of the activity.

                My last two interactions with Manju had frustrating aspects (esp. the Closing one), but there did seem to be some substantive work done by Manju and a bit of progress. It could be very sophisticated trolling, but at that level it’s indistinguishable from world view divergence + ineptness.

                Or take my recent megathread with tt. I learned something (slowly, very slowly) there and while I think tt was very bad at explaining things and in drawing out implications (though I might be wrong there), they kept their cool even when I was grouchy. That we SUCK as interlocutors is a different problem. (I post waaaay too much in such threads, for example.)

          • I never said “paid.” Remember the Red State Strike Force?

          • djangermous says:

            JenBob won when you decided to hit “submit reply”

            Malaclypse also won when he decided to hit “submit reply”. He won the pleasure of mocking the idiotic statements of an idiotic person.

            “But no see because this idiotic person was making those idiotic statements ON PURPOSE, because he WANTS people to tell him that he’s an idiot”

            Well, all right then.

      • NonyNony says:

        The Romney campaign is low on funds, so the micropayments to Mechanical Turk to pay trolls have probably been removed from the budget.

        Actually have either of them been around since the “look these guys have the same IP address” post a few weeks ago?

        • firefall says:

          How in the name of FSM can Romney’s campaign be short of money? Almost all he does is fund-raising, and he’s drawing from the deepest pockets in the nation.

      • Keaaukane says:

        To quote the famous Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz, Gee, I hope something terrible happened to him.

        And on the topic of the Romney gaffe-a-matic 3000, when are we getting a thread about whether the Avro Arrow had roll up windows?

  2. Cody says:

    I take this as a very bad sign. It’s just prep work for when they steal another election. Now after they demand a recount after Romney wins Florida (on the flimsy evidence not a single minority vote was counted), the pundits will just point to this poll revealing Romney was expected to win!

    After removing all the dead people from voter rolls and polls (known by the liberal media as black, hispanic, or female voters), Romney has a decisive advantage over Obama.

  3. RedSquareBear says:

    This speaks to a popular and deeply dangerous mindset in the American Right.

    By defining themselves as the Real American Majority they have defined any electoral failure as an electoral fraud.

    It follows from this that no elected Democrat can be a legitimate winner, and therefore the Rightist has no obligation to the government, since it it definitionally illegitimate.

    This is not spin or hackery, this is psychosis.

    I am terribly concerned about the potential for political violence from the Right if (when, it certainly looks like) Obama wins a second term.

    • RedSquareBear says:

      *since it is definitionally illegitimate

    • DocAmazing says:

      The Right needs to realize that many of us on the Left are not unarmed pacifists.

      • mark f says:

        The right believes that we’re all unarmed “pussified” pacifists . . . who are just itching to go all Pol Pot on them.

        • SamR says:

          Yep. Though I’ve actually found the cognitive dissonance, effectively presented, does throw some righties for a loop.

          When they complain about Obama, I say, now this week, is he:
          A thug or a pushover
          A wild spender or cutter of Medicare
          Too black or not black enough
          Out of his depth or an evil mastermind
          Too detached or too touchy-feely
          Hostile to business or a crony capitalist

          etc.

          Of course, some will angrily insist that he’s an evil mastermind who’s out of his depth, so it doesn’t always work.

      • DrDick says:

        Indeed, comrade.

        • Cody says:

          Вперед, к победе коммунизма!

          (Forward, to the Victory of Communism for you not-yet fully indoctrinated Obamaists!)

          • DrDick says:

            Not sure what that is supposed to mean, but both Doc and I are well to the left of most here (I am an actual socialist). We are also both armed and neither of us is particularly thrilled with Obama, whose primary charm is that he is not nearly as bad as the alternative.

            • wengler says:

              I think most people don’t think through the full implications of some sort of ideological civil war.

              It might be marginally important to have a fair amount of small arms and a couple thousand rounds of ammunition at the beginning of an armed conflict, but from then on you are dependent on organization, affiliation and the ability to both get better, more lethal weapons and continue supplying your side with the necessary items of war.

              If you are isolated in some rightwing area of the country, you are better off pretending to be one of them or you’ll be killed very quickly. And vice versa.

              Of course in the American context, the military would likely quickly crush any rebellion. There might be a superficial hatred of the federal government, but the people of this country have a greater loyalty to it than anything else when the bullets start flying.

            • You? Sure. But I reject outright the notion that Doc “I got mine in my blue state so people in red states can just go fuck themselves” Amazing is to the left of the median regular commenter (or blogger) here. His/her “leftier-than-thou”ism is always and everywhere a matter of intraparty tribalism, not anything that could be chalked up as leftist ideology.

            • Cody says:

              This is a reference to the Breitbart Article about Obama’s new “Forward Slogan”.

              I just took it to the extreme when you said Comrade, which I’m sure they’ll recognize as a phrase from Soviet Russia.

              The Obamaist comment is just reflecting how anyone who votes for him is just taking the country to Soviet Russia (or Mao Zedong China, depending on the mood of the day)!

    • Holden Pattern says:

      It’s not just endemic to movement conservatism. Supposedly “neutral” observers like pollsters and reporters will say things like “Dems can’t win without [insert Dem demographic vote here -- including things like "urban voters", i.e., people who live in cities]. They literally never say “Republicans can’t win without wealthy white exurban men”.

      Because wealthy white men who live in cul-de-sac McMansions are RealAmericans, and everyone else is suspect. It’s baked into the worldview of the political elites.

    • Leeds man says:

      I was more alarmed in 2008, when the phrase “by any means necessary” popped up regularly in wingnut blogs. Very sinister*.

      *A word I hate, as a left-handed socialist, but whattayagonnado?

    • Thlayli says:

      Nothing new here. Think of 1960 (“the Chicago mob delivered Illinois to Kennedy”) or of 1992 (“every Perot vote was a lost Bush vote”).

  4. ThresherK says:

    Can we predict the Confidence Con Tour ’12, wherein the GOP standard-bearer goes to CA and NJ?

    Our Librul Media was stupid enough to not laugh at it in 2000.

  5. Robert Farley says:

    The 2008 equivalent was from Zomblog; she deduced that Obama’s polling advantage was due to nefarious MSM efforts to demoralize McCain supporters and throw the election to the Usurper. Can’t find link.

    When Obama won by more or less the predicted amount, she deduced that the nefarious plan had been successful.

    In fairness, there were certainly some parallels to this sort of wishful thinking in 2004, but it was generally more of the “if Kerry is within 2 points, we can expect undecideds to break for the challenger” variety, rather than of the grand-MSM-conspiracy to keep Bush in office. Turns

    • Thlayli says:

      Ah yes, “Kerry is a closer”. I remember it well.

      • PUT THE COFFEE DOWN, KERRY!

      • SamR says:

        Don’t forget our “unpolled cellphone user!” delusion.

        What’s interesting is that I actually think Kerry closed pretty well. Certainly he crushed Bush in the debates. (I’m also of the opinion that Gore’s mannerisms did undermine his substantive win of the debates over Bush by making him seem like a jerk).

        What’s amazing about Kerry’s ultimate loss is that you’d think that Bush stealing an election would matter to a good number of independent voters and maybe even a few GOPers who would otherwise vote for him. Apparently not.

        • Leeds man says:

          I’m also of the opinion that Gore’s mannerisms did undermine his substantive win of the debates

          Of course, this is centuries ago in Intertoobs time, but my impression is that he won the hearts of the masses until the media started yakking about eye-rolling, etc. Similar to popular reaction to Carter’s speech until the media introduced “malaise” to the discourse.

    • NonyNony says:

      I remember in 2004 many liberal friends who were sure that the polls were wrong because they were skewed old and Republican because of cell phones and that Kerry was going to sweep up that difference and win despite the polls.

      I’d say that this was similar, but none of them decided to put up a website dedicated to pushing that idea. It was more of a hopeful dream once they realized that Bush really was probably going to win it for reals that time.

      (The crazy liberal conspiracy in circles I ran in at the time was more along the lines of “Bush will fake a terrorist attack and declare martial law so he can keep the presidency forever”. Which truly was crazy – Bush obviously hated being President. It was hard work. He loved campaigning, though – that was fun. He’s the last guy who would want to be President for Life.)

      • Cody says:

        Crazy ideas like that gain some traction when you consider he sued a State to stop them from finding out how many people REALLY voted. Thus he literally stole an election via the SCOTUS.

        How far off is becoming a dictator!

        • NonyNony says:

          A lot.

          As I said to my friends – being a dictator in the US would be hard work for almost no benefit. You’d be constantly fighting to keep your position, and you’d always have to worry about assassinations. And what would you gain out of it? You’d have to be the President for the rest of your life. You’d be in charge, but that means that you’d be in charge. Of all of it. For the rest of your life (until you got shot by an assassin’s bullet) you would have to be the guy making all of those decisions.

          There are some men that that would appeal to. George W Bush is not one of those men. Dick Nixon was one. George HW Bush maybe if the circumstances were right. Dick Cheney absolutely if the circumstances were right. But not George W Bush. By the middle of his second term it was pretty obvious that he hated the job so much that he might have actually paid good money to retire early if there were some way to do it without destroying any legacy he was hoping to leave even as late as 2006.

          • NBarnes says:

            The degree to which Bush Jr. checked out after the 2006 midterms, frankly, appalled me. Man runs for the most powerful elected office in the world, wins twice, starts horrible destructive wars, and then can’t be arsed to DO THE GODDAMN JOB. If he’d made any gestures at all towards fixing the problems he’d created out of the whole cloth, I might forgive him a little. But, clearly, he had every intention of letting every single gigantic disaster of his presidency fester and grow worse for two years before he could escape into retirement.

            It’s not just a failure of leadership, it’s cowardice, pure and simple. The man is, and was, a coward.

            • timb says:

              I was listening to a talk show on NPR the other day and James Glassman, who has the enviable job of running the Bush library (only one coloring book; never opened) indignantly indicated that even if Bush had been invited the Republican National Convention, he would have refused to go.

              “He has no interest in politics.”

              I nodded in agreement and thought he hadn’t since Katrina

              • Reilly says:

                I hope Glassman’s allowed shelf space for his own 1999 tour de force of irrational exuberance, Dow 36,000. Perhaps displayed between a photo of Bush under the Mission Accomplished banner, and a bust of Cheney with the inscription We Will Be Greeted As Liberators.

  6. thusbloggedanderson says:

    Of Course, Election Results Are Also Skewed By the Liberal Media

    No, no, Scott – by liberal *voters*.

    A problem which the voter-ID folks are working to correct.

  7. LosGatosCA says:

    When on a mission from the conservative Republican TeaBagger god of mercenary interests pilgrims can never fail, they can only be betrayed, defrauded, or victimized by Satanically influenced heathens or the Devil himself.

    What don’t atheistic, pacifistic, immoral Democratic constituents not understand?

  8. Davis says:

    I wonder if this guy is wiling to put his money where his mouth is. I’m willing to place a Romney-sized bet that he’s wrong (again).

    The right seems to be really losing their shit over these polls. Look out if Obama wins as appears likely.

  9. Jestak says:

    I remember that back in 1988, the execrable Hugh Hewitt along with a couple of his guest-bloggers kept insisting, with no factual basis, that the polls were wrong and that McCain was actually ahead.

  10. Sure, he’s riding high now, but the day after Election Day, this guy’s career is over. All of his right-wing readers will think, “This guy completely steered me wrong. Why should I ever listen to him aga…”

    Bwah ha ha ha haaaa! Hewwwwwww! Ah, man. Heh.

    I almost made it all the way to the end.

  11. Mrs Tilton says:

    Bookmark it, libs.

  12. calling all toasters says:

    Am I in the right place for the secret ACORN meeting?

  13. [...] (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];}Just a brief set of additional points on the poll skewing theory, which I understand to be that a wide array of polling organizations (excluding Rasmussen and [...]

  14. Rip says:

    In October 2008, the wingers were insisting that the Bradley effect meant people were telling pollsters they would vote for Obama so as not to appear racist, but were actually going to vote for McCain.

    Then as now you also had the sheer disbelief crowd, who don’t concern themselves with why or how the polls are skewed, they just know there is no way the country will vote for Obama (again).

    The reason for the party ID gap in the polling is the same as the reason , Romney is sometimes faring better with “independents”. A lot of Tea Partiers call themselves independent not Republican.

  15. [...] days ago in these very pages, discussion ensued regarding the latest conservative attempt to rewrite reality through re-weighting polls to one guy’s liking.  Of course, polling is not an exact science, [...]

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site