Is the Media pulling a Kerry with Romney?

[IAmError403]

@Dick_Dastardly

She entertains me. I wanted to see her have to answer some more tough questions, like what newspapers do you read. And we need entertaining to mitigate the whole GOP fail parade that’s currently being inflicted on us.

I think she should be investigated for all that PAC money she received. Shouldn’t it be fraud to accept donations for a campaign when you know you won’t be running? Does she have any intentions of giving that PAC money to another candidate?

Don’t Republicans believe in earning what you get? If she’s not running for office and seems to be keeping the PAC money for herself, she has been essentially asking for handouts.

Sarah Palin, the biggest e-beggar of them all.

[mlees]

@IAmError403

I think she should be investigated for all that PAC money she received. Shouldn’t it be fraud to accept donations for a campaign when you know you won’t be running? Does she have any intentions of giving that PAC money to another candidate?

Don’t Republicans believe in earning what you get? If she’s not running for office and seems to be keeping the PAC money for herself, she has been essentially asking for handouts.

Sarah Palin, the biggest e-beggar of them all.

I dunno. If they gave her money before she decided whether she will run or not, then they were just idiots. I don’t think it should be illegal to be an idiot.

[TriPolar]

@Marley23

I don’t think they sound contradictory, I think they are contradictory. Why aren’t they? Analysts make all kinds of incorrect predictions, I agree, and I think they should get out of that game and cut way down on the revolving door between politics and political talkshows. But you can’t say at the same time that they choose the candidates for the public and then criticize them for being wrong in their predictions all the time.

I’ll clarify. What I wrote was contradictory, but not what I intended to express.

@Marley23

I am not sure how popular he is in Texas right now, and I agree the press has a habit of treating every state governor (or even ex-governor!) as if he or she is universally popular. I’ve heard it said they did that with Pawlenty, and Chris Christie’s popularity in New Jersey is not what it was, either. But I’m not sure where you’re getting that “he won a majority in a heavily divided election.” The 2010 election was not that close- he won by about 55 percent to 42 percent. Maybe not a landslide, but a clear win. He’s in his third term now. That does sound like a fairly accurate reading of the 2006 election, which he won in a four-way race, 39%-30%-18%-12%.

Yes he took advantage of a 3way in 2006. But I understand Bill White(?) wasn’t a popular candidate among the Democrats for some reason and divided that end of the spectrun, and Perry was a less than ideal default for the Republicans. I’ve heard several times that Texans were voting against his opponent more than for him (but that’s how the presidential election may turn out next year). I should look up the turnout in 2010 to resolve that. If there was average or higher turnout, it would have to be called a clean win. I don’t recall who his first opponent was for governor, but I think he won that one big. I think he’s already lost in the primaries unless Romney screws up big time, which is unlikely considering how low the bar is.

@astorian

Sigh… you people just can’t let go of Sarah Palin. She isn’t President, isn’t Vice Presdient, isn’t even governor of Alaska, and isn’t running for any office. But you STILL want to pretend she matters.

That was a joke. I do find her to have entertainment value. I wouldn’t put it past her to try and run as an independent or write in candidate somehow, just to keep the money flowing in. She doesn’t matter to the big picture. But since we’re discussing media in this thread, she’s an example of the media problem. No credibility as a candidate, but attractive for ratings, they called her a player the whole time. Don’t expect to see her disappear from view. They’ll scramble the newsvans where ever she goes, and the footage will end up as part of the national news even as she spouts gibberish.

And when addressing her, she’s technically the half governor of alaska forever.

[GIGObuster]

@Sage_Rat

It’s only vital in the sense that you may be performing a test that is less thorough than what has been done before, or simply recreating something which has been done before to a sufficient extent.

If your test is a far better test than what’s been done before, then all’s well.

The critiques you mention don’t point out any methodological issues that would lead to the results being wrong, unless data was cherry picked – like that they chose years from the input materials that (for whatever random reason) skewed the results in a particular direction. But there’s no evidence that they did so. Like I said, it may just be that those were the materials that they had available to them.

You’ve pointed out the existence of other genuine, peer-reviewed studies which have been done that came to a different conclusion. But I haven’t seen the actual studies. You linked me to the top page of a journal’s website. I don’t know what methodology was used, and whether it seems like it was a better or worse test. They might just have sent surveys out to news reporters asking them whether they tried to stay objective. Well it wouldn’t be much of a surprise if those all came back as “yes”, but it’s not much of a test.

Ultimately, complaining that Groseclose & Milyo could have put wider search terms into the computer at the library is all well and dandy, but it doesn’t change much. Either the test is a reasonable test, or it isn’t and there’s something better. Show me the better test and I’ll support it as the stronger test.

Not very sage to dismiss then if you haven’t look at the research first, the point was that it was there and Groseclose & Milyo did not bother to check past research like that.

Elite cues and media bias in presidential campaigns

And you are still ignoring what the Political Scientist at Duke University
said about Groseclose/Milyo methods:

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

In short, the underlying assumption is that, if the press is unbiased, then media outlets will cite think tanks in news reporting in a fashion that is “balanced” with respect to the scores assigned to the groups based on Congressional citations. Any deviation from the mean ADA score of Congress is defined as “bias.” But is that a fair assumption?

In particular, the paper’s methodology doesn’t allow for two important potential differences between the processes generating news citations and floor speech citations:

(1) Technocratic centrist to liberal organizations like Brookings and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities tend to have more credentialed experts with peer-reviewed publications than their conservative counterparts. This may result in a greater number of citations by the press, which seeks out expert perspectives on the news, but not more citations by members of Congress, who generally seek out views that reinforce their own.

To illustrate, assume that there are two kinds of political stories. In the first, the press interviews think tank experts about policy debates in a “he said, she said” framework. We’ll stipulate that these stories have an identical distribution of citations to that of Congress. But let’s also assume the press is expected to consult technical experts or scholarship about trends or recent developments they are reporting on according to the norms of journalism, and that under such norms these experts, when they are cited, are not always “balanced” by an opposing expert. As a result, “expert” think tank citations are less frequently set off with a balancing quote or argument from the other side.

It follows from these premises that if there are more generally recognized technical experts on left-to-center side of the spectrum, then a study using the Groseclose/Milyo methodology would place the media on the Democratic side of the Congressional mean even if members of the press randomly chose technical experts to cite.

(2) The Groseclose/Milyo methodology doesn’t allow for differential rates of productivity in producing work of interest to the media or Congress between organizations. To the extent that a think tank is better at marketing itself to the press than Congress (or vice versa), it could skew the results. For instance, the Heritage Foundation is extremely close to conservative members of Congress and has an elaborate operation designed to put material into their hands. But the fact that these members end up citing Heritage more than the press does is not ipso facto proof that the media is liberal.

In fact, there are a number of stories you can tell about why a media/Congress discrepancy in think tank citation would not necessarily imply ideological bias on the part of members of the elite media (including those listed above) and if any of them are true, the argument as stated does not hold.

Besides the doing incomplete research (looking at past published papers in the subject is one of the basic steps in the scientific method) and relying on biased citations, Groseclose/Milyo’s results do not look reliable when the Washington Times appears as leaning liberal and the Drudge report appears as centrist.

[PhillyGuy]

I want to respond to the implicit charges of racism made by two posters:

@IAmError403

Cain is… well lets just say… I think some conservatives will abstain for voting entirely if he gets the nomination (draw your own conclusions).

@GIGObuster

They already know that if Cain is the nominee a good number of republicans will not bother to vote . . .

The conventional wisdom is that Cain has no chance due to lack of political experience, being a mediocre fundraiser, and sales taxes being unpopular in New Hampshire. But polling shows that if he does somehow get nominated, he will have his party’s base solidly behind him. See: NBC/WSJ poll: Cain now leads GOP pack

Cain’s numbers are sky-high among Republican primary voters. Fifty-two percent view him favorably, versus just 6 percent who see him unfavorably. Among Tea Party supporters, his favorable/unfavorable score is 69 percent to 5 percent. And among Republicans who identify themselves as “very conservative,” it’s 72 percent to 2 percent.

That last is worth repeating. Just two percent of very conservative Republicans look unfavorably on Cain. They are far more likely to vote against a candidate for being soft on the Affordable Care Act, or on immigration, than they are to abstain because the nominee is running while black.

[GIGObuster]

@PhillyGuy

I want to respond to the implicit charges of racism made by two posters:

:rolleyes:

Although I did laugh at first at your baseless accusation there, the reality is that if Cain becomes the nominee, racism is out as an item in the 2012 election*, and the main reason I think a good number of republicans will sit this down is not racism but the loopiness of the plans of the candidate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/herman-cains-misleading-pitch-for-the-999-plan/2011/10/12/gIQAHszPgL_blog.html?hpid=z2

I do think independents will also not go for Cain once more people become aware of the plan.

*For a fun take on where this realization comes from, check the crazification factor theorem:

Lunch Discussions #145: The Crazification Factor

[PhillyGuy]

@GIGObuster

. . . the main reason I think a good number of republicans will sit this down is not racism but the loopiness of the plans of the candidate.

I should have checked before assuming your idea about “a good number of Republicans” sitting out a Herman Cain candidacy had to do with skin color rather than “the loopiness of the plans.”

Part of my way of thinking, which I thought you might share, but do not, is that Cain meets the key policy requirements of the GOP base much better than do Romney or even Perry. So if the GOP base sat out the race (which I don’t think they would), it would be something personal against Cain.

I think they kindda like loopi, and that Cain’s November problem, if any, would be with swing voters.

[astorian]

@Dick_Dastardly

She entertains me. I wanted to see her have to answer some more tough questions, like what newspapers do you read. And we need entertaining to mitigate the whole GOP fail parade that’s currently being inflicted on us.

If entertainment is all you want, you’re in luck. You don’t NEED Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin lost her bid for the Vice Presidency, but the guy who beat her, the guy who really IS a heartbeat from the Presidency, does and says comically stupid things every ten minutes!

Joe Biden provides all the joke fodder any comedian would ever want. Odd that comedians still prefer to concentrate on an also-ran who doesn’t hold ANY office and isn’t even running for one.

[Marley23]

@astorian

Odd that comedians still prefer to concentrate on an also-ran who doesn’t hold ANY office and isn’t even running for one.

Yes, all she’s doing is minding her own business and driving a Constitution bus through primary states and upstaging other candidates. Why does the press keep making fun of her? She’s a private citizen like Snooki. [Can we talk about something else now?]