That list was insane. Clearly, Jared is the very model of a modern major general.
No, she doesn’t.
thanks for the earworm
Last night’s Maddow report about Trump’s Inauguration Military Parade… fucking brilliant.
I think you need to ask yourself if you understand what the words “lie” and “opinion” mean. You don’t write as if you do.
Maddow was not the only person - including a lot of Republicans - to make the error of assuming that because Clinton was likely to win, she was certain to win. People are bad with probability. There are STILL people who think 538 (which was more bullish on Trump’s chances than anyone else) was wrong - you can find all kinds of articles aying “ZOMG 538 said Clinton would win how were they wrong???” when, in fact, 538 said nothing at all of the sort. They said Clinton would probably win, but Trump had a solid chance of winning. Saying they were wrong is like you saying “So will Mike Trout get a hit in his next at bat?” and me saying “The odds are he won’t, but there’s a pretty decent chance he will,” and then Trout hits a sinhgle and you tell me I was wrong. I would only have been wrong if I’d said “It’s impossible, or damn close to it, for him to get a hit.”
Sam Wang, a very smart man, had to eat a bug over this. Wang spent months criticizing the guy who runs 538, in fact, over this very issue - while 538 always felt Trump had a chance, Wang felt he had no chance. Oops.
But that doesn’t mean Sam Wang was lying. He was just wrong. His prediction model was flawed, and like most people, Wang struggles with uncertainty when his emotions and opinions are in play. Rachel Maddow was just another Sam Wang. I suspect she got her predictions from him, in fact.
RM’s predictions weren’t substantively different from pretty much everyone else’s, as you say. Her sin, such as it was, was being insufferably smug about the validity of her predictions. That’s not lying; that’s just being annoying. And as many people have noted, that’s what makes her difficult to watch. It’s unfortunate, but common in that cable news format that is used so often these days.
This is all too funny. Thanks for all the laughs. See you back in shared reality some day?
I wholeheartedly agree, but I suspect Rachel Maddow is insufferably smug when she orders a bagel with cream cheese.
Honestly, I don’t know why anyone would watch her except to affirm things they already believe. For all that she `explains’ things, her signal to noise ratio is really, really low.
“insufferably smug” is when it’s directed at you. When it’s directed at the other guys, that same smugness can be very sufferable indeed.
I’m guessing when people praise her for explaining things. it’s (for the most part) not that they personally feel their own understanding is enhanced. It’s that they feel she made a very compelling case as to why her (and their) position is correct, such that many misguided people who failed to understand the issue would come to the true understanding via her “explanation”. But again, that’s a guess - I’ve never seen her show.
She does tend to repeat herself a bit much sometimes. That said, the details she provides are both interesting and insightful. Also, I’ve not seen the Trump military parade story until she featured it on her show. So while it wasn’t 'Breaking NEWS", it was interesting, and funny, and unexpected as far as news that wasn’t part of any other 24 hour news media cycle.
Same for the story detailing the Russian banking actors to the Trump fuck show. It connects names & faces in an otherwise complicated and poorly elucidated story board.
So kudos to RM for finding something new and interesting to report and inform.
Smug, eh?..
And yet, you’ve formed an opinion.
You have not provided answers to the questions I’ve asked of you.
Specifically, assuming you showed your 85-year old mother (who has trouble understanding the scoring on Dancing With the Stars) that video of Rachel Maddow, holding a piece of paper and assuring her viewers (at 0:49 mark) that “this is real polling firm” and “this is legit methodology”, did your mother understand at that point that Rachel Maddow is bullshitting her and is a shameless alt-left propagandist, and not a journalist?
Additionally, when the same Rachel Maddow in the same video claims (from 00:00 to 00:30 mark) that “Even if Donald Trump has the best day ever, he’s still not going to be the President”, did your mother understand at that point that Rachel Maddow is bullshitting her and is a shameless alt-left propagandist, and not a journalist?
As a bonus point, the same video features a young gentleman, apparently a colleage of Rachel, prancing around the screen (from around 03:00 to 05:45 mark), explaining to the viewers how Hillary Clinton is going to win Electoral College by 363 to 175 votes. I don’t know his name (although, reverse-googling reveals that the most appropriate name is probably “Emo Cuck”), but you gotta admire the fact that while prancing, Emo has the sleeves of his shirt all rolled up just to show the viewers how much hard work and factual assesment went into his analyses. Did your mother realize that Emo is bullshitting her and is a shameless alt-left propagandist, and not a journalist?
Not sure what relevance it has here, but sure…
For the past 6 months or so, I’ve been getting my news from Huffington Post. I usually skim their headlines every morning and apply negative operator to it. In other words, if HuffPo reports something, then the opposite is most likely to be true. I started doing that ever since HuffPo published their brilliant Election Forecast giving Hillary Clinton 98% :smack: chance of victory. Their reasoning is flawless: after all, they ran their simulation 10 million(!) times.
Of course, the real process undoubtedly looked like this:
(Some young and eager HuffPo hack): Let’s print this garbage I just typed up and claim Hillary has 100% chance of victory! 110% even!
(Seasoned HuffPo hack): No, no, no. No one would believe that…Let’s just stick with 99% figure. On second thought, let’s be bold and make it 98%. Yep, 98% should do just fine. No one will doubt our objectivity, if we go that low!
(Young and eager HuffPo hack): Yes! Smart, very smart! And we’ll also say that we ran our simulation 100 trillion times! To make it all scientific and stuff!
(Seasoned HuffPo hack): Much learn you have, young padawan… Make it 100 million. Nay, 10 million should be enough.
(Young and eager HuffPo hack): Brilliant! Simply brilliant! You’re really in touch with America, oh Seasoned HuffPo hack!
Here’s some more speculation, for you.
I would speculate that if RM would be careful to note repeatedly that she’s only guessing, and to stress when she’s not personally familiar with what she’s commenting about, that people might not accuse her of being smug.
Wow. Another glurge of right-wing wankery.
Maddow was wrong in her prediction. So were a lot of people. But you accused her of lying. Let’s see your examples.
And really, you need to get over the election. Trump won the electoral count, and Clinton had the higher popular vote count. It’s time to turn your calendar to March, 2017. Trumpcare cratering hard and the Russia involvement are all the rage now.
So, is that a good general guideline, or only as it applies to RM?
Maybe you should watch something before you pontificate?
I’m guessing she’s reporting on things that Fox refuses to address that are happening in the world and merit actual attention as opposed to (The war on christmas) or (An illegal immigrant killed someone) some comparative nonsense. I don’t see the false equivalencies here. Oh yeah: they’re false.
Smug is not an exact word, but it seems to be the conventional wisdom around here, that she’s “smug” or something. Sorry, straight dope, this is why you earn your name. I have no use for received opinions from pretend egos.
Come up with a cite for her smugness. The 2016 cite where she is explaining current polling is supposed to be a something burger or something? Do better.
Actually, I think people are letting you off way to easy here. That video is typical of the level of right-wing thought and “evidence”. There are no dates associated with the various quotes. So, they are throwing out things that Maddow and colleagues said possibly at times when the race was way less tight (e.g., right after the Trump “pussy” tape was released) and using it that as evidence that she was wrong on election night. It was that the tightness of the race oscillated during the election cycle (see, for example, here: 2016 Election Forecast | FiveThirtyEight)
At this point, you haven’t even shown evidence that Rachel Maddow was remarkably off in her assessment of the race at the time when she made various statements (although such evidence might…or might not…exist), let alone that she was lying. Your video is essentially a total right-wing train wreck, just like the Trump Presidency is turning out to be.
Got something very insightful to say, but its 7:59, so you guys will just have to wait. Sorry,
The examples are in the video provided:
- When Maddow waves a piece of paper around and claims that it is legitimate polling data, she’s lying. It is not legitimate polling data.
- When Maddow further claims that even if Donald Trump has his best day ever, he’s still losing the election, that is also a lie. Donald Trump didn’t have the best day ever, yet easily beat his opponent.
- Since Rachel Maddow is clearly a failure as a journalist, she’d be much better employed sticking to elderly chubby-chasing
By the way, was Rachel Maddow one of the “journalists” (a very loose definition here) exposed by Wikileaks as taking direct marching orders from Clinton’s headquarters?
- Then what is it?
- As has already been 'splained to you, if that is what you call a “lie” then many right-wingers lied also.
- Yeah…that’s gonna win you points. :rolleyes: