5 ms·

> With last night's victories for Clinton and Trump, the real question people should be asking themselves is what these two candidates have in common that have

> With last night's victories for Clinton and Trump, the real question people should be asking themselves is what these two candidates have in common that have kept them winning, despite their having the two worst favorability ratings in the election? Specious assumption. My conclusion is that the favorability ratings are bullshit. To posit that a huge media conspiracy has caused millions of voters to vote huge, huge landslides in favor of these two people is just ridiculous compared with the probability that measuring very complex and ineffable metrics like "favorability" is a total crapshoot, especially in a world where voters like myself (and many HNers, I suspect) do not have landlines, use ad-blockers, do not click on advertising online and do not fill out surveys. Tl;dr the likelihood of media influence controlling this election to such huge, huge landslide outcomes is overwhelmingly improbable compared to the high likelihood that favorability metrics are junk-science.

sb8244 11y ago
is there any data to back up most voters not being exposed to the media agenda? It seems a bit like "not I not anyone" when i might speculate "not I but everyone"
hobs 11y ago
> Tl;dr the likelihood of media influence controlling this election to such huge, huge landslide outcomes is overwhelmingly improbable compared to the high likelihood that favorability metrics are junk-science. Political polling and surveys have a margin of error, and its generally pretty close to the mark. Trump and Hillary have had by far and away the most advertising for their campaigns, and generally the ones with the biggest ad spends (which has in the past converted into the most advertising, but Trump has gotten enormous free advertising) win elections. My conclusion is that there is no media conspiracy, they just like getting paid and both Trump and Hillary make that happen.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Jeb spent by far the most on advertising. Trump spends among the least. Equating the media's coverage of Trump with "advertising" is a specious attempt to save the "money buys elections" narrative that is being utterly discredited by these primaries.
  - hobs 11y ago
    I probably need to go get some numbers, but when one person's name is repeated over and over and over and their statements are repeated over and over, even if that has a negative connotation, it clearly puts that person in the spotlight. If Trump had the same advertising as he could afford I dont think he would have been in the same position he is in now.
DSingularity 11y ago
> Tl;dr the likelihood of media influence controlling this election to such huge, huge landslide outcomes is overwhelmingly improbable compared to the high likelihood that favorability metrics are junk-science. Overwhelmingly improbable? Oh man! What is that likelihood? Please dont masquerade your opinions as facts by using terms like "likelihood" and "improbable". I have one question for you. If media influence over elections is so "unlikely" and so insignificant why would the NYT have tripped over itself to retitle and reword their article to make it seem like pro-Bernie? Media influence is real. You will quickly notice after speaking to people outside your bubble that the average voters political almost always conform to that of the "pundits".
- libertymcateer 11y ago
  The subscription and readership numbers just don't back this. People simply don't read newspapers. The NYT could say that Hillary is the second coming and the average voter wouldn't be aware of it.
  - id 11y ago
    They have to get their information from somewhere. TV channels are media, too. Most people don't know Bernie, Hillary and Donald personally, so the only way to get an impression is the media.
    - settsu 11y ago
      No, not the only way. Just the lazy way.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - gipp 11y ago
    Network effects are a hell of a thing.
  - veidr 11y ago
    You don't have to read the newspaper for it to influence your your life, or even your own opinions. The institution has enormous power. Your example, the NYT, is quoted on TV and radio every single day, in and out of the US. Add to that the number of private who quote, forward, regurgitate-as-if-they-thought-of-it the articles. The power of the mainstream media is waning, but it is still more significant than anything else, other parts of the Internet included, in swaying voters.
gerty 11y ago
> My conclusion is that the favorability ratings are bullshit. Primary election results do not support this theory. Clinton has very high favorability among self-declared Democrats, something like 70-80 % off the top of my head. Her favorability declines fast with Independents and Republican voters. I don't have the data in front of me but I could bet Sanders won independent vote in every primary where independents were allowed to vote, notably Michigan. Noone can't say if it's favorability only but correlation is hard to dispute.
- huac 11y ago
  Moderate favorability: Sanders 58-38, Clinton 49-45 (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cdh297lWEAAihp-.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cdh297lWEAAihp-.jpg:large) Independent favorability: Sanders 50-39, Clinton 31-60 (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cdh1L0vXEAEokgY.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cdh1L0vXEAEokgY.jpg:large) Worth noting that among independents, Clinton has a net -29 which is second worst only to Trump at -32, and is worse than Cruz at -27.
roderickm 11y ago
Bias need not be coordinated or conspiratorial to exist in media. Trump and Clinton each have more than twice the earned (free) media coverage than their nearest competitors. The amount each campaign spends on bought media is a small fraction of what is bestowed by news editors and producers. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/15/ny-times-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media/209262 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/15/ny-times-trumps-mamm...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 11y ago
  The whole "earned media coverage" thing is so mind boggling I don't even know what to say. The media covers candidates people are interested in, and somehow that's equivalent to paid advertising? Maybe, just maybe, peoples' opinions drive what the media covers (like every other market in existence), instead of the other way around? Beyond that, the media coverage of Clinton and Trump are overwhelmingly negative. All I see on TV is "how to stop Trump" and "is Hillary a lying liar who lies?"
eli 11y ago
I'm not sure favorability is junk science so much as it is not a good predictor of who will win delegates through a series of byzantine and varied state processes. And at the risk of stating the obvious, finding someone as more favorable than their opponent doesn't necessarily imply I will vote for them in an election.

sb8244 11y ago

is there any data to back up most voters not being exposed to the media agenda? It seems a bit like "not I not anyone" when i might speculate "not I but everyone"

hobs 11y ago

> Tl;dr the likelihood of media influence controlling this election to such huge, huge landslide outcomes is overwhelmingly improbable compared to the high likelihood that favorability metrics are junk-science. Political polling and surveys have a margin of error, and its generally pretty close to the mark. Trump and Hillary have had by far and away the most advertising for their campaigns, and generally the ones with the biggest ad spends (which has in the past converted into the most advertising, but Trump has gotten enormous free advertising) win elections. My conclusion is that there is no media conspiracy, they just like getting paid and both Trump and Hillary make that happen.

rayiner 11y ago
Jeb spent by far the most on advertising. Trump spends among the least. Equating the media's coverage of Trump with "advertising" is a specious attempt to save the "money buys elections" narrative that is being utterly discredited by these primaries.
- hobs 11y ago
  I probably need to go get some numbers, but when one person's name is repeated over and over and over and their statements are repeated over and over, even if that has a negative connotation, it clearly puts that person in the spotlight. If Trump had the same advertising as he could afford I dont think he would have been in the same position he is in now.

DSingularity 11y ago

> Tl;dr the likelihood of media influence controlling this election to such huge, huge landslide outcomes is overwhelmingly improbable compared to the high likelihood that favorability metrics are junk-science. Overwhelmingly improbable? Oh man! What is that likelihood? Please dont masquerade your opinions as facts by using terms like "likelihood" and "improbable". I have one question for you. If media influence over elections is so "unlikely" and so insignificant why would the NYT have tripped over itself to retitle and reword their article to make it seem like pro-Bernie? Media influence is real. You will quickly notice after speaking to people outside your bubble that the average voters political almost always conform to that of the "pundits".

libertymcateer 11y ago
The subscription and readership numbers just don't back this. People simply don't read newspapers. The NYT could say that Hillary is the second coming and the average voter wouldn't be aware of it.
- id 11y ago
  They have to get their information from somewhere. TV channels are media, too. Most people don't know Bernie, Hillary and Donald personally, so the only way to get an impression is the media.
  - settsu 11y ago
    No, not the only way. Just the lazy way.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gipp 11y ago
  Network effects are a hell of a thing.
- veidr 11y ago
  You don't have to read the newspaper for it to influence your your life, or even your own opinions. The institution has enormous power. Your example, the NYT, is quoted on TV and radio every single day, in and out of the US. Add to that the number of private who quote, forward, regurgitate-as-if-they-thought-of-it the articles. The power of the mainstream media is waning, but it is still more significant than anything else, other parts of the Internet included, in swaying voters.

gerty 11y ago

> My conclusion is that the favorability ratings are bullshit. Primary election results do not support this theory. Clinton has very high favorability among self-declared Democrats, something like 70-80 % off the top of my head. Her favorability declines fast with Independents and Republican voters. I don't have the data in front of me but I could bet Sanders won independent vote in every primary where independents were allowed to vote, notably Michigan. Noone can't say if it's favorability only but correlation is hard to dispute.

huac 11y ago
Moderate favorability: Sanders 58-38, Clinton 49-45 (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cdh297lWEAAihp-.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cdh297lWEAAihp-.jpg:large) Independent favorability: Sanders 50-39, Clinton 31-60 (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cdh1L0vXEAEokgY.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cdh1L0vXEAEokgY.jpg:large) Worth noting that among independents, Clinton has a net -29 which is second worst only to Trump at -32, and is worse than Cruz at -27.

roderickm 11y ago

Bias need not be coordinated or conspiratorial to exist in media. Trump and Clinton each have more than twice the earned (free) media coverage than their nearest competitors. The amount each campaign spends on bought media is a small fraction of what is bestowed by news editors and producers. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/15/ny-times-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media/209262 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/15/ny-times-trumps-mamm...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 11y ago
The whole "earned media coverage" thing is so mind boggling I don't even know what to say. The media covers candidates people are interested in, and somehow that's equivalent to paid advertising? Maybe, just maybe, peoples' opinions drive what the media covers (like every other market in existence), instead of the other way around? Beyond that, the media coverage of Clinton and Trump are overwhelmingly negative. All I see on TV is "how to stop Trump" and "is Hillary a lying liar who lies?"

eli 11y ago

I'm not sure favorability is junk science so much as it is not a good predictor of who will win delegates through a series of byzantine and varied state processes. And at the risk of stating the obvious, finding someone as more favorable than their opponent doesn't necessarily imply I will vote for them in an election.