3 ms·

Yeah because, all the other news outlets predicted a trump win... this is a shit piece article... Show me one outlet that gave Mr. Trump > 50% chance of winning

Yeah because, all the other news outlets predicted a trump win... this is a shit piece article... Show me one outlet that gave Mr. Trump > 50% chance of winning (Fox doesn't count as news). If anything this is more the fault of bad pollsters, and people not realizing that 4 million Bernie or Bust voters were real and not just spouting empty promises. I was one of those. I wrote in Bernie, and I'd rather have Trump and a rebuild the DNC from scratch -- from the far left, than see Clinton -- the epitome of corruption rise to power. We might as well let mob-bosses run for President.

DubiousPusher 10y ago
FiveThirtyEight consistently gave Trump a %25+ chance of winning. That's obviously a pretty good chance which is something they constantly reminded their audience of.
jerf 10y ago
"Show me one outlet that gave Mr. Trump > 50% chance of winning (Fox doesn't count as news)." I actually don't recall Fox predicting it either. But isn't it kind of weird that you both supposed they were the only ones who might have gotten it correct, but also that they were not "real news"? Didn't "real news" just let you down hardcore? It doesn't do any good to say "The deviation of reporting from reality means I have to re-examine my views" if you secretly include the caveat "as long as none of my views have to change". That said, I've got no particular reason to give you that Fox should be given any more credit than any other major news source. But I'd submit that isn't because you should give Fox more credit, but because you should adjust your view of the others to match your current view of Fox. There isn't that huge a difference between Fox and, say, CNN. But there's a lot more people who will mouth agreement with that sentence, but then don't follow through with their actions. CNN is trash, and it's more dangerous for those who are generally inclined to agree with them than those who aren't. And so on for all or at least almost all of the other "real news sources". You need to follow through, stop watching, stop trusting things they say, and really stop trusting things they say that make you feel good. (BTW, as for "what's my suggestion" then, at the moment I don't have a place I can point at and say "If they say it, I trust it.")

DubiousPusher 10y ago

FiveThirtyEight consistently gave Trump a %25+ chance of winning. That's obviously a pretty good chance which is something they constantly reminded their audience of.

jerf 10y ago

"Show me one outlet that gave Mr. Trump > 50% chance of winning (Fox doesn't count as news)." I actually don't recall Fox predicting it either. But isn't it kind of weird that you both supposed they were the only ones who might have gotten it correct, but also that they were not "real news"? Didn't "real news" just let you down hardcore? It doesn't do any good to say "The deviation of reporting from reality means I have to re-examine my views" if you secretly include the caveat "as long as none of my views have to change". That said, I've got no particular reason to give you that Fox should be given any more credit than any other major news source. But I'd submit that isn't because you should give Fox more credit, but because you should adjust your view of the others to match your current view of Fox. There isn't that huge a difference between Fox and, say, CNN. But there's a lot more people who will mouth agreement with that sentence, but then don't follow through with their actions. CNN is trash, and it's more dangerous for those who are generally inclined to agree with them than those who aren't. And so on for all or at least almost all of the other "real news sources". You need to follow through, stop watching, stop trusting things they say, and really stop trusting things they say that make you feel good. (BTW, as for "what's my suggestion" then, at the moment I don't have a place I can point at and say "If they say it, I trust it.")