Yeah, because the CNN/MSNBC polls would never be biased either
Last edited:
Get ready Kamala fans...this is just the beginning
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
From everything I've seen, it's a close race. Do we really have 82 more days of this poll cheering and bashing?
Here's a tip. Kamala's poll numbers will go up a bit after next week's convention. Yeahhh! Of course, that's a staged and scripted event that is executed by both parties. Then her numbers will subside back over September and October. If Kamala doesn't do press conferences and articulate her policies, it could work against her. It's not for sure that she will avoid questions/policies nor is it for sure voters will react negatively if that is her strategy.
The debate could trigger a move but barring that, pollsters will try to measure granular moves and then try to take microscopic views of battleground states.
Last edited:
I try not to get excited about polls unless there are major moves across many polls. It however can be fascinating to hear how some pollster's methodology tweak the poll results.
One thing is for sure.
If you are a Republican, your hunch that Biden was not popular was confirmed by the big move in polls since he chose not to run.
If you are a Democrat, you're ecstatic because you believe Kamala Harris is very popular.
You're not worried that Harris the prosecutor is going to kill rump the felon in debate, are you?
That law would be struck down as unconstitutional in a heartbeat. This is simply fear mongering.
that law would be perfectly reasonable as is in fact long overdue!
I can’t believe that you are supporting those child murderers who want to travel out of good states to kill their children!
They're not there if the cameras don't cover them. I might have to watch Fox News just to see what's going on in Chicago.
I think the first night is usually "greatest hits from past stars", isn't it?
EDIT - I just looked at the 2020 schedule. They spaced out the big names from the past over the first three nights last time, so I seem to be wrong.
This just seems like they are taking a different approach in how they are grouping the speakers.
I think you're being misled by the edit here.
Any edit like that should make you suspect, since he was clearly cut off mid-sentence, so I went and watched the interview clip.
The "CNN is objective" is just boiler plate "don't attack the guest" patter to get to the real question, which was about how despite the official "objectivity" they still have their own feelings and their own bets about what happens and did they anticipate Biden dropping out.
It's throat clearing and signalling it is safe to answer the question he is asking about the behind the scenes thoughts and that he won't use any admission there as an attack on their purported objectivity.
Yes, he didn't think it would result in a laugh line from the audience, but "he's clueless" doesn't seem to track, really.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. The video clip of Colbert with the CNN host speaks for itself. The audience's spontaneous and unintended reaction created an awkward moment. One is free to disagree with the Breaking Point hosts take on things.
When someone tells me there is video evidence of something else happening, I'm like "okay where is it?".
Oddly enough Ben Shapiro wrote an op-ed about this in the Sun today. He says the "legacy" media is just stenographers for Harris and the Dems. I find it very rich that he would say something like that, considering all he really ever does is ignore or spin shit when Trump says anything dumb or bad.
One thing to recognize is the right-wing slams the MSM if they don't cover a story they're all hot and bothered about. It's a red herring, its designed to shame them into reporting on a non-story so they don't get attacked for some sort of non-existent bias.
Anyways, I will say that CNN is a hell of a lot less biased compared to Fox....even Fox's hard news side, which is a shadow of its former self with the news it chooses to cover, and how they report on it. The opinion side was always a fever swamp of right-wing grievances and outrage farming...
Obsessive poll watching isn't useful.
As for the closeness of the race, there are two theories about what's going on with the numbers.
Theory 1 ) This is the bump you would expect from the race changing and some big media events. Like you say, there will be a bump from the convention and then this will all settle down to the mean.
The equilbrium may have shifted some (that's always the hope for a campaign) but it is more like a 3-4 point bump from a convention or a debate that then regresses to the mean and results in a 1 point shift.
Theory 2) This is a case of momentum breaking through to a new equilibrium and will only escalate.
I am in theory 1, personally. I think most people are. But there are clearly some theory 2 people floating around the internet.
I've always loved this argument.
"Yes, they want to do this horrible thing! But vote them in anyway, something else will stop them!"
I didn't say it wasn't an awkward moment.
I am disagreeing with your interpretation of what happened.
This isn't evidence that Colbert believes they are objective and was shocked that his audience doesn't but is clueless.
This is Colbert not expecting that to be a laugh line.
But the question was about how despite the position of CNN as objective, they all have their own views about what's really going on and what did they really think.
That's not the question of someone who is clueless about how media news works.
And yet you didn't just go look yourself.
Shapiro is a wildly partisan hack, though. (And possibly something of an idiot outside some very narrow things he is good at. Hard to say.)
Thinking the MSM are stenographers for the Democratic Party is so detached from reality it would be laughable.
In this case, though, I doubt it is delusion. It's just "working the refs".
Exactly.
Working the refs.
This is how they help keep the MSM knee-jerk reacting to bias accusations by being biased towards Republican messaging.
CNN is far less biased, sure.
But it has lots of biases built in. Some are from the personalities involved, others are from financial incentives shaped by the nature of the business they are in.
I'd argue theory 2) is occurring.
There is such a change in tone all around now, from the dems calling MAGA 'weird' to the way rump pulled out a bunch of groceries to read about inflation at his last presser. There is no obvious line of attack from MAGA as of yet with the Harris crowd's taking the one thing that rump could brag about.
Its early yet but there is also only less than 3 months to go.
Kaitlan is hot. I am going to be having dreams of unbuttoning that dress with my teeth tonight dammit!
Theory 2 isn't impossible.
I think it is less likely because the US electorate has been pretty thermostatic for a while.
We probably won't know until a couple of weeks after the DNC convention.
If they get the normal bounce that will just be part of the upward trajectory we have been seeing. The question then becomes does it level off and recede some.
Of course, they might get NO bounce, like the RNC did.
There are lots of people on the internet working very hard to make that happen. If they can get cops and protesters fighting in the streets a-la 1968, they will probably succeed.
We will only really know in retrospect.
