How could you expect Chris Matthews to know what 44 minus 38 equals?  I mean, do we really expect our news anchors and pundits to know 2nd grade math?

I guess the statistics stuff doesn't come until high school, but I'm sure Mr. Matthews has some sort of high school diploma... right?

Also - as a white male, I conducted a poll of myself that concludes that 100% of white male voters will be supporting Obama in November. 

This poll has a margin of error of -100%, but I feel that this shows statistically significant support for Obama among white males.

I put as much stock in your poll as I do in most these days, and now they are subdividing white women into white suburban women?  What's next, white suburban women who drive three or fewer kids to soccer games every other Saturday?

Good catch MMFA, the margin of error, even though these polls are just topic for silly cable chatter, should have been detailed correctly by MSNBC.

The next poll will be of:  left-handed suburban women born on Tuesdays between 3:43 p.m. and 4:19 p.m. with exactly 2.4 children.

Tommy I actually agree with you on this one.  I wrote to "Hardball" and RACE08@MSNBc.Com, to express my outrage at this slimy tactic, i implore others to do the same.

Thanks, just so you are aware there is one poster who gets very upset if you are critical of MSNBC. She basically accuses you of supporting FOX.

Of course that is just plain wrong and silly.

As for MSNBC, its conduct has been suspect throughout the primary process, lets just see how much they begin to pull for McCain. With the exception of KO who pulls for Obama the network is pulling for McCain. It is a very partisan network.

 

 

Nothing like pre-emptively sliming another poster here, even when they haven't done what you're accusing them of in this thread.

Good job Sue.  Maybe you should stick to the topic of the tread, rather than just using empty insults.

Topic was discussed SF, another example of Matthews and his network pulling for McCain. You do not like Matthews being targeted too bad. 

Also, i am not targeting a specific poster, I have not named her. 

Your post would be accepted by me if you acted the same way when I have been slimed on threads that i do not appear.

Thanks, just so you are aware there is one poster who gets very upset if you are critical of MSNBC. She basically accuses you of supporting FOX

That's targeting a specific poster, even if the posted isn't named.

Your post would be accepted by me if you acted the same way when I have been slimed on threads that i do not appear.

That's immaterial to your own conduct.  Grow up.

Sure.  Whatever you say.

Not only are you right that she is wholly responsible for her own behavior, and it's not an excuse to cite another's bad behavior, but that other bad behavior she describes exists only in her mind.

Topping that off, here's some of what she's said recently about this "infighting".

I have been asking JLyons to stop with this, so please do not make me apart(sic) of your infighting.

• - SueEld / Monday June 9, 2008 4:56:20 PM EDT

J, thanks, but as I said earlier I do not want to get into this discussion. You may have an issue with Bottleblonde, I really just want to stick to issues.

• - SueEld / Tuesday June 10, 2008 12:28:21 PM EDT

I have always tried to be respectful to others.

- SueEld / Tuesday June 10, 2008 10:33:52 AM

I do not want to upset Bottleblonde so here goes my post on KO.

- SueEld / Monday June 9, 2008 5:10:21 PM EDT

So she doesn't want to be part of the "infighting", and she has always tried to be respectful and she really just wants to stick to the issues, but she starts off her post last Monday with a smear of me, and then she starts off her post here with another smear.

I have provided evidence of her hypocrisy. She won't be able to provide a smigden of proof of her allegations. Quoting her own words is not a smear, just like Bill O'Reilly is wrong when he calls Media Matters a smear site for quoting his own words, in context.

"Also, i am not targeting a specific poster, I have not named her."

That sentence in itself shows she's talking about a specific person.  "I have not named her".  Apparently Sue thinks she can talk about a specific person but she's not targeting her if she hasn't named her.   Of course the poster Sue's talking about knows exactly who she's referring to, because she's targeted her specifically.

Everyone has their lapses here, but that takes the cake.  I don't know if it's incredibly disingenuous or incredibly stupid, but it's remarkable either way.

My blog post at Daily Nightly, the NBC Nightly News blog:

Why is it that NBC Nightly News reported that white male voters are a problem for Obama but didn't report the rest of NBC's poll that shows McCain having problems with (A)women 52/33; (B)Hispanics 62/28; (C)African Americans 83/7; (D)Catholics 47/40; (E)independents 41/36; (F)blue collar workers 47/42 G)white women 46/39?

That means McCain is having trouble with everybody but white, protestant, white collar, Republican males. Shouldn't your newscast have been about McCain's demographic troubles?

Your report also singled out white suburban females as a group Obama is having trouble with. He's down 44/38. That's only six points. Your report characterized the Obama's lead in the overall poll of all voters, six points, as a "very tight race." You characterized the  six point lead among the suburban white women group that only makes up 10% of the electorate as a "problem" for Obama. How can 6% of 10% be a big deal when 6% of 100% isn't? What's more, the subgroup still has 18% undecided for Obama to work with.

There are two obvious conclusions. From those numbers, your report shows NBC is still openly supporting McCain and failing its responsibility to provide fair and balanced coverage. And, NBC feels the votes of establishment white folks matter more than anybody else's, particularly when those voters are male.

MSNBC, Matthews et al are leading the poll for Misinformers of the Year. 

Look out FOX.  You are about to be replaced.

 

"Suburban White Women": what, like the ones on Desperate Housewives? The ones so desperate, they'd jump on the mailman, or the UPS or FedEx guy, even the garbage man and the milkman, if it wasn't for the fact that they pass by too early in the morning... and the paper-boy? Alright now, cool off! Don't jump on the paper-boy for cripe's sake... he's likely to be all thumbs, thinking you're a video game or something... you're not that desperate... yet!

 

I couldn't find the "suburban white women" subgroup in that Hart/Newhouse MSNBC/WSJ poll either... I looked, but poorly written confused studies wear me out, and give me a pain behind my right eye, and slightly toward the ear... but it didn't matter: whatever was the number of women who constituted the "suburban white women" subgroup, it was still a part of the inclusive encompassing "women" group, who in that study, made up for 51% of the 1,000 interview subjects (510), and they preferred Mr. Obama to John McCain, 52 to 33 percent...

BANG.

Whatever number was worn by the horse name "suburban white women" is inconsequential, seeing as the much bigger horse named "women", won the race by 19 lengths... preferred Mr. Obama by 19 percentage points.

BANG, for Mr. Obama.

 

As for Mr. McCain, and whatever bang he gets out of "suburban white women", or whatever bang "suburban white women" get out of John McCain?

Come on girls... you cant't be that desperate!

Even the paper-boy, all thumbs from playing video games late into the night, would be a better bang, than John McCain...

 

Desperate Houswives indeed.

 

 

 

Where does the traveling band of women castraters stand?

These polls are getting ridiculous. Who gets paid for the nonsense?  Why don't we collectively establish a poll and forward it to every news organization. How scary would that poll look? 10% here, 25% here, the most telling would be 99% for WITH.

Tim Russert has passed away.

 

Very sad Jeter.

 

 

I just saw that. Only 58. Wow.

Just blows my mind. Always does when someone goes this way so unexpectedly. And still young. My heart goes out to his family.

Whatever anyone thought of Tim Russert, he was Meet The Press & an institution.

The man had a real passion for politics & it's especially sad that he will not get to see the outcome of this particular election.

Well said Jeter, I echo your sentiments.

The man had a real passion for politics & it's especially sad that he will not get to see the outcome of this particular election.

I agree, Jeter, well said. I always enjoyed hearing his take on the candidates during the primaries. I've watched him cover many presidential elections, but this one in particular one could tell he was excited about. I don' t know how NBC will replace him on Meet the Press when he's so irreplaceable in who fills that seat.

Very sad indeed. I'm going to miss watching him on Meet the Press. 

Agreed to echo all above. It's always strange when someone dies in the prime like that with no chance to think about goodbyes. Everybody else then has to do it for him, since he's so high profile.

It will be interesting to see who fills that seat now, given Mr. R's agenda.

I get the feeling it might be David Gregory who fills his seat. Gregory often hosted the show in the past when Russert was either on vacation or sick. 

 

It seems the New York Times is leading the way in breaking this story on the Internet Wire.

Katharine Seelye's blog states "Mr. Russert was a towering figure in American journalism", and in citing Tom Brokaw's announcement of Mr. Russert's death, notes "a grave Mr. Brokaw called him, one of the premier journalists of our time"

To my knowledge, Mr. Russert was never a Journalist at any time in his life, nor did he ever have anything whatsoever to do with Journalism... it's strange how people can confuse occupations like that: I understand why Tom Brokaw would do it, because it's a great conceit of television personalities, that they think themselves to be Journalists... I don't know why the New York Times though, a place where there are actual Journalists at work, would refer to any television personality as a Journalist.

 

From what I know, Tim Russert was quite involved in writing and editing his MTP telecasts, he most definitely was a journalist.

 

If "writing and editing" the television show that he appeared on, makes Tim Russert a Journalist, then that means Jon Stewart is a Journalist too... and Stephen Colbert, and his writers, they're Journalists too I guess...

If "writing and editing" a television show makes somebody a Journalist, then there are Journalists at Captain Kangeroo and Bozo The Clown too I guess.

 

Journalism is news.  Captain Kangaroo is not news so your comparison is invalid.

 

Journalism is news, but the television show Meet The Press was never news, so it was never Journalism.

If Tim Russert was a Journalist, then so isn't bill o'reilly.

 

Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, not a journalist as I would define the word.  Tim Russert is not commenting or opining, he is writing, editing and hosting a news and informational program with guests who are offering analysis and opinion. 

If you still can't see it, whatever. 

"Tim Russert is not commenting or opining"

That made me laugh, thanks. You don't by chance want to revise that statement, do you?

 

If you want to pick out little bits and pieces where he may have stepped over that line, fine.....but that doesn't disprove that he's a journalist, that is absurd.

We disagree. 

I am sad for Russerts's family. But I will refrain from canonizing him. Let's just say 58 is too young to die. It makes you take stock of your own mortality nonetheless. And gives you pause to reflect on what you might take for granted in your daily life.

And the thing is that Russert wasn't a smoker and yet he had such a sudden heartache. Most who were close to him reported that there were no complications of heart problems that run in his family, either. I agree, 58 is way too young for someone die so suddenly like this.

The first thing I wondered is if he had a congenital heart problem.  My father was 62, never smoked and wasn't particularly overweight, but it's  a family-related problem.  To die at 58 of this with no family indicators and no noteworthy causation seems fairly odd.

Well, he was overweight--though nothing like morbidly obese. However, that would seem to be a causal factor.

58 does seem awfully young for someone who wasn't in obvious risk. However, that kind of bad luck can hit.

I'm reminded of Pete Maravich, who passed at 40. He turned out to have a rare congenital defect, but nobody knew it at the time. There may be an autopsy of Russert, which might shed some light.

Condolences to his family and friends. 

"any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." --John Donne Meditation 17 

 

Actually, the distortion could be worse than the raw numbers suggest.  In any poll with internal breakdowns, you'd expect the breakdowns to vary somewhat.  Some subsets would have errors that favor Obama and some would favor McCain, and if you dug through the results looking for results that lean in a particular direction, you're as likely to find the polling errors as you are real data.  I believe the technical term for this is selection bias.

As an example, suppose a poll reports 20 subsets, each with 95% confidence.  There's a 65% chance that one of the subset results in the poll has an error exceeding its confidence range.  If you go through such a list looking for anomalies, you'll find one more than half the time, even if there is no underlying anomaly in the sample space.  Cherrypicking from randomized data sets is just a matter of ignoring the rest of the tree.  Sometimes the process creates cherries where none actually exist.