Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumlongship
(40,416 posts)Go Cenk!
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Cenk talks about his bias, as he always does. Then, he presents the facts, including that Bernie has a very slim chance.
That's why TYT is such a great news network.
You didn't watch the clip, did you?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)I knew you hadn't watched it.
Bye
reACTIONary
(5,749 posts)Video generally is low density, simplistic information. I look for a story attached to the video, or Google the topic.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)that their primary concern is their IMAGE.
madamesilverspurs
(15,784 posts)Transcripts come in very handy for the hearing impaired.
longship
(40,416 posts)No matter why one has not viewed it.
It's really simple.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Anyone who watched the video will find your comment extremely funny.
Cher
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)Bye bye.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)The dreaded ignore list.
Why do people feel the need to tell others that they're going on the ignore list?
I don't think the response is what they expect or hope for, I don't think it's this
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,111 posts)Because they have an over inflated opinion about themselves?
longship
(40,416 posts)Pitiful!
Drops mic.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Nate used to do very different, complex analytics. Now, he looks at polls, weights them and figures averages. It's basic stuff that anyone can do.
Nate used to engage in genius statistical analysis. He's often drill down into neighborhoods, understanding the voting patterns of specific areas in states.
He's also contradicted himself this year. He wrote an amazing article in 08 about politicians who do well in national polls, but weren't doing as well in state primaries. He said this was an obvious sign of a weak candidate. This year, when Clinton was in that position, he said the opposite.
He is clearly in the tank for HRC. That is obvious. His company was purchased by ABC. Since then, it's been nothing but partisan nonsense and poll averaging from Nate. Laaa-dee-frickin daa!
It's a shame that he sold out.
Is there anything that the corporations can't buy up and exploit for their own selfish gain?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)in West Virginia even though the polls have only been showing about a 7% win.
His analysis nailed it better than all of the polls.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)and some of it has missed the mark.
Again, I'm not seeing the deep analytics that sealed his sterling reputation.
I see a lot of partisan bull puckey. Some of which contradicts his very astute 2008 obervations and analysis.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)And my sound on my computer doesn't work very well . . .
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,789 posts)I would read a good summary and at least skim a transcript.
longship
(40,416 posts)Cenk finds it funny when he has been saying that Trump could win this pretty much all along, especially as the primaries proceeded when Nate has been saying the opposite, that Trump would fail.
Cenk calls it bias since both of them have had the same numbers yet Nate comes to the opposite conclusion.
Cenk admits he supports Bernie and also admits that his chances are slim. He has been saying this recently, which is why I like him. He's honest.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,789 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)It's too bad that many posters just copy & paste a video without writing at least a brief synopsis. I'm not likely to sit through a five or ten minute video without knowing why, and I didn't watch this one.
I think sometimes it's just laziness in the smart phone age to avoid typing out some explaination.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)5-10 minutes is a chunk of time, especially for something that could be summarized in a paragraph.
Scruffy1
(3,239 posts)eggplant
(3,893 posts)Cenk fully acknowledges his biases. Nate Silver claimed (falsely) to be neutral.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)
before offering his criticism of Silver.
He and the rest of the people at TYT have NEVER claimed to be neutral or non-partisan unlike the Silver's of the world. That's the issue here.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)In fact, he mentions that in this very video.
The guy is a clown who stopped being interesting a long time ago.
still_one
(91,965 posts)WRONG, on almost everything
He has no credibility
displacedtexan
(15,695 posts)...his groupies will figure out that he is the one who's biased.
longship
(40,416 posts)Cenk talks about his bias all the time. He's for Bernie and has said so in every broadcast.
But here's the difference. He doesn't malign Hillary except to contrast her position with Bernie's. And he always gives Hillary her fair share.
If you would take a few minutes to actually view the video, instead of merely carping about it sight unseen, you would understand that. He openly acknowledges that Bernie has a hard road ahead and that Hillary likely wins the Dem nod. But he's been saying the same for weeks. Not that those who somehow dislike Cenk, merely because he supports Bernie, would know that. It is apparently easier to stick ones fingers in ones ears and yell, "La-la-la-la Bernie bad. Cenk bad!"
I cannot think of a more useless and counterproductive enterprise than Hillary supporters (and Bernie supporters, too) who chime in on every fucking GD.P thread (to say nothing of Video group threads) to shit on the perceived opponent when we are all on the same fucking side.
View it or not. Only if one views it am I going to allow anybody to comment here without my ridicule. Your post falls into that category.
BTW, Cenk does not mention Hillary once in this video. But you wouldn't know that, would you?
Please stop turning DU into a toxic waste dump with your tiresome babble and get with the program to elect Democratic candidates.
United we stand; divided we fall.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Thanks for the thread, Stellar.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Laser102
(816 posts)of sporting events are included too.
Response to Laser102 (Reply #11)
La Lioness Priyanka This message was self-deleted by its author.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)saying he is a lost cause. He has been saying it from the start. He's a weasel.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)lol
Stuckinthebush
(10,816 posts)He's just telling the truth. Bernie can't win. It's just not possible. This doesn't make Nate a weasel. It makes him a realist.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)Stuckinthebush
(10,816 posts)I will happily watch. But Bernie is a lost cause. That doesn't require viewing
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)by manipulating public opinion. Predictions don't mean shit to me anymore because all of the "experts" have a horse in the race, especially those on the right and center-right.
When they say "My prediction is ..." I hear "Here is the outcome I hope for and I will attempt to manipulate your vote as follows ..."
Yes. Nate Silver is a weasel.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)in a particular direction. IMO his reactions to Sanders and Trump and his problematic interpretation of the data surrounding their poll numbers is due to implicit bias on his part in favor of the establishment political class.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)Those of us who are aware recognize the Kabuki Theater euphemistically known as our "general election." Zappa was right: we should all be able to see the brick wall at the back of the theater.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)Hillary Clinton Doesnt Have A Problem On Her Left - 2014
Dont Bet On Clinton Faltering In Iowa A Second Time - 2014
Hillary Clinton Is The George W. Bush Of 2016 - 2015
The Hillary Clinton Steamroller Rumbles To Life - 2015
Martin OMalley Shouldnt Try To Out-Liberal Hillary Clinton - 2015
Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trumps Polls - 2015
The Bernie Sanders Surge Appears To Be Over - 2015
Can Ben Carson Really Take Out Donald Trump? - 2015
Bernie Sanders Could Win Iowa And New Hampshire. Then Lose Everywhere Else. - 2015
The Party Is Deciding On Rubio - 2016
New Hampshires Independent Voter Myth - 2016
Ted Cruz Might Still Be Able To Stop Donald Trump - 2016
LOLZ - too many to name here
It's called 'Thumb on the Scales'
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Even if your job is just the numbers.
If you give the people that matter what they want to hear you will do well...if not you don't do well.
And that is why I never take what the media tells us as objective truth. And Nate Silver is in the media no matter what we think.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Chakab
(1,727 posts)Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)
being made.
Silver has completely ignored the polls, irrespective of their accuracy, in this cycle when they did not fit his preconceived notions about the viability of Trump and Sanders. It's incredibly disturbing behaviour for somebody whose brand is that he's solely concerned with the new Myers.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)... and added an additional relevant factor in the bad analyses Nate has been making.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)He dismissed Trump and poo pooed his chances from the moment that Trump took the lead in polls last summer.
He simply did not take Trump seriously because of Trump's buffoonery and lack of establishment support and chose to craft his own reality.
He's doing the same with the early general election polling.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Nate's failure at being the wizkid this go is due to a number of factors.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Nate Silver nailed the 2012 election and he's biased? Effing stupid and insults people's intelligence. Seriously, Samders people blame stuff like this for Sanders losing? I thought they were the smartest people in the room.
Stuckinthebush
(10,816 posts)Nate is very accurate and likely doesn't give a rats ass about Hillary or Bernie. He strikes me as one of those guys who just loves to crunch numbers.
Gman
(24,780 posts)But still insist on something against hope. Like I said, I thought they were supposed to be the smartest people in he room.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)He wasn't crunching anything when he repeatedly claimed that Trump would not win the nomination. It was based on his personal opinions about Trump not being a serious candidate. All of the polling said otherwise from the moment that Trump took the lead last summer.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)the prediction that Trump wasn't viable because he IGNORED the polling that didn't fit his preconceived notions about Trump. He's been doing the same thing regarding Sanders' viability in a general election match up during the entirety of the primary.
This is covered in the first two minutes f the video, which nobody seems care about watching before throwing their two cents in.
Gman
(24,780 posts)It's why Romney went to bed Monday before the election literally sure he knew he'd be called the next president by the end of the next day. And why Axelrod said he'd shave his mustache if Obama lost in 2012.
Polling is built around a model. If reality doesn't fit the model, you adjust the model. It's foolish to think Silver does not have it right. Data does not lie.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)Chakab
(1,727 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Chakab
(1,727 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Chakab
(1,727 posts)the base of the party that she has aspirations to lead.
The irony of a Clinton suppoter, who should know that her being an ex Republican is a detail often disregarded as being of any import, calling out anyone else for that is amazing. Undefined themselves more than Cenk
MFM008
(19,782 posts)you cant discount the votes.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)2 + 1 is 3
3 + 1 is 4
4 + 1 is 5
and so on and so on
see it easy
after 20 it all repetition
even u can learn to count past 2000
George II
(67,782 posts)....in the direction of truth and reality.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)wisteria
(19,581 posts)And stop blaming others because Sander's has simple come up short and will lose to Hillary Clinton. Stop blaming the messenger.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)They are NOT blaming Silver for Sanders losing the primary. They acknowledge that the votes aren't there and that a Sanders win is very improbable.
The video is largely about Silver and other pundits dismissing Trump's chances at the beginning of the primary in spite of the polls and the fact that they are now doing the same thing with the early general election polls that show a tight race.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)SMDH!!!
reACTIONary
(5,749 posts)...... I heard that nate did not correctly predict that trump would win the nomination and the assertion that this shows that he succumbed to some sort of bias. It seems to me that getting a prediction wrong may be due to many factors and is not, in and of itself, evidence of bias.
Now, I didn't watch the whole thing, I only sampled the first 20%, and not a random sample . But I just can't take this sort of banter for very long. I guess I'm biased.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)Stellar
(5,644 posts)chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)instead of appearing condescending.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Maybe I should not have posted this video.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)Merely questioning your comment of "Is this the only state he got right?" He got a lot of states right. Read his past predictions; he's pretty damn accurate. Insulting is actually part of my unnatural charm, btw.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)I'm glad that he's doing well at it. And I did support Bernie here in Illinois too. But damn, it's hard to talk to people around here sometimes. And just in case you were wondering, I'm not a Hillary supporter and haven't been since she first started running for President in 2008. But I would have been an Elizabeth Warren supporter above all other if she had choose to run for POTUS. C.U.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)I thought you were being backhanded snarky like some Hillary supporters I've encountered. We appear to be in agreement with our preferences of Bernie & Warren. Good day!
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Have a good one!
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)First, he didn't know there were more than two people in the race? Farrell got nearly 9% and this guy doesn't even seem to know he was in the race.
Second, he had Sanders winning by 3%. He won by 15%.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)being accurate, by definition.
As he noted, he's gotten some right, gotten some wrong, including Missouri and Illinois. Some of his misses have been significant, and his error spread has been similar - though higher overall - to FiveThirtyEight, a constant target of many on DU for its alleged inaccuracy.
He also admits that he ignores other candidates, which is silly.
The part he gets right is that estimates are only as good as the information available, and in many states, there simply isn't enough data to make accurate predictions. He has no doubt done well in some states, but he's only more accurate than other sources - FiveThirtyEight, in particular - if you ignore his misses, which he clearly acknowledges.
Response to Stellar (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
fasttense
(17,301 posts)It's all about the money. When Nate was barely making ends meet, his goal was to be as accurate as possible. He wanted to be the best at the work he was doing. Then he got rich.
Now that ABC is paying him millions it's about keeping that revenue stream coming in. And that may involve looking for results that are not there. It's easy to keep to your principles when you are only getting $60,000.00 a year. It's hareder to turn down millions.
I have to admire Cenk because he did turn down millions. Nate has accepted millions.
IamMab
(1,359 posts)past its expiration date than Nate Silver ever could be.
That is the sound of Cenk dropping the hammer on Nate!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It didn't help Romney in 2012 when his supporters just started tossing stats out the window because it didn't favor him.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,111 posts)artyteacher
(598 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)[img][/img]