Dirty, Rotten Traitors at the Daily Beast

[Rupert Pupkin]

The Daily Beast used to be a reputable liberal publication. I can’t believe the blasphemy these traitors at the Daily Beast are speaking. How dare they say anything bad about Obama! All liberals should boycott the Daily Beast.



http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....tion-away.html


http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...tt-romney.html

[Antitrust32]

Maybe Obama doesnt want to win?

12 point swing in the polls is crazy.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The Daily Beast used to be a reputable liberal publication. I can’t believe the blasphemy these traitors at the Daily Beast are speaking. How dare they say anything bad about Obama! All liberals should boycott the Daily Beast.



http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....tion-away.html


http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...tt-romney.html

Maybe they are smart enough to see the risk they are taking. The rest of the media is so monolithically in lock-step to support Obama, if he loses in spite of the manipulated polling and heavily slanted coverage, they are toast.

Their business depends on credibility to drive viewership or readership. A lot of liberal media will be in dire straits should Obama fail to win.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Maybe they are smart enough to see the risk they are taking. The rest of the media is so monolithically in lock-step to support Obama, if he loses in spite of the manipulated polling and heavily slanted coverage, they are toast.

Their business depends on credibility to drive viewership or readership. A lot of liberal media will be in dire straits should Obama fail to win.

You do realize that objective measuring of media over the past three years - mentions of candidates as positive and negative - puts to rest any "liberal media bias"?

And if you think the polls are manipulated, you are being manipulated.

I have news for you guys: Daily Beast has always been reliably center-right. Anyone who thinks it has ever been "reliably liberal" is being utterly ridiculous.

That said, Andrew Sullivan's panic attack, like Chris Matthews, is indeed funny.

[dellinger63]

Polls are only relevant and true if the Dem candidate has the lead. Otherwise they're false, misleading or a non-issue.

Hypocrisy to the bone.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Polls are only relevant and true if the Dem candidate has the lead. Otherwise they're false, misleading or a non-issue.

Hypocrisy to the bone.

I'm not sure about the polls in this case. All the betting sites still have Obama as about a -180 favorite. In general, I trust the betting sites more than the polls for the simple reason that these sites would lose millions of dollars if they didn't know how to make a good betting line. That being said, they're not going to be correct every time.

Before the debates, they thought Obama had around a 75-80% chance of winning. Right now they are giving Obama a 62% chance of winning. That seems a little high to me. My guess is that the race is very close. I would probably make Obama a slight favorite right now, maybe -120 or something like that. I think Romney has a reasonable chance to win.

If anyone ever wants to check the exchange wagering lines to see what percentage chance they think each guy has of winning, here is the link:

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not sure about the polls in this case. All the betting sites still have Obama as about a -180 favorite. In general, I trust the betting sites more than the polls for the simple reason that these sites would lose millions of dollars if they didn't know how to make a good betting line. That being said, they're not going to be correct every time.

Before the debates, they thought Obama had around a 75-80% chance of winning. Right now they are giving Obama a 62% chance of winning. That seems a little high to me. My guess is that the race is very close. I would probably make Obama a slight favorite right now, maybe -120 or something like that. I think Romney has a reasonable chance to win.

If anyone ever wants to check the exchange wagering lines to see what percentage chance they think each guy has of winning, here is the link:

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/

I agree with you that the betting sites are fairly accurate.

I'm not surprised Romney got a 1-2% bump out of his debate, as being a liar isn't as important to his base as "being a tough mother beating on Obama". They like that. But Romney has to win nearly all the swing states, and he's quite behind there. He not only has to hope his bump holds, he has to hope he continues to gain.

Another highly accurate guy is Nate Silver.

Five-Thirty-Eight has the daily tracker as Chance of Winning, Obama 76.9%, Romney 23.1%

Electoral college, however, is still 297.4 to 240.6. Mitt needs 270. Won't get it.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not sure about the polls in this case. All the betting sites still have Obama as about a -180 favorite. In general, I trust the betting sites more than the polls for the simple reason that these sites would lose millions of dollars if they didn't know how to make a good betting line. That being said, they're not going to be correct every time.

Before the debates, they thought Obama had around a 75-80% chance of winning. Right now they are giving Obama a 62% chance of winning. That seems a little high to me. My guess is that the race is very close. I would probably make Obama a slight favorite right now, maybe -120 or something like that. I think Romney has a reasonable chance to win.

If anyone ever wants to check the exchange wagering lines to see what percentage chance they think each guy has of winning, here is the link:

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/

IMO Betting sites simply try to predict how the public will bet, not the outcome of an election similar to what a morning lines oddsmaker does at the track. Then odds are obviously changed depending on bets coming in.

Thus the change in odds makes Romney the wise guy pic of the race.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Polls are only relevant and true if the Dem candidate has the lead. Otherwise they're false, misleading or a non-issue.

Hypocrisy to the bone.

I haven't seen any Dems say the polls are false.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

You do realize that objective measuring of media over the past three years - mentions of candidates as positive and negative - puts to rest any "liberal media bias"?

And if you think the polls are manipulated, you are being manipulated.

I have news for you guys: Daily Beast has always been reliably center-right. Anyone who thinks it has ever been "reliably liberal" is being utterly ridiculous.

That said, Andrew Sullivan's panic attack, like Chris Matthews, is indeed funny.

You think the Daily Beast is center-right? What are you smoking? If you think they are center right, then you probably think CNN is right wing.

I'd like to see one reputable source that labels the Daily Beast as center-right.

Here is a list that I think does a relatively good job of labeling websites as either "center", "left", or "right". They label the Daily Beast as "left" as I think anybody would.

http://users.tellurian.net/vanorden/currentevents.htm

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You think the Daily Beast is center-right? What are you smoking? If you think they are center right, then you probably think CNN is right wing.

I'd like to see one reputable source that labels the Daily Beast as center-right.

Tina Brown