Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/26/2020 in all areas

  1. Fido, just try to imagine for a minute if Trump had won the popular vote and lost the EC. She, and POTUS, conceded, graciously and unequivocally! Sheesh! Seeker - OK, "the media" says a lot of things, but that's just the sort of dishonest slithering that Levant excels at. I'm not bothering with what some individual hack simply blathered, that's not "the media" saying anything. I'm talking about the ongoing deeper analysis of the coverage and prognostication. The coverage I've watched is dissecting it all pretty carefully, acknowledging the outcome did not match the projections, and trying to see why. I'm mostly on the US networks and papers, so I can't say about Globe' CBC etc. Briefly, it's obvious HRC failed to increase her favoured percentages as much as the D's thought she would (or Trump would ). But more crucially, her demographic didn't show up, and Trumps did. In several states that Trump flipped, he got about the same vote as Romney in 2012, and HRC got far less than Obama. It was a turnout loss, not a vote-shift loss, as Levant's graphs confirmed. But the same graphs are all over CNN et al as well, along with turn-out and vote totals. The analysis has been quite straightforward, unlike Levant's sleight-of-hand. OK, a little disclosure here. I've got a lot of relatives who are/were distinguished journalists - Globe, Herald, Gazette, MacLean's, CBC (long ago) etc. (hope you're not so jaundiced as to say there's no such thing, a lot of folks think all pilots are lazy and overpaid too, with about the same foundation). It's fair to say (& they'd agree) there is always a mind-set, in spite of any effort to set that aside. That is NOT the same thing as consciously framing everything to slant toward a party or ideology. One involves an imperfect effort to be objective, the other outright seeks to stack the deck. Levant's diatribe about voting percentages may reflect CBC etc., but it's not what the responsible analysts are saying south of the border. They're trying to get it right. If you all keep giving oxygen to biased websites, our news will rely solely on a shouting match of liars. I'll take the efforts of journos trying to be objective, skeptically read, at least until the confirm-my-bias-please crowd has killed them all off. The liberal-media-bias line, which does have a kernel of objective truth to it, is a Trojan horse for the ideologues. However flawed the execution, I try to find sources that seek to inform, rather than convince or reinforce. There are still media, and journos out there trying to do that, but if people just cocoon with their echo-chamber junk-sites, they'll disappear. Well, his graphs showed there was not that much percentage change at all. But to try to explain - if, say, 55% from block A with a 60-40 split show up, but only 50% of block B with a 40-60 split show up, the 60% from A beat the 60% from B. THAT's what happened here; my numbers are only illustrative, but block A here is proxy for the AWG's. Look, seeker, these are all over-simplifications, but the motivated voting of blue-collar, mostly white, mostly (not all) male voters gave trump the edge in some crucial states. It's that simple, but Levant can't resist concocting a more persuasive narrative for his crowd. If you're just keeping up with what's being said in the swamps, fine, I do that, but please do not be convinced by it. & No, I'm not going to argue about The Prince or the Clintons. They're both more complicated than suits the Levants of the world, and there are shades of grey. But my fingers are tired. TTYL, IFG
    1 point
  2. The fact that the Snowbirds do what they do in the equipment they do it in, speaks volumes. They are the best of the best.
    1 point
  3. Fascinating, and terrifying..... https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/935mx3/russia-just-declassified-footage-of-the-largest-nuke-ever-tested
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...