2016 Presidential Horse Race

[IrishJayhawk]

SIAP

<iframe width="541" height="300" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PFxFRqNmXKg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

**Disclaimer: I did not listen to the audio and I know nothing about SourceFed.

It seems to me they're manipulating things here. They're conflating search suggestions with search results. If someone is searching for indictment, they will search for indictment. Unless I missed it, they're not alleging that the search results were changed.

 

[GowerND11]

So we're back to talking about the Presidential race again?

Damn

 

[woolybug25]

SIAP

<iframe width="541" height="300" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PFxFRqNmXKg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

**Disclaimer: I did not listen to the audio and I know nothing about SourceFed.

You should have listened to the audio. This guy is claiming that Google, and all search engines, have a responsibility to give us the most searched options (false) and that Google breached our inherent trust by not doing so with Hillary. He types in "Hillary Crime" and is pissed that the first thing that comes up with was her crime bill. It's essentially a 5 minute diatribe on why it's unfair that Google doesn't have articles blasting her first in the searches.

He clearly has a limited, basic knowledge about how engines work. He also must be completely unaware that where things show up in searches can be manipulated. There are tons of companies that their sole purpose is to increase a person, company or organizations position in searches. The clip is a poorly researched, poorly thought out slant piece.

I want my 5 minutes back.

 

[IrishLion]

I want my 5 minutes back.

It would have been better spent had you stayed on topic and presented a unique food item from your area that others of us may have not tried but might enjoy.

 

[wizards8507]

It would have been better spent had you stayed on topic and presented a unique food item from your area that others of us may have not tried but might enjoy.

You ever had clam cakes? They're NOT "crab cakes, but with clam." They're fried dough with littlenecks inside.

Acceptable vendors include Iggy's and Chelos.

 

[NDinL.A.]

New Fox Poll. Irishfan has been posting the latest polls (in truth, only when they favor a trending up Trump), but this one hasn't been posted yet:

National poll: Donald Trump loses altitude against Hillary Clinton - POLITICO

Trump's disastrous week and a half, starting with his ridiculous press conference in which he skewered the press when he was supposed to be bragging about, errrrrrrr, announcing his military donations and ending with his bigoted comments against the judge, have appeared to have hurt him greatly.

In a new Fox poll, he lost 6 (!!!!) points from the same poll 3 weeks ago. In their last poll, Trump was winning 45 to 42 over Clinton; in the newest poll, Clinton remains at 42, but Trump is down to 39 points. If you believe in polls this early (I am on record as saying that I don't believe in them this early) that is not good for Trump. At all. Clinton, at the time of most of this polling range, still hadn't even won the nomination yet and therefore hadn't received the inevitable Sanders bump yet.

I'd expect her to rise in the upcoming polls now that she has the nomination. But still, it's reaaaaallly early. If the Trumpeteers want their guy to win, he needs to wake the bleep up, stop saying over-the-top BS, and focus on Hillary's many negatives and not on whoever is slighting him this minute. He needs to realize this isn't the primary anymore, and not all press is good press. As a #nevertrumpian, I'm loving watching him fuck this up. But I also realize this is faaaaaaaaaar from over.

 

[IrishLion]

You ever had clam cakes? They're NOT "crab cakes, but with clam." They're fried dough with littlenecks inside.

Acceptable vendors include Iggy's and Chelos.

I'm not a big seafood guy, but I'll try anything if you put it in batter and fry it. Therefore, these look good to me.

 

[Bubbles]

It seems to me they're manipulating things here. They're conflating search suggestions with search results. If someone is searching for indictment, they will search for indictment. Unless I missed it, they're not alleging that the search results were changed.

Google can and does weight the autosuggestions as well as search results. It's a very complicated formula, but in simple terms, both the search results and search suggestions should be based on the 'relevance' of the returned results....a large factor in which is the number of hits and impressions they get. That said, they massage the results constantly to remove things (porn sites being returned as top suggestions for innocuous searches, etc).

 

[gkIrish]

You should have listened to the audio. This guy is claiming that Google, and all search engines, have a responsibility to give us the most searched options (false) and that Google breached our inherent trust by not doing so with Hillary. He types in "Hillary Crime" and is pissed that the first thing that comes up with was her crime bill. It's essentially a 5 minute diatribe on why it's unfair that Google doesn't have articles blasting her first in the searches.

He clearly has a limited, basic knowledge about how engines work. He also must be completely unaware that where things show up in searches can be manipulated. There are tons of companies that their sole purpose is to increase a person, company or organizations position in searches. The clip is a poorly researched, poorly thought out slant piece.

I want my 5 minutes back.

Maybe I'm wrong but there is a difference between search results and the autofill thing that was featured in this video. I know that people spend lots of money so that their company or whatever is the first thing that pops up when you actual search for something. But I am not aware of a way for consumers to manipulate what search terms are suggested to you when you are typing something. Again, I might be wrong, but seems different to me.

Doesn't seem much different than Facebook manipulating what is "Trending."

 

[kmoose]

You should have listened to the audio. This guy is claiming that Google, and all search engines, have a responsibility to give us the most searched options (false) and that Google breached our inherent trust by not doing so with Hillary. He types in "Hillary Crime" and is pissed that the first thing that comes up with was her crime bill. It's essentially a 5 minute diatribe on why it's unfair that Google doesn't have articles blasting her first in the searches.

I took it more as him complaining that the autofill was slanted; auto filling "Hillary Clinton Crime Bill" when "Hillary Clinton crim" is typed. He used Yahoo, which supposedly has a very similar autofill function, as a counterpoint pointing out that Yahoo autofills "Hillary Clinton crim" with "Hillary Clinton criminal charges", or "Hillary Clinton crimes". As further contrast, he points out that Google autofill matches Yahoo autofill, when "Trump rac" is entered, both returning various forms of "Trump racism". He presents enough evidence to make a person wonder. But there could also be a perfectly reasonable explanation that doesn't involve favoring Hillary Clinton. I didn't take away that there was anything wrong with the actual search results.

 

[woolybug25]

Maybe I'm wrong but there is a difference between search results and the autofill thing that was featured in this video. I know that people spend lots of money so that their company or whatever is the first thing that pops up when you actual search for something. But I am not aware of a way for consumers to manipulate what search terms are suggested to you when you are typing something. Again, I might be wrong, but seems different to me.

The autofill is a function based off of search results, which can be manipulated.

What I don't get is why anybody thinks that Google has a responsibility to give results specific to how often they are searched. Their entire model is based of creating algorithms to create searches that can be manipulated. There is an entire industry based in creating more positive search results and suggestions.

I mean, how many memes and such are out there showing funny search suggestions?

https://www.google.com/search?q=fun...yp3NAhUWIFIKHfaWCZ4Q_AUICCgB&biw=1280&bih=711

Google has proprietary rights to have their search results say whatever they want. We have the right not to like it as well, but they have zero responsibility for making their engine work as suggested in that video.

 

[GoIrish41]

New Fox Poll. Irishfan has been posting the latest polls (in truth, only when they favor a trending up Trump), but this one hasn't been posted yet:

National poll: Donald Trump loses altitude against Hillary Clinton - POLITICO

Trump's disastrous week and a half, starting with his ridiculous press conference in which he skewered the press when he was supposed to be bragging about, errrrrrrr, announcing his military donations and ending with his bigoted comments against the judge, have appeared to have hurt him greatly.

In a new Fox poll, he lost 6 (!!!!) points from the same poll 3 weeks ago. In their last poll, Trump was winning 45 to 42 over Clinton; in the newest poll, Clinton remains at 42, but Trump is down to 39 points. If you believe in polls this early (I am on record as saying that I don't believe in them this early) that is not good for Trump. At all. Clinton, at the time of most of this polling range, still hadn't even won the nomination yet and therefore hadn't received the inevitable Sanders bump yet.

I'd expect her to rise in the upcoming polls now that she has the nomination. But still, it's reaaaaallly early. If the Trumpeteers want their guy to win, he needs to wake the bleep up, stop saying over-the-top BS, and focus on Hillary's many negatives and not on whoever is slighting him this minute. He needs to realize this isn't the primary anymore, and not all press is good press. As a #nevertrumpian, I'm loving watching him fuck this up. But I also realize this is faaaaaaaaaar from over.

I agree that the polls don't mean anything right now, but I'll add this http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/are-trumps-poll-numbers-collapsing.html just to watch the Trump guys squirm. lol

 

[Irish YJ]

I agree that the polls don't mean anything right now, but I'll add this http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/are-trumps-poll-numbers-collapsing.html just to watch the Trump guys squirm. lol

A trump guy would never read NY Mag....
Lefty only territory IMO

 

[woolybug25]

A trump guy would never read NY Mag....
Lefty only territory IMO

Trump himself probably reads it though. lol

 

[Irish YJ]

Trump himself probably reads it though. lol

Probably, just so he can respond lol.
I'm not a Trump guy, but I'd never read that rag.

Are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump the same person? - CNN.com

 

[woolybug25]

Probably, just so he can respond lol.
I'm not a Trump guy, but I'd never read that rag.

Are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump the same person? - CNN.com

So you're suddenly not a Trump guy?

I think he probably has read it because he's been a raging liberal until about a year or two ago.

 

[ACamp1900]

Probably, just so he can respond lol.
I'm not a Trump guy, but I'd never read that rag.

Are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump the same person? - CNN.com

So you're suddenly not a Trump guy?

I think he probably has read it because he's been a raging liberal until about a year or two ago.

I mean, just look at this freaking cheeseburger...

 

[GoIrish41]

I mean, just look at this freaking cheeseburger...

Looks like Trump's hair.

 

[Irish YJ]

Looks like Trump's hair.

Or Hilary face

 

[irishfan]

How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board - ABC News

Scummy Politician vs. the Scummy Businessman.....

Seen a lot of polls with Johnson polling at over 10%. He gets a debate invite supposedly if he gets nationally to 15%. I've been resigned to voting for Trump since about December (when it seemed obvious to me it would be Trump/Clinton no matter what), but it would be nice to have a 3rd option. I haven't done much research on Johnson since I didn't really take him seriously....

Here he is at 12% in the poll NDinL.A. shared:

Poll: Clinton 42, Trump 39, Johnson 12 - CNNPolitics.com

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I just typed in "Bill Cosby Rap" into Google and it suggested rap, rap album, rapper, and rap lyrics. Seems like there might be another option.

 

[GoIrish41]

Samantha Bee interviews Gary Johnson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdkznU2IvfU

 

[NDinL.A.]

I agree that the polls don't mean anything right now, but I'll add this http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/are-trumps-poll-numbers-collapsing.html just to watch the Trump guys squirm. lol

This part is crazy:

A new Reuters/Ipsos survey has her up by eight points; IDB/TIPP has her up five. Even Rasmussen — which had Trump leading by five points in mid-May — now has Clinton leading by four. And all these results are occurring before it sinks in that Clinton has now locked up her nomination and made history. What's more, on Thursday afternoon Fox News came out with a survey showing a six-point swing from a three-point Trump lead in May to a three-point HRC lead now.

I follow the main sites regularly (cnn, msnbc, fox) plus some political sites on both sides of the ledge, and none of them have reported on those until Fox talked about their own poll last night (quick aside - their front page picture was Hillary and the headline was about how many people in their poll think Hillary lied about emails, while they had a smaller article below it talking about how Trump is now losing lol).

I truly believe the media is trying to make this race seem closer than it is. And I mean that if Trump was winning by a lot, they'd make it seem like it was closer as well. The closer the race, the better the ratings. Hillary was up big on Trump, and then when she lost her lead, every media outlet was all over the new polls (and rightfully so...even though polls this early are stupid IMO, it was still news and stunning that Trump had closed the gap so quickly). And now these new polls come out that show Hillary's lead growing even before the Dems have coalesced, and there is silence? I find that to be illuminating on how they operate.

But I'm no media expert, so maybe I'm way off base here? I'd love to hear a rebuttal (no sarcasm - I'd really like to hear from someone that knows more about this stuff than I do).

 

[IrishJayhawk]

This part is crazy:



I follow the main sites regularly (cnn, msnbc, fox) plus some political sites on both sides of the ledge, and none of them have reported on those until Fox talked about their own poll last night (quick aside - their front page picture was Hillary and the headline was about how many people in their poll think Hillary lied about emails, while they had a smaller article below it talking about how Trump is now losing lol).

I truly believe the media is trying to make this race seem closer than it is. And I mean that if Trump was winning by a lot, they'd make it seem like it was closer as well. The closer the race, the better the ratings. Hillary was up big on Trump, and then when she lost her lead, every media outlet was all over the new polls (and rightfully so...even though polls this early are stupid IMO, it was still news and stunning that Trump had closed the gap so quickly). And now these new polls come out that show Hillary's lead growing even before the Dems have coalesced, and there is silence? I find that to be illuminating on how they operate.

By I'm no media expert, so maybe I'm way off base here? I'd love to hear a rebuttal (no sarcasm - I'd really like to hear from someone that knows more about this stuff than I do).

^This. The media bias is for controversy and sensationalism. It's not the one that most people think it is.

ETA: With the correct caveat that these don't mean much now, Trump's number is lower than it has been since about August of last year. Clinton's is lower, so that means the margin is less, but he's dropping again.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

 

[Bishop2b5]

The media bias is for controversy and sensationalism.

We can do the Innuendo
We can dance and sing
When it's said and done
We haven't told you a thing
We all know that Crap is King
Give us dirty laundry

 

[GoIrish41]

The more the news is controlled by corporate entities, the less objective it becomes and the more self-serving its "news." The neutrality and trust exuded by TV newsmen like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite have given way to sensationalistic and bias personalities like Sean Hannity, Bill OReily, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow. Print journalists have gone in the same direction, and social media is an echo chamber for all of the partisan garbage that the "news" outlets pawn off as journalism. There are some highly intelligent journalists but their paychecks are signed by folks with agendas -- not the least of which is making money off of things like closely contested elections. I left the media business about two decades ago because this trend was becoming clearer and clearer to me. I'm glad I got out when I did because it has gotten progressively worse.

Honestly, I think I get more insight into what reporting from both sides of the political spectrum by engaging in discussions on this site than I would ever get by watching corporate media newscasts. At least on IE we discuss what both sides are thinking, even if the nutjobs on the right are wrong about everything.

 

[wizards8507]

The more the news is controlled by corporate entities, the less objective it becomes and the more self-serving their "news" becomes. The neutrality and trust exuded by TV newsmen like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite have given way to sensationalistic and bias personalities like Sean Hannity, Bill OReily, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow. Print journalists have gone in the same direction, and social media is an echo chamber for all of the partisan garbage that the "news" outlets pawn off as journalism. There are some highly intelligent journalists but their paychecks are signed by folks with agendas -- not the least of which is making money off of things like closely contested elections. I left the media business about two decades ago because this trend was becoming clearer and clearer to me. I'm glad I got out when I did because it has gotten progressively worse.

None of those people are journalists, nor do they pretend to be. The problem is not personalities having opinions, because that's their job. The problem comes from political activists disguising themselves as journalists. See Katie Couric and George Stephanopoulos.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

None of those people are journalists, nor do they pretend to be. The problem is not personalities having opinions, because that's their job. The problem comes from political activists disguising themselves as journalists. See Katie Couric and George Stephanopoulos.

True. But it goes both ways.

See Tony Snow and Brit Hume. Both hosted "news" programs on Fox.

 

[wizards8507]

True. But it goes both ways.

See Tony Snow and Brit Hume. Both hosted "news" programs on Fox.

IMO, the best in the business are Anderson Cooper and Bret Baier. You know each one's political leanings but they're both men of integrity by all accounts.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

IMO, the best in the business are Anderson Cooper and Bret Baier. You know each one's political leanings but they're both men of integrity by all accounts.

I had actually written Anderson Cooper as my favorite and then decided to delete that part of the post. Baier's panels are just so unbalanced, it's hard for me to watch very often. But he seems like he might be okay.

I personally think everyone pales in comparison to PBS.