Presidential Election 2020

[FriscoDog]

What does any of that have to do with the actual results? I know a lot of the networks you guys hate the most did not call AZ or PA early...and did call FL. Are you asserting that news bias actually had an effect on the outcome?

No it wasn't that at all.. for me again it was the inconsistency, not only between networks but also within a single network. I switched back and forth between several different channels.. Some would call Kentucky with a certain percentage of votes in..(usually very low) but ok.. whatever.. and other networks would not have called Kentucky yet. Ok.. as you said.. different networks different procedures.. Yet on any given network.. they would not call a state one way or the other with a much higher vote count in.. 80% or more and huge difference in number of votes received. In my opinion the results desks of any given network did not seem to consistently apply the same logic when declaring a particular state's winner.

[Guisslapp]

No it wasn't that at all.. for me again it was the inconsistency, not only between networks but also within a single network. I switched back and forth between several different channels.. Some would call Kentucky with a certain percentage of votes in..(usually very low) but ok.. whatever.. and other networks would not have called Kentucky yet. Ok.. as you said.. different networks different procedures.. Yet on any given network.. they would not call a state one way or the other with a much higher vote count in.. 80% or more and huge difference in number of votes received. In my opinion the results desks of any given network did not seem to consistently apply the same logic when declaring a particular state's winner.

The decision desks use different methods for determining certainty. It isn’t about the amount of the vote that is in, but also where the vote is outstanding and what type of vote hasn’t been counted. For example, for states with large amounts of absentee ballots, they had to have a representative sample size of those types of ballots to know how they skewed.

[dawg80]

Well, there is a reason networks don't start calling races until all polls have closed, it is thought it might deter voters who haven't yet voted in the western states, if it appears the outcome has been determined or is about to be. Thus there is a popular belief that networks and their calls DO INFLUENCE how people vote. Which, is a slightly different topic than calling some states when only 5% of the vote has been reported, and not calling states when 80%+ has been. The methodology used by the "election decision desks" at the various networks, aside, I do think there is an attempt to manipulate popular opinion re: if the results are legit.

For instance, let's say a network with a strong political lean (one way or the other) wanted to create doubt about an election's validity. Then they might start calling states for their preferred candidate as early as possible, showing a scoreboard of EC votes, and claiming a victory for said candidate. Then, when all votes are counted and if their guy did not win...well, then, there must have been fraud! That is the only reason I can think of for knowingly calling states' results before they really know.

[inudesu]

Well, there is a reason networks don't start calling races until all polls have closed, it is thought it might deter voters who haven't yet voted in the western states, if it appears the outcome has been determined or is about to be. Thus there is a popular belief that networks and their calls DO INFLUENCE how people vote. Which, is a slightly different topic than calling some states when only 5% of the vote has been reported, and not calling states when 80%+ has been. The methodology used by the "election decision desks" at the various networks, aside, I do think there is an attempt to manipulate popular opinion re: if the results are legit.

For instance, let's say a network with a strong political lean (one way or the other) wanted to create doubt about an election's validity. Then they might start calling states for their preferred candidate as early as possible, showing a scoreboard of EC votes, and claiming a victory for said candidate. Then, when all votes are counted and if their guy did not win...well, then, there must have been fraud! That is the only reason I can think of for knowingly calling states' results before they really know.

I think it's financial. It's all about having the "scoop" and being the first to call it "right."

Which is really the most important thing from a news perspective (and important for keeping public trust high). I feel like after 2000 they all tapped the brakes a little bit. At least on calling the whole thing when there was still a chance it could go the other way.

You'd hope that the networks would explain (and that people would listen) and I think as long as it's clear what they're saying and what they're not saying and the facts are correct we should be good even if they have different philosophies. Like I think it's ok for Fox news to say "we're calling FL for Trump, lets put those electoral votes up on our big scoreboard here" as long as they're explaining what their logic is ("now, not all the votes have been counted here folks, but the lead is too big based on registered voters or all we're missing are rural counties that tend to go red" or whatever).

But as we've seen, probably no matter how it's called (which is really just real-time predicting/reporting) the losing side (either one) is going to be mad about it. It's one thing to be perplexed or curious about the system, but there are people who really do think that Fox news has it in for Trump and none of their news can be trusted anymore because they didn't report what they wanted to hear (or what he wanted them to hear and continues to insist is true). That's unnerving.

Because even though Fox News ended up being correct, which you would think would vindicate them, those people no longer trust (even) them.

[Guisslapp]

All media sources would like to be the first to call it correctly, but none want to be the one to call a state prematurely incorrectly. The latter created more harm than the former creates good.

The calls are made based on the data and they need enough representative data sets for a state to make the confidence above the decision desk’s required confidence threshold. Thus, it isn’t the total percent of vote counted that is most important. They need samples from urban and rural areas, they need total vote numbers for enough areas, they need to have enough of each type of vote (early vote, day of, absentee, mail in)...

Then it’s like poker - you count the outs and compute a probability. To what degree must the outstanding vote differ from the currently counted vote to change the outcome, and evaluate whether there any statistically plausible scenarios for it to happen.

For example, Pennsylvania took a long time to call because there were enough provisional ballots that if they skewed heavily to Trump in Philly and Pittsburg (and were not disproportionately Biden votes like the other votes in the city) then there was a scenario where Trump could overtake Biden when all the provisionals were counted. Once they had a large enough sample size of provisionals to know that wasn’t the case, they called Pennsylvania.

[FriscoDawg]

My dissatisfaction with the hard news side of FNC has been building for a long time. Shepard Smith was good riddance. Chris Wallace deserves to be gone solely on the basis of his abysmal moderation performance in the first debate after he was by far the best moderator in the 2016 debates. And I could go on.

What made me distrust FNC's election coverage more and more is that the network news talking heads kept defending Mishkin's premature Arizona call for several days. And every time Mishkin was interviewed he kept insisting that Trump would not get over half of the remaining ballots yet to be counted. And every time Arizona updated its count Trump had gained anywhere from 50% to 60% of the total votes added. Hard to trust a network that lies and tries to defend its bad decisions with more lies. The alphabet networks and their offshoots and CNN have been doing that for years, and that's why they don't get my news viewership either.

[dawg80]

Well...even with a few hiccups FOX News is still a million times better than the libtard media outlets.

Brett Baier is highly respected across the political spectrum, considered to be "fair," and I think he works very hard, sometimes too hard, to maintain that status. I have seen him pull something out of his ass just to "balance" a discussion that he thought was being too friendly to Trump/GOP/conservatism. Often it was some out-of-left-field comment, did not add to the pertinent conversation, but was rather just a "Hey, look at me, I'm fair and balanced!" Overall, I like Brett Baier.

FOX is the ONLY major news network that even attempts to be fair. I do like Newsmax, but they are blatantly partisan, that is, they are the right's answer to CNN/MSNBC. I prefer FOX, which does give all the information, even some I don't like. But, it is what it is.

[dawg80]

Guess posting this here works...

AOC has joined Kamala Harris in advocating legalizing prostitution. "Sex work is work, and work is work," said AOC.

I suppose one could make the argument that it could be made safer and then it could also be taxed!

Safer? I could imagine what would happen when the guvmint gets involved. Just think what OSHA would do regarding PPEs.

[FriscoDog]

Guess posting this here works...

AOC has joined Kamala Harris in advocating legalizing prostitution. "Sex work is work, and work is work," said AOC.

I suppose one could make the argument that it could be made safer and then it could also be taxed!

Safer? I could imagine what would happen when the guvmint gets involved. Just think what OSHA would do regarding PPEs.

Then they need to get to work!!!

[arkansasbob]

Guess posting this here works...

AOC has joined Kamala Harris in advocating legalizing prostitution. "Sex work is work, and work is work," said AOC.

I suppose one could make the argument that it could be made safer and then it could also be taxed!

Safer? I could imagine what would happen when the guvmint gets involved. Just think what OSHA would do regarding PPEs.

if we're going to emulate russia, we may as well have yellow passports, too...

[dawg80]

if we're going to emulate russia, we may as well have yellow passports, too...

How did you know about yellow passports? I had to Bing that.

As for emulating Russia, yeah with this incoming administration ruled by Crazy Bernie and AOC, we will look a lot like Russia, or perhaps Red China is a better comparison.

[Guisslapp]

The new administration couldn’t possibly do worse than the current administration in dealing with Russia, particularly on matters of cyber attacks. Trump has been highly compromised on this point.

[dawg80]

The new administration couldn’t possibly do worse than the current administration in dealing with Russia, particularly on matters of cyber attacks. Trump has been highly compromised on this point.

I take all threats seriously. There has been some lax response to cyber attacks from a number of sources. General Keane was just on FOX making the point our philosophy, in all matters, has always been "offensive" not "defensive." He made the point that is due, in part, to ours being a free and open society where the government does not dictate micro-managing policies. So, private companies, including those who are contractors for the government, are allowed to operate under their own guidance.

My brother works in the cyber protection field. His company primarily services credit card companies and other financial institutions. Those represent the "bread and butter" contracts for his firm. But, they also have done work for public entities. He says any "minnow" allows entry into any system. Said "minnow" can be many, many layers removed from the ultimate target. He also says it is doubtful that "Americans" will tolerate the necessary intrusions into their personal/private business(systems) it would take... i.e. federal government "control"... to mostly assure cyber security.

[Guisslapp]

All businesses are responsible for protecting their own businesses.

But when the attack comes from a nation state, a foreign policy response is also required. Trump won’t stand up to Russia for obvious reasons.

[dawg80]

All businesses are responsible for protecting their own businesses.

But when the attack comes from a nation state, a foreign policy response is also required. Trump won’t stand up to Russia for obvious reasons.

You are gonna be so lost for a purpose in life soon....pity you.