DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

From page 108 of this thread (May, 2019): 

nan said:

nohero said:
Joe Rogan has a podcast, and puts videos on YouTube of his podcast recording sessions.  Here he is all smiles with Alex Jones:

I can't say that the "Joe Rogan endorsement" means that much to me.

 It does not matter what you think of Joe Rogen.  I never listen to him unless he has someone I like on which is practically never. He has 5.3 million subscribed listeners. And lots more that listen without being subscribed. Those people are voters.  It's the largest alternative show in the world (or something like that--I don't know how it is characterized).  It's a significant endorsement. 

STANV said:

Sometimes I think I live in a different world.

Who the blank is Joe Rogan?

 He invented a treatment for hair loss.

RealityForAll said:

 Do you believe the percentage of subscribers who are American voters (I prefer "registered US voters") is different for CNN and The Joe Rogan Experience?

If so, why?

 What is a CNN subscriber?

ETA, it seems you edited your post to talk about their YouTube channels.  I couldn’t give **** about cnn’s YouTube channel. It has a worldwide market outside of YouTube, in airports and TVs worldwide.

sbenois said:

Pathetic. You probably don't know what CNN is either. 

Get out of your cave already.

 CNN is what I watch when I am in the Gym during the commercials on Morning Joe

STANV said:

Sometimes I think I live in a different world.

Who the blank is Joe Rogan?

 I was afraid to ask that question. 

ridski said:

RealityForAll said:

 Do you believe the percentage of subscribers who are American voters (I prefer "registered US voters") is different for CNN and The Joe Rogan Experience?

If so, why?

 What is a CNN subscriber?

ETA, it seems you edited your post to talk about their YouTube channels.  I couldn’t give **** about cnn’s YouTube channel. It has a worldwide market outside of YouTube, in airports and TVs worldwide.

 As you know we are discussing You Tube subscribers.  Previously I posted snips of YT subscriber numbers for both CNN and The Joe Rogan Experience.  Those who subscribe to a particular YT channel are subscribers.  Hopefully that clears up what a YT subscriber is.

ETA: you are acting as if you work for CNN (if I worked for CNN I would also be angry).  CNN is known for viewers who have landline phones, subscriptions to cable tv, and are eligible for old age social security benefits (IOW, the oldest generations).  Defending the popularity of CNN by its "worldwide market" . . . "in airports and TVs worldwide" is ridiculous as this analysis fails to materially account for those under 60 years old.

RealityForAll said:

 As you know we are discussing You Tube subscribers. 

You alone decided that YouTube subscriptions were a worthy point of comparison between CNN and Joe Rogan. Have fun!

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

 As you know we are discussing You Tube subscribers. 

You alone decided that YouTube subscriptions were a worthy point of comparison between CNN and Joe Rogan. Have fun!

 The fact that CNN and The Joe Rogan Experience ("JRE") have almost the same number of YT subscribers is not relevant (b/c you, DS, say so)?

How would you (DS) measure significance of JRE/JR endorsement vs CNN hypothetical endorsement (in lieu of YT subscriptions)?

IMHO, Joe Rogan Experience is a rising star; whereas,
CNN is a falling star.

Spooky. IMHO are the same initials I use to emphasize that I alone decided.

This is such a ridiculous discussion, considering CNN to my knowledge doesn't endorse candidates. 

But for people who are keeping score, Joe Rogan has nearly 6 million followers on Twitter. CNN has almost 45 million.  

ml1 said:

This is such a ridiculous discussion, considering CNN to my knowledge doesn't endorse candidates. 

But for people who are keeping score, Joe Rogan has nearly 6 million followers on Twitter. CNN has almost 45 million.  

 What does it really mean to have followers on Twitter. There are many who would count me as a follower because I clicked on their account and became a follower but I never check out their tweets.

One does not get to be a viewer of CNN by clicking something on a computer but rather by actually turning on a TV and watching.

But being considerably past my 60th birthday perhaps I just don't understand.

So here's his Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Rogan

For me the most interesting thing is that he was born in Newark.

Of interest to mtierney might be that he is Anti the Catholic Church.

Of interest to sbenois and certain others may be that he was a Tulsi Gabbard supporter

ml1 said:

This is such a ridiculous discussion, considering CNN to my knowledge doesn't endorse candidates. 

It began with an assumption based on a hypothetical. Compelling, that.

And everybody knows the future is Twitch.

ml1 said:

This is such a ridiculous discussion, considering CNN to my knowledge doesn't endorse candidates. 

But for people who are keeping score, Joe Rogan has nearly 6 million followers on Twitter. CNN has almost 45 million.  

Can we agree that CNN is 750% more influential than The Joe Rogan Experience (AKA "JRE") based on your twitter follower numbers (namely, 45MM/6MM=7.5=750%).  Clearly there are different methods for assessing influence of various networks and podcasts.

PS My best guess is that CNN is 1,000,000% more influential than the JRE with those who still have landlines.

RealityForAll said:

Can we agree that CNN is 750% more influential than The Joe Rogan Experience (AKA "JRE") based on your twitter follower numbers (namely, 45MM/6MM=7.5=750%).  Clearly there are different methods for assessing influence of various networks and podcasts.

PS My best guess is that CNN is 1,000,000% more influential than the JRE with those who still have landlines.

 is this a joke?

Does CNN Have It In For Bernie Sanders?

Link:  https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/does-cnn-have-it-in-for-bernie-sanders

Brief excerpt from above link:

By John Judis

January 15, 2020 10:37 a.m.

I am not a big fan of cable media — the only TV news I watch regularly is the PBS NewsHour, which attempts to base its statements on actual reporting and tries to present both sides of issues and let me decide. What struck me at last night’s debate was the blatant hostility of CNN to Senator Bernie Sanders. Here’s how their reporter framed the question to Sanders about Warren’s claim (which she alone is in a position to make since they were the only two people in the room):

            PHILLIP: Let’s now turn to — let’s now turn to an issue that’s come up

             in the last 48 hours. Sen. Sanders, CNN reported yesterday that — 

             and Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement,  that in 

             2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could

             win the election. Why did you say that?

Now what’s odd about that? Warren couldn’t “confirm” CNN’s reporting. She could only confirm that she had told people who had told CNN that Sanders had told her a woman candidate couldn’t win. It’s strictly a he said/she said situation. And the CNN “reporter” knew that Sanders had denied making the statement. CNN repeated this canard when they asked Warren to respond.

Now here’s the observation I’d make. On the cable media, the two outlets that seem most hostile to Sanders — MSNBC and CNN — also happen to be the most hostile to Trump. One interpretation of this — and I think this is valid — is that they are both ideological outliers: Trump on the populist right and Sanders on the populist left. And I’d say, too, that both outlets are more hostile to Trump than they are to Sanders — and that reflects their view that he is far more malignant. (And I’d agree that he is malignant.)

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Can we agree that CNN is 750% more influential than The Joe Rogan Experience (AKA "JRE") based on your twitter follower numbers (namely, 45MM/6MM=7.5=750%).  Clearly there are different methods for assessing influence of various networks and podcasts.

PS My best guess is that CNN is 1,000,000% more influential than the JRE with those who still have landlines.

 is this a joke?

Can we agree that you (ml1) hate numbers and statistics?

The landline comment is a joke wrapped in the perception of most regarding CNN.

Do you (ml1) work for CNN?  

I think that you mentioned once (in a prior post many moons ago) that you work in the Time Warner building.

RealityForAll said:

 Can we agree that you hate numbers and statistics.

 I make my living with numbers and statistics. Which is why I hate pseudo intellectual applications of numbers and statistics. Your post above was so ridiculous I wanted to be sure not to waste time responding seriously if it was an attempt at satire. 

RealityForAll said:

Can we agree that you....

RFA always uses this to precede a statement with which no one will agree.

I'm still undecided.  In one way this is good because I'd be fine in supporting anyone over Trump.  But the fact that one candidate isn't exciting the entire base is a bit concerning as well.

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

 Can we agree that you hate numbers and statistics.

 I make my living with numbers and statistics. Which is why I hate pseudo intellectual applications of numbers and statistics. Your post above was so ridiculous I wanted to be sure not to waste time responding seriously if it was an attempt at satire. 

The question was simply: whether the fact CNN has 750% more twitter followers than the JRE means that CNN is 750% more influential from a Twitter perspective than the JRE?

Straight-forward question and no pseudo intellectual analysis involved.  I await your substantive response.

I don't get the reasoning of following a news outlet on twitter.  But I'm hardly on it - so I may not be the best judge of this.  Outside of personalities - does anyone know what the #1 twitter account is?

RealityForAll said:

The question was simply: whether the fact CNN has 750% more twitter followers than the JRE means that CNN is 750% more influential from a Twitter perspective than the JRE?

Straight-forward question and no pseudo intellectual analysis involved.  I await your substantive response.

 Not enough data.

"Follow" means that a person on the Twitter clicked "Follow".  That fact provides no information no whether that same person actually reads the tweets from the person followed.

That's only one of several possible responses, none of which affirm your thesis.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

 Can we agree that you hate numbers and statistics.

 I make my living with numbers and statistics. Which is why I hate pseudo intellectual applications of numbers and statistics. Your post above was so ridiculous I wanted to be sure not to waste time responding seriously if it was an attempt at satire. 

The question was simply: whether the fact CNN has 750% more twitter followers than the JRE means that CNN is 750% more influential from a Twitter perspective than the JRE?

Straight-forward question and no pseudo intellectual analysis involved.  I await your substantive response.

Answer is: stupid question.

Now go away.

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

The question was simply: whether the fact CNN has 750% more twitter followers than the JRE means that CNN is 750% more influential from a Twitter perspective than the JRE?

Straight-forward question and no pseudo intellectual analysis involved.  I await your substantive response.

 Not enough data.

"Follow" means that a person on the Twitter clicked "Follow".  That fact provides no information no whether that same person actually reads the tweets from the person followed.

That's only one of several possible responses, none of which affirm your thesis.

 Not a thesis, merely a stake in the sand.  The stake in the sand is an attempt to determine the likely range (as determined by various different methods) of influence of the JRE* and CNN.

I agree the 750% more influential is only one of several possible responses. It has happened. You (nohero) and I have agreed upon something (everyone: mark your calendar).

*-AKA the "Joe Rogan Experience."

drummerboy said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

 Can we agree that you hate numbers and statistics.

 I make my living with numbers and statistics. Which is why I hate pseudo intellectual applications of numbers and statistics. Your post above was so ridiculous I wanted to be sure not to waste time responding seriously if it was an attempt at satire. 

The question was simply: whether the fact CNN has 750% more twitter followers than the JRE means that CNN is 750% more influential from a Twitter perspective than the JRE?

Straight-forward question and no pseudo intellectual analysis involved.  I await your substantive response.

Answer is: stupid question.

Now go away.

 See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_Twitter_accounts

The number one followed Twitter account is BHO (according to the above link).  And, CNN breaking news is #25 on the same list.  I don't see JR or the JRE in the top 50 (listed at the above link).  I disagree that my question was stupid.  It appears that many rely on these lists of most followed Twitter account.  The link above is apparently updated periodically (the linked page lists 01242020 as the last update).  Perhaps, JR or the JRE, will appear when the list is updated next.

PS I will take your admonishment ("Now go away.") as exasperation rather than something more troubling.

jamie said:

I don't get the reasoning of following a news outlet on twitter.  But I'm hardly on it - so I may not be the best judge of this.  Outside of personalities - does anyone know what the #1 twitter account is?

 Barack Obama.  See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_Twitter_accounts

Also see:  https://socialblade.com/twitter/top/100/followers

RealityForAll said:

 Not a thesis, merely a stake in the sand.  The stake in the sand is an attempt to determine the likely range (as determined by various different methods) of influence of the JRE* and CNN.

I agree the 750% more influential is only one of several possible responses. It has happened. You (ml1) and I have agreed upon something (everyone: mark your calendar).

*-AKA the "Joe Rogan Experience."

 I say "tomato", you say, "let's discuss whether the tomato is a vegetable or a fruit instead".

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

 Not a thesis, merely a stake in the sand.  The stake in the sand is an attempt to determine the likely range (as determined by various different methods) of influence of the JRE* and CNN.

I agree the 750% more influential is only one of several possible responses. It has happened. You (ml1) and I have agreed upon something (everyone: mark your calendar).

*-AKA the "Joe Rogan Experience."

 I say "tomato", you say, "let's discuss whether the tomato is a vegetable or a fruit instead".

 Cat avatars mess me up on who is who.  Fixed above.

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

 Not a thesis, merely a stake in the sand.  The stake in the sand is an attempt to determine the likely range (as determined by various different methods) of influence of the JRE* and CNN.

I agree the 750% more influential is only one of several possible responses. It has happened. You (ml1) and I have agreed upon something (everyone: mark your calendar).

*-AKA the "Joe Rogan Experience."

 I say "tomato", you say, "let's discuss whether the tomato is a vegetable or a fruit instead".

Any analysis has the possibilities of a range of outcomes.  I am merely acknowledging that a range of outcomes are possible depending on the method of analysis.