The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

over the next 14 months, events will effect that number, and those events are going to be what drive the election outcome. 

Events will affect that number, but it's never as simple as bad events hurt presidential approval ratings and good events raise ratings, as you seem to be implying. 

 I'm implying no such thing.  "Events" are going to occur.  It's actually a pretty banal statement. Of course stuff is going to happen. Stuff we can't possibly know in advance.  Some positive, some negative, some neutral.

It's why all the horse race predictions are so pointless. Without a crystal ball, a snapshot of voters' attitudes today doesn't tell you a lot about fourteen months from now.

Stuff happens — it’s called life. But fictional stuff can cause disasters — not just in the voting booth.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/moral-majority-media-strikes-again-cd2

here's an example of an event that no one would have predicted a year ago.  And we don't know how it will affect the election a year from now.  

The war on women returns: How GOP governors may doom Republicans in Congress 

The last time Republicans ran a "war on women" campaign, they got wiped out

Holy ****, she's reading Taibbi now.

I'm living in The Upside Down.

ridski said:

Holy ****, she's reading Taibbi now.

I'm living in The Upside Down.

 that's more a reflection of where taibbi has gone, not mt.

drummerboy said:

ridski said:

Holy ****, she's reading Taibbi now.

I'm living in The Upside Down.

 that's more a reflection of where taibbi has gone, not mt.

 Taibbi's been there a while.

It's more that her aggregated newsfeed is now leading her to Taibbi. Next it'll be Glenn Greenwald screeds and we'll be asking ourselves if we've ever seen mtierney and nan in the same room at the same time.

ml1 said:

here's an example of an event that no one would have predicted a year ago.  And we don't know how it will affect the election a year from now.  

The war on women returns: How GOP governors may doom Republicans in Congress 

The last time Republicans ran a "war on women" campaign, they got wiped out

 Yes, events happen, and they can't be predicted. But you make it out like a president is wholly at the mercy of randomness. Like they're floating in the ocean and will go only where the waves take them. 

Do presidents have no control over their own job performance, and by extension how that influences elections?     

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

here's an example of an event that no one would have predicted a year ago.  And we don't know how it will affect the election a year from now.  

The war on women returns: How GOP governors may doom Republicans in Congress 

The last time Republicans ran a "war on women" campaign, they got wiped out

 Yes, events happen, and they can't be predicted. But you make it out like a president is wholly at the mercy of randomness. Like they're floating in the ocean and will go only where the waves take them. 

Do presidents have no control over their own job performance, and by extension how that influences elections?     

 they have control over their performance, but no control over how the media reports on it. Biden's ratings are down largely because the media chose to focus on one day of chaos in Afghanistan.

Oh come on. Blaming the media is so lame. Orange imbecile former occupant of the White House used to do that all the time. 

Smedley said:

Oh come on. Blaming the media is so lame. Orange imbecile former occupant of the White House used to do that all the time. 

 I barely know how to respond to this.

Well this thread has gone on for nine years and presumably it has another nine years in it, so you have time. Sleep on it. 

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

here's an example of an event that no one would have predicted a year ago.  And we don't know how it will affect the election a year from now.  

The war on women returns: How GOP governors may doom Republicans in Congress 

The last time Republicans ran a "war on women" campaign, they got wiped out

 Yes, events happen, and they can't be predicted. But you make it out like a president is wholly at the mercy of randomness. Like they're floating in the ocean and will go only where the waves take them. 

Do presidents have no control over their own job performance, and by extension how that influences elections?     

you are reading more into what I wrote than what I actually wrote.  Of course presidents have control over their responses to events.  But given that we have more than a year of events for Biden to respond to before the midterms, it's mostly the people looking for something to talk about who would be obsessing over his approval rating now.

.

Smedley said:

Well this thread has gone on for nine years and presumably it has another nine years in it, so you have time. Sleep on it. 

 can I ask you what are your primary media sources?

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

Well this thread has gone on for nine years and presumably it has another nine years in it, so you have time. Sleep on it. 

 can I ask you what are your primary media sources?

 WaPo, NYT (household subscriptions to both), NY Post. 

don't watch much tv news but when I do I prefer ABC among networks, and CNBC and CNN on cable.

you?

Do you ever read any press criticism/analysis? Seems like no.

No, never. I always skip that content on the premise that the press is infallible, fully accurate and free of bias. 

Inane answer to an inane question. 

Smedley said:

 WaPo, NYT (household subscriptions to both), NY Post. 

don't watch much tv news but when I do I prefer ABC among networks, and CNBC and CNN on cable.

you?

 explains why your take is usually the Conventional Wisdom of the beltway. 

ml1 said:

you are reading more into what I wrote than what I actually wrote.  Of course presidents have control over their responses to events.  But given that we have more than a year of events for Biden to respond to before the midterms, it's mostly the people looking for something to talk about who would be obsessing over his approval rating now.

Good luck with the old "what I actually wrote" argument, as if that ever works. 

And you are correct, we know that what's important is that we don't know what's going to be important this time next year. And at that time, we'll see how it affects Biden's approval, and what he's doing in response to whatever it is.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

 WaPo, NYT (household subscriptions to both), NY Post. 

don't watch much tv news but when I do I prefer ABC among networks, and CNBC and CNN on cable.

you?

 explains why your take is usually the Conventional Wisdom of the beltway. 

 I left myself open, you’re entitled to your whack of the piñata. 

Now let’s hear yours. Salon is one I think. Vox, Slate, Mother Jones? Guessing on those.

Db has apparently declined to respond. 

Smedley said:

Smedley said:

Now let’s hear yours. Salon is one I think. Vox, Slate, Mother Jones? Guessing on those.

Db has apparently declined to respond. 

 The Under-Armpit Gazette, for sure.

Smedley said:

No, never. I always skip that content on the premise that the press is infallible, fully accurate and free of bias. 

Inane answer to an inane question. 

 well, you didn't list anything else as your main sources.

Smedley said:

 I left myself open, you’re entitled to your whack of the piñata. 

Now let’s hear yours. Salon is one I think. Vox, Slate, Mother Jones? Guessing on those.

Db has apparently declined to respond. 

One of the reasons I come here is to find out from mtierney what's going on in the right wingosphere. So in addition to the NYT, Salon, Vox, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Fivethirtyeight, and The Nation, I'll also read articles from Politico or The Federalist. I also read articles from various sources that I see linked to on social media. In a given week I'll probably check out a couple of dozen sources at least. Sometimes I'll even follow links to primary sources like the BLS, so I'm not relying strictly on a writer's interpretation of facts. 

And then after consuming those sources I consult my own BS meter, use my own gray matter, and try to come to my own conclusions. 

It beats parroting Chris Cillizza or David Brooks, that's for sure. 

Amazing I've been parroting Cillizza and Brooks all this time and you've never caught me plagiarizing once. I'm sure you would have tripped over yourself at the opportunity had it presented itself. 

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

No, never. I always skip that content on the premise that the press is infallible, fully accurate and free of bias. 

Inane answer to an inane question. 

 well, you didn't list anything else as your main sources.

 Note that criticism/analysis of the press is subject to the same inaccuracy and bias as the press reporting itself. It may even be that the original press reporting is correct and the criticism/analysis is wrong. 

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

 I left myself open, you’re entitled to your whack of the piñata. 

Now let’s hear yours. Salon is one I think. Vox, Slate, Mother Jones? Guessing on those.

Db has apparently declined to respond. 

One of the reasons I come here is to find out from mtierney what's going on in the right wingosphere. So in addition to the NYT, Salon, Vox, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Fivethirtyeight, and The Nation, I'll also read articles from Politico or The Federalist. I also read articles from various sources that I see linked to on social media. In a given week I'll probably check out a couple of dozen sources at least. Sometimes I'll even follow links to primary sources like the BLS, so I'm not relying strictly on a writer's interpretation of facts. 

And then after consuming those sources I consult my own BS meter, use my own gray matter, and try to come to my own conclusions. 

It beats parroting Chris Cillizza or David Brooks, that's for sure. 

That's similar to what I do, though I try to add specific criticism sources, like Eric Boehlert, Jay Rosen, and the Columbia Journalism Review. And I'm still a little old school, so there are a few blogs I visit daily, like Eschaton, Lawyers, Guns and Money, Balloon Juice and Kevin Drum.

I find the Federalist a total garbage receptacle and don't bother to waste my time there. And Politico is heading in that direction, though they still have a few reporters that write substantive pieces.

Plus, I spend a lot of time on twitter, and the people I follow will point me to additional, useful sources.

And as always, the BS meter is running full-stop.

The media environment these days is very complex, and frankly, it takes a lot of time to figure out what's b.s and what's not. I don't blame people who don't spend that amount of time on it - but by the same token, they should, at the very least, realize they need to very skeptical of the MSM. Of course, most people are not. And skeptical does not mean simply not believing this source or that.

To get back to my comment to smedley which started this tangent, it's incredibly naive to think that Biden's poll numbers on Afghanistan have not been effected by the media coverage. I mean, what else is there to base it on except media coverage? That's where poll respondents get their information.

Once you accept that, then you have to evaluate whether the coverage has been fair or accurate. I watched a lot of CNN last month (I frankly can't stand them right now), and read a lot of NYT and WAPO, and their coverage was uniformly horrible. They focused on the one day of chaos and constantly used as sources the very people who got us into this quagmire. They gave next to no background on the effects of Trump's Taliban deal, barely talked about how he decimated the State Department (which had a direct effect on processing refugees). They talked as if Biden had sole responsibility for a twenty year war after only a few months in his presidency.

When it comes to war, our MSM sucks the big one. Always. We live in a profit driven media environment, and our major media is beholden to the defense establishment.

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

No, never. I always skip that content on the premise that the press is infallible, fully accurate and free of bias. 

Inane answer to an inane question. 

 well, you didn't list anything else as your main sources.

 Note that criticism/analysis of the press is subject to the same inaccuracy and bias as the press reporting itself. It may even be that the original press reporting is correct and the criticism/analysis is wrong. 

really? thanks for the big news.

I wonder how a thinking person might resolve that?

How about when a big time NYT reporter who might be named Peter Baker writes a piece and quotes a source who he never reveals to be a board member of Raytheon (big time defense contractor) and simply pretends that they're an impartial academic? What do you take from that?

drummerboy said:

To get back to my comment to smedley which started this tangent, it's incredibly naive to think that Biden's poll numbers on Afghanistan have not been effected by the media coverage. I mean, what else is there to base it on except media coverage? That's where poll respondents get their information.

Ok, yes I imagine Biden's poll numbers have been affected by the media coverage. And it's debatable whether the coverage has been fair and accurate on balance. But at the same time, I think it's head-in-the-sand to believe that the media coverage is the only factor.  

To your question "what else is there to base it on except media coverage?", my answer is: Biden himself. I watched the George S interview and Biden's presser from a couple weeks back where he took a few questions. Both direct from the horse's mouth and unfiltered by any media prism. And both times I came away really meh on the notion that Biden is a strong leader and in command of the situation. 

I know from past discussions that nobody on here x-MT has any concerns about Biden's ability to lead, but I strongly believe the number of poll respondents, ie voters, who do have concerns is more than it was one month ago. 

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

To get back to my comment to smedley which started this tangent, it's incredibly naive to think that Biden's poll numbers on Afghanistan have not been effected by the media coverage. I mean, what else is there to base it on except media coverage? That's where poll respondents get their information.

Ok, yes I imagine Biden's poll numbers have been affected by the media coverage. And it's debatable whether the coverage has been fair and accurate on balance. But at the same time, I think it's head-in-the-sand to believe that the media coverage is the only factor.  

To your question "what else is there to base it on except media coverage?", my answer is: Biden himself. I watched the George S interview and Biden's presser from a couple weeks back where he took a few questions. Both direct from the horse's mouth and unfiltered by any media prism. And both times I came away really meh on the notion that Biden is a strong leader and in command of the situation. 

I know from past discussions that nobody on here x-MT has any concerns about Biden's ability to lead, but I strongly believe the number of poll respondents, ie voters, who do have concerns is more than it was one month ago. 

 and how many people do you think actually watched the whole speech as opposed to those who saw excerpts wrapped around media commentary?

and I saw it all and think he did fine. He's not a compelling speaker, but he says what needs to be said.

I know you probably won't answer this, but what specifically did Biden do during those speeches that turned you off?