dead man walking wrote:of course i should have known that any positive news during the obama years is mere illusion.
as for the wall street journal, it's problems are no doubt typical of print media and unrelated to the jobs and wages report. in contrast, i believe i recently saw that the times has posted strong earnings.
New York Times Co. said its third-quarter earnings fell sharply as print advertising dropped 19%, the latest publisher to signal that spending on newspaper ads is drying up even further.
Publishers have made plans to further trim their staffs and shift resources to more digital initiatives as advertising demand is forecast to remain weak. The New York Times said its overall advertising revenue decreased 7.7% in the third quarter, and the company expects a similar decline for the fourth quarter. Digital advertising sales, meanwhile, grew 21%, mostly on growth in its mobile platform.
it was the digital performance that caught my eye:
Digital advertising revenue, however, which now represents 36 percent of the company’s advertising revenue, increased 21 percent in the quarter, to $44 million, a welcome relief for the company after a decline in digital advertising last quarter. The Times also added 116,000 net digital-only subscriptions for news products during the quarter, bringing its total to 1.3 million. Including crossword product subscriptions, it has about 1.6 million digital-only subscribers.
Overall, the Times reported a profit of $406,000 for the quarter, or break-even on a per-share basis, down sharply from $9.4 million, or 6 cents a share, a year earlier. Excluding restructuring-related costs and other items, per-share earnings from continuing operations fell to 6 cents from 9 cents. Revenue decreased 1% to $363.5 million.
I reckon you could argue they turned some kind of corner, but one less than horrible quarter seems little evidence. And I am not a NYT hater. We need actual journalism.
do any of you pay attention to sam wang's analysis of the polls? he's a princeton science prof with his own meta-analysis of state polls. i think his record is up there with nate silver's. he's got clinton with a 98% probability of winning. he says he'll eat a bug if she loses, but hey, he's chinese, and they eat anything.
you'd have to read his stuff to understand how he gets his results cuz i can't explain it.
dead man walking wrote:do any of you pay attention to sam wang's analysis of the polls? he's a princeton science prof with his own meta-analysis of state polls. i think his record is up there with nate silver's. he's got clinton with a 98% probability of winning. he says he'll eat a bug if she loses, but hey, he's chinese, and they eat anything.
you'd have to read his stuff to understand how he gets his results cuz i can't explain it.
He is a poll aggregator and simulation runner. And his electoral college projection is far and away the most bullish for Clinton. Not only that, but he has the fewest leaning and battleground states. See here for his take as to sure thing vs leaning states:
So, in 99% of his sims, clinton wins. If he is right, he deserves to crow because he is waaaaay out there. As you see in the first link, most all the estimators have it very very close. In the sense that there are a lot of states that could go either way. This guy claims to be able to tell the outcome of a lot more races.
What can one say? He is from Princeton and out on a limb? He isn't collecting his own data just like Silver. And Silver's system is close to a tossup.
Shafpocalypse Now wrote:I disagree on the Trump win. I think HRC will take it and pretty handily.
Even around here, in Texas, there are lot of folks advocating HRC, not Trump.
Now, if Trump wins, I think it'll be a goofy 4 years, I don't think it will be apocalyptic.
I think you have an outlier experience. I have not seen a single state poll where Hillarys enthusiasm comes close to Trumps. In fact, in PA she's running at about half in the recent ones. Which points out, to me, the strange argument for Hillary support: they don't like her, they don't go see her, they think she is shady as hell but she will outperform BO because???? She is Bill w/o the charm and he never cracked 50% and fielded serious 3rd party candidates. And Hispanic data is whacked. Anywhere from 65% to 16% with most at high 20's which js way under BO. And she ain't getting blacks. They hate her. But we'll see. I"m confident in my prediction. But it does require a non 50/50 split in undecideds and dem crossover...
And of course I agree the apocalypse is stupid. Trump is isolationist. So the argument is fewer wars like Iraq and Syria and Libya equals more danger. Absurd. And the economy is crashing anyway as soon as they raise rates so wtf?
What, specifically was the wrongdoing with the media that rises to the level of rendering someone unfit for office?
"They all do it, 'where do you draw the line'?" Where are you drawing the line? What's the fucking difference between now and ever, aside from Hillary's got a vagina? Who were you supporting that was different? (Again, if you actually voted for Johnson or Stein or wrote-in Cthulhu or Ludwig von Mises, you can have a pass.)
What's disgusting about Hillary is what's disgusting about everyone with a chance to be President. A coziness with great wealth and a thirst for power - the fundamental issue of 'anyone seeking to be President should not be.'
Who was this magical major party candidate who represented less corruption? Bernie? Sure, whether you like his ideas or not, it's hard to cast him in with the rest - but Bernie was never a Democrat before and had roughly the same real odds of ascending to the White House as me. No one who doesn't own a copy of the People's History would even know his name if he didn't live in a tiny, homogenous state to start with.
If we just want to burn the whole thing down, I'm game - I'd prefer that we dissolve into 5-6 separate nation-states, but if we're determined to keep this sham up until the Potable Water Wars of 2060, abolish the Senate and the Electoral College (distortions of vote-value being a fundamental error in a democracy), move to a parliamentary system with IRV and publicly fund elections like the rest of the civilized world.
dead man walking wrote:do any of you pay attention to sam wang's analysis of the polls? he's a princeton science prof with his own meta-analysis of state polls. i think his record is up there with nate silver's. he's got clinton with a 98% probability of winning. he says he'll eat a bug if she loses, but hey, he's chinese, and they eat anything.
you'd have to read his stuff to understand how he gets his results cuz i can't explain it.
He is a poll aggregator and simulation runner. And his electoral college projection is far and away the most bullish for Clinton. Not only that, but he has the fewest leaning and battleground states. See here for his take as to sure thing vs leaning states:
So, in 99% of his sims, clinton wins. If he is right, he deserves to crow because he is waaaaay out there. As you see in the first link, most all the estimators have it very very close. In the sense that there are a lot of states that could go either way. This guy claims to be able to tell the outcome of a lot more races.
What can one say? He is from Princeton and out on a limb? He isn't collecting his own data just like Silver. And Silver's system is close to a tossup.
two observations:
silver has it 2 to 1 for clinton. how is that a toss-up?
wang's aggregation model has been right in the past. so what might he know that the other guys don't? something about "median based probability estimating," i think, whatever that is.
the press loves shit about "battleground states," but the national polls haven't moved significantly for a long time. sure they've moved, but not signicantly. imagine if all the nytimes and fox could report is "trump says more nonsense, but the race is over." or "clinton still looks dumpy in a pant suit, but smart, determined lady you don't like is gonna win."
that's the story. i just saved you the price of a subscription to your favorite newspaper, assuming you have one.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
milosz wrote:
Who was this magical major party candidate who represented less corruption?
How about the guy who isn't a lifelong politician, who largely self-funded his campaign (eschewing corporate and foreign money), who isn't up for sale, and who ran for President at tremendous risk to himself, his family, and his brand/business, because he loves America?
milosz wrote:
Who was this magical major party candidate who represented less corruption?
How about the guy who isn't a lifelong politician, who largely self-funded his campaign (eschewing corporate and foreign money), who isn't up for sale, and who ran for President at tremendous risk to himself, his family, and his brand/business, because he loves America?
Nice one.
So it's a fair assumption that the king of debt would not be beholden to financial interests?
milosz wrote:
Who was this magical major party candidate who represented less corruption?
How about the guy who isn't a lifelong politician, who largely self-funded his campaign (eschewing corporate and foreign money), who isn't up for sale, and who ran for President at tremendous risk to himself, his family, and his brand/business, because he loves America?
largely self-funded?
another of the donald's lies (but you're a cute little troll terry) :
Trump has boasted about self-funding his campaign, but has only contributed about $56 million to his own cause. The bulk of his campaign money has come from the RNC ($284.6 million) and two joint fundraising committees: Trump Make America Great Again Committee ($193.9 million) and Trump Victory ($97.6 million).
Additionally, Trump has received millions from six super-PACs: Rebuilding America Now ($20.3 million), Great America PAC ($15.2 million), Make America Number 1 ($5.2 million), Save America from Its Government ($2 million), Future45 ($13.7 million), and Reform America Now ($2 million).
The top five individual donors to Donald Trump's campaign are:
Donald Trump, $56.1 million
Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, $10.5 million
Home Depot founder Bernard Marcus, $7 million
Former WWE CEO Linda McMahon, $6.2 million
Hedge fund CEO Robert Mercer and his family, $5.8 million
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
another of the donald's lies (but you're a cute little troll terry) :
Trump has boasted about self-funding his campaign, but has only contributed about $56 million to his own cause. The bulk of his campaign money has come from the RNC ($284.6 million) and two joint fundraising committees: Trump Make America Great Again Committee ($193.9 million) and Trump Victory ($97.6 million).
Additionally, Trump has received millions from six super-PACs: Rebuilding America Now ($20.3 million), Great America PAC ($15.2 million), Make America Number 1 ($5.2 million), Save America from Its Government ($2 million), Future45 ($13.7 million), and Reform America Now ($2 million).
The top five individual donors to Donald Trump's campaign are:
Donald Trump, $56.1 million
Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, $10.5 million
Home Depot founder Bernard Marcus, $7 million
Former WWE CEO Linda McMahon, $6.2 million
Hedge fund CEO Robert Mercer and his family, $5.8 million
Was that during the primaries, during the general, or both?
And LOL at complaining a businessman didn't pay for ALL of his campaign when you're supporting someone who hasn't met a PAC or foreign donor she didn't love and has spent years building a war chest for this moment. That damn Trump!
i wasn't "complaining," child, simply pointing out your false statement--and trump's.
he hasn't put in as much of his money as he promised--probably because he knows better than to throw good money after bad. it's the only example of trump's good judgment one could point to.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
When someone makes claims based on "science", check their math. A lot of the intelligentsia look like complete fools after last night.
But the outcome was getting to watch and enjoy the looks on the faces of the MSNBC crew. I thought Steve Schmidt and Rachel Maddow were about a great hotel room away from wrapping each other in starched cotton and ritually disemboweling themselves, with Nicole Wallace acting as kaishakunin.
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.
"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex
powerlifter54 wrote:When someone makes claims based on "science", check their math. A lot of the intelligentsia look like complete fools after last night.
This is especially true of Sam Wang, Ryan Grim and the other dumbasses who were arguing that Clinton had a 99% chance of winning, and accusing anyone who suggested polling results contain error of trying to put their thumb on the scale. While any forecasted election probability should be taken with at least a grain of salt, pretending that you can add up a bunch of polls and be 99% sure of the outcome is just stupid.
There’s a new king of the presidential election data mountain. His name is Sam Wang, Ph.D....
When the smoke clears on Tuesday—and it will clear—what will emerge is Wang and his Princeton Election Consortium website and calculations (which have been used, in part, to drive some of the election poll conclusions at The New York Times’ Upshot blog and The Huffington Post’s election site)....
This year, Wang called the election at 8:55 PM on October 18. He promised to eat more than just his hat if Clinton loses: “It is totally over. If Trump wins more than 240 electoral votes, I will eat a bug,”
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."
Herv100 wrote:LOL. Maid printing out classified emails.
Undisclosed payment from Qatar.
FBI agents' wife paid hundreds of thousands.
Quid pro quo offer from DOJ.
These people are crooked as a barrel of snakes
One of the best things about the shit you point out is it clearly self-identifies you as a certain type of person that gets their information from a very small handful of websites. Further, it proves you don't have an ounce of intellectual curiosity to Google these "facts" to see if they are actually true before practically having them tattooed on your arm.
