Good, you made money. But that doesn't have jacksh*t to deal with who wins in November. If I bet on a team that's a 10-point favorite, it doesn't mean they are likely to win. It just means more people are betting on them to win. InTrade's the same way. We have no way to tell the makeup of who is placing the bets on InTrade as well. So if it's Obama 55/45 with two-thirds of those placing bets being Democrats, that's different than Obama 55/45 with a 50-50 partisan split on the people betting, but we don't know the makeup of who is betting. Also, partisans inflate the numbers based on emotion and who the person wants to win instead of reality. Even if a person thinks his team is going to lose in football, sometimes they place a bet on blind faith in the hopes their team wins. This occurs on InTrade as well, and was definitely seen in the primaries.
Via Drudge on MSNBC: MSNBC drops Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews from anchor chair… David Gregory will anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night... Wow... took long enough...
What is interesting about MSNBC dropping those guys is that the ratings were great. Since alot of those around here who defend media bias that I see by saying, hey, it's all about the ratings, how could that possibly be?
Like always. He/they bring it out whenever they want. It's completely detached from reality. Bunch of little, prissy bitches that insistently pull out the librul media bias card whenever they are getting hammered b/c of faulty logic, stupidity, etc. There's nothing wrong w/ being conservative. I love dialogue. It's good for democracy. Intelligence in the opposition garners nothing but respect, and we are all better for it. Stupidity, on the other hand... drives me nuts and I simply cannot respect it. And not surprisingly, it's awful to base foreign and domestic policy on stupidity. See: Bush Jr. Therefore, I cannot respect a party that is, essentially, idiot-mongering.
I think the execs feel that an increase in MSNBC's ratings were not worth a decrease in big NBC's: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em
They didn't run a regression model or anything, it's just the impression I got from reading the NYT article.
The impression I got was that alot of NBC people were going "back channel" about how they, personally, didn't like the MSNBC coverage. IOW, it reads like this was a move to placate Brokaw and Williams and co., not Nielsen.
If you are talking about the party that voted for the war,Patriot Act, farm subsidy bill, FISA and raised subsidies for oil companies I agree with you.
Yes, the Dems have been far too compliant. Here's hoping they can roll back that shit once they finally have power.
It was likely done for ratings (MSNBC finished last in Convention coverage) among cable news networks and likely done because News Execs could no longer excuse the blatant partisan nature Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews approached the news... Comments like "get a shovel" toward someone exercising an opinion differing from Olbermann clearly define the unabashed liberal nature of their broadcast; so much so that even liberal News Execs wondered whether Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews worked for MSNBC or the Obama campaign. I don't think placating Brokaw or Williams is that important to MSNBC due to their poor ratings...
I watched MSNBC for the conventions because I thought it would present a liberal viewpoint on them, which it did. I'm also glad that, unlike Fox news, they don't claim to be impartial, and thus, they don't insult my intelligence.
Yes matt, I do. I'm really that stupid and insecure. If you don't believe that objectivity is possible, which I don't, then at least I can watch MSNBC and sit there and go "yeah! that's right! uh-huh, you go, tell him!" which at least provides a little more entertainment than the fox news propaganda or the elitist status quo entertainment of CNN and the networks.
Yeah, but they weren't a BAD last. By MSNBC standards, that's great. I think the relevant analogy might be the 2006 Chivas USA team that Bob Bradley coached. They were bad, but that was a big improvement over "historically bad." Or let's put it another way...is the best way for the Galaxy to improve for them to replace their good players (Buddle, Donovan, Goldenballs) or to replace their bad players (everyone else)?
True. They are like Venezuela in South America. They won't make the WC, but at least now they are winning a few games.
Considering the same people donate to both sides of the aisle I am not sure anyone will roll anything back. I just do not see a difference between the oil/bank with respect to insurance/pharm party and the insurance/pharm with respect to oil/bank party.