Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Democrats

Journal pudge's Journal: Desperation 31

Journal by pudge

I've known since the beginning that the guy who runs http://www.electoral-vote.com/ hates Bush. But his hatred is becoming more a part of the daily commentary than ever.

Today, he starts off by saying this country is more polarized than ever, but that he himself is still open-minded, because he respects McCain, Lugar, and Hagel. It just so happens these three men have been critical of the war. Could it be that he respects them not because they are decent and honest guys, but because they have criticized Bush? Naaaaaaaah. (Memo to votemaster: don't be so transparent next time.)

Then he maliciously spreads unsubstantiated rumours about two Republican Senate candidates, Jim Bunning and Tom Coburn. Apparently he forgot what he had just said about polarization (or never really meant it).

Not to leave it at that, he continues to bring up the stupid story about what Bush MIGHT have had under his jacket in the first debate, if anything at all. He makes no mention of the fact that Kerry broke the rules in that debate by bringing something on stage, of course.

And when he does talk about debates, he makes no mention of the fact that Bush has taken the lead since the last debate, and has increased his lead daily. Every other time one of the candidates takes the lead after a major event, he mentions it in context. Here, he treats it as an anomaly, and says he has the lead "for the moment," and questions the pollsters' reliability.

So sad.

I apologize to all the people I've led to this site previously. It's deteriorating rapidly.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Desperation More

Desperation

Comments Filter:
  • He hid his bias well for a while, but recently it's been bad. I was checking every day for quite awhile, but it's like a different site now. So I've stopped visiting.

  • I've twice been peeved and emailed him for these reasons:

    1) Propping up the "Bush had an earpiece" conspiracy theory, while not mentioning Kerry's violation.
    2) Using an MSNBC online poll to suggest Edwards won the VP debate.

    For the second, after asking how he could think he could use an online poll to suggest anything, I told him that the Washington Journal's online poll had Edwards ahead 95% to 4%, and asked him if that was accurate as well.

    At least he's doing a good job with the state survey

    • 1) Propping up the "Bush had an earpiece" conspiracy theory, while not mentioning Kerry's violation.

      I didn't watch the debates. I listened to them. So what did Kerry bring on stage?

      Howard Kurtz, a media colunmnist for the Washington Post, had an online discussion [washingtonpost.com] on Monday. I was one of several visitors who asked him about the rumour that Bush was gaffed.

      Toronto, Canada: Thanks for taking our questions. The Washington Post carried a story, over the weekend, about a site devoted to exploring wh

      • So what did Kerry bring on stage?

        A pen. Nobody really cares, I only mentioned it because it broke the rules. On video replay, many said it looked like Kerry was unfolding a piece of paper he pulled out of his pocket to use as extra notes. When asked about the charges, the Kerry campaign dodged the issue and criticized Bush instead. A couple of days later, they essentially said "Ya, it was a pen. We're sorry, we didn't mean to, but we broke that rule."
        • A pen? The rules don't allow the debaters to make notes during the other guys turn? How strange.

          Maybe, next election cycle, the candidates will have to get naked, and submit to a body cavity search, prior to going on-stage?

      • I didn't watch the debates. I listened to them. So what did Kerry bring on stage?

        His bunch claim it was a pen - still against the rules, but obviously not something which would actually provide a material advantage. Others have suggested it's the wrong size and shape for that, not to mention making no sense (why break the rules in a way which doesn't help?!)

        "Hard work"? He rehearsed every possible answer ahead of time?

        This was probably a factor; in the first debate, it seems the questions were a close

        • Two of the earpieces in your link [todoespias.com] are small enough, and lodge deeply enough in the ear canal, that they are probably undetectable. But those two both require the user to carry a "repeater". The remaining one in your link is not undectectable. It sprouts a small antennae. Perhaps it does not require the user to wear a repeater.

          This looks like a similar item [comtek.com], with the text written by someone fluent in English. Note that with the ear piece lacking an antennae the repeater requires a covert antennae to b

          • Two of the earpieces in your link are small enough, and lodge deeply enough in the ear canal, that they are probably undetectable. But those two both require the user to carry a "repeater".

            Correct - but it specifically mentions the repeater can sit in the user's pocket, where it would have been far less visible.

            Do I think a repeater the size of a PDA is the best they could find? I dunno.

            The bulge was considerably larger than any PDA - a wide, flat bulge running roughly parallel to his spine down int

            • Correct - but it specifically mentions the repeater can sit in the user's pocket, where it would have been far less visible.

              I don't think that would work. Before the candidates go on stage a makeup person takes care of them. People take off their jackets for that. Since he wears a loop antennae around his neck, and he would have to plug it back in, if he carried the repeater in his pocket. Complicated, and open to snafus. Plus, "I am just going to move your jacket Mr President... Oh, I am very s

              • [repeater in pocket] I don't think that would work. Before the candidates go on stage a makeup person takes care of them. People take off their jackets for that.

                And you don't think this would apply to a device under the jacket in question?

                I looked at a few different photos, from different sources. And the bulges I saw didn't look like what you describe. I saw a bulge that ran parallel to a line between his shoulder blades.

                You only saw the horizontal line of it, not the vertical one?

                Maybe one that wi

                • [repeater in pocket] I don't think that would work. Before the candidates go on stage a makeup person takes care of them. People take off their jackets for that.

                  And you don't think this would apply to a device under the jacket in question?

                  No. The user would wear the repeater under their dress shirt. Possibly taped to their body, or in a pocket sewn into the back of their t-shirt. The antennae loop that goes around their neck would also be under their dress shirt. It would make sitting down

            • Can we please stop this interminably boring discussion about the technical aspects of something that is based on pure speculation? Thanks. :)
  • I remember reading something a while back about a survey of journalists. The survey reported that journalists were pretty much split evenly between those who considered themselves left and right wing, with most of them describing themselves as moderate. A different survey reported that of the journalists who were self-described moderates, many more wrote columns that many would consider left-wing, than right-wing. The implication being not only that the mainstream media is biased to the left, but that it
    • More than 75% of the reporters are Democrats.

      Doesn't even address the internal bias issues nor can one expect to respect their reporting skills.

      Disregard... Move along... nothing to see...
      • Not being silly. Being... well, uninformed. Or ignorant, or naive, or focused on more important things; choose your spin. I don't keep careful track of all these stats, since I'd never get anything else done.

        Tell you what, though; I'd love to see your backup of this figure. If it's on the web, I'll stick it in my bookmarks list. I don't think people would believe me if I said "some /. poster told me that...". :-)
      • In "Bias", by Bernard Goldberg, he cites that 75% of journalists vote Democrat and tend to side with Democrats on the big issues. I'm not sure that that makes them Democrats anymore than my typically siding with Republicans makes me on, but your point is taken.

        The internal, and unintentional, bias is more troubling to me. As Goldberg says, most journalists don't even try to be biased, they just are because of how they run their stories. A couple examples are cancer stories, where we see tons about breas

  • DOS (Score:2)

    by thing12 ( 45050 )
    I can't speak for him, but it probably doesn't better his opinion of 'the other side' when his servers are being bombarded with DOS attacks - he's had to outlay a bunch of cash because some people don't like what he says. Is the right-wing counterpart Election Projection [electionprojection.com] being brought down? Nope. Give him a few days, he'll probably come back to being more centrist.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:DOS (Score:2)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) *
        in this case, is because electoral-vote.com includes a link to the AWOL Bush site

        No, it is because he is often bashing Bush.

        I don't give a crap about the pen.

        And you DO give a crap about the "bulge"? Are you serious? I can't imagine why anyone who is unbiased would give a crap about that. It's a nonstory, unless someone can find out exactly what it was. Speculation is not a story.

        Electoral Vote hasn't changed

        It's partisan bashing has become far more common and far less substantive. I notice y

        • And you DO give a crap about the "bulge"? Are you serious?

          Out of context, that's hilarious!

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re:DOS (Score:2)

            by pudge ( 3605 ) *
            I'm trying to find the JE where you first mentioned electoral-vote.com. Have you deleted it? I could have sworn you responded to someone asking why you refered to the person as a "Bush hater" by pointing them at that link.

            I did not delete it, and I did refer to him as that originally, or similar.

            Are you now saying that regular criticism of Bush amounts to "hatred"?

            No, it is the kind of criticism. I criticize Bush often.

            Because I was under the impression your logic with the AWOL Bush issue was that
          • Are you now saying that regular criticism of Bush amounts to "hatred"?

            The webmaster openly describes himself [electoral-vote.com] as a Kerry supporter. All of the comics at his comics page [electoral-vote.com] are anti-Bush. A large amount of his commentary is anti-Bush. While his records page [electoral-vote.com] now contain both anti-Bush and anti-Kerry links, for the longest time they had only anti-Bush links.

            With that said, I think the bulk of his mathematical analysis is probably correct, though there are points I disagree with him about. Still, the site i
    • Has he actually really been receiving DOS attacks? I'm not accusing anyone of anything but is there any evidence that it's true? The site came up for me pretty quickly both today and last time I looked at it. Meanwhile, the other one you mentioned Election Projection [electionprojection.com] actually didn't load. Anyway, my point is that what might look like a DOS could very likely be a just a plain run of the mill slashdot effect - maybe a high traffic site linked to him or whatever. While the net effect--being taken down for
  • Our perceptions are miles apart here. Strange.

    It's clear to me that the e-v.com guy is not a Bush supporter. But he's clearly trying to report things neutrally. Give him a break -- he probably doesn't have an editor to point out small slips like "for the moment". I think most of us would have trouble being as even handed as he does.

    re: a violation of the rules by Kerry, I had to Google to figure out what you guys were talking about. Obviously it made the right-wing media, but maybe not what he reads. I ex
    • To be completely clear, the "charge" against Kerry is not a charge. They "admit" it was a pen, which is a violation of the rules, and others "charge" it is the far worse pad of notes. Just don't want it to get lost, that technically, we know John Kerry cheated.
    • But he's clearly trying to report things neutrally

      brevity, sorry, but that's just bullshit. Spreading rumors about a GOP candidate having Alzheimer's is not even TRYING to be neutral.

      Anyway, the two cases aren't equivalent. The charge against Kerry is that he smuggled in a pen, or maybe notes. The charge against Bush is that he had a live person feeding him responses, which is an order of magnitude more interesting.

      Not to me. And it is not because I like Bush over Kerry, it is because there is no ev
  • At least for right now, Electoral Vote Predictor [electoral-vote.com] actually has a larger lead for Bush than Election Projection [electionprojection.com] 284-228 vs. 274-264. Granted Election Projection is a bit dated (10/10/04).
    • I don't think that is strange, esp. since it is updated daily, and Bush has gained most of that in the past week. Plus, I do not think he fudges the data to favor his chosen candidate. I was commenting only on his commentary.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your computer account is overdrawn. Please see Big Brother.

Close