Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nate Silver: NYT still owes us an explanation for 2016 (Original Post) EffieBlack Jan 2019 OP
NYT was never a fan of the Clintons Trumpocalypse Jan 2019 #1
they were better than the Chicago Tribune who endorsed the libertarian for President mucifer Jan 2019 #2
You're not a jerk, Nate catrose Jan 2019 #3
The media messed up big time Jarqui Jan 2019 #4
Our general public's complacency and desire only to be entertained... KY_EnviroGuy Jan 2019 #20
I was even shocked with the L.A. Times during the election...making Trump look sane C Moon Jan 2019 #22
Ratings were secondary, watoos Jan 2019 #32
As I read the other story this one came to mind GusBob Jan 2019 #5
Didn't Nate work there at the time? Renew Deal Jan 2019 #6
When his 538 site briefly partnered with the NYT. nt BumRushDaShow Jan 2019 #9
Oh, he's not there anymore.. good. Cha Jan 2019 #30
I blame Nate... irresistable Jan 2019 #7
It certainly didn't help. InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2019 #11
No, the vote tallies were changed. Nate's predictions were accurate. triron Jan 2019 #13
I haven't seen any proof of that. irresistable Jan 2019 #21
Why would you? watoos Jan 2019 #33
Trump was declared the winner of an election he said was rigged... czarjak Jan 2019 #39
!?!? She had data to back up her actions, that's not over confident. All the states she was up uponit7771 Jan 2019 #41
bad data....but data that both she and Trump believed irresistable Jan 2019 #42
FFS, she did her OWN POLLING! They all do. If she relied on Nate she was clueless. nt USALiberal Jan 2019 #50
+1, My theory is the guy who was killed that was the head of her IT knew something was going uponit7771 Jan 2019 #56
Bullshit, people were mad that Nate had it so close. Read more!! nt USALiberal Jan 2019 #49
The NYT and other media outlets never took responsibility for the cluster fuck they ecstatic Jan 2019 #8
Yet, people STILL listen to these "conflating cluster fuckers" media types... InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2019 #12
Yep RandiFan1290 Jan 2019 #45
How people here can stand that show is beyond me!! It sure didn't do Hillary any favors!! InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2019 #48
And they never will ProudLib72 Jan 2019 #15
Yes the NYT fucked up. The Washington Posts die much better, as did NPR. Nitram Jan 2019 #18
Thank you nycbos Jan 2019 #10
Nate Silver: NYT still owes us an explanation for 2016 hot2na Jan 2019 #14
Yup. The NYT fucked up. Royally. Nitram Jan 2019 #16
Didn't the NY Times pimp the Iraq war? hibbing Jan 2019 #17
That Would Be Judith Miller n/t DallasNE Jan 2019 #31
Flashback to some history UpInArms Jan 2019 #44
Sweet Judy Miller was given an article written by the Cheney White House. watoos Jan 2019 #36
All the MSM enabled him and they still are...$$$ over country. BigmanPigman Jan 2019 #19
The media gave him a pass. mountain grammy Jan 2019 #23
This has little to do with ratings, watoos Jan 2019 #38
Yes, I get your point.. mountain grammy Jan 2019 #51
Could have been disinformation from the Ghouliani cabal in the NYC FBI office. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2019 #24
No. The NYT reporters strongly objected to having their article comprehensively Hortensis Jan 2019 #58
I have some agreement with your analysis, but I haven't done a detailed comparison. Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2019 #59
WaPo's "New York Times acknowledges it buried the lead Hortensis Jan 2019 #60
KR NT ProudProgressiveNow Jan 2019 #25
Thank You, Nate. And, doesn't he work Cha Jan 2019 #26
I think that's another Nate--maybe Nate Cohn? spooky3 Jan 2019 #34
After I posted that I read up thread that.. Cha Jan 2019 #37
Sleeping with the enemy? sheshe2 Jan 2019 #27
So that's another bloody notch on the NYT Cha Jan 2019 #28
Yeah that's one of the reasons I'll never subscribe to the NYT emulatorloo Jan 2019 #29
Can't the NYT say the same thing about Nate Silver's 2016 predictions? MadDAsHell Jan 2019 #35
"Both sides" don't fly here BumRushDaShow Jan 2019 #40
Big difference EffieBlack Jan 2019 #43
Not really since Silver was the most bearish on Hillary's chances dsc Jan 2019 #53
2016 was James Comey's election from start to finish. StevieM Jan 2019 #57
I subscribe to the Washington Post because they were more trustworthy Gothmog Jan 2019 #46
I cancelled my subscription to the Times a year ago EffieBlack Jan 2019 #47
I cancelled the NYT last year when they ran that ridiculous story about Rosenstein redstateblues Jan 2019 #54
Same here, for the same reasons. emulatorloo Jan 2019 #52
clouds and shadows Hermit-The-Prog Jan 2019 #55

catrose

(5,061 posts)
3. You're not a jerk, Nate
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:21 PM
Jan 2019

It's called accounta-effing-bility. Of course, his base wouldn't have believed it or even read it, but maybe it might have influenced some of those "undecideds?" I dunno. I still think undecideds in 2016 must have been in a coma.

Jarqui

(10,122 posts)
4. The media messed up big time
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:22 PM
Jan 2019

Not just the NYT

Is that because about six entities control 95% of the media (and those in control wanted those tax cuts ... )?
Is that why they gave Trump a lot of air time because his freak show got them ratings?

Whatever.

With each indictment or guilty plea or shocking report, the media looks worse.

KY_EnviroGuy

(14,488 posts)
20. Our general public's complacency and desire only to be entertained...
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 12:31 AM
Jan 2019

feeds the MSM's machinery, and the MSM aims to please (for ad revenue).

Big business around the globe wants a fat, dumb, fearful, passive and complacent public that's easy to control. With that accomplished, all they have to do is dangle any shiny object on the TeeVee or smart phone screen and millions will follow.

Trump was (and still is for now) the greatest shiny new object they've had in many years......

They do however, have a strong bias toward right-leaning shiny objects......

C Moon

(12,209 posts)
22. I was even shocked with the L.A. Times during the election...making Trump look sane
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:03 AM
Jan 2019

and presidential.

 

watoos

(7,142 posts)
32. Ratings were secondary,
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:46 AM
Jan 2019

the M$M is complicit with Trump and the right wing corporatists. The M$M is not our friend.

uponit7771

(90,304 posts)
41. !?!? She had data to back up her actions, that's not over confident. All the states she was up
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 08:07 AM
Jan 2019

... by 1-3% the day before the election and lost by 1% were all red states with notable VSM.

 

irresistable

(989 posts)
42. bad data....but data that both she and Trump believed
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 08:28 AM
Jan 2019

It was Nate's Hillary Clinton 71.4% Donald Trump 28.6 forecast that made her overconfident.

uponit7771

(90,304 posts)
56. +1, My theory is the guy who was killed that was the head of her IT knew something was going
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:12 PM
Jan 2019

... wrong with her internals and before he could report it he was killed.

I don't believe for second a "random" killing in that area for money is what took him down, not the type of area were money issues were rampant nor the killing for them.

The killing was sloppy at best, something the Russians are known for seeing dead people in Russia who fall of balconies are a dime a dozen.

ecstatic

(32,653 posts)
8. The NYT and other media outlets never took responsibility for the cluster fuck they
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:25 PM
Jan 2019

aided in. Regurgitating hacked emails, conflating unrelated issues, etc.

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,122 posts)
12. Yet, people STILL listen to these "conflating cluster fuckers" media types...
Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:54 PM
Jan 2019

you'd think they'd learn!!

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)
15. And they never will
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 12:15 AM
Jan 2019

But maybe, just maybe, if people like Silver start calling them out on their bullshittery, we could begin to see a tiny crumb of responsibility.

Nitram

(22,768 posts)
18. Yes the NYT fucked up. The Washington Posts die much better, as did NPR.
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 12:18 AM
Jan 2019

Despite of NPR critics on DU insist, BPR has consistently reported Trump's lies, crimes, and tomfuckery.

hibbing

(10,095 posts)
17. Didn't the NY Times pimp the Iraq war?
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 12:18 AM
Jan 2019

Or at least had a "reporter" that basically regurgitated the lies spewed by the evil administration.


Peace

UpInArms

(51,280 posts)
44. Flashback to some history
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 10:16 AM
Jan 2019
Context of '1990: Neoconservative Mylroie and Times Reporter Judith Miller Collaborate on Book about Hussein'

This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event 1990: Neoconservative Mylroie and Times Reporter Judith Miller Collaborate on Book about Hussein. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.

April 27, 1987: Neoconservative Scholars Call on Reagan to Increase US Support for IraqEdit event
Neoconservative academics and authors Laurie Mylroie and Daniel Pipes write an article for the New Republic entitled “Back Iraq: Time for a US Tilt in the Mideast.” Mylroie and Pipes argue that the US must publicly embrace Saddam Hussein’s secular dictatorship as a bulwark against the Islamic fundamentalism of Iran. Backing Iraq “could lay the basis for a fruitful relationship” that would benefit US and Israeli interests, they write. They believe Washington should move to a closer relationship with Hussein because Iraq holds a more moderate view of Israel and the US than other countries in the Middle East. “The American weapons that Iraq could make good use of include remotely scatterable and anti-personnel mines and counterartillery radar.” Mylroie and Pipes argue not just for weapons sales to Iraq, but for the US to share intelligence with that nation: “The United States might also consider upgrading intelligence it is supplying Baghdad.” Mylroie and Pipes are apparently uninterested in the stories of Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against both Iranians and his own citizens (see March 5, 1984, March 1988, and August 25, 1988). After the 9/11 attacks, Mylroie will change her opinion and join the call for Hussein’s overthrow, blaming him for a raft of terror attacks going back to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (see 1990, October 2000, and September 12, 2001). [NEW REPUBLIC, 4/27/1987 pdf file; COUNTERPUNCH, 8/13/2003; ISIKOFF AND CORN, 2006, PP. 68]
Entity Tags: Laurie Mylroie, Daniel Pipes

Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, US-Iraq 1980s, Neoconservative Influence
1990: Neoconservative Mylroie and Times Reporter Judith Miller Collaborate on Book about HusseinEdit event
The cover of ‘Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf.’
The cover of ‘Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf.’ [Source: Laurie Mylroie (.com)]

Neoconservative academic Laurie Mylroie and New York Times reporter Judith Miller—“a dear friend” of neoconservative Richard Perle, as Perle later says—collaborate on a so-called “instant” book, Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf. The book is designed to hit bookstores concurrent with the escalating tensions in the Persian Gulf (see April 1990 and August 2, 1990). It also reflects Mylroie’s beliefs that Hussein is responsible for virtually all Islamist terrorism (see October 2000 and July 9, 2003), and advocates the US overthrow of Hussein. [UNGER, 2007, PP. 252]
Entity Tags: Judith Miller, Saddam Hussein, Richard Perle, Laurie Mylroie
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence

October 2000: Book Favored by Prominent Neoconservatives Argues that Hussein Was Behind 1993 WTC BombingEdit event
The book <i>Study of Revenge.</i>
The book Study of Revenge. [Source: Public domain]

Laurie Mylroie, a researcher who held faculty positions at Harvard and the US Naval War College, publishes the book Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America. She argues that the Iraqi government was behind the 1993 WTC bombing. The book is published by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a prominent neoconservative think tank, and her book has strong support from many important neoconservatives.

Lauded by Neoconservatives - Richard Perle calls the book “splendid and wholly convincing,” while Paul Wolfowitz calls it a “provocative and disturbing book.” Former CIA Director James Woolsey says, “Anyone who wishes to continue to deal with Saddam [Hussein] by ignoring his role in international terrorism…and by giving only office furniture to the Iraqi resistance now has the staggering task of trying to refute this superb work.” In her acknowledgements, she thanks John Bolton, I. Lewis Libby, and Wolfowitz for their support and help in writing the book. All of them will go on to take prominent positions in the Bush administration.

Mylroie's Theories Discredited - But war correspondent and terrorism expert Peter Bergen will later comment, “Mylroie became enamored of her theory that Saddam was the mastermind of a vast anti-US terrorist conspiracy in the face of virtually all evidence and expert opinion to the contrary. In what amounts to the discovery of a unified field theory of terrorism, Mylroie believes that Saddam was not only behind the ‘93 Trade Center attack, but also every anti-American terrorist incident of the past decade…” Bergen will continue, “[By the mid-‘90s, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the FBI, the US Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York, the CIA, the NSC, and the State Department had all found no evidence implicating the Iraqi government in the first Trade Center attack.” Bergen will comment that normally a book like this would not have mattered, except that the neoconservatives “believed her theories, bringing her on as a consultant at the Pentagon, and they seem to continue to entertain her eccentric belief that Saddam is the fount of the entire shadow war against America.” [WASHINGTON MONTHLY, 12/2003; UNGER, 2007, PP. 216]

No Credible Evidence of Iraqi Involvement in WTC Bombing - The book will be used as a lodestar of neoconservative thought when terrorists launch the 9/11 attacks, when neoconservatives inside and outside the Bush administration will pin the blame for the attacks on Iraq (see September 13, 2001). [UNGER, 2007, PP. 216] In 2004, the 9/11 Commission will conclude, “We have found no credible evidence to support theories of Iraqi government involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing.” [9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 559]

Entity Tags: Paul Wolfowitz, Peter Bergen, Richard Perle, Saddam Hussein, Laurie Mylroie, John R. Bolton, American Enterprise Institute, 9/11 Commission, Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby, James Woolsey
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
 

watoos

(7,142 posts)
36. Sweet Judy Miller was given an article written by the Cheney White House.
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:54 AM
Jan 2019

The article was all propaganda about the mushroom cloud. Sweet Judy published it under her name. That weekend the Cheney/Bush White House made the rounds of all the news shows quoting sweet Judy's article that they wrote.

This was a big reason why we invaded Iraq.

The M$M doesn't fuck up, it is complicit with the right wing.

 

watoos

(7,142 posts)
38. This has little to do with ratings,
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:02 AM
Jan 2019

making money is secondary. The M$M is complicit with the far right narratives.

Once again; Fox says that Obama beat his wife, CNN says it needs more information and MSNBC says no he didn't.
The narrative is still the same for the 3 networks, did Obama beat his wife? MSNBC merely puts a liberal slant to the right wing narrative.

Why did msnbc fire Phil Donahue, Keith Olbermann, Brashear, Harris/Perry, Uygur, Big Ed, Dylan Ratigan? It wasn't because of poor ratings, it was because they all strayed from the right wing narrative.

We have a few people who are straying from the narrative, Nicole Wallace, Rachel, Don Lemon, Chris Hayes. They better watch out.

mountain grammy

(26,598 posts)
51. Yes, I get your point..
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 11:11 AM
Jan 2019

the right wing narrative keeps the rich and powerful rich and powerful. That's whats important. And news anchors are paid big bucks so they remember who's side they're on.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
58. No. The NYT reporters strongly objected to having their article comprehensively
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:20 PM
Jan 2019

rewritten to hide the truth their version reported.

The NYT's coverage has been carefully studied, and it was consistently biased toward keeping the public from understanding who Democrats were and what we wanted to accomplish. The effect was to undermine what was actually strong support for both our ideology and goals among the electorate.

Same for the cable networks. They actually had an unwritten set of rules for reporting on Hillary. Nothing good could be said. And when for some reason someone needed to, that statement needed to be followed by a trashing caveat and the entire comment ended on a negative note.

Btw, turn day programming on CNN and MSNBC on and see how long you can listen before running into false equalizations between us and the people betraying their nation in government, engaging in white nationalist persecution, committing extreme cruelty to children as a matter of national policy, and engaging in election theft so large and blatant that it is reported around the planet. This is with over 40% of the electorate not voting in 2016 and 2020 coming up. The NYT's corruption continues, but it's hardly alone.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
60. WaPo's "New York Times acknowledges it buried the lead
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:15 PM
Jan 2019

in pre-election Russia-Trump story" discusses it -- using respectfully restrained, colleague-about-colleague language, but I don't think the original article has ever become public.

"The key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph."

In very bland language. I read the NYT article and was confused at how its report of "nothing found here" contradicted other news, and even recognizing that I missed the meaning of the "buried" lead. As intended.

We know today that "broad investigations" are opened after initial investigations into suspicion turn up significant facts that call for full investigation. The NYT's update article published October 31, 2016, eight days before the election, is clearly intended to grossly mislead the nation and affect the election in the Republicans' favor.

emulatorloo

(44,071 posts)
29. Yeah that's one of the reasons I'll never subscribe to the NYT
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:19 AM
Jan 2019

Another one of many is that they promoted the Mercer funded Clinton Cash lie book.

 

MadDAsHell

(2,067 posts)
35. Can't the NYT say the same thing about Nate Silver's 2016 predictions?
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:51 AM
Jan 2019

You know, the one where he predicted a 70 electoral vote landslide and had the Clinton campaign picking out White House curtains?

President Obama's administration itself totally failed us on Russia, had 8 years of power and resources at its disposal to do something to prevent what happened in 2016, but instead said any focus on Russia was looking backwards and literally mocked anyone who said otherwise.

The NYT reported the FBI investigation as it stood at the time; were they supposed to lie?

Plenty of blame to go around on Russia, but most of those parties should start by examining their own role in the mess, instead of blaming others.

BumRushDaShow

(128,520 posts)
40. "Both sides" don't fly here
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 08:04 AM
Jan 2019

Note that Putin was not in his current position back during Obama's first term, Medvedev was... And although he had been nurtured by Putin for some time and eventually tapped to allow for Putin's imminent return, he came from a different generation and deviated from Putin's positions in a number of things. Once Putin returned ("officially" because he was always in the background before), Obama had already lost the House thanks to lazy voters, the Kochs, Citizen's United, and Democrats running away from Obama due to belief of the RW memes about the ACA, then lost the Senate due to the LW purity police, leaving him with little power to do anything "PUBLICLY" about Russia without escalating both the RW and LW noise machines. Here is a little insight on some of his thought process.

By the 2016 election, with 33 GOP-controlled states (where 25 held both the governorship and legislative branches), yelling "states rights" and refusing to deal with Jeh Johnson's warnings, there was really not much more that could be done. The post-election sanctions were really meaningless other than codifying a list of guilty parties for later investigation, but as we now have come to find 2 years later, what happened during the 2013 - 2016 period was a multi-pronged attack.

dsc

(52,152 posts)
53. Not really since Silver was the most bearish on Hillary's chances
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 11:23 AM
Jan 2019

the NYT version of the same forecast had her at 90 percent vs his 75 or so.

StevieM

(10,500 posts)
57. 2016 was James Comey's election from start to finish.
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:15 PM
Jan 2019

And he turned the race on its head at the finish.

Gothmog

(144,939 posts)
46. I subscribe to the Washington Post because they were more trustworthy
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 10:49 AM
Jan 2019

I am still mad at the NYT due to their efforts to hurt Clinton

redstateblues

(10,565 posts)
54. I cancelled the NYT last year when they ran that ridiculous story about Rosenstein
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 11:24 AM
Jan 2019

supposedly talking seriously about wearing a wire in the oval office-there were a number of other things. I like the Washington Post a lot better.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nate Silver: NYT still ow...