Skip to comments.Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 6 January 2008
Posted on 01/06/2008 4:13:42 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, January 6th, 2008
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.; former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.; former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.; former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M.; former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.; Mahmud Ali Durrani, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S.
I think you are right. McCain and Huck cannot win for President. Only Romney, Thompson or Rudy can beat Obama.
Do not think Ron Paul could beat Obama either.
“And Huckabee looked like a teen-ager at a grown-up party, trying to be part of the conversation but not knowing what any of it was really about.”
Huckabee did look bewildered at times. Especially when his folksy one-liners failed to get a laugh. The congregation is supposed to laugh at the preacher’s jokes. It’s in the by-laws.
and the blacks will now abandon Hillary after knowing whites will vote for Obama. Especially younger voters will be motivated to vote Obama.
Ron Paul would make Barry Goldwater look like FDR!
Dole had his face lifted. Hillary just wears a mask; an inch of painted make-up! Strip the make-up off and she looks as old as Dole without his face lift.
But that shouldn’t be any worry to Republicans as any Dem will get the majority of the Black vote.
Idle wonder: would the Black vote go to Bill Clinton or Obama if that choice were available?
(after all Bill has dated more Black women than Obama)
Ron Paul normally says the opposite of what many conservatives think. Isn’t he a Medical Doctor in gynecology? Not too many politicians have Paul’s experience in that area!
I think if black’s believe Obama is electable, they will be motivated to vote for him. Bill Clinton is starting to look like a worn out old man. He has aged in the past 10 years after his heart operation. Obama has a very good looking wife!
I caught it, but graciously refrained from chastising you, based on my certain knowledge that you, yourself realized your grievous error, literally, one nanosecond after your index finger abated its pressure on the mouse button* and, hence, you were already suffering a vile, albeit, self-infilcted torture.
* Ask me how I know this.
I meant only that he would be the GOP’s Walter Mondale, electorally.
Read the news and the net. The election is already decided.
Its the end for Romney (unless something drastic happens)!
Hillary is on the ropes and Obama is the certain nominee!
Fred Thompson never had a chance and this proves it!
Howard Dean is not only going to New Hampshire, hes going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and hes going to California and Texas and New York And hes going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then hes going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeaararh!!!
Wait, what was that last one?
One of the smallest states in the nation has just held one of the most unrepresentative contests in this election cycle and the talking heads in the old media (and the self appointed experts in the blogosphere) are making definitive pronouncements about who is in and who is out.
Ron Paul is still within the uncollapsed Quantum uncertainty state of this election, for goodness sake!
(do a Google search on Schrödingers Cat if you dont know what Im talking about)
No one, I repeat, NO ONE, can tell you that anyone is a sure thing or that anyone is definitely finished. Anyone who does, even if they preface it as a lets assume exercise, should be immediately shot and thrown on the trash heap of punditry as a self aggrandizing maroon (hat tip to Bugs).
Having made such a sweeping declaration I am now required to offer an alternative. Well, guess what? Ive got one! So here it is:
I propose that all credible pundits be required to attach a probability scale to their dinosaur media articles or blog posts and if they dont do this those pontifications should be dismissed from serious consideration, at least in regards to this election.
This type of scoring is a concept that is well established in the IT field (information technology, or computers for the great unwashed). Ive been an IT professional, specifically PCs, for 31 years, literally from day one of factory built PCs.
The Gartner Group, one of the big IT consulting firms, has one of the best methodologies and their explanation of this is probably the easiest way to get the idea across. I dont propose that we adopt Gartners methodology, but its a good example of the technique.
What I propose is that a two step statement be required for every article or post making predictions or pronouncements in order for it to be taken seriously. The first step is the authors estimate of their being right. The second step is their estimate of the probability of the prediction holding up over time.
Let me provide a practical example based on my reading of the reporting on the results from the Iowa Caucus.
If you read the dinosaur media the results for the Republican presidential nomination coming out of Iowa are:
- Cheney (I threw this one in for grins yeah, thats it)
Under my plan they would have to list it this way:
- Huckabee: 80%, plus or minus 80%
- Romney: 30%, plus 70% or minus -40%
- McCain: 70%, plus 1% or minus 70%
- Paul: 2%, plus or minus 1% (thats my snarky comment . move along, nothing to see here)
- Giuliani: 2%, plus 99% or minus 1%
- Thompson: 1%, plus 99% or minus 0%
- Hunter: 0%, plus 10% or minus 0%
- Tancredo: -5%, plus 10% or minus -5%
- Cheney: -1,000%, plus 1050% minus -995%
OK, thats enough, you either get the idea or you dont.
If you allow for the probabilities you come out with this as the odds on result for the Republican nomination:
- Romney: likelihood of winning 100% to 70%
- Thompson: likelihood of winning 100% to 50% (my prejudiced view)
- Giuliani: likelihood of winning 100% to 50%
- Huckabee: likelihood of winning 80% to 0%
- McCain: likelihood of winning 71% to 0%
- Cheney: likelihood of winning 50% to-5%
- Hunter: likelihood of winning 10% to 0%
- Tancredo: likelihood of winning 5% to -5%
- Paul: likelihood of winning 1.5% max
From now until the election Ill try to add a comment anywhere I find a pundits statement that boils down to what the truth is in this election on who is going to win. Im not suggesting that anyone should take my score as the truth. Im suggesting that if we can come up with this sort of short hand for scoring posts and articles on the horse race that is screwing up this election then readers can judge the quality of a post based on a consensus of scores, particularly on scores from those theyve learned to trust.
I hope that others will get in the same habit of scoring posts in the MSM and on the net in some consistent fashion. I guess this is the poor mans DIGG. Its like whenever I see a thumbs up from Roger Ebert I know I will likely hate the film and vice versa.
I'm pretty sure I got my math wrong in some of the above, but the actual scores aren't the point. The Dean scream reference made more sense before Howard repeated his scream and Obama repeated almost exactly the same litany of states, but I hope you get the idea.
On a related subject, Im working on a post about my ratings for the various talking heads and their statements. To give you an idea, Im giving Rush Limbaugh a score of 80 (I get an 81, best of the best), Ann Coulter a score of 60 (not reduced for being wrong, but on being counter productive in my opinion by providing ammunition to our enemies when she is right but not careful in her wording), a score of 10 to Charlie Gibson and negative several million to both Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews.
But thats just the opinion of one thinking human being. Others may differ.
You may be right. IMO the possibility of your being right is about 2%. The likelyhood of your being wrong is therefore 98%
I didn’t understand it at all, but even so, it makes more sense than the media ever makes!
Yeah. I always get that feeling when someone starts talking to someone (or about someone) and uses the phrase "with all due respect." It originally was supposed to indicate that the object of the comment deserved respect and that they speaker recognized it. It's now almost universally clear that the person speaking holds the object of his comments in contempt.
Who poured sour milk in your cereal this morning?
Thank you RodGuy911.
The articles we do come across are interesting — a lot different on most days than watching the standard “news” shows.
Wow! Thanks, I just got home, logged on and saw a big blue ribbon. Much appreciated, as I really enjoy this thread so much every week - for conversation in great company.
Great idea. Why would Pakistan, a sovereign country, allow such oversight over its strategic weaponry by another country? I haven't checked the news lately, but I am sure that Musharraf will quickly kill that ridiculous notion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.