Media Bias 2: The neverending saga - Page 2

Originally Posted by Northgate

And that would be the same media that called Al Gore names like "serial liar" when it was demonstrably false. Right?

The point is that the media is out for themselves and ONLY themselves. This idea that they only stick it to conservatives is utterly absurd. They pick a narrative that they like and they stick to it. Period. Because they're certainly not doing my side any favors (Republicans are the "daddy" party and Democrats are the "mommy" party).

Originally Posted by trumptman

Actually Frank you are alleging a couple things that could be true, but appear to be very different from what the article itself is alleging. First you are alleging demographic change within certain districts/parishes due to white flight. This would mean that the people who voted for a David Duke are less likely to live in those same areas 16 years later. Based off their alleged beliefs, they would have fled those areas or as you noted, they would have engaged in white flight.

The second thing you allege, and this is different from what the article notes as well, is that Jindal won because the people who would have voted against him, depopulated the area due to Katrina and thus he won a bigger piece of a smaller pie.

Both of those could be true and still wouldn't prove what the article alleged, although they do make some interesting thinking.

I think it possible based off a couple points to note the article allegation as wrong. First the age of the two elections makes it very unlikely the same people in the same districts/parishes voted for Duke and Jindal. Second, just the behavior of racists themselves makes it very unlikely. The claim in the past was that the Dixiecrats moved to the Republican party due to the civil rights issue. (Even though the Republicans of the time voted for the same civil rights legislation in higher percentages than Democrats.)

So we know, at least according to those claims, that party loyalty does not ride above the loyalty to act like a racist. Within this governor's race, there was a rich, white Republican who switched parties in order to run against Jindal. The top two Democratic challenges were white males as well, and from what I have read at least one of them were rich enough to self-finance as well.

So even if we buy the newspaper contention, we have to believe that white racists would ignore three white males, two of them wealthy, one of them a Republican who had switched just for this election to run against Jindal, to vote for Jindal who is not of their race.

Sorry but if motivations are going to be claimed by certain people with regard to actions, they have to be consistent. If they are willing to move to avoid minorities (white flight) they aren't going to just go cast their vote for Jindal when they have clear alternatives that match their race.

Also we would have to believe, that in the people had not changed their behavior for 12 years, because Jindal ran the first time and lost in 2003. (Does that mean the racists were supporting Blanco instead since she won? I know Nagin endorsed Jindal over Blanco in 2003) Then a short four years later, we are to believe that they have now changed behaviors that they had followed for the previous 12 and perhaps up to 16 years, all to vote for Jindal.

That doesn't make much sense either.

Nick

Originally Posted by franksargent

You have to remember that this was a primary, if no one received a clear 50+ percent majority (which did happen in this case), a runoff would have occurred, as it did in 2003.

To do justice to the data at hand I would have to do absolute (change in votes) and relative (percent change in votes) deltas using Jindal's vote totals from the 2003 runoff as the baseline condition.

But I don't think I'll keep anyone interested in the actual statistical metrics, it's way too much information without actually writing a lengthy article.

As to the parishes I did mention, three of those were significantly affected by Hurricane Katrina (Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard (comparing vote totals from those three parishes between 2003 and 2007 shows a net loss of 97,159 total votes, while the total net loss statewide was 108,830 votes)). While, St. Tammany (David Duke's parish) saw an uptake of 1,891 total votes between 2003 and 2007.

Three parishes stand out in terms of "white flight" in that general area; Livingston, St. Tammany, and St. Bernard, population growth and demographics (~90 percent white), and surprise the building of the Interstate system, and double surprise, desegregation and the civil rights movement, clearly show what has happened here (and on a nationwide basis), what has happened over the past 60 years or so. \

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I really think you're getting WAY too much into the technical details here, and thereby confusing the issue. You've made some arguments that the article is technically correct in its assertions. Even if we accept that (and I think there are contrary arguments anyway), the point is that the article is clearly making some implications that betray the author's political biases. The author is also gratuitously pointing out his perceptions of of conservatives being racists. What he's really saying is that the area has become more liberal. That is the key here. That kind of writing is not balanced.

Jindal paid particular attention to north Louisiana, a conservative region that was widely viewed as critical to Blanco's victory four years ago. In a candidate forum in Shreveport earlier this month, Jindal said that he had visited the region 77 times since declaring his candidacy.

The time and attention Jindal paid to rural areas appeared to pay off, as Saturday's returns showed him making significant gains in parishes where he was viewed as underperforming in 2003.

For example, Jindal won 54 percent of the vote in Rapides Parish, versus 44 percent in the 2003 runoff. His 55 percent of the vote in Grant Parish was 15 points above his 2003 figures, whereas in Acadia Parish his score went from 43 percent in 2003 to 54 percent on Saturday.

But Elliott Stonecipher, a Shreveport demographer and political analyst, said there were signs that white turnout was running well ahead of votes cast by blacks.

African American turnout is going to be a good 10 points less than white turnout, Stonecipher said shortly after Jindal claimed victory.

It is playing out the way we have been saying for a week, he said.

Less than normal black turnout, Ater noted, would hurt bids by Campbell, Boasso and Georges.

Then the vote that Jindal receives becomes disproportionate, Ater said.

Election day featured two key questions that were intertwined:

Would Jindal win the race for governor without a runoff?

Would black voters, who make up a huge part of the Democratic base, go to the polls, which experts said boosted chances for a runoff?

The vote Saturday marked the first chance to gauge the impact of population losses in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, many of whom were Democratic loyalists.

It is clear that the demographics have changed and the heavy turnout that Democrats could rely on from the African American community has been diminished, said Robert Hogan, associate professor of political science at LSU.

Jindals victory in 60 parishes was up from just 12 in the 2003 runoff when he lost to Gov. Kathleen Blanco.

The Republican drew one of every four of his total votes from just three parishes: East Baton Rouge, plus Jefferson and St. Tammany in the New Orleans area.

About 110,000 fewer voters cast ballots Saturday than the 2003 runoff for governor, said Greg Rigamer, a consultant who runs GCR & Associates, Inc. in New Orleans, which specializes in computerized tracking of elections.

Rigamer, who served as a consultant to Jindal this time after working for Blanco in 2003, calculated that nearly 60,000 of that vote drop took place in New Orleans, which used to be a treasure trove of support for Democratic contenders.

However, population losses since Hurricane Katrina have changed Louisianas political landscape. It demonstrates that the demographics of this state have changed, Hogan said.

However, Jindal carried Campbells home parish of Bossier by a margin of 3-1 over Campbell.

It was one of several signs of his turnaround in north Louisiana since lack of support in that region was said to have played a major role in Jindals 2003 runoff loss.

Analysts said Jindals lopsided win stemmed from his intense campaigning since 2003, Blancos relatively late exit from the race and the lack of any well-established Democrats willing to enter the fray.

The anti-Jindal vote never solidified behind anybody, former Secretary of State Al Ater said Sunday.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Uh, how was it "demonstrably false" again?

Originally Posted by franksargent

JINDAL WINS (NO Times-Picayune)



Low black turnout may be factor (Baton Rouge Advocate)


Jindal carries 60 parishes in landslide win (Baton Rouge Advocate)

Today's word is prescient.

Here's another link (or two);

1991 LA governor's race (DD versus EE)

LA census data (1900-1990)

So instead of second guessing the NYT's albeit brief report on page Z666, about the LA governor's race, perhaps you SHOULD leave it to the editors and expert analysis from the people who live in LA (and which the NYT appears to have relied upon for their brief page Z666 report), TYVM!

Originally Posted by Northgate

Don't play coy. Come on!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You are missing the point in spectacular fashion.

Originally Posted by franksargent

That your POV is the BIASED POV!

You guys (whomever "you guys" are) scream "BIAS" and when you're called out, get all dodgy, chase your own tail, and scream "BIAS" and when you're called out, get all dodgy, chase your own tail, ad infinitum!

So, if your point is, that you don't have a point, I GET IT!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

There is no such thing as a biased POV. Bias creeps up when someone who is supposed to be impartial acts in a partisan or ideological way. Individuals acting as such can take any POV they wish. Therefore, the term "bias" does not apply to me or you or anyone here, unless we allow our POVs to interfere with our profession or in an area in which we are expected to act impartially.

In the case of the media, it's particularly bad, because they are supposed to act in the public interest. Dismissing media bias by saying "you guys see bias in everything" is not going to get you there, Frank. Otherwise, I could easily respond with the same the next time you bitch about Fox News. For all we know, it might be your POV that's "biased." So you can keep linking to election and census data for the last 100 years and it won't matter, because that's not the point. The fact that the author had to qualify the victory like that showed bias and showed he wished to make a political point in his article. That's the point.

Originally Posted by franksargent

A political point about a political election?

See what I mean about chasing your own tail?

The only way I arrive at unbiased judgments is to look at data as OBJECTIVELY as possible, given the limitations and SUBJECTIVITY of the human condition. \

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Being objective is one thing. That creates sound judgments. One can have a point of view and still be objective when looking at the facts.

As for the article. Unless it's an opinion piece, there should be no personal political points made in the news. And that's what he did. Now, defend that.

Yet Mr. Jindal, with his decisive victory on Saturday, appears to have overcome a significant racial hurdle that blocked him in 2003, according to analysts: race-based opposition in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana that once supported the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

...The neverending saga...

Originally Posted by franksargent

From your original post, the part that most "upset" your "bias" meter was;



I've provided 18 links and one graphic from The Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Map

[LEFT][/LEFT]

BRussell also provided a definitive link titled Study Suggests Bias, Ex-Duke Voters Defeated Jindal linking Jindal's loss in 2003 to David Duke type supporters.

So that's 20 links in support of those three words that I"ve highlighted above, I've have already done a preliminary analysis from the OBJECTIVE data which appears to fully support those three words highlighted above.

It is fairly obvious to me, that this election will appear in a future peer reviewed political science journal, similar to what happened in 2003. And I'd fully expect it to present most of the verbiage that I've already presented, but with a peer review and editorial process, and of course will be written by expert analysis's from that region with a fuller understanding of the local's politics and demographics and history. It will also be written in a much clearer format, than I could ever do.

So at this point I "could" do what others with much more experience in political science (but perhaps less expertise than myself in statistical analyses) will do anyway. I could do a complete detailed statistical analysis myself, here for you, clearly demonstrating those three words outlined above are factual and correct. That that entire sentence is factual and correct.

But, from past experience in these threads, I already know that that exercise is futile, it will fall on deaf ears as it were, to the thread population in general, but specifically to those individuals that already hold "certain" biases! \ Hint, hint.

And all I have from your end is your POV that that statement is "biased."

Have a nice day.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

It amazing how you folks, who I assume are reasonably intelligent, can just continue to miss the point over and over and over. I'll just stop there, because you're not going to see it. You still think this is about supporting the claim in the article. It's not. Good bye.

He lost to Ms. Blanco in 2003 largely in places like this, Washington Parish, a hardscrabble rural area 70 miles north of New Orleans, where voters openly expressed unease four years ago about opting for someone of Mr. Jindal’s race. In areas where the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke won in the 1991 governor’s race — here and in the deeply conservative parishes of north Louisiana — Mr. Jindal lost.

Yet Mr. Jindal, with his decisive victory on Saturday, appears to have overcome a significant racial hurdle that blocked him in 2003, according to analysts: race-based opposition in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana that once supported the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

During that (2003) campaign, Mr. Jindal attacked liberals in radio advertisements and talked up his connections to Mr. Bush. The so-called bubba vote was nonetheless against him that year and he lost to the current governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, who has chosen not to run again.

... One piece of advice to Bobby: Go easy on conservatism. Ideology is a luxury of the upper class. But rebuild New Orleans. Care about the poor, the children, the elderly, the unemployed, blacks and Hispanics. ...

... (Rev.) Nehemiah Thompson

South Plainfield, N.J., Oct. 22, 2007

The writer is general secretary, National Association of Asian Indian Christians in the U.S.A.

Originally Posted by ShawnJ



5000th post!*

*If you guys read 1/5th of them, I can die in peace.

Originally Posted by midwinter

Dear God. I hate to say it, but SDW is right.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman


And to Governor Jindal, good luck.

Yer gonna need it.

"In a post-9/11 world, we have to consider all possibilities,"

"What a cost-effective means of terrorism,"

- Terror analyst Erick Stakelbeck

Originally Posted by midwinter

I've been generally impressed with him as a politician.

Originally Posted by tonton

I've never supported a Republican in my life, but I think Arnold has so far been one of the best governors California has had. Definitely not perfect, but considering the circumstances, he's done a hell of a job.

In fact when he was runing and my family and friends were immediately saying how much of a joke it was, I said, "hey, he's obviously competent at managing his body and his cereer... maybe we should see what he can do". I'd rather have someone competent than another Bozo. Then when he hired Warren Buffett as an economic advisor, I was impressed. The way he dealt with the Gay marriage issue was also impressive, despite his Bushlike gaffe about "gay marriage between a man and a woman".

If he could run for the big P, I'd be ticking the R box over Hilary or Obama (but not Kucinich or Gore).

I'd like to see Trumpt or SDW make a claim like that about ANY Democrat. They can't. They're partisan.

Originally Posted by midwinter

I'm curious, SDW. In your noggin, what is the difference between "a leftist" and someone with "socialist tendencies"?

Originally Posted by midwinter

Well, I'm only going to accept that explanation for so long, you know.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I'm sure she will be filling a sexual harassment claim just as the next election rolls around.

Nick

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Hillary: A leftist pretending she's a centrist, a political chameleon driven by raw political ambition. She's practically a sociopath.

Originally Posted by trumptman

First I didn't vote for Arnold. I voted for McClintock.

Arnold has not done nearly a good enough job with the budget. His bigget claim to fame will be taking debt and turning it into bonds. It doesn't get rid of the debt, it reclassifies it.

Tonton, I think what you fail to note is how easy or hard it is for a centrist to rise to a position whereby they could run for office in each party. You can consider voting for an Arnold for example because a pro-choice Republican can run for office within the party. Find me the blue-dog Democrats within the party today that are on MY ballot and I will vote for them. I've also voted for Diane Feinstein but don't know if I could today.