For all PA righties

[hcap]

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/

Political Polarization & Media Habits

.....those who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions have different ways of informing themselves about politics and government is not surprising. But the depth of these divisions – and the differences between those who have strong ideological views and those who do not – are striking.

Overall, the study finds that consistent conservatives:

Are tightly clustered around a single news source, far more than any other group in the survey, with 47% citing Fox News as their main source for news about government and politics.
Express greater distrust than trust of 24 of the 36 news sources measured in the survey. At the same time, fully 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News.
Are, when on Facebook, more likely than those in other ideological groups to hear political opinions that are in line with their own views.
Are more likely to have friends who share their own political views. Two-thirds (66%) say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics.

By contrast, those with consistently liberal views:

Are less unified in their media loyalty; they rely on a greater range of news outlets, including some – like NPR and the New York Times– that others use far less.
Express more trust than distrust of 28 of the 36 news outlets in the survey. NPR, PBS and the BBC are the most trusted news sources for consistent liberals.
Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend” someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics.
Are more likely to follow issue-based groups, rather than political parties or candidates, in their Facebook feeds.

http://www.journalism.org/files/2014/10/10-20-2014-2-31-55-PM.png

[hcap]

PS: At least as important as where people turn for news is whose news they trust. And here, the ideological differences are especially stark.

Respondents were asked whether they had heard of each of the 36 outlets listed in the accompanying graphic. For those they had heard of, they were asked about their trust – or distrust – in each source.

Liberals, overall, trust a much larger mix of news outlets than others do. Of the 36 different outlets considered, 28 are more trusted than distrusted by consistent liberals. Just eight earn higher shares of distrust than trust. Still, among those eight, the levels of distrust can be high: fully 81% of consistent liberals distrust Fox News, and 75% distrust the Rush Limbaugh Show.

Among consistent conservatives, by contrast, there are 24 sources that draw more distrust than trust. The same is true for 15 sources among those with mostly conservative views. And, of the eight outlets more trusted than distrusted by consistent conservatives, all but one, on balance, are distrusted by consistent liberals.

http://www.journalism.org/files/2014/10/PJ_14.10.21_mediaPolarization-01.png

[Tom]

That tells me liberal use small, biased news sources.
CNN? MSNBC? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[hcap]

That tells me liberal use small, biased news sources.
CNN? MSNBC? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:Like....

BBC,
NPR
PBS
Wall St Journal
ABC
CBS
NBC

And all of these versus One Big assed biased FauxNoos?

[classhandicapper]

>Liberals, overall, trust a much larger mix of news outlets than others do.<

That's because they have way more options for news.

Why do you think a network like Fox News does so well while liberal options like CNN, MSNBC and liberal talk radio are sinking into an abyss despite the country being split close to 50-50.

If you are liberal you have plenty of options for news. So that 50% is divided into many small pieces.

If you are conservative, you have fewer options. So the audience gets concentrated into a handful of options that get very high ratings.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You know there is definitely a lot of ideological circle jerking everywhere. But, these studies that attempt to define someone or an entire population based on polling of their television habits is one of the best. Doing studies and using science to show that people who watch this "news network" over that one and how dumb they are... what is the point? Newsflash, almost everyone is a moron, political viewing habits is just a symptom. Show me the people that watch the Biggest Loser or Big Brother and that might be a demographic to worry about.

And as for this poll... there are 100 places to watch liberal dogma and basically one to watch conservative dogma. It shouldn't be such an amazing conclusion that requires such effort to learn that conservatives watch the one channel for them and the liberals spread it out over the 100 for them.

[Clocker]

Liberals, overall, trust a much larger mix of news outlets than others do. Of the 36 different outlets considered, 28 are more trusted than distrusted by consistent liberals. Just eight earn higher shares of distrust than trust. Still, among those eight, the levels of distrust can be high: fully 81% of consistent liberals distrust Fox News, and 75% distrust the Rush Limbaugh Show.



Limbaugh is an opinion show, not a news show. He does not pretend other wise. Most of the Fox "news shows" that liberals love to hate (Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.) are not news shows and do not claim to be. Fox straight news coverage essentially ends at 5PM Eastern. I have not seen bias in coverage in their straight news shows.

The poll of trust in the "36 outlets" is nonsense. People that actually consider Ed Schultz, Glenn Beck, Hannity, the Daily Show, or the Colbert Report to be news sources cannot be taken seriously.

And people that do not view multiple news sources are not capable of accurately judging the bias of the sources that they do use. The major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) are generally biased through omission. In particular, stories embarrassing to the administration can run for weeks on outlets like Fox without a single mention on the majors. I would also like to see information on how many respondents rated sources as not trusted without ever having viewed that source.

[Tom]

I think hcap mixing Rush in with news outfits shows how totally uniformed the left really is.

They don't even know what news is, let alone how trustworthy it is. :lol:

[Tor Ekman]

Al Jazeera America . . . More trusted than distrusted by those who are consistently liberal and equally trusted/distrusted by those who are mostly liberal . . . enough said

[Clocker]

I think hcap mixing Rush in with news outfits shows how totally uniformed the left really is.

They don't even know what news is, let alone how trustworthy it is. :lol:

It's an opinion and commentary show. I listen to Rush from time to time because his analysis sometimes comes up with new ways to look at things. But he is talking extemporaneously and often gets his details mixed up or wrong. And most of the time he is commenting on news from other sources, so you have to consider that source also.

[Clocker]

Al Jazeera America . . . More trusted than distrusted by those who are consistently liberal and equally trusted/distrusted by those who are mostly liberal . . . enough said

Infidel! :eek:

[ArlJim78]

one major news network leans right, and somehow its a revelation to find that conservatives use fewer sources. really?
frankly I don't trust any news sources, and I don't care for Fox either.
I've broken it down into persons that I trust.
Like Ralph said yesterday on another thread, twitter is where its at for news. Chose the individuals you trust and follow them.

[thaskalos]

When it comes to "news"...trust no one in the media.

[Tom]

That's news to me!

[HUSKER55]

I don't think it is smart to concentrate on one type of news source. They are all biased so you need good ones from each side.

Rush, Big Ed, Glen Beck, Jon Stewart...make god have mercy on the saps that follows them.

[BlueShoe]

Okay, to summerize Cappy's position and charts is that liberals trust and like the big media outlets and lefty websites, whereas consevatives do not, and prefer Fox and conservative publications and sites. Think that we all knew and agreed on this, it was a given, so hardly a point of debate.

As for Facebook and Twitter as a reliable news source, this one has me very cautious and wary. Do not belong to any social media sites, and much of what I have heard is that they are often a source of nonsense and generally a waster of time, more suitable for kids and young adults than for thinking mature persons.

[MJC922]

I don't think it is smart to concentrate on one type of news source. They are all biased so you need good ones from each side.

Rush, Big Ed, Glen Beck, Jon Stewart...make god have mercy on the saps that follows them.

Agree, it's a good suggestion to branch out... I've found one of the better parts about the RTN subscription is the RT without the N. Pretty sad state of affairs when the American media is so sanitized that I have to seek out team Putin to show some footage of what the hell is actually going on around the world.

[horses4courses]

A news broadcast that I watch pretty regularly
on PBS is NHK World from Tokyo.

If truth be told, though, I find their female
weather reporter to be quite spell binding........ :lol:

[racko]

Michael Savage didn't even make the list!!

[HUSKER55]

he makes me look like a new dealer... :D

[horses4courses]

Nat Johnson ‏@rockportbasset 42m42 minutes ago
No Ebola to scare us with?
No more Benghazi with which to attempt humiliation of our President?
What's a Fox to do?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2H_RFlCEAAfcUc.jpg

[badcompany]

So, I guess the Liberal response to the trouncing is the usual whining, excuse making and denying of reality?

[horses4courses]

So, I guess the Liberal response to the trouncing is the usual whining, excuse making and denying of reality?

Who's whining?

Just kick the TP over to the next stall, would ya please?

[FantasticDan]

So, I guess the Liberal response to the trouncing is the usual whining, excuse making and denying of reality?Some people see reality a little different from you..

http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/11/07/obama-election-republicans-gop-democrats-senate/18606217/

[Clocker]

Some people see reality a little different from you..

http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/11/07/obama-election-republicans-gop-democrats-senate/18606217/

That's authoritative. One letter to the editor from some random guy in Canada who obviously doesn't have a clue about the meaning of any of the economic "achievements" that he is touting. What a hoser! :D

[NJ Stinks]

So, I guess the Liberal response to the trouncing is the usual whining, excuse making and denying of reality?

Reality is when most people don't vote the GOP wins.

I'm used to that particular reality and accept it for what it is. But I must say I do find it rather depressing that people who will benefit under Democratic leadership can't seem to get themselves out to vote in these mid-term elections. Makes me think why should I care if they don't care about themselves. (shrug)

[tucker6]

Some people see reality a little different from you..


Yeah, and visiting hours to see them are restricted too.

[fast4522]

Welcome back Stinks,

Could it be black people and their community did much better under other Presidents? How about the ones who are working who felt they took it up the ass with Obama care? In general how about everyone's concern about issues we can continue list and rightfully be concerned about. Even you NJ STINKS must have a sneaking suspicion that there is very little trust right now.

[Robert Goren]

Welcome back Stinks,

Could it be black people and their community did much better under other Presidents? How about the ones who are working who felt they took it up the ass with Obama care? In general how about everyone's concern about issues we can continue list and rightfully be concerned about. Even you NJ STINKS must have a sneaking suspicion that there is very little trust right now.It is hard to find a time when the rich have done better than they have under Obama, yet most of them probably voted republican. People don't always vote their wallet.

[badcompany]

Reality is when most people don't vote the GOP wins.

I'm used to that particular reality and accept it for what it is. But I must say I do find it rather depressing that people who will benefit under Democratic leadership can't seem to get themselves out to vote in these mid-term elections. Makes me think why should I care if they don't care about themselves. (shrug)

Yes, welcome back, Stinks, and, congrats on your excellent excuse for the Dems failure :ThmbUp:

[Robert Goren]

The biggest spenders win house seat almost always. In senate, the biggest spender wins most of the time. The republicans won this time because they were able to generate the most money.

[badcompany]

That's authoritative. One letter to the editor from some random guy in Canada who obviously doesn't have a clue about the meaning of any of the economic "achievements" that he is touting. What a hoser! :D

What the guy left out is that the recovery really kicked in when the 'Pubs took back the house and slammed the brakes on the Obama Pinko Train.

[tucker6]

The biggest spenders win house seat almost always. In senate, the biggest spender wins most of the time. The republicans won this time because they were able to generate the most money.

ahem ...

Total Raised

Democratic Party $731,321,968
Republican Party $574,492,069

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2014 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released on November 10, 2014.

The Democrats out raised the Republicans in all areas. I can post the details if you'd like.

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/

[badcompany]

ahem ...

Total Raised

Democratic Party $731,321,968
Republican Party $574,492,069

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2014 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released on November 10, 2014.

The Democrats out raised the Republicans in all areas.

I believe NJ Stinks has a point: that the low turnout contributed to the Republican blowout.

Many of the deadbeats, freeloaders and glad handers, you know, the Dem base, realized that they had gotten all the free government goodies they were gonna get. So, they opted for their default course of action: staying home and doing nothing.

[boxcar]

I believe NJ Stinks has a point: that the low turnout contributed to the Republican blowout.

Many of the deadbeats, freeloaders and glad handers, you know, the Dem base, realized that they had gotten all the free government goodies they were gonna get. So, they opted for their default course of action: staying home and doing nothing.

Yup, it was payback time by those who lost all their free cells and food stamp cards. :jump: :jump:

[HUSKER55]

Voter turn out was 65% here in milwaukee. According to the local paper the states turn out was 56%.


Like everything else it depends on the slant of the source. The election commission here in milwaukee was one source. Journal was the other. For some reason the states web page is down for repairs, I guess. I can't get in.

[FantasticDan]

Yeah, and visiting hours to see them are restricted too. :D Those that don't subscribe to the right's relentlessly negative (and wrong) narrative must be in mental hospitals! Good one! Please take me back to 2008, daddy! :lol:

2O5EeBjxhiY

[HUSKER55]

I believe NJ Stinks has a point: that the low turnout contributed to the Republican blowout.

Many of the deadbeats, freeloaders and glad handers, you know, the Dem base, realized that they had gotten all the free government goodies they were gonna get. So, they opted for their default course of action: staying home and doing nothing.


not voting is also a vote. It means neither party could get that individual off of dead center.

It is nice to know that in milwaukee people got out and voted but that means there is a lot of people from around the state who feel they will get screwd no matter what they do.

That is sad because until people start moving together and get involved there will never be change,...just a different name on the mailbox.

I am conservative and tend to vote that way. However, if I think the best person for the job is a democrat I will vote for them.

Case in point, our local county sheriff is one hell of a decent man with a good record, IMHO. He is a democrat but he gets my vote and if he is running and needs a donation I send him one.

I am conservative but I want the job done.

People who vote straight party tickets, like most democrats I know, really don't get it. They think they do...but they don't

[PaceAdvantage]

Welcome back Stinks,

Could it be black people and their community did much better under other Presidents? How about the ones who are working who felt they took it up the ass with Obama care? In general how about everyone's concern about issues we can continue list and rightfully be concerned about. Even you NJ STINKS must have a sneaking suspicion that there is very little trust right now.Enough with the senseless and needless VULGARITIES...took it up the ass? For crying out loud...if it's not the lefties on here talking about Vaseline and circle jerks, it's the righties talking about taking it up the ass...

ENOUGH!

[Robert Goren]

ahem ...

Total Raised

Democratic Party $731,321,968
Republican Party $574,492,069

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2014 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released on November 10, 2014.

The Democrats out raised the Republicans in all areas. I can post the details if you'd like.

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/ Does those numbers include the spending by "issue" group funded by the Kochs , the unions and others both liberal and conservative. That is where the real is spent.

[badcompany]

Does those numbers include the spending by "issue" group funded by the Kochs , the unions and others both liberal and conservative. That is where the real is spent.

We find your whining tiresome.

You lost. Tear up the ticket and move on to the next race.

I hear Hillary just had a Bullet Workout.

[tucker6]

Does those numbers include the spending by "issue" group funded by the Kochs , the unions and others both liberal and conservative. That is where the real is spent.
It appears the Kochs gave the GOP just under 600k, which is a similar amount the University of California gave the Dems. Can someone answer me why a university is spending nearly $600k to fund the Dems?

[NJ Stinks]

We find your whining tiresome.

You lost. Tear up the ticket and move on to the next race.



Such hilarity cannot go unnoticed! :lol:

For six years we have endured wailing of historic proportions. Then the GOP goes on another one game winning streak and suddenly the SEC isn't all that good a conference. Got it. ;)

And I just want to add that I appreciate the nice welcome back, guys. Of course, I'd feel a little better about the warm welcome if I didn't have to duck so often.... :)

[Spiderman]

ahem ...

Total Raised

Democratic Party $731,321,968
Republican Party $574,492,069

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2014 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released on November 10, 2014.

The Democrats out raised the Republicans in all areas. I can post the details if you'd like.

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/

ahem, yourself. There was $4 billion spent on the nationwide elections. Your, ahem, totals add-up to about $1.3 billion. But, ahem, it's only pocket change for the Kock(sp?) brothers

[tucker6]

ahem, yourself. There was $4 billion spent on the nationwide elections. Your, ahem, totals add-up to about $1.3 billion. But, ahem, it's only pocket change for the Kock(sp?) brothers
why not find out the truth before casting aspersions. I linked actual data. Where is your data?

[Spiderman]

why not find out the truth before casting aspersions. I linked actual data. Where is your data?

The total was around $4 billion for all candidates nationwide. Your totals do not reflect the additional monies spent by PACs and trails of organizations that did not want people to know where the fund came from - thank you, Supremes.

The same source that reported the $4 billion spending on PBS News also mentioned that the Republicans outspent the Dems by about $180 million of the total $4 billion spent. Not much difference in reality - Reps outspent Dems by 4.5%.

Your, "ahem", was what amused me.

[badcompany]

Such hilarity cannot go unnoticed! :lol:

For six years we have endured wailing of historic proportions. Then the GOP goes on another one game winning streak and suddenly the SEC isn't all that good a conference. Got it. ;)

And I just want to add that I appreciate the nice welcome back, guys. Of course, I'd feel a little better about the warm welcome if I didn't have to duck so often.... :)

The GOP deserved to lose in 08, and to a lesser extent, 2012.

However, when the American people, who actually get out of bed before noon, realized the European style Socialist model that Obama, Hillary, Liz Warren et al had in store for us, they said, en masse, "No, that won't be appropriate for us."

The dearth of European companies on this list is no accident. It's the result of an anti-capitalist mentality.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/c9a1d10aca492844262cf9c4156a54ab_zps3c2fa83b.jpg

[maddog42]

That is a pretty good estimate Spider. This article says something similar:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/06/joe-scarborough/which-side-spent-more-2014-midterms-democrats-or-r/

The so called "Dark Money" was primarily Republican. They probably out spent Dems by $180 million.

[badcompany]

That is a pretty good estimate Spider. This article says something similar:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/06/joe-scarborough/which-side-spent-more-2014-midterms-democrats-or-r/

The so called "Dark Money" was primarily Republican. They probably out spent Dems by $180 million.

You lost. Nobody cares that your horse got a bad trip.

[fast4522]

Your right Mike, as usual both sides stray past the navigational beacons here. I was wrong for the choice of words. There are those on both sides who were close to just getting by and among not mixed company both sides might use those very same words but not in public, as this place is. For those with the flower story of this mess I guess they are dismayed, and the others revenge is sweet. Hopefully when I use the word pissed referring to the voting electorate you will find it inside the navigational beacons, because I do not see that changing in two years.

[JustRalph]

I think it's time we move past the last week. The electorate is totally different in two years. This off year win is great especially when it comes to state legislators etc......... but 2016 will be a totally different group of voters

[fast4522]

Well JR, I am counting on you being alive, salty as ever and making it to the polls. Lets see if things change or we want that other pound of flesh again.

[classhandicapper]

Reality is when most people don't vote the GOP wins.

I'm used to that particular reality and accept it for what it is. But I must say I do find it rather depressing that people who will benefit under Democratic leadership can't seem to get themselves out to vote in these mid-term elections. Makes me think why should I care if they don't care about themselves. (shrug)

Don't worry. The demographics strongly favor your party. You will get to see them control every branch of government and the Supreme court soon enough. Unfortunately that also means you will see a further decline United States, the eventual collapse of the US dollar under the weight of promises that can't be kept and a government too timid to do the right things, and the eventual wholesale exodus of those with capital and the good sense to get out before the shit hits the fan. The only debate is the date.

[reckless]

I always find it hilarious that when a Democrat wins a race then 'the people have spoken'.

But when Republicans win, it's only because they 'raised more money', or 'dark money did the trick', or they won because of those 'evil Koch boys and their PAC money'. :lol:

Like it or not all you naive left wingers, and delude yourselves all you want, but the people did speak on Election Day against an incompetent President along with his totalitarian, angry, and old haters in the Democrat Party.

[NJ Stinks]

PBS NEWSHOUR

TOPICS > POLITICS > THE MORNING LINE

2014 midterm election turnout lowest in 70 years

BY DOMENICO MONTANARO, RACHEL WELLFORD AND SIMONE PATHE November 10, 2014 at 9:06 AM EST

Today in the Morning Line:

* Just 36.4 percent of eligible voters turned out in 2014

* Turnout increased in some places, but decreased in most, including populous states like California, New York and New Jersey

* The top 10 best and worst voter participation states of 2014

Lowest turnout since WW2: Final numbers are still being tallied, but at this point it looks pretty clear that turnout in these midterms was the lowest overall in 70 years. Turnout of the voting-eligible population was just 36.4 percent, according to the projection from the United States Elections Project, run by Dr. Michael McDonald at the University of Florida. That’s down from the 41 percent that turned out in 2010. You have to go all the way back to 1942 for lower numbers when turnout in that midterm was just 33.9 percent. They had a pretty good excuse back then — many adult-age Americans were preoccupied with fighting in a world war.

More at the link: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/2014-midterm-election-turnout-lowest-in-70-years/

[johnhannibalsmith]

PBS NEWSHOUR

TOPICS > POLITICS > THE MORNING LINE

2014 midterm election turnout lowest in 70 years

BY DOMENICO MONTANARO, RACHEL WELLFORD AND SIMONE PATHE November 10, 2014 at 9:06 AM EST

Today in the Morning Line:

* Just 36.4 percent of eligible voters turned out in 2014

* Turnout increased in some places, but decreased in most, including populous states like California, New York and New Jersey

* The top 10 best and worst voter participation states of 2014

Lowest turnout since WW2: Final numbers are still being tallied, but at this point it looks pretty clear that turnout in these midterms was the lowest overall in 70 years. Turnout of the voting-eligible population was just 36.4 percent, according to the projection from the United States Elections Project, run by Dr. Michael McDonald at the University of Florida. That’s down from the 41 percent that turned out in 2010. You have to go all the way back to 1942 for lower numbers when turnout in that midterm was just 33.9 percent. They had a pretty good excuse back then — many adult-age Americans were preoccupied with fighting in a world war.

More at the link: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/2014-midterm-election-turnout-lowest-in-70-years/

That is the best news yet to come from the election.

[Magister Ludi]

Here is a link to an excellent online book which examines the destruction of conservatism by right-wing authoritarianism.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[NJ Stinks]

That is the best news yet to come from the election.

I just can't focus on your rebellious nature, John, since I've just been informed that there are 5,000+ Thai Women out there Seeking Love. :eek:

[HUSKER55]

Voter turnout by state:

http://www.electproject.org/2014g

There is only a handful of states that had 50% or better, of which Wisconsin is one of them.

There was alot of disenchanted voters. Neither party could get them off their asses to vote.

Play all the word games you want but no vote is a vote in which both sides lost.

[dartman51]

I just can't focus on your rebellious nature, John, since I've just been informed that there are 5,000+ Thai Women out there Seeking Love. :eek:

Pace yourself NJ, you're not getting any younger. :D

[dartman51]

This can't help the temperament of the Lefties. http://www.gallup.com/poll/179345/democratic-party-favorable-rating-falls-record-low.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

According to Gallup, Democratic favorable rating falls to a record low, 36%, while the GOP held steady at 42%. :D