Started By
Message

re: Megyn Kelly has severly damaged her career

Posted on 11/23/16 at 8:29 am to
Posted by LSU Patrick
Member since Jan 2009
73474 posts
Posted on 11/23/16 at 8:29 am to
She's coming to KC to talk about her book soon. Hurry and buy tickets before they are gone!
Posted by RobbBobb
Matt Flynn, BCS MVP
Member since Feb 2007
27895 posts
Posted on 11/23/16 at 12:44 pm to
quote:

You essentially listed the battleground states as a pathway to victory. Even if you lost, winning battleground states was still the most reasonable pathway to victory. It's not some secret

This is why I get amused when you reply to me

Nate gets every state right for Obama, and he is a god. Yet I, in July no less, list the states that get Trump the victory (Penn specifically), and that he was likely on the path to break 300 (with Wisc, Iowa, +1), and its just a lucky guess. And I never recanted. Not even on VA

And if I was just 'listing battleground states', how come there was no listing of Colo? N. Mex? Nev? N Hamp? Maine? I could have even listed Mich, and been a phenom!

How is it that I just happened to nail every state (except VA), and say he would break 300 EVs, when up to the night of the results, pollsters were still claiming Trump may not carry Ohio (+9), NC (+4), or Fla (+2)??

It wasn't a lazy guess. If you throw out the push pollsters, look at the demos targeted, compare that to 2004, and add in the energy factor, it was a pretty safe call.

Even as far back as July. When Nate was saying RELAX, Trump has no path
quote:

Nate Silver: “It’s not looking too good for Donald J. Trump.” - Oct, '16
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35236 posts
Posted on 11/23/16 at 1:45 pm to
quote:

Nate gets every state right for Obama, and he is a god.
No, his model reasonable predicted the outcomes. And it's not just about choosing the states, it's about how close a state is. For example, predicting a candidate has a 45% chance to win a state and the candidates ends up winning by a slim margin is a lot more reasonable than giving that candidate a 10% chance.
quote:

and its just a lucky guess. And I never recanted.
Since you didn't provide much, if any, basis for your prediction then it is a random guess. Correctly picking the underdog horse because it has cool name that happens to win a race, doesn't make that pick somehow more informed.
quote:

How is it that I just happened to nail every state (except VA),
I don't know. Wishful thinking that ends up right, doesn't make it any less wishful.
quote:

If you throw out the push pollsters, look at the demos targeted, compare that to 2004, and add in the energy factor, it was a pretty safe call.
Except they weren't "safe" those were close states. If you said Trump has a 55% chance of winning each of those states, that would be more reasonable than saying he had a 95% chance given the slim margins..
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35236 posts
Posted on 11/23/16 at 1:48 pm to
quote:

Even as far back as July. When Nate was saying RELAX, Trump has no path
Nate was one of the few poll modelers who was giving Trump a reasonable shot. This is my post from a couple weeks ago regarding that:

Nate discussed the very outcome
The Odds Of An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split Are Increasing

He argued that the state races were far more uncertain
Election Update: National Polls Show Clinton’s Lead Stabilizing — State Polls, Not So Much

He argued that despite her polling, her position was much worse than Obama in 2012
Election Update: Why Clinton’s Position Is Worse Than Obama’s

He was forced to argue against the other modelers about Trump's chances
Election Update: Yes, Donald Trump Has A Path To Victory

He highlighted the uncertainty due to undecided voters
Election Update: Where Are The Undecided Voters?

He even had to defend Trump's odds when before the Comey bombshell where others were giving Trump less than 1% when Clinton had her largest polling margins
Election Update: Why Our Model Is More Bullish Than Others On Trump.

In addition, he even questioned Hillary's campaigning in Arizona while giving Trump credit for campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan.
Not only is it justifiable for Trump to be campaigning in WI or MI—it's absolutely the correct strategy. Whereas Clinton in AZ is dubious.

He even went off on the hack liberals at Huffington Post who were criticizing him for giving Trump a good chance of winning.
Nate Silver rages at Huffington Post editor in 14-part tweetstorm
Posted by RobbBobb
Matt Flynn, BCS MVP
Member since Feb 2007
27895 posts
Posted on 11/23/16 at 6:50 pm to
quote:

buckeye_vol

Pssst. Did you catch Megyns latest ratings? Shes now 6th in total viewers, on Fox. On a Tues. When there wasn't an NFL game. And O'Reilly had a stand-in

1) O'Reilly - 3.049 mil
2) Tucker - 2.769
3) Baier - 2.742
4) The Five - 2.598
5) Hannity 2.564
6) MK - 2.438

You keep 'debunking' points I make, yet in the end I'm still right

Trump won
DeVos is now in charge of Common core mandates
Kellys ratings continue to decline
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35236 posts
Posted on 11/23/16 at 7:14 pm to
quote:

You keep 'debunking' points I make, yet in the end I'm still right
I questioned your lazy analysis using a single data point. I didn't say you were wrong, but like your Ailes and Fox News ratings during the DNC thread, making these grand conclusions based on a single piece of information is poor analysis, regardless if it ends up true.

The fact that you don't see this is strange. And ironically in thar DNC thread, which was laughably wrong, you seemed to ignore your error.
Posted by RobbBobb
Matt Flynn, BCS MVP
Member since Feb 2007
27895 posts
Posted on 11/23/16 at 8:15 pm to
quote:

but like your Ailes and Fox News ratings during the DNC thread,

Sarcasm

There was no serious discussion that Ailes would be rehired. However, Fox was tilting left. But with the hire of Tucker, I think they have proven that they saw the error of their ways
Posted by Pettifogger
Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone
Member since Feb 2012
79150 posts
Posted on 11/24/16 at 2:55 pm to
Guys just wanted to check and see if yall wanted to start a go fund me or something

I bet Megyn is really in a dark place right now, having the NYT #1 best selling book and all.
Posted by More&Les
Member since Nov 2012
14684 posts
Posted on 11/24/16 at 3:25 pm to
quote:

Guys just wanted to check and see if yall wanted to start a go fund me or something

I bet Megyn is really in a dark place right now, having the NYT #1 best selling book and all.



She's the Truth man, remember when she decided to destroy that presidential candidate, what's his name, guy with the funny hair. Poor guy never had a chance.
Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
56287 posts
Posted on 11/24/16 at 4:06 pm to
quote:

Fox Mulder
Toldja.
Posted by Pettifogger
Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone
Member since Feb 2012
79150 posts
Posted on 11/24/16 at 8:57 pm to
quote:

She's the Truth man, remember when she decided to destroy that presidential candidate, what's his name, guy with the funny hair. Poor guy never had a chance.



It's just so ridiculous that you guys are obsessed with deluding yourselves about people who don't like Trump. What's the point?
Posted by RobbBobb
Matt Flynn, BCS MVP
Member since Feb 2007
27895 posts
Posted on 11/24/16 at 9:02 pm to
quote:

What's the point?

Because we told you from the get go, what the end result would be

But your smug, condescending arse knew better. And like you Megyns smug arse took on Trump heads up. Went straight for a personal, not presidential question

Both of you look very foolish with your decision making. And neither of you now have a POV that people see as having any base in reality
Posted by DelU249
Austria
Member since Dec 2010
77625 posts
Posted on 11/24/16 at 9:16 pm to
those ratings are big and you don't judge off of one night

Her book is also a best seller

To say her career is in turmoil is ridiculous but if tucker Carlson keeps beating her there's going to be some drama at fox.
Posted by GoldenGuy
Member since Oct 2015
10868 posts
Posted on 11/24/16 at 9:19 pm to
quote:

5) Hannity 2.564
6) MK - 2.438


You know things are bad when people turn off the TV for you, and turn it right back on when you're done.
Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
56287 posts
Posted on 11/24/16 at 10:49 pm to
I just said she was going to decline, and will go further into decline. I don't observe shite that's already happened. I call shite, baby.
Posted by More&Les
Member since Nov 2012
14684 posts
Posted on 11/24/16 at 11:24 pm to
quote:


It's just so ridiculous that you guys are obsessed with deluding yourselves about people who don't like Trump. What's the point?



Dana pirino doesn't like Trump, still like her. Ambassador Haley doesn't like Trump, still like her and stated as much on here long before she was offered a VIP seat.

Scott Walker was not a big fan and Pence actually supported Cruz.

I'm cool with all that. Kelley is a fake, lying bitch. She exposed herself so no, I don't like her anymore.

And I'm not a fan of so called conservatives who actively tried to put Crooked Hillary in office. (i.e. Kristol, Beck, Graham...)
Posted by Pettifogger
Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone
Member since Feb 2012
79150 posts
Posted on 11/25/16 at 10:46 am to
quote:

Because we told you from the get go, what the end result would be



Haha, you weren't even fricking here from the get go. You're just another guy who has never, ever tried to substantively engage me on politics and then when your crush won the presidency, you started parading around like a sidewalk Alabama fan.

In the end, this argument is about your self worth, it has nothing to do with Megyn or Trump.
Posted by Pettifogger
Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone
Member since Feb 2012
79150 posts
Posted on 11/25/16 at 10:48 am to
quote:

I'm cool with all that. Kelley is a fake, lying bitch. She exposed herself so no, I don't like her anymore.



Not liking her doesn't have much of anything to do with it. I only like her because she owns the heads of the dullest people on here like Robb.

The topic I'm discussing is whether her "career is over!!!!" or not. It isn't. At all.
Posted by BamaGradinTn
Murfreesboro
Member since Dec 2008
26956 posts
Posted on 11/25/16 at 10:59 am to
quote:

Went straight for a personal, not presidential question



The notion that a question about a candidate's disparagement of women is a "personal not presidential" is sheer fricking stupidity. You want to allege that Kelly is biased, fair enough. But if you truly think the question is irrelevant to ask a presidential candidate, then the better part of you must have run down your daddy's britches leg.
This post was edited on 11/25/16 at 11:00 am
Posted by SoFla Tideroller
South Florida
Member since Apr 2010
30062 posts
Posted on 11/25/16 at 11:21 am to
I didn't think that question was necessarily out of bounds except for one thing: Did she ask Hillary Clinton about her statements and disparaging remarks about the women who accused her husband of sexual improprieties? Because those two issues or incidents are related to one another. Asking one party without the other just shows MK had a bias and desire for a "Gotcha!" moment.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram