ashton wrote:

This map also represents the percentage of unattractive women in each country.

Lots of hot chicks in Portugal.

TenuredVulture wrote:Lots of hot chicks in Portugal.

Cristiano Ronaldo, for example.

Do people here think conservatives take their "opinion leaders" (Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, et al) more seriously than liberals take the left wing equivalents?

Yes and no.

I say Yes because conservatives don't have NBC/ABC/CBS/MSNBC/Comedy Central/PBS/NPR/NYT/LAT/pop culture (movies, TV, etc) to turn to - so the blogosphere, books, and talk radio is what they have that reflects their views.

I say no because - as everyone is pointing out, talk radio had no influence on the primaries demonstrating (arguably) that while talk radio is popular, a large portion of the conservative audience wasn't listening or didn't care what the talkers had to say.

Probably from anecdotal experience, as I know relatives who listen Rush but not a soul who cares about Franken or uhh Garafalo? Then again, a lot of dems worship Jon Stewart.

You don't need Garafalo when you have Stewart. You don't need Franken when you have NPR. Sometimes I think a benefit of Air America is that it creates the illusion that there aren't liberal talkers on Meet The Press, 60 Minutes, Face the Nation, etc.

I'm wondering if there's a difference in how Stewart's audience reacts compared to how Limbaugh's audience reacts. The issue here isn't to deny that there aren't outlets for liberal opinion leaders, it's the effect that liberal and conservative opinion leaders have on ordinary liberals and conservatives.

I do think Limbaugh et al have lost some credibility in this cycle. On the other hand, I think talk radio had a big part in how conservatives responded to Bush's immigration plan. I think without talk radio, Bush's plan is fairly easily enacted. I don't think NPR or Franken have that same power.

Why the heck aren't there any polls in these states? Especially the primary states next Tuesday. I know it's hard as hell to poll a caucus, but I'd at least like to have some barometer to set my expectations at going into next Tuesday.

And I think if I lived in VA, I'd be voting for Hillary on Tuesday instead of McCain.

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm wondering if there's a difference in how Stewart's audience reacts compared to how Limbaugh's audience reacts. The issue here isn't to deny that there aren't outlets for liberal opinion leaders, it's the effect that liberal and conservative opinion leaders have on ordinary liberals and conservatives.

There's a difference between the two that borders on deceptive, IMO. Limbaugh is clearly a conservative pundit, Stewart is an "entertainer". Smart people know when he's being a pundit and when he isn't, but there are a lot of not smart people out there.

TenuredVulture wrote:I think without talk radio, Bush's plan is fairly easily enacted. I don't think NPR or Franken have that same power.

Franken surely doesn't. NBC/ABC/CBS/NYT/Inquirer/etc certainly do. I just disagree, polling indicates amnesty is very unpopular in national polling - I think the con-talkers are reflecting the opinion in this case, not creating it.

jerseyhoya wrote:Why the heck aren't there any polls in these states? Especially the primary states next Tuesday. I know it's hard as hell to poll a caucus, but I'd at least like to have some barometer to set my expectations at going into next Tuesday.

And I think if I lived in VA, I'd be voting for Hillary on Tuesday instead of McCain.

Strategic vote?

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Why the heck aren't there any polls in these states? Especially the primary states next Tuesday. I know it's hard as hell to poll a caucus, but I'd at least like to have some barometer to set my expectations at going into next Tuesday.

And I think if I lived in VA, I'd be voting for Hillary on Tuesday instead of McCain.

Strategic vote?

Yeah. I'm afraid Obama's really gonna roll through this weekend, then sweep the "Chesapeake" Primaries building up a ton of momentum, and I am really excited to watch this thing drag on forever, so I'd do what I could. Alas, I live in DC, and my primary is closed. Although just about everything I thought was going to happen has been wrong so far on the Dem side so hopefully I'm wrong again.

Edit: And there are no polls telling me what to think! Jerks.

jerseyhoya wrote:Why the heck aren't there any polls in these states?

A colleague and myself have talked about doing a research project comparing polling resources on a state by state basis. I can tell you that NJ is far more systematically and regularly polled than Arkansas.

What we need is a big fat grant.

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm wondering if there's a difference in how Stewart's audience reacts compared to how Limbaugh's audience reacts. The issue here isn't to deny that there aren't outlets for liberal opinion leaders, it's the effect that liberal and conservative opinion leaders have on ordinary liberals and conservatives.

There's a difference between the two that borders on deceptive, IMO. Limbaugh is clearly a conservative pundit, Stewart is an "entertainer". Smart people know when he's being a pundit and when he isn't, but there are a lot of not smart people out there.

I agree there's a big difference, though I'd interpret it a bit differently. Limbaugh's message is: "All good conservatives ought to think this." Stewart's message is, "Hey, isn't Bush dumb?"

As far as my take on immigration--I agree that Bush's plan is unpopular. That's why it doesn't get passed. But unpopular stuff gets passed all the time. Conservative media managed to articulate and galvanize that opposition and caused people to act. Of course, it matters that at the time, Republicans held a majority in Congress. So, conservative media can't create outrage out of thin air. But it certainly can direct that outrage at specific targets.

A counter example would be SCHIPs--I believe that a liberal media as powerful as conservative media might be able to override Bush's veto.

FWIW, Real Clear Politics has the delegate count as:

Pledged Supers Total
Clinton 865 211 1,076
Obama 878 128 1,006

* I think RCP takes an average of those delegates reported by AP, Washington Post, CBS News and themselves.

So Obama has a 13 pledged delegate lead with 587 at stake over the next 10 days. If Obama can extend the pledged delegate lead to say 100 delegates (which would mean capturing around 57.0% of available delegates) and show clear momentum heading into Texas and Ohio, I think you might see things start breaking even in the remaining big states and you might start seeing the super delegates start changing their minds or uncommitteds start committing to Obama.

I think there are 842 total super delegates, which means there are still 503 uncommitted. Those super delegates are going to go to whomever has the momentum and has shown they are ready to take the nomination. Specifically, those 503 super delegates are half of what each candidate needs to secure the nomination.

jerseyhoya wrote:Why the heck aren't there any polls in these states? Especially the primary states next Tuesday. I know it's hard as hell to poll a caucus, but I'd at least like to have some barometer to set my expectations at going into next Tuesday.

And I think if I lived in VA, I'd be voting for Hillary on Tuesday instead of McCain.

While the embolded part above is fine in written form, saying it out loud sounds kinda dirty

I've seen three polls showing Obama with a 15-20 point lead in Virginia. And McCain of course is up by something like 32 over the Hucker. Though presumably that was taken before Mullah Dobson made his endorsement.

But yeah, otherwise I share alter ego's pain.

TenuredVulture wrote:A counter example would be SCHIPs--I believe that a liberal media as powerful as conservative media might be able to override Bush's veto.

The media dropped the ball for their side on that though (SCHIP helps kids! Compassionate Humans are For SCHIP! Dark Creepy Things Oppose SCHIP!). There was no convincing counter or substance once voters were educated on what the bill entailed.

This goes back to my yes and no argument - I think that people who want to know what's going under the hood get under the hood. Those inclined to the left are going to specifically target newspapers, PBS, NPR, blogs, maybe even Air America, etc - those inclined to the right hit talk radio, the 8-10 block on FNC, and blogs. They aren't the people that I believe anyone is talking about when they speak to the left of center influence in the msm - most are whining about the vast middle swath that only read headlines and make determinations based on them. In that case, the editorializing that is done in just selecting what we talk about and how it's phrased is the biggest "sin" - and here I'd agree with my lefty brothers in saying that corporations have a lot to do with the evils there.

dajafi wrote:I've seen three polls showing Obama with a 15-20 point lead in Virginia. And McCain of course is up by something like 32 over the Hucker. Though presumably that was taken before Mullah Dobson made his endorsement.

But yeah, otherwise I share alter ego's pain.

Thanks for the heads up on the VA polls. I don't know how I missed them.

I disagree that Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else are opinion leaders. People listen/watch these shows not because Fox News or Al Franken tell them what to think, but because they reflect what they think. People who are right of center don't go to "The Daily Show" tapings. I'm not saying they don't have any influence, but I don't think it's a lot. If Rush, Sean, and Anne came out tomorrow loving McCain that wouldn't influence a lot of Christian conservatives. If anything they'd feel betrayed. I'm sure that people on the fence might be pushed one way or another but why would someone in the middle listen to Rush?

Their "popularity" is giving people what they want. And I'm not sure how popular they are. About 1% of America watches Fox News every day and about 5% listen to Rush in a week. I'm sure some Rush listeners listen because they hate him. The music stations kill Rush in listeners.

SCHIP is an interesting example. Republicans wanted to kill the bill because they wanted to limit the free health care to families making $63,000. Democrats wanted it extended to $84,000 per year. Poor children aren't covered by SCHIP. They are covered by Medicaid. The Democrats were able to get the message out that Bush wanted to deny health care to poor children. They didn't convince people that not helping poor children was wrong. The people knew that. They just convinced them of something that was misleading that confirmed their beliefs.

Virginia polls

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:A counter example would be SCHIPs--I believe that a liberal media as powerful as conservative media might be able to override Bush's veto.

The media dropped the ball for their side on that though (SCHIP helps kids! Compassionate Humans are For SCHIP! Dark Creepy Things Oppose SCHIP!). There was no convincing counter or substance once voters were educated on what the bill entailed.

This goes back to my yes and no argument - I think that people who want to know what's going under the hood get under the hood. Those inclined to the left are going to specifically target newspapers, PBS, NPR, blogs, maybe even Air America, etc - those inclined to the right hit talk radio, the 8-10 block on FNC, and blogs. They aren't the people that I believe anyone is talking about when they speak to the left of center influence in the msm - most are whining about the vast middle swath that only read headlines and make determinations based on them. In that case, the editorializing that is done in just selecting what we talk about and how it's phrased is the biggest "sin" - and here I'd agree with my lefty brothers in saying that corporations have a lot to do with the evils there.

You forgot to mention that the right also hase lobbies like NRA or church.

And stop with the everyone but Fox leans left. It is so tired and so wrong, especially now that the big 3 newscasters don't newscast anymore.