Monday, April 24, 2017

Ron Fournier Knows You Can't Go out into Space With Fractions, Man!

I was going to burn daylight explaining how Newt Gingrich whipped Matthew Dowd's ass on the teevee machine this morning.  I might still, because I think it is instructive to understand how cunning hobgoblins like Gingrich beat simpering idiots like Dowd every time.

But this is so much more delightful and educational...

And then, seeing a roiling shitpile of Ron Fournier idiocy, Matthew Dowd felt compelled to do exactly what you would expect Matthew Dowd to do.

Protect the hive!

And then, seeing a roiling shitpile of Beltway pundit idiocy, Chris Cillizza felt compelled to do exactly what you would expect Chris Cillizza to do.

This is diuretics.

Very simple diuretics...


Kevin Holsinger said...

Good morning, Mr. Glass.

[From a former DC bureau chief turned "both sides" pundit]

"both sides pundit" is such a well-known thing that it's a term outside your blog? Golly.

Be seeing you.

Lit3Bolt said...

Reposting from LGM, because the MSM evasiveness is on FULL POWAH TO SHIELDS:

The media loves to talk about themselves, and their role in events (like war).

They fucking love it, and would do it all the time if they could.

However, I cannot help but notice they are refusing to talk about their focus and priorities in the 2016 election, and are doing everything they can to deflect and deny they played any part aside from helpless, powerless observers.

That’s brutally telling.

Andrew Johnston said...

OFFS. Back when people a lot of liberals were giving Silver shit for placing HRC's odds too low, I heard a few random goobers reinforce their case by pointing out that Silver had given the winner of the World Series a 25% of chance of victory and was therefore "wrong." That is how a lot of people regard probabilistic stats: >51%=100%, <49%=0%, 50% exactly=the weather people add or drop a few points so people don't bitch at them. It's how pundits get away with making big, stupid predictions, because people are more comfortable with certainty even if it's usually wrong (or even too vague to be wrong or right).

It never actually occurred to me that the pundits themselves might be that stupid. At the time, I hadn't seen them try to think on their feet on CNN or the Sunday morning shows, so I wasn't aware that the columns and books were these people being smart. But this is so basic. How do you not understand that 34% =/= a sure thing? Does Fournier think every die is fixed because there was only a 17% of rolling that number? What do they pay this man for?

Robt said...

Best I can extract from these Tweeters of both sider punditry is that,
they are promoting their practice to enhance their nether niche of bothsiderisms trough " Vulture punditry".

Without explaining why they feed off the carouses of dead issues of HRC.

Ignoring the Billionaire employment of Citizens United. The extremes the most wealthy have and will go beyond democracy for their master of the universe beliefs where the Earth evolves around them. That those who God has forsaken are doomed to build the modern day Pharaohs pyramids and endure the obstacle Pharaoh sets in place for them to get to the work site. To expend their lives in the manner decreed by their owners.

How long before some of these folks end up with Rushbo lawyer in court over
illegal purchases of Oxycodone.
Odds of probabilities?

dinthebeast said...

I used to have to take a diuretic. Hydrochlorothiazide, I think it was... I was glad when they let me stop taking it (by quadrupling the dose of my enalapril) because it made things difficult for me at the time.

-Doug in Oakland

Jason said...

Ok, so I'm no longer trying to figure out just who the hell Chris Cillizza is now that I see DG called him out on a both siderist, protect the hive comment. After reading an infuriating CNN article by this douche hack about the contrasts between Obama's presidency, Trump's 1st 100 days, Bush and Bill Clinton, I found myself needing to make a comment about the post but lo and behold, CNN doesn't have a comments section. They're very above the fray after all. Still, Cillizza's bloviated and utterly fucking wrong minded broad brushing of these various presidents stuck in my craw. This is what this asshat had to say about these administrations:
"So we went from the brilliant but scandal-plagued Bill Clinton to the solid and steady George W. Bush to the young dynamic leader in Obama. And then to businessman and political outsider Donald Trump." This is what passes for commentary at CNN. Let's go through this shall we? "Scandal plagued" Bill Clinton was scandalized because the Republicans were on a vicious witch hunt to take him down. Vince Foster and White Water didn't have evidence but he got a blow job in the white house. Big whup. This was the first presidency I paid attention to and I was appalled at the right's obvious mentally unhinged behavior to impeach. Little did I know that it was the tip of the iceberg for these neanderfucks.

Then of course we had the stolen 2000 election that brought GW Bush. "Solid and Steady" would not be the first words I'd use to describe this small minded, intellectually stunted man child. Maybe if I was asked what words I'd use to describe the opposite of GW Bush. The man lied us into war, gave his industry buddies tax breaks, no bid military contracts, lost trillions on a never ending war, was a deer in the headlights for 10 minutes after he was told the country was under attack and oversaw deregulation on the financial sector that saw the housing bubble that led to the second great depression.

Fuck Chris Cillizza

bbraksick said...

Diuretics? That book'll change your life.

dave said...

when the contrary argument is 'wrong' as yelped by trump during the debates and 30% of our electorate accept that as a good contrary argument we're past the fairway of 'both sides' and looking for our titleist in the rough...

40 years of trying to talk sense into the single wide, single minded crowd is just a waste of time. sense ain't sensible if it doesn't support the core beliefs. trump cut his crowd pleasin' teeth on big time wrasslin' truths and those truth say tell them what they want to believe..anything else is inconvenient and rejected..