For being a "political consultant" to any thug who would hire him. A tax cheat and a sleazy business man. You know, the kind of guy Donald thought would be just the kind of guy who should manage his campaign.

That Donald - he just hires the best.

So no collusion or anything outside of poor personal choices. Got it!

If the only people willing to work with you to take over the Republican party, even after you have most of the delegates you need, are known to work for international kleptocrats, I think that says more about you than about them.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Always nice to see a 100% complete political spectrum graph that has no recognition of my own demographics or values.

You don't have to match all of the words listed under the tribe label for them to think you belong to that tribe.  Note that most of the words are only assigned to one tribe.  
If you match to two or three of the words, that's probably your tribe.

No kidding?

So being white, patriotic, middle class, Protestant, civic-minded, distrustful, disillusioned, rational, cautious, cosmopolitan, secular, and angry fits into their neat little chart how exactly?

Yeah, it doesn't, because it's rubbish.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You don't have to match all of the words listed under the tribe label for them to think you belong to that tribe.  Note that most of the words are only assigned to one tribe.  
If you match to two or three of the words, that's probably your tribe.

No kidding?

So being white, patriotic, middle class, Protestant, civic-minded, distrustful, disillusioned, rational, cautious, cosmopolitan, secular, and angry fits into their neat little chart how exactly?

Yeah, it doesn't, because it's rubbish.

Protestant and secular? Really?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Muellers pit bull has left the special council which means an uneventful report is probably several days away from being finished.

---

No kidding?

So being white, patriotic, middle class, Protestant, civic-minded, distrustful, disillusioned, rational, cautious, cosmopolitan, secular, and angry fits into their neat little chart how exactly?

Yeah, it doesn't, because it's rubbish.

Protestant and secular? Really?

Secular doesn't mean atheist.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That's all I need. What evidence could I present to you that you would acknowledge media bias? Would a UCLA study that shows most journalists are left of the average DEMOCRATIC politician work? Would a study from Texas A&M and Arizona State convince you that even most financial journalists that work for WSJ and The Economist lean left? What about poll after poll that shows less than 10% of journalist identifying as conservatives.

I will readily concede that Fox News leans right, especially in it's opinion shows. I will concede that most Republicans would prefer to watch Fox News and wouldn't challenge their own preconceived notions. This doesn't change the fact that the media bias, as a whole, absolutely skews left, and that the majority of the US culture is affected by such bias. 

CNN isn't going to change the opinion of Republicans in the same way that Fox isn't going to change the opinion of Democrats. However, the vast majority of Americans resonate in the middle. You have roughly 20-25% on both sides that align in a political direction. Here is a decent infographic that shows how American blocks are voting (with moderates being the swing vote on different issues).

When I speak of the advantage of media bias, it is in direct relation to the middle three columns. It has a tremendous impact, especially on Presidential elections. It would be foolish for conservatives to take it for granted and ignorant for you to pretend it is not influential. 

Oh, btw, Trump is not MY guy. I didn't vote for him. I am critical when he does stupid things and pleasantly surprised when he does good things. This has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Why don't you come at me with some facts and we can throw down for real.

Always nice to see a 100% complete political spectrum graph that has no recognition of my own demographics or values.

Anarchy isn't on the map.

---

That would fall under progressive activism, I'm sure. The point of that infographic wasn't to try and label every person, it was to show that the ends are relatively small, and there is a large middle. They didn't set out to identify libertarians, democrats, republicans or anarchists. They were looking at political values. Of course it isn't specific. It's just looking at trends.

What infographic would have all the information you require?

---

Protestant and secular? Really?

Secular doesn't mean atheist.

I also think "Civic minded" contradicts with "disillusioned" and "distrustful" but you do you, OK?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Secular doesn't mean atheist.

I also think "Civic minded" contradicts with "disillusioned" and "distrustful" but you do you, 

As usual what you think is not reality. Try your dictionary, it might help you see your error.

---

Always nice to see a 100% complete political spectrum graph that has no recognition of my own demographics or values.

Anarchy isn't on the map.

I'm no anarchist, that's Eric85. I want small, restrained, Constitutionally-limited government.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That's conservative. What's your beef?

I am not advocating for this group, but it seems impulsive to categorically dismiss an infographic because you don't see your "demographics and values" on it. Especially since the picture being question isn't trying to display that information. It's not trying to identify parties. It's grouping thoughts about varying political world views and ideologies. Why don't you read how they did the polling for the data:

https://hiddentribes.us/

America is a complex and diverse society of 325 million people. By definition, any categorization of a group this large must make choices as to which types of differences are meaningful and simplify some realities. There is no definitive “correct” number of groupings in which to categorize Americans.
In reviewing the groupings that emerged from multiple iterations of the hierarchical cluster analysis process, we found that seven groups were distinct enough from each other to be worthy of presentation as separate groups. If we had presented more than seven groups, some of the groups would be so similar to each other as to be hard to distinguish. Presenting fewer than seven groups would have resulted in members of some tribes being too different from each other to be accurately placed under the same label.

Finally, we see the value in segmentation studies not for defining tangible and authoritative groupings, but for challenging the categories by which analysis is typically done. For instance, there is not a single type of liberal or Democrat or woman, but several types. Furthermore, many of our most important differences are not visible demographic traits. Instead, much of our diversity lies in the more subtle and concealed domains of psychology and beliefs. Understanding these realities can help portray American society more fully and more accurately.

I'm as skeptical of a lot of social science data as anyone, especially because the work is not being peer reviewed properly, but I haven't seen anything radical or overly biased about the work being done here. If you see something, feel free to point it out. Again, I posted that pic, not because it was an exhaustive list of every group in America, but to show that there is a large group in the middle that can be potentially influenced by a liberal media bias.

---

That's conservative. What's your beef?

I am not advocating for this group, but it seems impulsive to categorically dismiss an infographic because you don't see your "demographics and values" on it. Especially since the picture being question isn't trying to display that information. It's not trying to identify parties. It's grouping thoughts about varying political world views and ideologies. Why don't you read how they did the polling for the data:

https://hiddentribes.us/

America is a complex and diverse society of 325 million people. By definition, any categorization of a group this large must make choices as to which types of differences are meaningful and simplify some realities. There is no definitive “correct” number of groupings in which to categorize Americans.
In reviewing the groupings that emerged from multiple iterations of the hierarchical cluster analysis process, we found that seven groups were distinct enough from each other to be worthy of presentation as separate groups. If we had presented more than seven groups, some of the groups would be so similar to each other as to be hard to distinguish. Presenting fewer than seven groups would have resulted in members of some tribes being too different from each other to be accurately placed under the same label.

Finally, we see the value in segmentation studies not for defining tangible and authoritative groupings, but for challenging the categories by which analysis is typically done. For instance, there is not a single type of liberal or Democrat or woman, but several types. Furthermore, many of our most important differences are not visible demographic traits. Instead, much of our diversity lies in the more subtle and concealed domains of psychology and beliefs. Understanding these realities can help portray American society more fully and more accurately.

I'm as skeptical of a lot of social science data as anyone, especially because the work is not being peer reviewed properly, but I haven't seen anything radical or overly biased about the work being done here. If you see something, feel free to point it out. Again, I posted that pic, not because it was an exhaustive list of every group in America, but to show that there is a large group in the middle that can be potentially influenced by a liberal media bias.

It's psuedo-statistics. That "large group in the middle" isn't real, it's an oversimplification on their part to try to create some new definitions of America's political climate. All it really is doing is showing degrees of the 2 party system by adding demographics that aren't relevant.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

---

Anarchy isn't on the map.

I'm no anarchist, that's Eric85. I want small, restrained, Constitutionally-limited government.

Those are prescriptive policy positions. And they're good ones.
But the infographic was listing attitudes and outlooks, not "what would you do if we put you in charge?"
the makers of the infographic clearly think that attitude and outlook are better predictors of how people will vote. You might think the people vote based on "what does the person promise to do with power, is it similar to what I would do or not?"
That might be how you vote.
That is how I vote most of the time.
I think people like us are honestly less than a third of all Americans and we all want different things from each other anyway.
The majority of voters in both parties are just "attitude and Outlook" types.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

---

I'm no anarchist, that's Eric85. I want small, restrained, Constitutionally-limited government.

Those are prescriptive policy positions. And they're good ones.
But the infographic was listing attitudes and outlooks, not "what would you do if we put you in charge?"

Yes, and?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Ok. You got a source for this information? I'm happy to change my mind if you can prove your point.

---

---

I'm no anarchist, that's Eric85. I want small, restrained, Constitutionally-limited government.

Those are prescriptive policy positions. And they're good ones.
But the infographic was listing attitudes and outlooks, not "what would you do if we put you in charge?"
the makers of the infographic clearly think that attitude and outlook are better predictors of how people will vote. You might think the people vote based on "what does the person promise to do with power, is it similar to what I would do or not?"
That might be how you vote.
That is how I vote most of the time.
I think people like us are honestly less than a third of all Americans and we all want different things from each other anyway.
The majority of voters in both parties are just "attitude and Outlook" types.

Track record is more important than what they promise. Most politicians fail to keep more than half their promises.

Trump had no track record. Based on his previous support for the Dems I suspected he wouldn't be as conservative in office as he claimed in his campaign. But compared to Hillary, who has a very negative track record, I much preferred the unknown political novice.

So far Trump has a good record of at least trying to keep his campaign promises. Unfortunately, he did not campaign on massive spending cuts, but we have had significant regulatory reform, and tax cuts targeting growth in manufacturing in the USA, both of which were in his campaign. His judicial appointments are more conservative (strict Constitutionalist) than I would have hoped to see by any Pub candidate. And he hasn't sold the farm to any foreign countries yet, unlike Obama, Bush, and Clinton.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Ok. You got a source for this information? I'm happy to change my mind if you can prove your point.

A source for an interpretation? No, I'm the source. The presentation is matter of distinction without difference in the groupings as presented. You think the right end of that spectrum isn't full of angry people? You think the left end of that spectrum isn't full of white people? Passive libs are "disillusioned" but Moderates are "pessimistic", no meaningful difference, and both of the previous two groups could be labeled the same things. Not one of the groups is labeled anything positive like "happy" or "optimistic", this spectrum is just who is griping in what manner. Poppycock.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It comes across like you are being overly sensitive. Seems kind of silly to throw out data over word choices. Do you feel like one group is presented less favorably? If so, why? I literally only posted that infographic because it supported my claim, but now I'm going through the data and it looks like you are just being unnecessarily stubborn.

---

Those are prescriptive policy positions. And they're good ones.
But the infographic was listing attitudes and outlooks, not "what would you do if we put you in charge?"
the makers of the infographic clearly think that attitude and outlook are better predictors of how people will vote. You might think the people vote based on "what does the person promise to do with power, is it similar to what I would do or not?"
That might be how you vote.
That is how I vote most of the time.
I think people like us are honestly less than a third of all Americans and we all want different things from each other anyway.
The majority of voters in both parties are just "attitude and Outlook" types.

Track record is more important than what they promise. Most politicians fail to keep more than half their promises.

Trump had no track record. Based on his previous support for the Dems I suspected he wouldn't be as conservative in office as he claimed in his campaign. But compared to Hillary, who has a very negative track record, I much preferred the unknown political novice.

So far Trump has a good record of at least trying to keep his campaign promises. Unfortunately, he did not campaign on massive spending cuts, but we have had significant regulatory reform, and tax cuts targeting growth in manufacturing in the USA, both of which were in his campaign. His judicial appointments are more conservative (strict Constitutionalist) than I would have hoped to see by any Pub candidate. And he hasn't sold the farm to any foreign countries yet, unlike Obama, Bush, and Clinton.

it's perfectly rational to look both at their track record and what they promise to do.
You sound like a perfectly rational voter, as does flsportsgod, and I'd like to think that I am one, too.
But I don't think most people are like any of us.
My point has most people vote irrationally. they may try and pretend their vote is rational, but they decided how they felt about the candidates well before they vocalized a reason for feeling that way.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Ok. You got a source for this information? I'm happy to change my mind if you can prove your point.

A source for an interpretation? No, I'm the source. The presentation is matter of distinction without difference in the groupings as presented. You think the right end of that spectrum isn't full of angry people? You think the left end of that spectrum isn't full of white people? Passive libs are "disillusioned" but Moderates are "pessimistic", no meaningful difference, and both of the previous two groups could be labeled the same things. Not one of the groups is labeled anything positive like "happy" or "optimistic", this spectrum is just who is griping in what manner. Poppycock.

Disillusioned means you're letting go of things you trusted in the past. you may be ready to trust new things, in fact you may have already found new things to trust in.

pessimistic has nothing to do with your past experience but just means that you think, regardless of what you do, the future will be inferior to the present and the past.

The two things are very different. Trump was a lot more clever than many people give him credit for because he said very pessimistic things while still inviting them to trust him because he was an outsider. 

Obama was effective at speaking to disillusioned people but he was optimistic.

Winston Churchill was effective at putting forward a pessimistic point of view (that the war sacrifices would be very difficult) while still being trustworthy.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's all I need. What evidence could I present to you that you would acknowledge media bias? Would a UCLA study that shows most journalists are left of the average DEMOCRATIC politician work? Would a study from Texas A&M and Arizona State convince you that even most financial journalists that work for WSJ and The Economist lean left? What about poll after poll that shows less than 10% of journalist identifying as conservatives.

I will readily concede that Fox News leans right, especially in it's opinion shows. I will concede that most Republicans would prefer to watch Fox News and wouldn't challenge their own preconceived notions. This doesn't change the fact that the media bias, as a whole, absolutely skews left, and that the majority of the US culture is affected by such bias. 

CNN isn't going to change the opinion of Republicans in the same way that Fox isn't going to change the opinion of Democrats. However, the vast majority of Americans resonate in the middle. You have roughly 20-25% on both sides that align in a political direction. Here is a decent infographic that shows how American blocks are voting (with moderates being the swing vote on different issues).


When I speak of the advantage of media bias, it is in direct relation to the middle three columns. It has a tremendous impact, especially on Presidential elections. It would be foolish for conservatives to take it for granted and ignorant for you to pretend it is not influential. 

Oh, btw, Trump is not MY guy. I didn't vote for him. I am critical when he does stupid things and pleasantly surprised when he does good things. This has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Why don't you come at me with some facts and we can throw down for real.

Outstanding work Last42min.  +1

I would also add though with no actual data just an observation, that you find the bias in Hollywood as well.  How many drop in lines do find denigrating the right in movies and sitcoms?  Late night TV?  Where on HBO is the counter to Bill Maher and John Oliver?

Perhaps it's because the market for "conservative" content can't match what Maher and Oliver draw.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley