Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Captain Whitebread 2026
Jon Ekdahl 2026
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

Texas MoMe 2026: 10/16/2026-10/17/2026 Corsicana,TX
Contact Ben Had for info





















« New Kerry Complaint: Hatchet-Men Are "Smearing" His Senatorial Record | Main | Kerry Campaign Admits First Purple Heart May Have Been Self-Inflicted »
August 24, 2004

Our Supremely Unbiased Press, Part 6,689

I don't want to oversell this the way someone oversold Reanimator to me. ("And then, and then, and then he's like totally decapitated, and he's like holding his own head, and then he holds his head by the hair up to the girl and... YOU GOTTA SEE REANIMATOR, DUDE!!! IT'S THE FUCKIN' SACK, BABY!!!)

But really-- this is good stuff. Almost From Beyond good.

So, some time ago, I posted the economic models created by a Yale economist named Ray C. Fair predicting a Bush victory.

Well, a reporterette at the New York Times decided to interview Professor Fair. You might think that she'd ask a lot of technical but interesting questions about the model's assumptions. You'd be wrong.

She decided to just argue about the models for an hour or so. Not in a technical fashion, mind you, but in a simply emotional one: She wants Kerry to win, and she's very angry that Professor Fair's models show him losing. She's further angry that his models show Kerry losing and yet the professor shared them with the public-- she fears that the models could hurt Kerry, and thus probably ought to have been suppressed.

Don't believe me? Well, here's a taste:

SOLOMON: In your book “Predicting Presidential Elections and Other Things,” you claim that economic growth and inflation are the only variables that matter in a presidential race. Are you saying that the war in Iraq will have no influence on the election?

FAIR: Historically, issues like war haven’t swamped the economics. If the equation is correctly specified, then the chances that Bush loses are very small.

SOLOMON: But the country hasn’t been this polarized since the 60’s, and voters seem genuinely engaged by social issues like gay marriage and the overall question of a more just society.

Ummm, they do? Such questions weigh into every election, of course, but I can't think of an election in which such questions have been less relevant. Even during the height of the Vietnam War, the social questions -- race, abortion, etc. -- were raging to be nearly the equal of the war issue.

That's not the case now. This election is all about, in order 1) the War on Terrorism, 2) the economy, and 3) the War on Terrorism.

I think this reporterette would do herself some good to try reporting on the world as it actually is rather than how she wishes it to be.

But anyway, Prof. Fair answers:

FAIR: We throw all those into what we call the error term. In the past, all that stuff that you think should count averages about 2.5 percent, and that is pretty small.

SOLOMON: It saddens me that you teach this to students at Yale, who could be thinking about society in complex and meaningful ways.

FAIR: I will be teaching econometrics next year to undergraduates. Econometrics is a huge deal, because it is applied to all kinds of things.

SOLOMON: Yes, I know one of your studies used the econometric method to predict who is most likely to have an extramarital affair.

Yes, it is indeed sad that a professor of econometrics should lower himself to teach his students econometrics, rather than something really valuable, like Our Bodies, Our Elves: Marxist Feminist Allegory in The Elfstones of Shannara.

But our intrepid reporterette gets right to the heart of the matter:

SOLOMON: Are you a Republican?

FAIR: I can’t credibly answer that question. Using game theory in economics, you are not going to believe me when I tell you my political affiliation because I know that you know that I could be behaving strategically. If I tell you I am a Kerry supporter, how do you know that I am not lying or behaving strategically to try to put more weight on the predictions and help the Republicans?

SOLOMON: I don’t want to do game theory. I just want to know if you are a Kerry supporter.

FAIR: Backing away from game theory, which is kind of cute, I am a Kerry supporter.

SOLOMON: I believe you entirely, although I’m a little surprised, because your predictions implicitly lend support to Bush.

FAIR: I am not attempting to be an advocate for one party or another. I am attempting to be a social scientist trying to explain voting behavior.

SOLOMON: But in the process you are shaping opinion. Predictions can be self-confirming, because wishy-washy voters might go with the candidate who is perceived to be more successful.

Notice Solomon's agenda. She's not here to hash out if this model has been a good predictor in the past or anything like that. She's just pissed because she knows about The Bandwagon Effect, how undecideds can be swayed to vote by whoever they perceive to be the ultimate winner.

If she's really upset by that, she should have a word with the editors of the New York Times, who have featured, at last count, thirty-seven bazillion front-page big-font headlines proclaiming that Bush is losing support in the country. They never report the polls prominently in which he regains support. To look just at the New York Times' front page (not a good idea for anyone interested in keeping appraised of what's happening in the world), you'd get the idea that Bush must be at negative 456% support, since the Times polls only show him dropping three or five points every month.

But then, that's good shaping of public opinion, innit it?

Thanks to Little Green Footballs (who has more, including the link) by way of Milty and CalGal at The Perfect World.


posted by Ace at 01:36 AM
Comments



I can't figure out what I want to compare this too.

Whitney Houston arguing with an alarm clock?

Josef Stalin giving his "two Americas" speech to the change machine at the laundromat?

Sean Penn doing his Richard 3 for a room full of houseplants?

This stuff is shocking (Dr. Fair sounds pretty cool, actually) but it goes to a theory of the APOLOGIST's: these people simply don't know what Economics is--they have no idea.

Must be difficult.

For them.

(http://forwardthehegemony.blogspot.com/)

Posted by: the UNPOPULIST on August 24, 2004 09:14 AM

Ace, I wish I could share your outrage on this one, I really do. But this is a somewhat old interview (at least a week, perhaps two?), and the context is really important. It's not from the New York Times, but rather from the New York Times Magazine, and Deborah Solomon (the interviewer), may be a typical snotty liberal, but she's NOT an objective news reporter, nor does she even pose as one. She regularly does an interview feature in the magazine (supposedly these are theoretically leavened with a smidgen of microscopic humor. Note my many qualifiers - ah, those subtle New Yorkers!), and there's no pretense to objectivity in it. The closest analogue I can think of would be Joel Klein in Time. All she's revealing here is her own liberal bias, which she freely confesses to and which she openly spews all over her feature on a regular basis.

Let's make it clear that I'm not making the farcical argument that the NY Times isn't a shamefully liberal entity. I'm only pointing out that this particular interview isn't an example of hidden liberal bias masquerading as "objective interviewing."

Sorry to deflate this one, but I can't help it. Ever since Bob Dole came out swinging, I've been on a massive fucking integrity kick here.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 24, 2004 09:43 AM

Our Bodies, Our Elves: Marxist Feminist Allegory in The Elfstones of Shannara

Absoeffinglutely LOL.

Posted by: Tongue Boy on August 24, 2004 11:54 AM

Ace, Nick found a related article. I put it in your thread at TPW

Posted by: rdbrewer on August 24, 2004 12:09 PM

JeffB,

That context mitigates the crime, but it doesn't excuse it. Whether it's the Times Magazine and whether Solomon cops to being a liberal, the Times is still pushing a liberal agenda, isn't it?

And her questions are still ridiculous. Social justice my fucking sack.

Posted by: ace on August 24, 2004 02:01 PM

Unpopulist:

Prof. Fair is not especially cool. I had him for macroeconomics. Snooze-a-frickin'-rama.

Posted by: Bulldog on August 24, 2004 06:38 PM

A reference to The Elfstones of Shannara?! You outdid yourself on that one, ace. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Drake Tungsten on August 25, 2004 08:10 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
Chris
@chriswithans

aaahahaa.jpg


"Ahhhhh ahh I put my career on the line for Louise Lucas and Jay Jones thinking they'd vault me into presidential contention and we ended up costing Democrats 20 House seats and unleashing a Reverse Dobbs ahhhhh ahhh"
Forgotten 80s Mystery Click That Sums Up the Democrat Communist Party Today
Something is wrong as I hold you near
Somebody else holds your heart, yeah
You turn to me with your icy tears
And then it's raining, feels like it's raining
"It's f**king f**ked."
-- reportedly a genuine comment offered by a "senior Labour source"
Correction: I wrote that Labour is losing 88% (now 87%) of the seats it is "defending." I think that's wrong. The right way to say it is the seats they are contesting -- that is, they don't necessarily already hold these seats, but they have put up a candidate to run for the seat. It's still very bad but not as bad as losing 87% of the seats they already held.
Basil the Great
@BasilTheGreat

🚨ED MILIBAND [a Minister in Starmer's government] SAYS KEIR STARMER WILL RESIGN AS PRIME MINISTER

He has reportedly reassured Labour MP's that Starmer will be resigning following the disastrous results tonight

It's over
"The end of the two party system in the UK" as first the Fake Conservatives and now Labour chooses political suicide rather than simply STOPPING THE INVASION
Incidentally, the only reason this didn't already happen in the US is because of the Very Bad Orange Man (who is right on 85% of all policy calls and extremely, existentially right on 15% of them)
No political party that is NOT also a doomsday religious cult would EVER choose a cataclysmic loss -- and possible extinction as a party -- to support a toxically unpopular favoritism of NON-CITIZEN ILLEGAL MIGRANTS over actual citizen voters.

Only a cult does this.
Now they've lost 84%.
Annunziata Rees-Mogg
@zatzi
If this continues Labour loses 2,148 seats tonight.

That is much worse than the worst case predictions I’ve seen.

Cataclysmic

Update: They've now lost 88% of the seats they're defending. As I mentioned earlier, I think I heard that London will not bail them out, as many of those Labour seats will probably flip to "Muslim Independent" or Green. Detroit's 5am vote will not save them.
Yup, Labour is losing 80% of its seats...
The British Patriot
@TheBritLad

🚨 BREAKING: Labour have lost 80% of all seats contested as of 2:25 AM.<
br> If this continues, Keir Starmer will be out of office next week.

Reform has surged and projected to pick up between 1700-2100 seats.


Wow, up to 1700-2100 seats. It's not incredible that this is happening. It's incredible that the Davos crowd is so absolutely determined to privilege Muslim "migrants" over the actual native population who elects them, no matter how loudly the natives scream that they want to be prioritized, that they will gladly self-extinguish as a party rather than simply representing the interests of their own voters. Astonishing.
Remember, when they call other people "cultists" -- they are the ones so imprisoned in their social reinforcement and discipline bubbles that they will choose political death rather than dare upset the Karen Enforcement Officers of their cult.
Update: Now they've lost 83% of the seats they were defending.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges

Reform are basically wiping Labour out in the North. It's not a defeat. It's not even a rout. Labour are simply ceasing to exist.


Nick Lowles
@lowles_nick

Tonight’s results are calamitous for Labour. Not just for Keir Starmer's leadership, but for the very future of the party
STARMERGEDDON: In early returns, Reform gains 135 seats, Labour loses 90, the Fake Conservatives lose 36 (and I didn't even know they could fall any further), the Lib Dems lose 4, and the Greens gain 6. Note that the only other party gaining seats is the Greens and they're only gaining a handful of seats.
Update: Reform now up 145, Labour down 98.
Labour projected to lose Wales -- where they've ruled for 27 years.
Fulton County Georgia just discovered 400 boxes of ballots for Labour
Update: REF +156, LAB -107, CON -45
Brutal: In four out of five council seats where Labour is defending, they've lost. 80%.
I'm sure it's not this simple, but Reform is straight taking Labour's and the "Conservatives'" seats. They've lost almost exactly what Reform gained. If understand this right (and warning, I probably don't), all of London's council seats are up for election, and Labour might lose hugely there, as their old voters abandon them for Reform, Muslim Indenpendents, and the Greens.
REF +190, LAB -134, CON -56.
Updates on the Labour collapse in council elections -- which wags are calling #Starmergeddon -- from Beege Welborne. There are about 5000 seats up for grabs, Labour is expected to lose 1,800, Reform will probably gain 1,580, up from... zero. So this would be more than that.
People claim that while Labour has adopted the Sharia Agenda to appeal to the million Muslims it allowed to migrate to the country, those voters are ditching Labour to vote for the Muslim Independent Party or the Greens. Delicious. This shadenfreude is going straight to my thighs.
Oh, and if Starmer loses about as badly as expected, Labour will toss him out of a window Braveheart style and replace him. He will announce he is resigning to spend more time with his Gay Ukrainian Male Prostitutes.
Media bias and senationalism are as old as, well, the media:
spidermanthreatormenace.jpg

That was written by Denny O'Neill and illustrated by, get this, Frank Miller. Editor to the Stars Jim Shooter was in charge at the time.
I always thought the gag was original to the comic book, but in fact the "Threat or Menace" headline was a satirical joke about media bias and sensationalism for a long while. The Harvard Lampoon used it in a parody of Life magazine: "Flying Saucers: Threat or Menace?"
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Starting a new season, CBD and Sefton discuss their personal journeys to conservative principles, is Nick Shirley the beginning of a trend?, Iran trying to reignite the war, the Left attacks itself, even on "Best Guitarist" lists, and more!
Recent Comments
NaCly Dog: "Oldcat That is one point to pound in on. IST ..."

gKWVE : "#Justice4Kaya ..."

garrett: ">>It messes up the flavor and texture profile. ..."

Anna Puma: "Piper is riffing off 'being a beacon to the world' ..."

ShainS [/b][/i][/s][/u]: "[Just belatedly saw this from the prior thread:] ..."

garrett: ">>My daughter mentioned to me that she has never l ..."

Turn 2: ">>> Well traditionally it was all Judy Garland mov ..."

Harry Vandenburg: "Didn't California do the same thing with gay marri ..."

"Perfessor" Squirrel: "Organically grown, smartass. No pesticides or crap ..."

Guy Mohawk: "I think a repost of Diablo girl is warranted. ..."

Auspex: " The long march through the institutions is over, ..."

Anna Puma: "Hakeem Jeffries, every time he opens his pie-hole ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives