Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Ok. I can't find it on line yet but my wife told me this morning that Fox News said Obama got more time to speak than Romney last night. Not by much. But more. If so that means the Democrat got more time during each of the four debates (3 Presidential, 1 Vice Presidential).

Statistics wise, just looking at more or less time without worrying about how much, having one side get more time all four times yields 87.5 percent confidence that it wasn't chance. If you conduct four trials where there's a 50:50 shot of things falling one way or the other, there's an 87.5 percent chance that things are not going to fall one way all four times. Not the 95 percent confidence level you see used so much by convention. But still enough to make a reasonable person say that if they had to bet they'd bet it didn't happen just by chance. It's as high a confidence level as you can get with only four "trials."

I can apply a more powerful test that could yield a higher confidence level once I know how MUCH more time Obama had in the last debate. I already have that information for the others.

So if it didn't happen by chance, what was it? Was it a subtle bias on the part of the moderators? You'd have to say that all four of them are probably liberal in their political thinking. Was it that the Democrats were just hard to control?

Another thing I'd like to look at is number of interruptions each time. To me that would lend better insight into possible bias. Like Candy Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times, I think, as compared to interrupting Obama 9 times. That's a pretty big disparity. But I haven't been able to find anything on frequency of interruptions for the other debates.

I saw where CNN pointed out that in one debate Obama got more time but Romney got more words in. I don't know about that. I doubt that a moderator is sitting there counting words. I think that time allowed is a better indicator of fairness.

No way to ever really know. All statistics can do for one in a case like this is quantify the likelihood that it happened by chance. All you can say is that the results appear to be consistent with a scenario in which there was a subtle bias. But they may be consistent with other things as well.

The more these people talk, the more stupid they sound. Let them have all the time they need.

Does anyone actually read JSO's stream of consciousness posts?

Jesus H Christ. Be succinct for once in your life.

danefan wrote:Does anyone actually read JSO's stream of consciousness posts?

Jesus H Christ. Be succinct for once in your life.

It's called providing the basis for what you say. It's a lot easier to keep it short if you don't do that. This is what you can do:

Just skip over the parts designed to provide the basis and just take my word for it as you already know from experience that I have a good basis for what I'm saying.

JohnStOnge wrote:

danefan wrote:Does anyone actually read JSO's stream of consciousness posts?

Jesus H Christ. Be succinct for once in your life.

It's called providing the basis for what you say. It's a lot easier to keep it short if you don't do that. This is what you can do:

Just skip over the parts designed to provide the basis and just take my word for it as you already know from experience that I have a good basis for what I'm saying.

I open up your threads and see multi-paragraph posts and immediately click out.

I can't figure out what is context and what your point is. Sorry man

AZGrizFan wrote:The more these people talk, the more stupid they sound. Let them have all the time they need.

Agreed. Having extra time does not mean that you will win a debate, especially if Joe Biden is involved.

danefan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
It's called providing the basis for what you say. It's a lot easier to keep it short if you don't do that. This is what you can do:

Just skip over the parts designed to provide the basis and just take my word for it as you already know from experience that I have a good basis for what I'm saying.

I open up your threads and see multi-paragraph posts and immediately click out.

I can't figure out what is context and what your point is. Sorry man

Same here. If he can't say it in a few lines, I move on.

JSO has had more time to speak in this thread. CS.com bias. Fuck you, moderators.

-
I'm looking forward to President Mitt's debate against the next Marxist the dems put up.

It will be fun to see how the challenger handles 4 conservative moderators asking him/her questions

Mitt accepted the challenge of 4 BHO supporters and prevailed

Let's just leave it at this: Crowley was CLEARLY biased. Schieffer was MUCH more even-handed. That's probably explained by the fact that he comes from the old school of video journalism, which is much more aimed at the truth as opposed to idiological agenda. That crew is dying off. Crowley ought to be canned, but she won't be.

Crowley was neutral - but of course, in the eyes of the lunatic right, that means she was biased.

First debate was clearly biased towards Romney - he walked all over the Moderator.

VP and last debate were neutral as well.

dbackjon wrote:Crowley was neutral - but of course, in the eyes of the lunatic right, that means she was biased.

First debate was clearly biased towards Romney - he walked all over the Moderator.

VP and last debate were neutral as well.

Neutral. Good one.

dbackjon wrote:Crowley was neutral - but of course, in the eyes of the lunatic right, that means she was biased.

First debate was clearly biased towards Romney - he walked all over the Moderator.

VP and last debate were neutral as well.

You mean Crowley was only neutral in the eyes of the lunatic left. That was obvious when she injected herself into the Benghazi debate on the side of Obama, and was incorrect to boot.

dbackjon wrote:Crowley was neutral

SuperHornet wrote:Let's just leave it at this: Crowley was CLEARLY biased. Schieffer was MUCH more even-handed. That's probably explained by the fact that he comes from the old school of video journalism, which is much more aimed at the truth as opposed to idiological agenda. That crew is dying off. Crowley ought to be canned, but she won't be.

This. First moderator was not nearly strong enough nor a factor. It is interesting to note that Romney needed to push him around to end up with less time than BHusseinO was allowed though.

We need more of the old school Schieffer types who are interested in truth. Not many of them remain on the air on either the right or the left of the ideology spectrum.

My handicapping of the election prior to the first debate was 80-20 in favor of the big 0 before the first debate. Now I have it 52-48 in favor of the big 0. The media bias for 0 and allotting more time to the 0 and his team seems to have backfired.

Conk mantra: things don't go your way, start bitching and moaning about the system being rigged.

Grizalltheway wrote:Conk mantra: things don't go your way, start bitching and moaning about the system being rigged.

Things did go the Conk way, despite the bias Typical Donk in refusing to wake up and smell the coffee.

More time for the Donks will lead to the possibility of a repeat of Woodrow Wilson's disastrous second term.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 15844.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Grizalltheway wrote:Conk mantra: things don't go your way, start bitching and moaning about the system being rigged.

Agreed. Here are just a couple of the conk websites trying to expose the system...

http://stolenelection.net/

http://nomorestolenelections.org/

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... n-election

Blaming the refs.

LeadBolt wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Conk mantra: things don't go your way, start bitching and moaning about the system being rigged.

Things did go the Conk way, despite the bias Typical Donk in refusing to wake up and smell the coffee.

More time for the Donks will lead to the possibility of a repeat of Woodrow Wilson's disastrous second term.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 15844.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Perceived bias, Dolt.

Grizalltheway wrote:

LeadBolt wrote: Things did go the Conk way, despite the bias Typical Donk in refusing to wake up and smell the coffee.

More time for the Donks will lead to the possibility of a repeat of Woodrow Wilson's disastrous second term.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 15844.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Perceived bias, Dolt.

"None so blind as those that will not see." - Matthew Henry

Some perceive truth, some deny it.

89Hen wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Conk mantra: things don't go your way, start bitching and moaning about the system being rigged.

Agreed. Here are just a couple of the conk websites trying to expose the system...

http://stolenelection.net/

http://nomorestolenelections.org/

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... n-election

Umm, what does this have to do with conks being in full crybaby mode over the last debate?

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: Agreed. Here are just a couple of the conk websites trying to expose the system...

http://stolenelection.net/

http://nomorestolenelections.org/

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... n-election

Umm, what does this have to do with conks being in full crybaby mode over the last debate?

Umm, "Conk mantra: things don't go your way, start bitching and moaning about the system being rigged"

kalm wrote:Blaming the refs.

Easy for you to say.