@Tymbrwulf, would you remove editorials and regular columns from newspapers as well?

Also, how would you regulate such a thing? What if FNC responded by saying "O'Reilly is objective"? How do you prove or disprove that?

For that matter, is Megyn Kelly really objective? Major Garrett? The gang at Fox and Friends? Changing networks, how about Joe Scarborough? Chuck Todd? Contessa Brewer? Tamron Hall?

What's the litmus test? How do I find out if I'm objective or not?

To be fair to Chuck Todd, you'd be forgiven for not taking that for granted any more in American elections, I don't really follow them closely but I do seem to remember that presidential one about 10 years back.

PS. Holy-crap-has-it-really-been-that-long-already-I'm-getting-old. DS.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TYT, Chuck, Todd, Bill, Maher, Jeremy Scahill, torture, iraq, Cheney, media' to 'TYT, Chuck, Todd, Bill, Maher, Jeremy Scahill, torture, iraq, Cheney, media, booyakasha' - edited by EndAll

Sorry, I don't know how I missed that vid being posted. Thanks for linking. I usually try to do that if I know of a link

In reply to this comment by EndAll:
props to Scahill for calling him out

full interview with him here

Tags for this video have been changed from 'The Young Turks, Chuck Todd, NBC, Torture, Andrea Mitchell, Jenk Uygur, Waterboard' to 'The Young Turks, Chuck Todd, NBC, Torture, Andrea Mitchell, Cenk Uygur, Waterboard' - edited by Ornthoron

^ What I think most people are having a problem with is the completely fucking stupid questions the press was asking during one of the worst financial crises in US history.

We don't get many press-conferences, so when you hit the jackpot and get to ask the POTUS a question, make it a fucking pertinent one or shut the fuck up. These pseudo-journalists are more interested in "making news" (precisely what Chuck Todd and Ed Henry stated) than reporting it, you fail the country.

If you want maximum objectivity, go for C-SPAN coverage, or PBS.

I'm going to be sitting at my computer, TV nearby with MSNBC on, and my web browser open to: VideoSift, Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post Fivethirtyeight.com, CNN's election results page, and YouTube.

I'll be switching over to the Comedy Central election coverage at 10pm, and back to the real thing if it's still not decided by then (and I doubt it would be).

I'll have champagne on ice for victory, and whiskey nearby for sorrow-drowning.

I'll try to do a little armchair electoral math, Chuck Todd style as the night goes on, as I'm sure every network/site will.

One preview though:

2000 it was Florida, Florida, Florida
2004 it was Ohio, Ohio, Ohio
2008 it will be Virginia, Virginia, Virginia

Also keep an eye on the Senate races in Minnesota, Kentucky, and Georgia.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'palin, conservatives, huntsman, mccain, msnbc' to 'mike murphy, peggy noonan, chuck todd, sarah palin, open mic, huntsman, mccain, msnbc' - edited by my15minutes

Preface: Mike Murphy - Friend of Jon Mccain and former adviser to the campaign.
Peggy Noonan - Primary Reagan speechwriter.

Transcript:

Chuck Todd: Mike Murphy, lots of free advice, we'll see if Steve Schmidt and the boys were watching. We'll find out on your blackberry. Tonight voters will get their chance to hear from Sarah Palin and she will get the chance to show voters she's the right woman for the job Up next, one man who's already convinced and he'll us why Gov. Jon Huntsman. (cut away)

Peggy Noonan: Yeah.

Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys -- this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it's not gonna work. And --

PN: It's over.

MM: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

CT: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.

PN: Saw Kay this morning.

CT: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about this --

MM: They're all bummed out.

CT: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this -- excuse me-- political bullshit about narratives --

CT: Yeah they went to a narrative.

MM: I totally agree.

PN: Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it.

MM: You know what' sreally the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.

CT: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.

MM: Yeah.
(scripted by TPM)

I'm still trying to process this. To a large extent, I'm finding I'm in denial.

Russert should've been annoying politicians, infuriating me with his obsession on the immaterial, and being one of the major names in modern political media for at least another decade.

I remember him when he had Chuck Todd's job during the '92, and '96 elections, on camera with a whiteboard and a marker, crunching electoral math with what was certainly a childlike excitement.

This guy loved what he did. He lived and breathed politics, and while I've not always agreed with what he's had to say, I've always listened to it.

He will be missed.

As far as quality vs. popularity, if someone out there has a reliable way to get the former, without being subjected to the whims of the latter, you shouldn't be wasting your time here, you should be trying to tell the world about a new, upgraded replacement for democracy based on that principle.

I'm torn over the talk of the quality filter being too low. I somewhat agree, when it comes to general interest vids. I pass by most things on the front page, and even find myself disappointed with some Top 15 posts.

It's no secret I'm something of a politics nut though, and it's a rare vid that doesn't get my upvote in that channel.

I'd say quality is subjective -- I'd much rather see something like an analysis of Hillary's popular vote claims get sifted, than a vid about a cat sanctuary.

How about letting people set their own personal "frontpage" vote quota? Vids would still be "sifted" at 10 votes (or 12-15 if we want to slow down star point distribution), but users could bump up the quote on their personal front page to 20 or 30 if they want a more rarefied view of the sift.

If we want to get more radical (pre-4.0), and change to a more complex metric than sheer vote total, I agree that vote/view/time ratios are likely to be a better metric for identifying the popularity of a particular vid. If I post a vid, and it's sifted 2-3 hours later, it's almost guaranteed to end up on the Top 15.

Making the front page the Hot page would amplify that effect.

I also think we should set up some formal or informal guidelines for downvoting. Right now, siftiquette is that it's rude to downvote a vid unless you think it shouldn't be on the sift at all (as opposed to just being pqueued). If we fully encouraged people to downvote things they find boring, or uninteresting, that would definitely create a finer sift of videos. As it is now, it just seems to lead to friction, instead of making a substantive difference to the fate of the video.

We also should probably separate the conversation about how we want to actually sort/sift videos from how we award star points.

Having it be relatively easy to get star points is a good motivator -- make it too hard, and it will be harder to get more contributors sucked in.

From my perspective, we have the right balance between difficulty of obtaining a star point, and the numbers required to get ranked -- it's not hard if you're determined, but it's not so easy that it can be done overnight. Making it harder to get star points affects that balance, and should be kept in mind.

I also like the flag abuse/flag ad-hominem idea for comments. What effect that actually has is certainly up for debate...

Michigan is again, full panel seated, all delegates get a half vote. In addition, pledged delegates will not be allocated in elected proportions, but instead 69 Clinton, 59 Obama.

In other words, the state parties both got their proposals approved by the RBC.

The new magic number is, according to demconwatch 2117, which leaves Obama needing 64, Clinton needing 240.5, with a total of 291 delegates (86 pledged, 205 super) remaining.

According to Chuck Todd @ MSNBC, this means barring massively unexpected results in the remaining primaries, Obama needs 20 more supers to clinch the nomination.

Harold Ickes says he "reserves the right" to take this to the credentials committee -- fight it out to the convention.

Oh well, Clinton is going to take Indiana, but by something like 20,000 votes. Thanks Rush Limbaugh, I hope you get investigated for tampering with federal elections process and get locked up. Piece of shit.

Either way, that bodes terribly for Hillary and she really has nowhere to go from here but out of the race.

"Chuck Todd just ran through the math and calculated that Obama now leads Clinton in the "popular vote" by about 710,000 -- and by 200,000 (even) if the disputed primaries in Florida and Michigan are counted. He also leads by about 160 Democratic convention delegates, Todd said."