Will opening weekend for The Undefeated have political implications?
posted at 1:00 pm on July 17, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
So thinks Mark Whittington, a writer for Yahoo’s contributor network, in an article that more than a few people have flagged on Twitter, Facebook, and e-mail. Anecdotal data from several cinemas on The Undefeated‘s first night in a very limited national release suggests a strong opening day for the Sarah Palin documentary, even though it opened against the latest and last Harry Potter film:
Just on the face of it, it would seem to have been the biggest risk in marketing history to roll out a documentary about a politician with less than stellar poll numbers on the same night that the last Harry Potter movie was scheduled to be released.
But, by all accounts, “The Undefeated,” the Sarah Palin biop, which was placed in limited release in ten screens across the country, did surprisingly well.
Jim Hoft linked reports of packed theaters from opening day. Matt Lewis has a roundup of reactions from the media in several of the cities where the film opened, all positive. The filmmakers can’t be displeased with the results of the first day, and the necessary buzz has begun to build for a wider release — which, as Whittington points out, is one big question:
First, will “The Undefeated” open to wider markers? If the audience holds up in the ten theaters where it is now playing, that is almost certain. But then the next question arises, will the film perform well beyond the red state markets where it has been initially released? Curiosity to see what the fuss is about, if nothing else, might draw a respectable audience if and when “The Undefeated” opens wide.
It takes more than just a good opening day for an indie documentary to get a distributor to sink cash into a wide release. We won’t know the results of this weekend’s performance until tomorrow, which is when the metrics from theaters on sales generally get released. The per-screen average for the entire weekend will be the measure that counts.
Given Sarah Palin’s following and the targeted release this weekend, that number should be very, very good, and it’s likely that quite a few more cities will see The Undefeated open next weekend. Millions of people find Palin compelling, and one would expect them to flock to theaters to see the film. The comparison to Harry Potter might be apt in concept, if perhaps not in scale; Palin has a winning brand, and this film allows for more access to her for her supporters. Essentially, The Undefeated is a book adaptation, too, from Going Rogue, and readers of the book and those interested in Palin who haven’t yet tackled the book will want to see the film.
So the wider release is really a given at this point. The bigger question will be how long the film sustains itself at the box office. After all, Palin needs more than just the already-convinced to go see this film. For the film to have the political impact Whittington suspects, it has to draw Palin agnostics and Palin skeptics into the theater. The measure for success there won’t be first-weekend metrics, but second-, third-, and fourth-weekend metrics. We can expect Palin’s fans to rush to theaters when the film opens (especially given its limited release), but if people are still buying tickets in significant numbers four weeks later at these theaters, that will mean that the film has broken out beyond the Palin base. We’ll know the answer to that by mid-August at the latest.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 8 9 10
Still waiting for signatures that will never come.
Proving my theory that this is all about a cult of personality and not because any of you really believe she will win either the nomination or the presidency. If you really believed it you would say so. It’s been trumpeted on Hotair for almost two years now. Those trumpets are now silent.
Leave the cults to the left. We already had one obama. We don’t want anyone. And we certainly don’t want a GOP obama.
keep the change on July 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM
You have proven nothing except the previously obvious fact that you are an unpleasant jerk with nothing constructive to contribute at any time whatsoever.
Sign that.
Brian1972 on July 18, 2011 at 8:15 PM
Another wise life lesson from fellow “conservative” keep the change:
Kataklysmic on July 18, 2011 at 8:16 PM
What a gem of conservative wisdom that is.
Families suck.
Brilliant.
Brian1972 on July 18, 2011 at 8:18 PM
Kids only make one happy if one needs the validation that a mini-me (temporarily) brings. For everyone else, they can be just as happy without them but don’t realize that. But the pressures that kids put on a marriage and on your finances can bring unhappiness.
Basically, the argument for having kids is that somebody has to have the kids, right? Who’s going to mow the lawns otherwise? But why not let somebody else do the dirty work? It doesn’t have to be you.
You want something to love? Get a pet. You want to be loved, get a pet. You need validation? Get a kid.
keep the change on May 24, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Too bad YOUR parents didn’t think of that before they gave
birth to you!!!! We would all have been spared your
nonsensical postings.
Amjean on July 18, 2011 at 8:22 PM
You’re having quite the little conversation with yourself aren’t you? I doubt even the most ardent supporter of any candidate, including The Won, considers themselves “cultists”. As for whether or not she could be nominated or win the election, I’m still trying to figure out how Obama won, so it’s hardly shocking that no one wants try to predict what the public will do next.
Cindy Munford on July 18, 2011 at 8:23 PM
Yeah, exactly. But I’ll treat his request to “sign a pledge” with the same seriousness and respect as if it were made by the ghost of Reagan. /
Kataklysmic on July 18, 2011 at 8:23 PM
Hey I am getting back to the thread topic. I just read part of a LA Times article:
Apparently The Undefeated is a failure because Harry Potter beat it at the Box Office. That’s modern journalism for you. :)
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 8:25 PM
Palin will be well into her second term as Potus and the MSM will still be talking about how she is an unelectable joke than no one likes.
Kataklysmic on July 18, 2011 at 8:29 PM
Here is RS McCain’s co-blogger Smitty, who is a Naval Reservist on his way back from a stint in Afghanistan.
Brian1972 on July 18, 2011 at 8:32 PM
Still no statements supporting a belief in Palin’s electability. By her own supporters no less.
No one is willing to say she will win the nomination? Not even a drunk supporter? C’mon, put your name where you mouth is.
keep the change on July 18, 2011 at 8:34 PM
It’s you. You are the reason no one is playing your game, because it’s your game.
You’re a jerk. Why should anyone give half a crap what you are demanding they do, especially after all the nasty things you accuse them of being?
F off.
Brian1972 on July 18, 2011 at 8:43 PM
Kataklysmic on July 18, 2011 at 8:29 PM
Good to see you Bro. I don’t know if SP is running but she will be part of the GeoPolitical Landscape for many fruitful years to come. She is young and is just getting the lay of the land. And still she manages to stand shoulder to shoulder with experienced Politicians decades older than herself. The sky is the limit; Kingmaker, VP, cabinet position, Senator. It’s her call and we will have to support her decisions. Just look at the miserable job Newt, and T-paw and Mitt are doing. On a relative scale, though she is not preface, she stands apart from them and represents what conservatism stands for.
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 8:47 PM
‘preface’ should be ‘perfect’
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 8:49 PM
keep the change is misunderstood
He’s catually lobbying us to support government-funded abortion — the retroactive type …
OnlyOrange on July 18, 2011 at 8:53 PM
Yeah, I agree with you that Palin isn’t perfect. She has made many mistakes, but she’s still the best damn thing we have going imo. I think she’s running, and I think if she doesn’t run, her influence will fade. I think she has the following that she does because people admire her willingness to fight regardless of the odds. If she sits this cycle out, that mythology will take a big hit.
Kataklysmic on July 18, 2011 at 8:59 PM
OnlyOrange on July 18, 2011 at 9:07 PM
Kataklysmic on July 18, 2011 at 8:59 PM
Agreed. There are too many grass roots O4Ps in too many states ramped up and committed in anticipation. Other candidates would give a kidney to have that kind of ground swell support;
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 9:07 PM
Serious question –
Should we even be considering “so-called electability” in a primary race any way?
You can’t really determine electability objectively until AFTER the votes have been cast. Trying to do so beforehand is either (a) pure opinion, whether yours or something you’ve heard somewhere else, or (b) poll-watching which is also fraught with errors for a myriad of reasons…
Isn’t the better way to simply choose a candidate that best represents you and your values, beliefs and vision for this country? Then, at least, you have a chance to truly have a representative government.
IMO, this whole concept of “electability” is fatally flawed…
OnlyOrange on July 18, 2011 at 9:14 PM
Where’s the “sarcasm” you promised? I had such hopes!
rrpjr on July 18, 2011 at 9:21 PM
In csdeven’s defense, absolutely nobody believed for a second he cared about “civil debate.”
Of course, that’s not much of a defense….
There Goes The Neighborhood on July 19, 2011 at 12:19 AM
Opening Weekend Total For: The Undefeated
$65,000
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=undefeated11.htm
NextGen on July 19, 2011 at 12:29 AM
Your grammy posted this video of you…..
csdeven on July 19, 2011 at 8:45 AM
And many of those comments are you obsessing on me. csdeven is not the the topic of this thread. My responses to you are an attempt to get you to keep your obsession in your grammys basement and off a political blog. You are a creepy obsessive stalker and it is unwanted behavior.
csdeven on July 19, 2011 at 8:49 AM
Polling is very accurate when done correctly. The polls may be off within the margin of error, but rarely do they utterly fail. A candidate that has consistent polling data that shows high negatives and low positives will ultimately have low polling. That candidate is usually 19 points behind. There is no way that candidate will ever be elected with those poll numbers unless that candidate can improve those numbers significantly. And the reason that candidate is in such bad shape is because the message is too narrow and excludes the indies. Look at Ron Paul…..his support is rabid, but the numbers are low. His supporters THINK that because every support they meet is a rabid as they are, they project that if only they could get the message out to the indies, they would have no choice but to become a Paul supporter. In reality, the only way for that candidate to expend the base, is to moderate the message. That will alienate much of the hardcore base.
csdeven on July 19, 2011 at 9:34 AM
I forgot the content warning on that video…..”F’ing this and F’ing that”.
Sorry.
csdeven on July 19, 2011 at 9:36 AM
File your complaint alleging blog comment harassment in the circular receptacle by the door, and try to refrain from accusing others of obsessing, threadjacking etc. while displaying those behaviors yourself.
cs89 on July 19, 2011 at 10:16 AM
Polling is very accurate when done correctly. The polls may be off within the margin of error, but rarely do they utterly fail.
csdeven on July 19, 2011 at 9:34 AM
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. “Margin of error,” as the media likes to call it, relates only to sample size. The media likes to pretend (or doesn’t know any better) that their “margin of error” reflects the accuracy of the poll, but this is completely untrue. There are dozens of factors that can affect the accuracy of a poll yet have nothing to do with the “margin of error.”
Here’s an example poll.
60% believe A.
40% believe B.
“Margin of error” = 4%
Now, many people believe that this means that A could be as low as 56% and as high as 64% (+/- 4%), but this isn’t true. Many people believe that since the 20% spread is greater than the 4% “margin of error” that more people believe A more than B regardless of polling errors, but this isn’t true.
A 4% “margin of error” relates to sampling size and assumes that the poll wasn’t biased by any polling mistakes/bias at all.
In other words, the poll could be complete BS. The poll could have a skewed sample universe. The poll questions could have been terribly phrased. The poll could have been subjected to a dozen bias errors. None of this impacts the “margin of error” at all. Sample size is the only factor that impacts “margin of error.”
blink on July 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM
Just for your information, both of my grandmothers are dead.
Now you are obsessed with me, and it is very creepy.
Congratulations.
Brian1972 on July 19, 2011 at 10:35 AM
Funny thing, but while csdeven has posted 91 times to this thread, you posted 61 times. Not bad yourself and for one who likes to throw stones.
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 10:10 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 10:30 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 10:34 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 10:45 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 11:08 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 5:43 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 6:41 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 7:52 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 8:00 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 8:20 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 8:27 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 8:35 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 8:53 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 9:04 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 9:19 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 9:26 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 9:33 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 9:51 PM
Geochelone on July 17, 2011 at 9:59 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 12:09 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 12:18 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 12:31 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 12:55 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 1:26 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 2:12 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 2:16 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 2:25 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 2:31 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 3:35 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 3:39 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 3:45 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 3:59 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 4:01 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 4:06 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 4:08 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 4:29 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 4:33 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 4:49 AM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 5:05 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 6:11 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 6:26 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 6:29 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 6:33 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 7:02 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 7:06 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 7:14 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 7:22 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 7:49 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 7:54 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 8:01 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 8:25 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 8:47 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 8:49 PM
Geochelone on July 18, 2011 at 9:07 PM
$ grep Geochelone posts.txt | wc -l
61
BTW, I got that from a script that I wrote that works just the way I described. Nice and easy with a wget in a for loop and no DOM parsing :-)
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 10:39 AM
$ grep Geochelone posts.txt | wc -l
61
BTW, I got that from a script that I wrote that works just the way I described. Nice and easy with a wget in a for loop and no DOM parsing :-)
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 10:39 AM
Looks like you just proved that csdeven posted a third more than anybody on this thread. Congratulations.
kingsjester on July 19, 2011 at 10:42 AM
‘The Undefeated’ Coming to Additional Theaters in AZ, CA, FL, GA, NC, and WI
steebo77 on July 19, 2011 at 11:10 AM
I’ve won over people in my circle of acquaintances that were formerly for and/or leaning towards the following:
*Mittens– due to business experience/SLC Olympics. But I bust that bubble by citing Obama attributing OC to RC model. Plus what conservative can ever be for a mandate forcing you to participate. This goes to the very heart of taxation w/o representation. Plus I throw in Bain’s business model & AGW.
*TPaw–former governor of MN. I bust that bubble with the observation that while he kept taxes down, he offset a lot of the difference by raising fees. Plus the gullibilty factor of being suckered by AGW & CO2 as a hazard. I’ve read aricles since the 90s of various schemes to deal with carbon and thot WTH? What cockamine theories. Lo and behold, after plying the media with over 20 years of this crap, it almost gained the critical mass for politicians to run about wailing “we must do something – no matter the cost”. TPaw is guilty of joining and substantially giving credence to AGW & CnT. This brings him down several notches. And given the hysteria of Global Cooling in the 70s, he is the shamed fool for falling for the opposite extreme from the very people that pushed the former.
*Huntsman–Good Mormon. I bust that with “Stardust” and working/praising Obama.
*Schmuckabee–minister & governor of AR. Easy enough to bust with his weak-kneed theology of forgiving hard-core criminals. That and multiple examples of “compassionate conservativism” that mask the soft bigotry of low expectations. Fortunately he dropped out.
Thanks to my “schooling”, they’re leaning towards real conservatives, rather than CINOs that only would give us more of the progressive crap, albeit at a slower pace.
AH_C on July 19, 2011 at 11:34 AM
Wrong on all counts, as usual. csdeven posted about 50% more than Geo not a third more. However gryphon282 posted 100 times to this thread, so csdeven wasn’t even the most prolific.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Funny thing, but while csdeven has posted 91 times to this thread, you posted 61 times. MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 10:39 AM
Wrong on all counts, as usual. csdeven posted about 50% more than Geo not a third more. However gryphon282 posted 100 times to this thread, so csdeven wasn’t even the most prolific.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 11:45 AM
91 is approxiamately 1/3rd more calls than 61.
You must have studied that New Math, Kos Kid.
kingsjester on July 19, 2011 at 12:05 PM
Excuse me, more posts.
kingsjester on July 19, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Sorry, but you’re wrong and belligerence will only compound that, not change it.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 12:24 PM
Sorry, but you’re wrong and belligerence will only compound that, not change it.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 12:24 PM
66% (2/3) of 91 is 60.06. Use your calculator, Nimrod.
kingsjester on July 19, 2011 at 12:40 PM
Dear, dear more hostility. And from one who is not even able to realize I suppose that he changed the question. Saying that 60 is 2/3s of 90 is not that the same as saying the 90 is a third more than 60 (which is what you originally said and is patently wrong). Some correct statements would be that 90 is 50% more than 60 or that 80 is a third more than 60.
You see, when solving a word problem like this one multiplies the percent or fraction times the word following the word “of” or “more than” or “less than” and then adds or subtracts. This is a concept that most students master in the early years of elementary math. I would say that you need remediation as well as few lessons from a respectable charm school.
I find it funny that the belligerents here are typically those who brag about the wonders of Christianity such as you and yet it is the atheist who turns the other cheek when continually provoked.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM
You were proven wrong and now you attack me on my faith. Did they teach you that over at dKos?
kingsjester on July 19, 2011 at 12:59 PM
Deny, deny, deny. Doesn’t help you. And I didn’t attack you on your faith. I referenced it just as you so often do. when you want to puff yourself up and pretend some form of superiority.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM
Did they teach him what over where? Proving you to be a fool and a hypocrite?
Uncle Sams Nephew on July 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM
Did they teach him what over where? Proving you to be a fool and a hypocrite?
Uncle Sams Nephew on July 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM
About what?
The fact that 61% is approximately 2/3rd of 91%? Or the fact that he used to poast over at Daily Kos?
kingsjester on July 19, 2011 at 2:30 PM
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 10:39 AM
I see you have dodged the frequency distribution question yet again.
And I could not help but notice that it took you from 7:00 pm last night until 10:39 am today to turn that simple task around. And you have conveniently left out the details of you hacking your way thru 10 separate web pages. Did you do a “save as” 10 separate times.
BTW, you still have no result set that is back-end searchable on the comment body itself. Nor does your method produce a web page like google with links to the source.
Thanks for confirming that csdeven has still out posted me by a large margin on a Palin thread; even when I have set a new record myself for number of posts.
Your defense of csd is on full display and duly noted.
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 3:09 PM
Funny thing, your count is WRONG. Now if you post two more times you can tie KingGold.
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 3:36 PM
And many of those comments are you obsessing on me. csdeven is not the the topic of this thread. My responses to you are an attempt to get you to keep your obsession in your grammys basement and off a political blog. You are a creepy obsessive stalker and it is unwanted behavior.
csdeven on July 19, 2011 at 8:49 AM
this dick must hear STFU already often if it anything in person like on the net
yet there is the distinct possibility that it doesn’t see many people at all
supporting Palin is unaffected by it but if I supported the same candidate as it I would have to check myself
Sonosam on July 19, 2011 at 3:42 PM
No silly. And I did it this morning in no more than 15 minutes. I already told you, I used wget inside of a for loop.
Keep making up more garbage that isn’t needed to make the claims that you keep posting. The fact is that you just don’t like having your own posting counts turned back on you. The fact is that they’re meaningless to begin with, but you keep trying to use them as sort of weapon. It’s tiresome.
I’m not defending him. I’m just letting you know that your counts mean nothing and are nothing to brag about.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 4:37 PM
Seriously? MORE obsessing on me? Dude! It’s a political blog. Find a political comment and respond to it.
csdeven on July 19, 2011 at 4:55 PM
What it proves is that there are a lot of you that have unhealthy obsessions with me. I’m surprised there aren’t more comments from me. There must be at least a dozen of you that I am trying to help put down your obsession.
csdeven on July 19, 2011 at 4:59 PM
OK, time for this thread to hit Godwin’s Law.
Jocundus on July 19, 2011 at 5:01 PM
Bwahahahaha!!! Your obsession has you seeing things that are not there. He did not defend me. He proved how obsessed you are with me. And that you’re a hypocrite.
csdeven on July 19, 2011 at 5:03 PM
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 4:37 PM
Dodged the frequency distribution again. Yesterday you said all one needed to do was look at the total count. And I don’t mind my posts being turned back on me because
1) they are nothing like csd posts
2) rarely do I exceed 20 posts on a thread
3) the majority of my posts are to stifle the known csd troller
And yes you are defending csd. I am not making up more software features. It was you who presumed to place limits on the feature set and when asked about frequency distributions which I have shown in the past you go on to claim that all I did was a simple grep. You guessed wrong.
Your method is both limited, laborious and lacks the sophistication for extensibility of features. I am not moving goal posts because the features are already incorporated. It was you who assumed the scope based only on the example you saw.
Funny how my posts are tiresome and yet csd who repeats itself over and over doesn’t bother you in the least.
And your count was wrong as well.
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 5:22 PM
No, you can’t explain what you mean by the term.
Most of his seem to be trying to stop people attacking him by saying he’s in their heads. So you think it’s smart to make noise to stop someone making noise to stop someone making noise …
I didn’t assume the scope. I just said that it is a simple matter to produce the counts you posted and that all it needed was to put wget in a for loop.
My method is elegant and does the task. In fact, here’s the script:
#—————————————
#!/bin/sh
export url=’http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/17/will-opening-weekend-for-the-undefeated-have-political-implications’
rm -f posts.txt
for (( i = 0; i < 20; ++i ))
do
wget –quiet $url/comment-page-$i/#comments -O – | grep '’ >> posts.txt
done
echo “csdeven”
grep csdeven posts.txt | wc -l
echo “Goech”
grep Geoch posts.txt | wc -l
echo “KingGold”
grep KingGold posts.txt | wc -l
echo “MJBrutus”
grep MJBrutus posts.txt | wc -l
echo “Total Posts”
cat posts.txt | wc -l
#—————————————
Unlike your method, it even produces CORRECT results.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 5:32 PM
csdeven on July 19, 2011 at 5:03 PM
You outted yourself in the Cain thread as an LDS MITTBOT.
Notice how csd and mjb are together united, tag-teaming, scratching each others backs? Everyone can see the association, comrades in arms.
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 5:38 PM
Csd and Mjb have aligned themselves together for months now.
And csd is despised by people on both sides of the debate. Has made a complete fool of itself on this thread for all to see. 10 pages littered with hijacking spam.
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 5:41 PM
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 5:38 PM
Those two and reality have taken divergent paths.
kingsjester on July 19, 2011 at 5:43 PM
The wget line got corrupted by H/A’s filters. The grep at the end filters for out all lines that don’t contain class=”poster” in the tag.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 5:48 PM
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 5:32 PM
You are telling me frequency distribution needs to be defined?
And your method requires the names ahead of time which works against the concept of a frequency distribution.
You would have to look at a thread pick some names at random and only then have to go back and revise the list to see if it could rank the posters by frequency of posts.
Anyway you will always deny you got csd’s back and are his apologist.
My method reconciles itself with redundancy checks. Your number was wrong.
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 5:50 PM
They sure stick up for each other. I wonder what it would take to separate them. How can anyone not see that csd is universally abhorred here, and yet mjb with his tin ear doesn’t have the sense to distance himself from csd. Surprising actually.
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 5:54 PM
If you’re talking about numbers for all posters, no problem the lines are all saved in posts.txt, so a little post processing is all it takes. Big deal.
I also have some simple stream edits to pretty up the output for posting. Same thing, a little post processing.
And my numbers were right at the time I posted them.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 5:56 PM
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 5:54 PM
When MJB showed up, he insulted just about every single poster on Hot Air, cussing and calling every one vulgar names. And Cindy Munford pointed out how blatent he was, he realized that the dKos method was not ingratiating him to any of the posters here, so he changed tactics and went undercover, in stealth mode. Now, he regulates himself to the “Fiscal Conservative I’m smarter than you” mode.
kingsjester on July 19, 2011 at 5:59 PM
That’s because I generally respond to the point made, not the person making it. I make exceptions for those who have shown themselves especially uncivil by ignoring them mostly, but that’s about it.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 5:59 PM
I must admit though that mjb is more polite most of the time and more honest relatively than csd. Our little back and forth hasn’t been entirely mean spirited. :)
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 6:00 PM
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 5:59 PM
Ok. Fair enough.
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 5:59 PM
But many wonder why never or rarely against csd who is nothing short of an intentional menace? You hit kingsjester and not csd. You hit those aligned against the exploits of csd. Seems selective, or am I wrong?
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 6:06 PM
Good cop bad cop
Sonosam on July 19, 2011 at 6:12 PM
Anyway, gotta go. I set a new record of posts for myself on this two day long roller coaster thread.
Go see the movie. The Undefeated.
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 6:13 PM
Jester has followed me around for months, literally, posting insults. It has become his hobby to repeat that dKos thing in virtually every thread I post to. I usually ignore him, although I broke my own discipline today just to point out his ridiculous math error that he tried to stand by.
Csd hasn’t ever provoked me. As for being selective, aren’t we all? None of us are entirely consistent, we’re people.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 6:13 PM
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 6:13 PM
You called me “Scrote”. Classy.
kingsjester on July 19, 2011 at 6:15 PM
Yes. Months ago. And I was amply provoked. Any more explanations needed?
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 6:20 PM
I’m not willing to “promote them as the face of the conservative movement.” I was simply commenting on the hypocrisy of pointing fingers at PBHO’s not sharing credit for the OBL killing by denying that he had anything to do with it himself.
You’re the one who brought up how the media looks at us and I simply said that we shouldn’t make their views some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.
I say a lot of things that are unpopular here. It comes with being an independent thinker rather than a reflexive bot. So be it, it’s my opinion and I won’t shut up as so many here would like. If they want to start flame wars over it, it’s they who pick the fight. It’s not what I prefer but I won’t shut up because of it.
MJBrutus on May 9, 2011 at 11:26 AM
That’s a helluva lot better than you, you scum sucking pig.
MJBrutus on May 9, 2011 at 8:46 AM
I say that most posters here are sub-moronic. And there is no shortage of people around here to prove me right. This thread, in which not one person can cede a mote of credit to PBHO while criticizing him for hogging all the glory, is a perfect example of the ignorant hypocrisy that is the rule and not the exception.
MJBrutus on May 9, 2011 at 12:46 PM
Ain’t civility grand?
kingsjester on July 19, 2011 at 6:29 PM
Like I said, months old and without any context regarding the provocation. Not even of who that was said to. Pretty mild language at that. You can see worse in most threads.
Normal people find grudges to be of little value and discard them pretty quickly, but you treasure yours like gold. Get help.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 7:27 PM
Gosh, this is one ugly thread. I haven’t posted on it yet, so I may as well jump in with both feet:
I believe Sarah Palin is running for President.
I believe she will win the nomination.
I believe she will win the Presidency.
I never claimed to be super-smart, and you may call me stupid if you wish. But I know this much: I would never fault anyone, not even the leader of the free world, for putting his or her family’s welfare above his or her political position. A President who didn’t would be someone to fear, not to respect. A President who didn’t would be a monster, arguably a sociopath. A President who didn’t would be 180 degrees removed from a typical American.
It is admirable to put your country before yourself — all our military members do that, every day. It is admirable for your family to share the sacrifice, as long as they are willing — all our military families do that, every day. But only a Fascist or Communist regime would demand of its servants that they put The State above all.
If we were to insist on only electing politicians whose families were just pretty props for their ambition, or who kept themselves free from the entanglements of family for the purpose, we would quickly find ourselves at the mercy of a government made up of soulless people.
Dictatorships are regimes of one man — if he falls, so does his government (e.g., Saddam Hussein, Nikolai Ceaucescu, Benito Mussolini, etc.). But the essence of a representative government is that power can be transferred in an orderly fashion from one chief executive to another. If that were not so, having a Constitutional order of Presidential succession would be pointless. This country has endured the loss of its President 8 times in its history through illness, assassination, or resignation — yet we go on.
I say that Governor Palin did the right thing for the right reasons when she resigned from office. She didn’t leave Alaska in the lurch — to say that would be to show great disrespect for her, her Lt. Governor, and the Alaskan electorate. Did she leave them helpless? Of course not. Was her action irresponsible, or frivolous, or undertaken without careful preparation? No evidence suggests that.
Was it cowardly to resign? Only if you believe that anything other than direct confrontation is a cowardly action. During the Revolutionary War, the British and their sympathizers accused the rebels of cowardice because they didn’t wear bright red uniforms and fight in a proper line, like the British army. Instead, they wore dark colors that blended in with the forest and shot from behind trees — because they were outnumbered and outgunned, they changed their tactics. Were they cowardly because they didn’t fight using their enemy’s tactics? If so, then ours must be a nation founded on cowardice, and I do not believe that is the case.
Finally, in resigning, she brought yet more instances of corrupt behavior on the part of the Democrats to light — something that should be done always and everywhere, by everyone, until the Democrat party destroys itself.
I don’t want to pick the most intellectual or learned candidate. They make great advisers, great judges, great researchers, but lousy Presidents. I want to pick the bravest candidate. Who is the bravest out there? I want to pick the candidate most willing to expose the Democrats’ corrupt schemes. Who is doing that? I want to pick the candidate least likely to be corrupted in turn. Who will that be? If you think it’s your candidate, please convince me.
Perhaps I am stupid, but stupid or not, I have one vote, just like you, which no one can lawfully take away from me. Stupid or not, I am open to persuasion. Stupid or not, I have a duty to myself and to my fellow citizens to use such meager intelligence as I have to make the best decision I can. If you know better than I, please say so.
Mary in LA on July 19, 2011 at 7:33 PM
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 7:27 PM
I say that most posters here are sub-moronic. And there is no shortage of people around here to prove me right. This thread, in which not one person can cede a mote of credit to PBHO while criticizing him for hogging all the glory, is a perfect example of the ignorant hypocrisy that is the rule and not the exception.
MJBrutus on May 9, 2011 at 12:46 PM
Your own words speak volumes.
kingsjester on July 19, 2011 at 7:34 PM
And yours say nothing.
MJBrutus on July 19, 2011 at 7:38 PM
Krautmhamerr is about to talk about Palin on O’Reilly.
I see a thread up in about 20 minutes and it will exceed 700 posts.
BallisticBob on July 19, 2011 at 8:11 PM
Too Late, it already happened several pages ago.
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 8:57 PM
Turned out to be a big nothing burger. With bacon.
steebo77 on July 19, 2011 at 9:01 PM
Bravo! Well said…
OnlyOrange on July 19, 2011 at 9:16 PM
Great post.
Kataklysmic on July 19, 2011 at 9:44 PM
Seconded.
Geochelone on July 19, 2011 at 10:19 PM
no
Few are going to pay to see a doc about any pol, except those printing up the signs
Naw. This is a non starter. The MSM can’t talk the numbers up, or down, without mentioning She Who Cannot Be Named. Since most people wouldn’t pay to see a documentary about anything, the only buzz will be name recognition buzz. That’s why it was a non starter for the MSM. It was like kicking a dead jackrabbit, the experience is self limiting
entagor on July 20, 2011 at 3:51 AM
Thank you both!
Mary in LA on July 20, 2011 at 11:04 AM
STILL with the obsession with me? Bwahahahahaha!!! I hope your grammy doesn’t take your night light away because you don’t have room in your head for her any longer.
You obsessively follow me around, collecting my comments, ignoring the political comments I make in favor of obsessing over my comments that expose you as the obsessive that you are. You continually insist you are not obsessed with me in the dozens of comments you make obsessing over me. You are completely incapable of putting down the obsession with me. Here, let me try and help you…..
I, csdeven, order you to continue to respond to every comment I make.
csdeven on July 20, 2011 at 6:50 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 8 9 10