Apr
05
2009

So. Daily Kos and the Pittsburgh shooting.

[UPDATE]: Welcome, Instapundit readers. You might enjoy the tank post. [UPDATE the second]: And welcome again; this time I’m going to suggest that you go buy Rules for Radicals, if only because the visitors from the two Lefty sites visiting here don’t want you to (I’d link, but I’m pretty sure that both sites are pro-torture.  Besides, Lefty sites are notorious for their readers not actually clicking through anyway.)

Are any of you wondering why he’s gone Full Metal Moonbat over this (see also Jim Treacher and Hot Air)*?

dkos

Last year.

Nah, me neither.

Moe Lane

PS: How is RedState doing? Not too shabby:

rs

Last year.

A drop after the election, of course – but even post-election our traffic’s stayed nicely above baseline, and as you can see we’re well positioned to end this April with traffic well above last April’s.

Unlike some sites I could mention.

*H/T Confederate Yankee, who has a couple of other pertinent observations. As does Instapundit, mostly on the apparent coordination of all of this.

Crossposted to RedState.

22 Comments

  • […] As does Instapundit, mostly on the apparent coordination of all of this. Crossposted at Moe Lane. SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title:’So. Daily Kos and the Pittsburgh shooting.’, summary:’Are any of […]

  • […] 2: Looks like Zuniga is employing a little Rule 4 gambit to prop up his sagging traffic numbers, doesn’t it? Well, he […]

  • […] think that he’d have noted dKos’s adoption of Rule 4 (”Make Some Enemies“); after all, the Sundries Shack […]

  • […] think that he’d have noted dKos’s adoption of Rule 4 (”Make Some Enemies“); after all, the Sundries Shack […]

  • […] about Daily Kos as of April 5, 2009 So. Daily Kos and the Pittsburgh shooting. – moelane.com 04/05/2009 [UPDATE]: Welcome, Instapundit readers. You might enjoy the tank post . […]

  • […] Bill Ayers, Muma et/al) has either defended if you work for media matters or condemned if you are on the […]

  • […] the DaTechguy, I’m actually not outraged over Kos’s Pittsburgh comments, and for the same reason: this is who the Online Left are, this is what they set out to become, and […]

  • […] the DaTechguy, I’m actually not outraged over Kos’s Pittsburgh comments, and for the same reason: this is who the Online Left are, this is what they set out to become, and […]

  • N.C. says:

    Consider this: DKos basically got what they wanted out of the election, so they’re in maintenance mode now compared to last year. Meanwhile, Redstate is angry about the new administration, so they’ll have more traffic than last year.

    • Moe_Lane says:

      Well, the *reason* why Moulitsas has to flog his hitcount wasn’t really germane to this post as much as the fact that his traffic is down.

      And, judging from the somewhat unhinged comments that I’ve been chuckling over and sending to spam, noting this seems to infuriate a certain segment of the population that’s perhaps overly sensitive to suggestions about the size of the Left’s Sitemeter these days.

  • Jason Priestly (Really!) says:

    I’m not sure if I understand your graphs. According to the Y axis, Kos is counted in tens of millions, while Redstate is counted in millions. According to your graphs, Kos has already had more traffic in April than Redstate had at its peak prior to the election.

    I don’t think your post makes any sense. In what way are the two graphs comparable?

    • Moe_Lane says:

      They’re not particularly comparable at all, except in the sense that I felt like pointing out that RS’ traffic has increased since this time last year while dKos’ has declined. Congratulations: you’re the first person who missed the point who wasn’t blusteringly, nervously, and hysterically (in both senses of the term) rude about it. 🙂 Of course, I don’t think that they missed the point at all as much as they’re hoping that yelling loudly enough will obscure it…

  • Jeff Niles says:

    Mark Chu-Carroll commented on this post: More Deceptive Graphs: Scales Matter.

  • Jason Priestly (Really!) says:

    Moe, I don’t think I missed the point, I just think that there isn’t any point here. There are statistical tests you can use to see if there is any meaningful increase in RSs traffic compared to last years (as well as DKs). But the simple fact is that DKs traffic is an order of magnitude greater than RSs, even taking into the post-election malaise on the Dems side. I’m still not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that RSs’ traffic patterns indicate some sort of increased support for the arguments being made there? Or that DKs traffic indicates a drop in support of their position? Polls show that isn’t the case, pretty clearly. And what link did you send around that got a good laugh at RS? The one at goodmath? Unfortunately, he isn’t wrong. I read through the post, and found nothing that was critically wrong. Do you know statistics? Do you understand the techniques?

    Again, there are tons of statistical techniques that will allow you to look at trends across orders of magnitude. I don’t have the time, but is there someone who could do this here?

  • Moe_Lane says:

    No, you missed the point.

  • Jason Priestly (Really!) says:

    What is the point then? As far as I can tell from your post, your point is that the minority party has increased traffic, in a potentially not significant increase (based on traffic trends, and taking into account the main effect of the election), while DK has dipped. But it isn’t clear that the DK dip is statically significant. You presented a number of bar graphs supporting your claim, but I don’t see how you can make your argument without some statistics. I’m trying to understand what you posted.

  • Jason Priestly (Really!) says:

    BTW, don’t just say “you missed the point”. Explain it to me.

  • Moe_Lane says:

    Well, I guess that you’re going to have to read it again and see if you can figure it out. And if that doesn’t work, read it again.

    Was there anything else? I’d like to get to the Weekly World News before midnight.

  • Jason Priestly (Really!) says:

    I did read it. That is why I posted. Im trying to understand you. Seriously, can you not (based on the questions/observations I posted) clarify your remarks? Why be snarky?

RSS feed for comments on this post.



Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com