Did conservative pundits con their base?

[oVo]

The MSM won because they promoted and protected their preferred candidate. If they had even spent 10% of the time covering one event (Benghazi and its coverup) that conservative media covered, Obama would not have won. And that was only the most recent protection they have offered Obama. I'm curious to know what will happen these next 4 years now that they don't have to protect his reelection chances.

Total BS and not why Obama prevailed. The conservative media "hoped" the Benghazi attack would be a bigger story and they did all they could to blow it out of proportion.

Although I doubt they'll actually become the media that actually asks tough questions like they did under Bush.

Bush wasn't even held accountable for his actions,
so what tough questions were there?

In fact, where has the GOP been hiding Bush this entire election season? and why?

[thegreekdog]

The MSM won because they promoted and protected their preferred candidate. If they had even spent 10% of the time covering one event (Benghazi and its coverup) that conservative media covered, Obama would not have won. And that was only the most recent protection they have offered Obama. I'm curious to know what will happen these next 4 years now that they don't have to protect his reelection chances.

Total BS and not why Obama prevailed. The conservative media "hoped" the Benghazi attack would be a bigger story and they did all they could to blow it out of proportion.

Although I doubt they'll actually become the media that actually asks tough questions like they did under Bush.

Bush wasn't even held accountable for his actions,
so what tough questions were there?

In fact, where has the GOP been hiding Bush this entire election season? and why?

Bush wasn't held accountable? You'll have to explain that one to me.

[Metsfanmax]

The answer is yes. I saw absurd claims by conservative pundits saying Romney would get as many as 320 electoral votes. These people fail at basic statistics and should stop making predictions.

And if Romney had done ~2 percent better in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and 1 or 2 other states, he would have been over 300 electoral votes. It wasn't like Obama won these states by as large of margins as in 2008; he squeaked them out and the electoral college made his victory look more decisive than the reality of it.

OK, but he didn't, and the people who understood the statistics made clear that doing 2 percent better in enough states to win was unlikely. Doing 2 percent better in Florida? If that was all Romney needed to win, they would have been more justified. But doing better than polls predicted in 4-8 swing states? Statistically, that's an outlier. I don't blame conservatives for saying Romney had a chance of winning; I blame conservatives like George Will, who actually predicted on Monday that Romney would get 321 electoral votes. There's no reasoning in that. Just punditry.

Furthermore, most of the conservative pundits believed the 2008 demographics were outliers, especially since those demographics returned to past levels in the 2010 election, so they had based their predictions on averaging the past several elections together, accounting for the big change in 2008 but not giving it heavy weight. It turned out that 2008 wasn't an outlier, which is why Obama narrowly won.

The problem with the pundits is that time and again, their gut feelings on how things will turn out end up being proven for what they are, which is just a hunch with no scientific basis behind it. They don't get it right more than half the time.

[AndyDufresne]

I think David Brooks (Of the NY Times, of PBS Newshour) spoke pretty clearly since the start of the election season, and even in the years before, about his thoughts regarding the direction and possibilities of the Republican Party.

In one of his most recent editorials he came back to a line he wrote a while ago, I think due to the changing demographic and social views of America:

Writing from South Carolina last January about the race for the Republican presidential nomination, New York Times columnist David Brooks observed:

“Republican audiences this year want a restoration. America once had strong values, they believe, but we have gone astray. We’ve got to go back and rediscover what we had. Heads nod enthusiastically every time a candidate touches this theme.

“I agree with the sentiment, but it makes for an incredibly backward-looking campaign. I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.”

--Andy

[thegreekdog]

I think David Brooks (Of the NY Times, of PBS Newshour) spoke pretty clearly since the start of the election season, and even in the years before, about his thoughts regarding the direction and possibilities of the Republican Party.

In one of his most recent editorials he came back to a line he wrote a while ago, I think due to the changing demographic and social views of America:

Writing from South Carolina last January about the race for the Republican presidential nomination, New York Times columnist David Brooks observed:

“Republican audiences this year want a restoration. America once had strong values, they believe, but we have gone astray. We’ve got to go back and rediscover what we had. Heads nod enthusiastically every time a candidate touches this theme.

“I agree with the sentiment, but it makes for an incredibly backward-looking campaign. I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.”

--Andy

I wonder if white people who voted Democrat ever get offended by things like this.

[AndyDufresne]

I don't know. I've never really seen people mad at David Brooks. He's too calm and cool and collected. Ha.


--Andy

[comic boy]

The problem is not media bias , it is that too many of the electorate seek confirmation bias rather than a balanced appraisal . For the past year I followed US politics via the BBC ( left leaning ) and balanced it out by reading the very right wing Mail and Telegraph , as a check I kept an eye on the bookmaker odds because they have zero bias .
As a result I predicted early on that Romney would win the Republican nomination but fail to become President , the later was purely a deductive process based as much as anything on the blindingly obvious fact that the Republican party was hugely divided.

[oVo]

And if Romney had done ~2 percent better in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and 1 or 2 other states, he would have been over 300 electoral votes. It wasn't like Obama won these states by as large of margins as in 2008; he squeaked them out and the electoral college made his victory look more decisive than the reality of it.

Mitt Romney lost his home state of Massachusetts 60% to 40% (as well as the NE states by similar margins). Ryan won his House seat but lost the presidential vote in his hometown & state.

Still conservative groups promote BS like this.

[InkL0sed]

The answer is yes. I saw absurd claims by conservative pundits saying Romney would get as many as 320 electoral votes. These people fail at basic statistics and should stop making predictions.

And if Romney had done ~2 percent better in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and 1 or 2 other states, he would have been over 300 electoral votes. It wasn't like Obama won these states by as large of margins as in 2008; he squeaked them out and the electoral college made his victory look more decisive than the reality of it.

Just because Obama won by a couple percentage points in those states doesn't mean the race could have easily gone the other way. He had a lead by a couple percentage points in most swing states for the entire campaign. Those marginal percentage points, in most elections but especially this one, are the hardest to get.

[Army of GOD]

THE ELECTIONS OVER STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN POLITICAL THREADS

[Funkyterrance]

THE ELECTIONS OVER STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN POLITICAL THREADS

Don't you have football to watch?

[InkL0sed]

I actually think politics is a lot more interesting immediately after the elections. Now we get to see how people react to the results.

[thegreekdog]

I actually think politics is a lot more interesting immediately after the elections. Now we get to see how people react to the results.

I agree. I'm fascinated by so many things right now.

Boehner reaching out to Obama.
Democrats saying they have a mandate.
What are the Republicans going to do now?

I'm hoping we return to an era like the Clinton years... but I'm realistic.

[AndyDufresne]

Can you ever return to the past really? I don't think ever think so. Too many variables. But here's to hoping the future is bright.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Can you ever return to the past really? I don't think ever think so. Too many variables. But here's to hoping the future is bright.


--Andy

I did use the qualifier "like." Jerk.