Conquer Club

Night Strike wrote: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.

Night Strike wrote: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?

oVo wrote:

Night Strike wrote: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.

Night Strike wrote: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.

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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.

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

AndyDufresne wrote: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.

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


--Andy

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.

Night Strike wrote: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.

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: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.

THE ELECTIONS OVER STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN POLITICAL THREADS

Army of GOD wrote:THE ELECTIONS OVER STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN POLITICAL THREADS

Don't you have football to watch?

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

InkL0sed wrote: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.

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

AndyDufresne wrote: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.

InkL0sed wrote:I actually think politics is a lot more interesting immediately after the elections. Now we get to see how people react to the results.

0*x=0

OH MY GOD YOU'RE SO RIGHT

HOW DID I NOT SEE THE TRUTH OF THAT EARLIER

Army of GOD wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:I actually think politics is a lot more interesting immediately after the elections. Now we get to see how people react to the results.

0*x=0

Not if x is infinity. Derp.

thegreekdog wrote:I read an editorial (I think from Fox) on how the mainstream media cost Romney the election. While I think this is mostly about putting their heads in the sand, it is interesting to read the thoughts.

For example, there were two weeks of regular news commentary on the 47% comment. And I think that's valid. But, as a counterpoint, there was virtually no mention at all of the Benghazi fiasco, which I think is reportable news that shows poorly on the president.

As another example (and something I've brought up a number of times on this form), there was a lot of focus on the lack of detail (or "lies") of Romney/Ryan regarding their fiscal and tax plans. There was no focus on the Obama fiscal and tax plans, which were similarly lacking in detail.

I tended to watch more mainstream media than not, and I didn't see a lot of reporting on any of the negative Obama items. I suspect a study will be done in the near future that shows that the mainstream media was more in bed with Obama, similar to what was done in 2008.

Sorry, Greekdog, but that's just not so, Obama has stated his plan over and over again, it's just that "Republicans" wanted him to fail so much they wouldn't address it, at all, and now it comes up for another fight.

As to did conservatives (pundits or media) con their base? Not really; it was wishful thinking.
1) They discounted that 47% or thought that Obama's "you didn't build that!" would outweigh it as a negative. The problem with that was that most American's who have done well, freely admit that they would have had a much harder time building what they've built without American infrastructure - and that infrastructure (education, freedom to trade state to state without needing to bribe, roads, bridges, ports, railroads, trucks) is PRECISELY what Obama meant when ... you didn't build that.... (all by yourself)
2) They discounted pro-choice Republicans who would be leery of Ryan and leery of Mitt's penchant to change sides/views (they often do discount pro-choicers as though just because THEY want to make abortion illegal, anyone who claims to be Republican wants to make abortion illegal.) Many women were legitimately concerned that Ryan would be convinced to accept someone pushing to make abortion illegal in some form or other; something Ryan openly stated he would like to see.
3) They refused to acknowledge areas where Obama did pretty well, trying to tar him with a "totally incompetent" brush that frankly doesn't fit, if you use critical thinking to analyze what he inherited, what's happened since, and different things he's done. They'd have been better off admitting where Obama did okay, and explaining, in detail, what should have been done differently for a better outcome. Without those details, Mitt was basically claiming he'd be Obama and Bush only better, (his plans outlined in the debates were half Bush, half Obama) and that just wasn't credible.
4) Basically, they were relying on, "Fire Obama" rather than, "Hire Mitt." They forget, though.. most people hated Bush at the end, far more than any but the most right wing crazies hate Obama - and some of those right wing crazies mix racism in with it, which many will (did) oppose.

Basically, the Rush Limbaugh approach to politics - twist the truth to the very worst interspersed with near-lies and omitting many pertinent facts because they would disprove what you're spouting - works well for entertainment radio, but was insufficient to run a successful Presidential campaign.

thegreekdog wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote: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.

As a white person who would vote democrat (well to be fair i'd prob vote Jill Stein, but that doesnt count, lets assume i undergo some americanisation before I voted and thus prob vote Dem), I can reasonably comfortably say that anyone who would get offended by that is an idiot.

Its a fair genralisation; you just have to realise its a genralisation and understand what genralisations mean in practice (that is theres exceptions to every rule).

stahrgazer wrote:Sorry, Greekdog, but that's just not so, Obama has stated his plan over and over again, it's just that "Republicans" wanted him to fail so much they wouldn't address it, at all, and now it comes up for another fight.

And Romney stated his plan over and over again. I posted links in another thread. The first link was to Obama's fiscal plan, including taxes. The second link was to Romney's fiscal plan, including taxes. Neither plan provided any details and were virtually identical (except that Obama's plan called for a tax increase on the "wealthy," which was never defined).

I have no problem with your critique of Romney. It's valid. Your seemingly blind support of Obama is staggering.

That being said, there's a very easy way to prove your point. Provide details on Obama's fiscal plan,including taxes. Good luck.

First of all, the conservative pundits (they are legion and each is different and they all don't like each other and they will be blaming each other for eternity) all assumed the folowing fallicy.

Conservatives are, by and by, fairly intelligent.
Conservative voters are, therefore not stupid.

The second doesn't follow from the first. Conservatives made it quite clear in this election. They just chopped off their noses to spite their faces. They would rather live in progessive hell than to live in a not so perfect semi conservative state. So it is written; so shall it be done.

Romney was spot on when he said that there as 47% of the people who were not going to vote for him no matter what. There was an additional number of people who are think conservative (ask them a question and they will give conservative answers all the time) but swallow whatever the mainstream madia says and as a result votes progressive. It is the later that is hard to predict.

Plus the fact that the democrats actually managed to get their base motivated. They went to the plantations, pulled out the progressive slaves who in turn happily voted for their own slavery again. Many conservatives were convinced that we would be at the participation numbers for 2004 not 2008 among minorities.

tzor wrote:First of all, the conservative pundits (they are legion and each is different and they all don't like each other and they will be blaming each other for eternity) all assumed the folowing fallicy.

Conservatives are, by and by, fairly intelligent.
Conservative voters are, therefore not stupid.

The second doesn't follow from the first. Conservatives made it quite clear in this election. They just chopped off their noses to spite their faces. They would rather live in progessive hell than to live in a not so perfect semi conservative state. So it is written; so shall it be done.

Romney was spot on when he said that there as 47% of the people who were not going to vote for him no matter what. There was an additional number of people who are think conservative (ask them a question and they will give conservative answers all the time) but swallow whatever the mainstream madia says and as a result votes progressive. It is the later that is hard to predict.

Plus the fact that the democrats actually managed to get their base motivated. They went to the plantations, pulled out the progressive slaves who in turn happily voted for their own slavery again. Many conservatives were convinced that we would be at the participation numbers for 2004 not 2008 among minorities.

You're right: only stupid, spiteful, greedy, lazy, brainwashed, slaves suffering from Stockholm syndrome would ever vote differently from you.

That seems like a totally reasonable position.

Timminz wrote:You're right: only stupid, spiteful, greedy, lazy, brainwashed, slaves suffering from Stockholm syndrome would ever vote differently from you.

Those are your words, not mine. But that is in general how the progressives argue.

The first rule is that there are only two extreemes; what they consider totally evil and what they consider totally good.

Arguments need to be made emotionally, not logically, and then according to the model that all arguments are argued by their only two possible extreeme points.

Now we can go back and apply these rules and the inverse notion of rational thought to why people voted against one candidate and for another candidate.

Going through the post Sandy chaos I see perfectly rational people of high intelligence fall into the same entitlement menality trap.

The welfare state as nothing to do with Stockholm syndrone.

More like Plato's cave, actually.

The media swept everything about Obama under the rug. After the election, they started reporting shit again

Compare the media coverage of Katrina to Sandy

compare the hysteria the media put us through when gas hit 3$ under Bush, and the crickets the media turned into at 5$ gas under Obama

I'm not saying Romney was the right guy to put up against Obama, or that Romney should have won. Personally, Romney would have been one of my last choices from the primaries.

Obviously, Ron Paul was the right guy. But that doesn't mean Obama does not have the media in his pocket, because it's clear that he does, just like any other Democrat president had in the past and will have in the future. The Republican, whoever it is, that runs against a Democrat, is always going to have the narrative reinforced about them that they hate the 47%, or the 99%, want to outlaw abortion, and reinstitute slavery. And it's the media that builds and promotes that construct.