PDA

View Full Version : Media The Conservative Media Is Lying To You


Pages : [1] 2

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 06:55 AM
Conor Friedersdorf fucking nails it. If you bathe in the muck of the vast majority of conservative media -- if you read FoxNews.com more than any other site, if you hail Mark Levin as brilliant, if you live and die by Drudge...

Then you are being lied to.

There are plenty of conservative sources that simply have a conservative view on the world -- the Wall Street Journal, for instance. But that's distinct from the profitable media empire that sells propaganda damn near 24/7.

Example #1, since it comes up so much in this forum: the Drudge Report.

How many times did the Drudge Report link to Nate Silver, who absolutely crushed his election predictions? Zero.
How many times did the Drudge Report link to Dick Morris? A dozen.

And yet you bought it. You might recall sitting there watching the election returns, certain that Romney would win because for months you've been inundated with Republican whores like Morris telling you what you wanted to hear -- "Obama's a paper tiger," "his campaign is getting desperate," "absolutely nobody I know is voting Obama," "I see more Romney yard signs," "look at this outlier poll that favors Romney"...

Then the results come in, largely how the vast majority of polls told us they would.

You were misinformed. Massively. And it's not just limited to election returns. On climate change, tax rates, income inequality, immigration, healthcare, energy, foreign policy (in particular the Middle East), gay rights for the longest time, and of course Obama himself... You are being sold a bullshit platter that leaves you just as misinformed as you were about the prospective election results.

The biggest offender, of course, is Fox News. Not that they're the most egregious violators of conservative propaganda, but they're by far the most pervasive and the most influential.

You trust Fox News because you believe they are simply reporting from a conservative point of view. That's not true. They are actively selling bullshit. This election and Rove's meltdown on the evening of the 6th is proof. This is an organization that is financially and professionally tied to the Republican Party. Fox News' overlords donate heavily to the GOP. Many Republican candidates for the Presidency either end up or originate as Fox News contributors. This is not an independent outlet in any shape or form, it is a direct arm of the Republican Party.

Get out of this bubble. Set Google News as your homepage. And embrace the next four years as an opportunity to find out what you actually believe, rather than simply adopting the narrative of charlatans.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rank-and-file/264855/

How Conservative Media Lost to the MSM and Failed the Rank and File
Nate Silver was right. His ideological antagonists were wrong. And that's just the beginning of the right's self-created information disadvantage.
By Conor Friedersdorf
Nov 7 2012, 6:30 AM ET

Before rank-and-file conservatives ask, "What went wrong?", they should ask themselves a question every bit as important: "Why were we the last to realize that things were going wrong for us?"

Barack Obama just trounced a Republican opponent for the second time. But unlike four years ago, when most conservatives saw it coming, Tuesday's result was, for them, an unpleasant surprise. So many on the right had predicted a Mitt Romney victory, or even a blowout -- Dick Morris, George Will, and Michael Barone all predicted the GOP would break 300 electoral votes. Joe Scarborough scoffed at the notion that the election was anything other than a toss-up. Peggy Noonan insisted that those predicting an Obama victory were ignoring the world around them. Even Karl Rove, supposed political genius, missed the bulls-eye (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/pundit_scorecard_checking_pundits_predictions_against_the_actual_results.html). These voices drove the coverage on Fox News, talk radio, the Drudge Report, and conservative blogs.

Those audiences were misinformed.

Outside the conservative media, the narrative was completely different. Its driving force was Nate Silver, whose performance forecasting Election '08 gave him credibility as he daily explained why his model showed that President Obama enjoyed a very good chance of being reelected. Other experts echoed his findings. Readers of The New York Times, The Atlantic, and other "mainstream media" sites besides knew the expert predictions, which have been largely born out. The conclusions of experts are not sacrosanct. But Silver's expertise was always a better bet than relying on ideological hacks like Morris or the anecdotal impressions of Noonan.


Sure, Silver could've wound up wrong. But people who rejected the possibility of his being right? They were operating at a self-imposed information disadvantage.

Conservatives should be familiar with its contours. For years, they've been arguing that liberal control of media and academia confers one advantage: Folks on the right can't help but be familiar with the thinking of liberals, whereas leftists can operate entirely within a liberal cocoon. This analysis was offered to explain why liberal ideas were growing weaker and would be defeated.

Today?

It is easy to close oneself off inside a conservative echo chamber. And right-leaning outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's show are far more intellectually closed than CNN or public radio. If you're a rank-and-file conservative, you're probably ready to acknowledge that ideologically friendly media didn't accurately inform you about Election 2012. Some pundits engaged in wishful thinking; others feigned confidence in hopes that it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy; still others decided it was smart to keep telling right-leaning audiences what they wanted to hear.

But guess what?

You haven't just been misinformed about the horse race. Since the very beginning of the election cycle, conservative media has been failing you. With a few exceptions, they haven't tried to rigorously tell you the truth, or even to bring you intellectually honest opinion. What they've done instead helps to explain why the right failed to triumph in a very winnable election.

Why do you keep putting up with it?

Conservatives were at a disadvantage because Romney supporters like Jennifer Rubin and Hugh Hewitt saw it as their duty to spin constantly for their favored candidate rather than being frank about his strengths and weaknesses. What conservative Washington Post readers got, when they traded in Dave Weigel for Rubin, was a lot more hackery and a lot less informed about the presidential election.

Conservatives were at an information disadvantage because so many right-leaning outlets wasted time on stories the rest of America dismissed as nonsense. WorldNetDaily brought you birtherism. Forbes brought you Kenyan anti-colonialism. National Review obsessed about an imaginary rejection of American exceptionalism, misrepresenting an Obama quote (http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/11/the-big-lie/180117/) in the process, and Andy McCarthy was interviewed widely about his theory that Obama, aka the Drone Warrior in Chief, allied himself with our Islamist enemies in a "Grand Jihad" against America. Seriously?

Conservatives were at a disadvantage because their information elites pandered in the most cynical, self-defeating ways, treating would-be candidates like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain as if they were plausible presidents rather than national jokes who'd lose worse than George McGovern.

How many months were wasted on them?

How many hours of Glenn Beck conspiracy theories did Fox News broadcast to its viewers? How many hours of transparently mindless Sean Hannity content is still broadcast daily? Why don't Americans trust Republicans on foreign policy as they once did? In part because conservatism hasn't grappled with the foreign-policy failures of George W. Bush. A conspiracy of silence surrounds the subject. Romney could neither run on the man's record nor repudiate it. The most damaging Romney gaffe of the campaign, where he talked about how the 47 percent of Americans who pay no income taxes are a lost cause for Republicans? Either he was unaware that many of those people are Republican voters, or was pandering to GOP donors who are misinformed. Either way, bad information within the conservative movement was to blame.

In conservative fantasy-land, Richard Nixon was a champion of ideological conservatism (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-most-rabid-election-day-rant-of-them-all/264600/), tax cuts are the only way to raise revenue (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/how-rush-limbaugh-keeps-his-listeners-in-fantasy-land/242725/), adding neoconservatives to a foreign-policy team reassures American voters, Benghazi was a winning campaign issue, Clint Eastwood's convention speech was a brilliant triumph (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/08/31/Clint-Eastwood-Schools-Late-Night-Comics), and Obama's America is a place where black kids can beat up white kids with impunity (http://theamericanscene.com/2009/09/16/why-i-have-contempt-for-rush-limbaugh). Most conservative pundits know better than this nonsense -- not that they speak up against it. They see criticizing their own side as a sign of disloyalty. I see a coalition that has lost all perspective, partly because there's no cost to broadcasting or publishing inane bullshit. In fact, it's often very profitable. A lot of cynical people have gotten rich broadcasting and publishing red meat for movement conservative consumption.

On the biggest political story of the year, the conservative media just got its ass handed to it by the mainstream media. And movement conservatives, who believe the MSM is more biased and less rigorous than their alternatives, have no way to explain how their trusted outlets got it wrong, while the New York Times got it right. Hint: The Times hired the most rigorous forecaster it could find.

It ought to be an eye-opening moment.

But I expect that it'll be quickly forgotten, that none of the conservatives who touted a polling conspiracy will be discredited, and that the right will continue to operate at an information disadvantage. After all, it's not like they'll trust the analysis of a non-conservative like me more than the numerous fellow conservatives who constantly tell them things that turn out not to be true.

Ace Gunner
11-08-2012, 07:10 AM
garbage. This article attempts to redifine "conservative" in the BS modern sense and it does not give any motive for these so called conservative broadcasters.

Let me interject; "conservative" is a word used to describe folks that uphold the USC and its premise. It has nothing to do with church views, language views, sexuality views or fiscal spending. Not directly, anyway.

Conserving our USC means upholding the right to view life how we choose and to discuss it, among other aspects of freedom. Hence, "freedom of speech".

I agree with the premise of this article, but the use of this word is wrong. It would have simply been more direct to call these folks crooks and point out their slander. Because that is what they are. These folks are trying to take our USC from us. That is their motive.

Brainiac
11-08-2012, 07:15 AM
Dude,

Your guy won the election.

If you want to be classy about it, you might think about dialing it back a little.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 07:16 AM
garbage. This article attempts to redifine "conservative" in the BS modern sense and it does not give any motive for these so called conservative broadcasters.

Gee, what motivation could there possibly be for propaganda?

Let me interject; "conservative" is a word used to describe folks that uphold the USC and its premise. It has nothing to do with church views, language views, sexuality views or fiscal spending. Not directly, anyway.

Conserving our USC means upholding the right to view life how we choose and to discuss it, among other aspects of freedom. Hence, "freedom of speech".

I agree with the premise of this article, but the use of this word is wrong. It would have simply been more direct to call these folks crooks and point out their slander. Because that is what they are. These folks are trying to take our USC from us. That is their motive.

Fair points.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 07:21 AM
Dude,

Your guy won the election.

If you want to be classy about it, you might think about dialing it back a little.

Shrug.

The election didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because the conservative movement was trying to sell the idea that Obama's the devil reincarnate, has been an abject failure at everything, and has accomplished nothing good in his first four years.

That's not what the rest of the world observed -- they observed the shit sandwich he was given on Day One of his Presidency, and the bumpy ride that progressed as some things Obama achieved made sense, other things struggled and didn't pan out, and still some others we have yet to see results on. That's what the Democrats and liberals were selling, and that's why they won.

This was a direct result of the prominence conservative propaganda has had within the GOP and its supporters. It has given liberals and the Democratic party an information advantage that conservatives have literally given away.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 07:25 AM
Dude,

Your guy won the election.

If you want to be classy about it, you might think about dialing it back a little.

:clap:

mnchiefsguy
11-08-2012, 07:26 AM
You lie Direckshun.

There is a direct link to NS's blog on Drudge's Front page in his list of blogs. It is still there, I just checked, about half way down the list, between Shales and Liz Smith.

So Drudge, in fact, links to NS every single day.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 07:26 AM
Shrug.

The election didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because the conservative movement was trying to sell the idea that Obama's the devil reincarnate, has been an abject failure at everything, and has accomplished nothing good in his first four years.

That's not what the rest of the world observed -- they observed the shit sandwich he was given on Day One of his Presidency, and the bumpy ride that progressed as some things Obama achieved made sense, other things struggled and didn't pan out, and still some others we have yet to see results on. That's what the Democrats and liberals were selling, and that's why they won.

This was a direct result of the prominence conservative propaganda has had within the GOP and its supporters. It has given liberals and the Democratic party an information advantage that conservatives have literally given away.

Gee, then why did the people vote for divided govt then? Couldn't have been to box Obama in right? Meanwhile, even Wisconsin had won back their own congress with Republicans. Keep trying to sell this fake mandate Obama got. He had NO coat tails.

htismaqe
11-08-2012, 07:28 AM
Dude,

Your guy won the election.

If you want to be classy about it, you might think about dialing it back a little.

Exactly.

As if sensationalist, pandering media is the sole province of the right. :shake:

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 07:30 AM
You lie Direckshun.

There is a direct link to NS's blog on Drudge's Front page in his list of blogs. It is still there, I just checked, about half way down the list, between Shales and Liz Smith.

So Drudge, in fact, links to NS every single day.

Oh fantastic. Silver is in his blogroll at the bottom of his page, while Morris regularly received A1, top-of-the-fold treatment by Drudge.

That really destroys my argument.

htismaqe
11-08-2012, 07:30 AM
Shrug.

The election didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because the conservative movement was trying to sell the idea that Obama's the devil reincarnate, has been an abject failure at everything, and has accomplished nothing good in his first four years.

That's not what the rest of the world observed -- they observed the shit sandwich he was given on Day One of his Presidency, and the bumpy ride that progressed as some things Obama achieved made sense, other things struggled and didn't pan out, and still some others we have yet to see results on. That's what the Democrats and liberals were selling, and that's why they won.

This was a direct result of the prominence conservative propaganda has had within the GOP and its supporters. It has given liberals and the Democratic party an information advantage that conservatives have literally given away.

ROFL

You honestly believe that there wasn't a LARGE block of Obama voters that weren't swayed by propaganda on THEIR SIDE?

I heard a caller on the radio say "I voted for Obama because he's gonna give me free food, free healthcare, and he's gonna get me into college."

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 07:31 AM
As if sensationalist, pandering media is the sole province of the right. :shake:

There is a liberal equivalent. But it doesn't dominate the left the way the conservative media dominates the right.

stonedstooge
11-08-2012, 07:33 AM
Liberals may have won this election, but conservatives will never "bow down" to your asses as much as you think they should

Fish
11-08-2012, 07:34 AM
There is a liberal equivalent. But it doesn't dominate the left the way the conservative media dominates the right.

Yeah it does. People on the other side are just as bad...

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 07:35 AM
ROFL

You honestly believe that there wasn't a LARGE block of Obama voters that weren't swayed by propaganda on THEIR SIDE?

I heard a caller on the radio say "I voted for Obama because he's gonna give me free food, free healthcare, and he's gonna get me into college."

Find me one liberal media source that made that argument. Or even hinted at it. That idiot you quoted wasn't spewing verbatim anything he heard on a news source.

Meanwhile, conservatives have simply spewed on this board bullshit straight from Hannity, Beck, Drudge, and Levin. So while there are definitely idiots on both side of the aisle, the policy of one major political party is being driven by a wave of propaganda.

The liberal media was making the argument I highlighted: Obama did some things well, some things not so well, and some things we've yet to see returns on.

A message voters saw as more accurate than the one being peddled on Drudge.

Swanman
11-08-2012, 07:35 AM
Dude,

Your guy won the election.

If you want to be classy about it, you might think about dialing it back a little.

I don't think that was spiking the ball, it was fairly factual. Fox News helped create the right wing bubble where a lot of people would get their news and wouldn't look elsewhere. When the polls didn't look good, they looked to Rasmussen (which ended up being one of the most inaccurate polls) for their poll results and got misled into thinking the election was in the bag for Romney. I watched some of the Dick Morris clips from Fox News and he was predicting Romney would win by 8-9 points in Ohio. Predicting a win is one thing, but by 9 points in that state was patently absurd. Yet people still bought it because they refused to look elsewhere. As a result, a lot of right wingers were shocked when Obama won in an electoral college landslide. If they hadn't dismissed every other poll, maybe they would have seen the landslide coming.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 07:36 AM
Liberals may have won this election, but conservatives will never "bow down" to your asses as much as you think they should

ROFL

What?

mnchiefsguy
11-08-2012, 07:38 AM
There is a liberal equivalent. But it doesn't dominate the left the way the conservative media dominates the right.

Sure it does. Why else would the liberal media be going on about Obama having a mandate, when he barely won the popular vote, and is the first President in history to be re-elected with LESS electoral votes than he got the first time.


In addition, you have no way of knowing whether Drudge ever link to 538....unless you were checking Drudge every single day, multiple times a day (since Drudge constantly updates his links)...Surely you would not be doing that...that would make you a bit like good ole pete, now wouldn't it?

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 07:39 AM
Yeah it does. People on the other side are just as bad...

Yeah, no.

There is no liberal equivalent to talk radio. MSNBC is definitively liberal but is not intrinsically tied financially and politically to the Democratic Party in the way Fox News is. And coming from someone who reads both religiously, the liberal blogosphere is heads and shoulders more informed and more factual than the conservative blogosphere.

Dave Lane
11-08-2012, 07:39 AM
Is there video of Roves meltdown? I'd love to see it. Been at my farm and haven't had a chance to watch it during election nite but heard it was awesome

suzzer99
11-08-2012, 07:39 AM
ROFL

You honestly believe that there wasn't a LARGE block of Obama voters that weren't swayed by propaganda on THEIR SIDE?

I heard a caller on the radio say "I voted for Obama because he's gonna give me free food, free healthcare, and he's gonna get me into college."

Ah the old law nature that says both sides must be equal and opposite in all things. It must be comforting, and help stave off any painful introspection, to know than the matter what scurrilous bullshit your side pulls - the other side is always just as bad.

There is no equivalent on the left of the Rupert Murdoch media empire – not in viewership, not in intensity, not in brazenness, not in the level to which their constituents buy everything they're selling.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 07:41 AM
Sure it does. Why else would the liberal media be going on about Obama having a mandate, when he barely won the popular vote, and is the first President in history to be re-elected with LESS electoral votes than he got the first time.

Because a mandate is when you win 50%+ of the vote.

That is a fact.

In addition, you have no way of knowing whether Drudge ever link to 538....unless you were checking Drudge every single day, multiple times a day (since Drudge constantly updates his links)...Surely you would not be doing that...

I check Drudge every single day.

suzzer99
11-08-2012, 07:41 AM
Sure it does. Why else would the liberal media be going on about Obama having a mandate, when he barely won the popular vote, and is the first President in history to be re-elected with LESS electoral votes than he got the first time.


In addition, you have no way of knowing whether Drudge ever link to 538....unless you were checking Drudge every single day, multiple times a day (since Drudge constantly updates his links)...Surely you would not be doing that...that would make you a bit like good ole pete, now wouldn't it?

The liberal media is not going on about Obama having a mandate. Again this is probably a symptom of you being stuck in the right wing media bubble, where they found one quote and are running with it 24/7 to get you all riled up.

Just watch CNN one day a week or something. I know it's not as entertaining, and they won't always tell you what you want to hear, but at least you'll know what's going on outside the bubble?

Dave Lane
11-08-2012, 07:41 AM
ROFL

You honestly believe that there wasn't a LARGE block of Obama voters that weren't swayed by propaganda on THEIR SIDE?

I heard a caller on the radio say "I voted for Obama because he's gonna give me free food, free healthcare, and he's gonna get me into college."

What "liberal" media source reported this as true? Thats the point.

I saw plenty of crazy Republicans make all sorts of stupid claims.

Swanman
11-08-2012, 07:43 AM
Is there video of Roves meltdown? I'd love to see it. Been at my farm and haven't had a chance to watch it during election nite but heard it was awesome

Here is a quick paraphrasing:

Fox News Anchor: We are calling Ohio for Obama. He has been re-elected.

Rove: No, don't, there are still votes left to count and it's still close.

Fox News Anchor: Dude, most of the votes left are in democratic precints. It's over, deal with it.

Rove starts pouting and talking about Florida being called too early in 2000. Fox News anchors look at him like he is retarded.

suzzer99
11-08-2012, 07:45 AM
I don't think that was spiking the ball, it was fairly factual. Fox News helped create the right wing bubble where a lot of people would get their news and wouldn't look elsewhere. When the polls didn't look good, they looked to Rasmussen (which ended up being one of the most inaccurate polls) for their poll results and got misled into thinking the election was in the bag for Romney. I watched some of the Dick Morris clips from Fox News and he was predicting Romney would win by 8-9 points in Ohio. Predicting a win is one thing, but by 9 points in that state was patently absurd. Yet people still bought it because they refused to look elsewhere. As a result, a lot of right wingers were shocked when Obama won in an electoral college landslide. If they hadn't dismissed every other poll, maybe they would have seen the landslide coming.

Once you prime the pump by selling your constituency on the idea that "scientists and mathematicians are a bunch of eggheads who don't know what they're talking about", it becomes relatively trivial to get them to believe pollsters have no idea what they're talking about.

The only question is – do you want to go down that road and damage your credibility? Apparently Fox said yes the selection. It will be interesting to see if they follow the same route in the next presidential election. My guess is no.

Swanman
11-08-2012, 07:46 AM
The only question is – do you want to go down that road and damage your credibility? Apparently Fox said yes the selection. It will be interesting to see if they follow the same route in the next presidential election. My guess is no.

If they don't, Republican candidates need to completely distance themselves from Fox News and the other RWNJs on the airwaves and tv. Crazy almost never wins.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 07:47 AM
Is there video of Roves meltdown? I'd love to see it. Been at my farm and haven't had a chance to watch it during election nite but heard it was awesome

I'm pretty sure you can YouTube it.

suzzer99
11-08-2012, 07:47 AM
Is there video of Roves meltdown? I'd love to see it. Been at my farm and haven't had a chance to watch it during election nite but heard it was awesome

Can't figure out how to get the embed link on the iPad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 07:50 AM
If they don't, Republican candidates need to completely distance themselves from Fox News and the other RWNJs on the airwaves and tv. Crazy almost never wins.

Hopefully we're seeing that start right now with Boehner and Christie.

Both have been slaughtered on talk radio the past couple weeks for reaching out and being complementary towards Obama.

mnchiefsguy
11-08-2012, 07:53 AM
Because a mandate is when you win 50%+ of the vote.

That is a fact.



I check Drudge every single day.

No. A mandate is not automatic at 50.1%. A mandate is more like Clinton's re-election is 96, or either of Reagan's elections. A mandate is a candidate who sweeps into office with members of Congress riding a wave of coat tails to get elected...how many seats in Congress did Obama's coat tails deliver?

So no, it is not a fact. It is an opinion. An opinion that 50% of voting Americans disagree with.

Look at the vote nationwide based on counties. There are a lot of red counties on that map, and it clearly shows that there is no mandate.

One could argue that if Obama has a mandate, then the House has a mandate too, since it remains solidly Republican, and a large number of its Republican members retained their seats by a solid margin.

The House does not see an Obama mandate, and if Obama tries to push through his agenda without compromise, he will find building his legacy over the next four years to be very difficult.

mnchiefsguy
11-08-2012, 07:56 AM
The liberal media is not going on about Obama having a mandate. Again this is probably a symptom of you being stuck in the right wing media bubble, where they found one quote and are running with it 24/7 to get you all riled up.

Just watch CNN one day a week or something. I know it's not as entertaining, and they won't always tell you what you want to hear, but at least you'll know what's going on outside the bubble?

I watch CNN plenty. I even watch MSNBC on occasion. Like when Chris Mathews had his liberal meltdown after the first debate. Of course, Direckshun is never critical of MSNBC, and he thinks Rachel Maddow is a legitimate journalist.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 07:56 AM
No. A mandate is not automatic at 50.1%. A mandate is more like Clinton's re-election is 96, or either of Reagan's elections. A mandate is a candidate who sweeps into office with members of Congress riding a wave of coat tails to get elected...how many seats in Congress did Obama's coat tails deliver?

So no, it is not a fact. It is an opinion. An opinion that 50% of voting Americans disagree with.

Look at the vote nationwide based on counties. There are a lot of red counties on that map, and it clearly shows that there is no mandate.

One could argue that if Obama has a mandate, then the House has a mandate too, since it remains solidly Republican, and a large number of its Republican members retained their seats by a solid margin.

The House does not see an Obama mandate, and if Obama tries to push through his agenda without compromise, he will find building his legacy over the next four years to be very difficult.

So you've decided to move the goalposts on what a mandate is. Meh well -- that's your right and everything, but the guy won a majority of the vote and a whopping 330 EVs. But because he crushed his previous opponent even worse, this victory therefore is not a mandate.

Again, that's on you if you believe it. That certainly was Hannity's line last night.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 07:58 AM
I watch CNN plenty. I even watch MSNBC on occasion. Like when Chris Mathews had his liberal meltdown after the first debate. Of course, Direckshun is never critical of MSNBC, and he thinks Rachel Maddow is a legitimate journalist.

Maddow's a legitimate commentator. I don't know how anybody could even argue that.

mnchiefsguy
11-08-2012, 08:02 AM
So you've decided to move the goalposts on what a mandate is. Meh well -- that's your right and everything, but the guy won a majority of the vote and a whopping 330 EVs. But because he crushed his previous opponent even worse, this victory therefore is not a mandate.

Again, that's on you if you believe it. That certainly was Hannity's line last night.

Not moving any goalposts at all. Yes, Obama won over 300 electoral votes. Many of those also came from states he won 51-49, etc.

Reagan won a mandate because of "Reagan Democrats"....when you can point to a segment of the opposing party and label them like that, you have a mandate.

Can you point out any "Obama Republicans"? Did not think so.

Don't care what Hannity says, I don't watch his show. I am sure he was pretty depressed though. And I don't watch Maddow either, but I am sure she was doing a happy dance on her show. Common sense tells you that.

mnchiefsguy
11-08-2012, 08:05 AM
Maddow's a legitimate commentator. I don't know how anybody could even argue that.

Then Hannity is a legitimate commentator as well. I do not see any difference between them other than their political views. But again, I do not watch either of their shows enough to be an expert.

Both Hannity and Maddow strike me as severely partisan for their points of view.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 08:08 AM
Not moving any goalposts at all. Yes, Obama won over 300 electoral votes. Many of those also came from states he won 51-49, etc.

Reagan won a mandate because of "Reagan Democrats"....when you can point to a segment of the opposing party and label them like that, you have a mandate.

Can you point out any "Obama Republicans"? Did not think so.

He won over a majority of the country. But that majority wasn't conservative or Republican enough for you, therefore, no mandate.

Got it. In no way is that point of view being fueled by a spiteful fever dream.

ROYC75
11-08-2012, 08:11 AM
Maddow's a legitimate partisan commentator. I don't know how anybody could even argue that.

Fixed it for you, you left one word out.

Thank me late.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 08:11 AM
I do not see any difference between them other than their political views. But again, I do not watch either of their shows enough to be an expert.

This is beautiful.

And telling.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 08:24 AM
Shrug.

The election didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because the conservative he was an incumbant

Shortened your post there...

George Bush won re-election and he wasn't even liked by his own party in 2004.

It amazes me that you guys are painting this as anything more than it is - an incumbent won re-election because incumbents almost always win re-election. He wasn't quite as bad as Carter and Romney wasn't anywhere near as good as Regan or Clinton.

I'll go ahead and stop listening to the Democrats telling the Republicans where they need to change to get votes, thank you. You guys don't care who says what if they have an R after their name - period. Romney is FAR closer to Clinton than Obama is but you fellas just won't admit it because there's an R there. So when the centrist you called for loses, you start to shout from the rooftops about the death of conservativism. The Ds aren't voting for a Republican and Romney kicked the shit out of Obama among independents.

You guys won because Obama is an extremely charismatic incumbent. The end.

But again, keep touting that 'mandate'.

Dave Lane
11-08-2012, 08:30 AM
Then Hannity is a legitimate commentator as well. I do not see any difference between them other than their political views. But again, I do not watch either of their shows enough to be an expert.

Both Hannity and Maddow strike me as severely partisan for their points of view.

Hannity is as dumb as a mud fence post. Maddow is a bright intellectual, regardless of viewpoints.

ChiefsCountry
11-08-2012, 08:32 AM
Shortened your post there...

George Bush won re-election and he wasn't even liked by his own party in 2004.

It amazes me that you guys are painting this as anything more than it is - an incumbent won re-election because incumbents almost always win re-election. He wasn't quite as bad as Carter and Romney wasn't anywhere near as good as Regan or Clinton.

I'll go ahead and stop listening to the Democrats telling the Republicans where they need to change to get votes, thank you. You guys don't care who says what if they have an R after their name - period. Romney is FAR closer to Clinton than Obama is but you fellas just won't admit it because there's an R there. So when the centrist you called for loses, you start to shout from the rooftops about the death of conservativism. The Ds aren't voting for a Republican and Romney kicked the shit out of Obama among independents.

You guys won because Obama is an extremely charismatic incumbent. The end.

But again, keep touting that 'mandate'.

Game set match. :clap:

patteeu
11-08-2012, 08:32 AM
If you read Direckshun threads you're being lied to.

How many times did the Drudge Report link to Nate Silver, who absolutely crushed his election predictions? Zero.

10 Pinochios - The truth is that the Drudgereport links to Nate Silver every single day.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 08:34 AM
Shrug.

The election didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because the conservative movement was trying to sell the idea that Obama's the devil reincarnate, has been an abject failure at everything, and has accomplished nothing good in his first four years.

That's not what the rest of the world observed -- they observed the shit sandwich he was given on Day One of his Presidency, and the bumpy ride that progressed as some things Obama achieved made sense, other things struggled and didn't pan out, and still some others we have yet to see results on. That's what the Democrats and liberals were selling, and that's why they won.

This was a direct result of the prominence conservative propaganda has had within the GOP and its supporters. It has given liberals and the Democratic party an information advantage that conservatives have literally given away.

The good thing about Obama's re-election is that the president who inherits Obama's mess is Obama.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 08:35 AM
You lie Direckshun.

There is a direct link to NS's blog on Drudge's Front page in his list of blogs. It is still there, I just checked, about half way down the list, between Shales and Liz Smith.

So Drudge, in fact, links to NS every single day.

Kudos for being first.

The Rick
11-08-2012, 08:36 AM
Shortened your post there...

George Bush won re-election and he wasn't even liked by his own party in 2004.

It amazes me that you guys are painting this as anything more than it is - an incumbent won re-election because incumbents almost always win re-election. He wasn't quite as bad as Carter and Romney wasn't anywhere near as good as Regan or Clinton.

I'll go ahead and stop listening to the Democrats telling the Republicans where they need to change to get votes, thank you. You guys don't care who says what if they have an R after their name - period. Romney is FAR closer to Clinton than Obama is but you fellas just won't admit it because there's an R there. So when the centrist you called for loses, you start to shout from the rooftops about the death of conservativism. The Ds aren't voting for a Republican and Romney kicked the shit out of Obama among independents.

You guys won because Obama is an extremely charismatic incumbent. The end.

But again, keep touting that 'mandate'.
:clap:

Radar Chief
11-08-2012, 08:37 AM
Shortened your post there...

George Bush won re-election and he wasn't even liked by his own party in 2004.

It amazes me that you guys are painting this as anything more than it is - an incumbent won re-election because incumbents almost always win re-election. He wasn't quite as bad as Carter and Romney wasn't anywhere near as good as Regan or Clinton.

I'll go ahead and stop listening to the Democrats telling the Republicans where they need to change to get votes, thank you. You guys don't care who says what if they have an R after their name - period. Romney is FAR closer to Clinton than Obama is but you fellas just won't admit it because there's an R there. So when the centrist you called for loses, you start to shout from the rooftops about the death of conservativism. The Ds aren't voting for a Republican and Romney kicked the shit out of Obama among independents.

You guys won because Obama is an extremely charismatic incumbent. The end.

But again, keep touting that 'mandate'.

With a complicit MSM to carry his water, cover his mistakes.

NewChief
11-08-2012, 08:39 AM
Shortened your post there...

George Bush won re-election and he wasn't even liked by his own party in 2004.

It amazes me that you guys are painting this as anything more than it is - an incumbent won re-election because incumbents almost always win re-election. He wasn't quite as bad as Carter and Romney wasn't anywhere near as good as Regan or Clinton.

I'll go ahead and stop listening to the Democrats telling the Republicans where they need to change to get votes, thank you. You guys don't care who says what if they have an R after their name - period. Romney is FAR closer to Clinton than Obama is but you fellas just won't admit it because there's an R there. So when the centrist you called for loses, you start to shout from the rooftops about the death of conservativism. The Ds aren't voting for a Republican and Romney kicked the shit out of Obama among independents.

You guys won because Obama is an extremely charismatic incumbent. The end.

But again, keep touting that 'mandate'.

Was it 2000 (or midterms in 2002?) when the shoe was on the other foot? Everyone was saying that the Democratic Party was dead, foundering, needed to concede and change, etc... etc...

I just remember being on here and talking about it when it happened. I also remember doing it when I worked at Sierra Trading Post, so I think that would place it at 2000 or so. Anyway, I'll refrain from trying to "help" the GOP find its way. I'm sure they'll do just fine on their own. They've got plenty of smart (if misguided) people in leadership.

Hoover
11-08-2012, 08:39 AM
While I disagree with this article, I do believe that people who fall to their knees and worship Drudge, Breitbart, and Fox News are foolish. I'm as skeptical of them as I am of the leftwing news orgs.

stonedstooge
11-08-2012, 08:42 AM
While I disagree with this article, I do believe that people who fall to their knees and worship Drudge, Breitbart, and Fox News are foolish. I'm as skeptical of them as I am of the leftwing news orgs.

Seems like the only ones watching it are liberals. They bring it up nonstop like every conservative or independent locks on to it all day long

patteeu
11-08-2012, 08:42 AM
Because a mandate is when you win 50%+ of the vote.

That is a fact.

It's pretty clear that you don't know what the word "fact" means.

Donger
11-08-2012, 08:46 AM
Ah, I see that Direckshun still hasn't learned her lesson. Pity.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 08:47 AM
Shortened your post there...

George Bush won re-election and he wasn't even liked by his own party in 2004.

It amazes me that you guys are painting this as anything more than it is - an incumbent won re-election because incumbents almost always win re-election. He wasn't quite as bad as Carter and Romney wasn't anywhere near as good as Regan or Clinton.

I'd quibble with this here or there, but fair enough.

I'll go ahead and stop listening to the Democrats telling the Republicans where they need to change to get votes, thank you. You guys don't care who says what if they have an R after their name - period. Romney is FAR closer to Clinton than Obama is but you fellas just won't admit it because there's an R there. So when the centrist you called for loses, you start to shout from the rooftops about the death of conservativism. The Ds aren't voting for a Republican and Romney kicked the shit out of Obama among independents.

Actually Obama kicked the shit out of Romney with centrists, which is a different category than independents. Independents over the past four years became a misnomer because essentially a bunch of Republicans with Republican views got so upset with the party they renounced their membership, but still vote in line.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 08:49 AM
10 Pinochios - The truth is that the Drudgereport links to Nate Silver every single day.

Oh fantastic. Silver is in his blogroll at the bottom of his page, while Morris regularly received A1, top-of-the-fold treatment by Drudge.

That really destroys my argument.

Go Chiefs.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 08:50 AM
With a complicit MSM to carry his water, cover his mistakes.

The "complicit MSM" reported polling numbers exactly as they were.

The conservative media lied about them, cast undue doubt on the pollsters, and regularly cited outliers.

Dick Bull
11-08-2012, 08:51 AM
Is there video of Roves meltdown? I'd love to see it. Been at my farm and haven't had a chance to watch it during election nite but heard it was awesome




Every other reference has magically disappeared. The really good part starts at the 2 minute mark from FOX. The best breakdown is on dailshow.com

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 08:52 AM
While I disagree with this article, I do believe that people who fall to their knees and worship Drudge, Breitbart, and Fox News are foolish. I'm as skeptical of them as I am of the leftwing news orgs.

Fox is the same thing as it's always been, a decent divining rod and nothing more.

Fox is where I'll go to find interesting thoughts and ideas I hadn't considered. Then I have to run them through an internal BS filter to see what I do/do not buy into.

I still maintain that Glenn Beck was among the most useful outlets for that sort of critical reading for a very long time. He's gone kinda nuts over the last 2-3 years, but prior to that, he often did present useful information that would require a critical eye to discern useful info from bullshit. I don't see anyone doing that on MSNBC, they mostly just yell about Fox News a lot (which is what Beck has devolved into himself).

Drudge does the same thing.

If you don't go to places like that, you simply won't see a lot of these idea. And while many of us are smart people, we have other demands on our time that keep us from sitting there staring at raw data and pondering the whole-scale political ramifications of it all.

If the MSM could be trusted for a balance approach to providing those ideas, FoxNews wouldn't have much of a viewership.

You say Conservative Media has failed the Republicans, but the truth is that the MSM has as well. Republicans and conservative independents simply don't have a many options right now, so the one that provides more content (even if it does require a filter) is better than the one that filters it for you in the MSM.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 08:52 AM
Ah, I see that Direckshun still hasn't learned her lesson. Pity.

Direckshun and his ilk are why the country to chose a GOP House of Representatives and GOP in the governors mansions of most states. The Direckshuns of the left need to look inward if they ever hope to win in the houses of the people again.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 08:55 AM
Go Chiefs.

Consider your argument destroyed.

Radar Chief
11-08-2012, 08:55 AM
Was it 2000 (or midterms in 2002?) when the shoe was on the other foot? Everyone was saying that the Democratic Party was dead, foundering, needed to concede and change, etc... etc...

I just remember being on here and talking about it when it happened. I also remember doing it when I worked at Sierra Trading Post, so I think that would place it at 2000 or so. Anyway, I'll refrain from trying to "help" the GOP find its way. I'm sure they'll do just fine on their own. They've got plenty of smart (if misguided) people in leadership.

’02, after the midterms when the Republicans picked up House seats.
I remember it as well, Republicans trying to tell Democrats how to fix their party. What did the Democrats do? They certainly didn’t follow Republicans advice, they doubled down on the rhetoric like Republicans want your grandma eating dog food and this “war on women” :BS:.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 08:56 AM
I'd quibble with this here or there, but fair enough.

Me too. He's every bit as bad as Carter.

Radar Chief
11-08-2012, 08:58 AM
The "complicit MSM" reported polling numbers exactly as they were.
The conservative media lied about them, cast undue doubt on the pollsters, and regularly cited outliers.

They also pushed Obama’s agenda for him and worked to cover up his failures.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 09:01 AM
I'd quibble with this here or there, but fair enough.



Actually Obama kicked the shit out of Romney with centrists, which is a different category than independents. Independents over the past four years became a misnomer because essentially a bunch of Republicans with Republican views got so upset with the party they renounced their membership, but still vote in line.

That's the argument that should be made (though I don't think its an entirely accurate way of making it).

I disagree that independants are just jaded Republicans. It's a quaint way to disregard a beating amongst those that don't claim a party affiliation (as is the case with a ton of people who fall on both sides of the political spectrum), but it's not true.

What may be true, however, is that the electorate has made a slight shift to the left due to the energy created among the D voting base. In so doing, it has convinced what were formerly independents to call themselves Democrats (afterall, it's a popular thing to do right now with the coolest President since Kennedy in office).

In essence, the 'independent gap' is somewhat explained and offset by the rise in Democratic turnout. It seems very likely that the Democrats simply turned some independents into Democrats over the last 2 election cycles.

That said - good luck keeping them. Independents are the least informed, least reliable voters in the world. When you no longer have a guy that looks like a badass with his jacket slung open and a cig hanging off his lip as your candidate, you're going to lose some of the easily swayed that have so readily answered his call.

The answer for the Republicans is very simple - they need to inject some youth and enthusiasm into this party to try to inspire that same 're-branding' of independents. They need competent young candidates with experience and cross-over appeal.

They need Marco Rubio and Nikki Haley. Here's hoping neither of them do anything stupid over the next 4 years and can avoid saying rape too loudly.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 09:06 AM
’02, after the midterms when the Republicans picked up House seats.
I remember it as well, Republicans trying to tell Democrats how to fix their party. What did the Democrats do? They certainly didn’t follow Republicans advice, they doubled down on the rhetoric like Republicans want your grandma eating dog food and this “war on women” :BS:.

I have never seen a combination of perfect pitch and perfect idiocy like the "War on Women".

You know those times when a coach calls a screen pass right at the side of the field where the defense is sending a blitz? All hell breaks lose and the RB blows past a flat-footed safety for a 60 yard score before anyone knows how or what just happened.

That was it with the 'War on Women.' The Democrats knew that Obama would appeal to women voters and started early on with it. They kept hammering at it with some effect, but not overwhelming effect.

Then came Todd Fucking Aiken. And man did that snowball gather momentum fast. Todd Aiken was the blitz right into the face of the screen. He was the absolute worst thing that could happen at the absolute worst time. Then the entire Republican Party came under attack and suddenly in the span of 6 weeks, Romney had bled off 5/6 points in the national polls.

With a great late rally, he made it close again (and don't let the Ds sway you here, he did make it close), but there was just immeasurable damage done. Todd Akin, Mourdock and the early emphasis on abortion, etc... in the primary campaign was essentially a severed femoral artery. There was just no recovering from it, no matter how tight the turnicate got.

There was a prefect storm of electoral events here that buried the Republicans. It was a failure of the Party that led to these results, not a failure of many of their fundamental ideas.

Put these ideas behind the right candidates (and put the wrong candidates in the bottom of the !@#$ing ocean...jesus, Aiken), and they'll still resonate.

But they can't continue to lead with their chins on social issues. That has to take a back-seat and really needs to be softened at least a little bit.

Radar Chief
11-08-2012, 09:14 AM
I have never seen a combination of perfect pitch and perfect idiocy like the "War on Women".

You know those times when a coach calls a screen pass right at the side of the field where the defense is sending a blitz? All hell breaks lose and the RB blows past a flat-footed safety for a 60 yard score before anyone knows how or what just happened.

That was it with the 'War on Women.' The Democrats knew that Obama would appeal to women voters and started early on with it. They kept hammering at it with some effect, but not overwhelming effect.

Then came Todd ****ing Aiken. And man did that snowball gather momentum fast. Todd Aiken was the blitz right into the face of the screen. He was the absolute worst thing that could happen at the absolute worst time. Then the entire Republican Party came under attack and suddenly in the span of 6 weeks, Romney had bled off 5/6 points in the national polls.

With a great late rally, he made it close again (and don't let the Ds sway you here, he did make it close), but there was just immeasurable damage done. Todd Akin, Mourdock and the early emphasis on abortion, etc... in the primary campaign was essentially a severed femoral artery. There was just no recovering from it, no matter how tight the turnicate got.

There was a prefect storm of electoral events here that buried the Republicans. It was a failure of the Party that led to these results, not a failure of many of their fundamental ideas.

Put these ideas behind the right candidates (and put the wrong candidates in the bottom of the !@#$ing ocean...jesus, Aiken), and they'll still resonate.

But they can't continue to lead with their chins on social issues. That has to take a back-seat and really needs to be softened at least a little bit.

Well said, agreed.
The thing that just amazes me here isn’t that the Dems tried it, nor that the MSM pushed the rhetoric, its I thought there was enough alternative media out there and people paying attention to it that these tactics wouldn’t work. I was wrong.

DaFace
11-08-2012, 09:17 AM
If there are people who truly only get their news from FOX and Drudge, then I think the article is spot on. I'd really hope that people aren't so trusting to really assume that those sources aren't necessarily an unbiased viewpoint.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 09:19 AM
Well said, agreed.
The thing that just amazes me here isn’t that the Dems tried it, nor that the MSM pushed the rhetoric, its I thought there was enough alternative media out there and people paying attention to it that these tactics wouldn’t work. I was wrong.

Keep saying rape and you'll always lose. I don't expect the electorate to look past it - why should they?

Mourdock shouldn't have lost and wouldn't have lost but for the blood that Akin put in the water (his comments were actually quite fair, even if you don't agree with them). But again, perfect storm stuff, you just can't say what he said.

I pointed it out to a friend of mine - if the word 'rape' is involved in a question or answer - run. It's not designed to engender a response, but fuel emotion.

It's not new and it's not specific to either side of the spectrum. Bernard Shaw fully and finally ended Michael Dukakis's political career with his 'rape' question during the '88 election. Dukakis gave a reasonable answer when looked at in context...but it just doesn't matter.

The Democrats telegraphed the hell out of their haymaker and the idiot Republicans just stuck their faces right in there to get smoked.

It was just a horrendously bad job by the RNC. It cost some bad candidates their careers (Aiken) and it probably finished off a handful of good ones as well (Mourdock, Romney).

I'd say live and learn...but somehow I fear they won't.

penchief
11-08-2012, 09:20 AM
Maddow's a legitimate commentator. I don't know how anybody could even argue that.

She's damn good, too. Not a hack at all. Her arguments are well-reasoned, well-researched, and factual. She never shies away from a good debate. She's always inviting different opinions on her show and is willing to learn. Unfortunately because she is sharp and well-prepared she doesn't get many takers. She lays out complicated issues in a way that makes them easier to digest.

She is more than just opinion. She is very informative. I think a lot of righties, republicans, and conservatives could learn something by watching her show but I know that is ridiculous notion...

vailpass
11-08-2012, 09:25 AM
LMAO
Get a life
Get medical help

The_Grand_Illusion
11-08-2012, 09:29 AM
The radical leftists of the 60's and their culture they have been pushing for decades is now the majority. Lot's of deception over decades had to happen to get us to this point. The thread title is nothing but mere projection.

TGI

Brock
11-08-2012, 09:33 AM
The radical leftists of the 60's and their culture they have been pushing for decades is now the majority. Lot's of deception over decades had to happen to get us to this point. The thread title is nothing but mere projection.

TGI

Them damn beatles! And other longhairs!

Radar Chief
11-08-2012, 09:34 AM
The radical leftists of the 60's and their culture they have been pushing for decades is now the majority. Lot's of deception over decades had to happen to get us to this point. The thread title is nothing but mere projection.

TGI

Projection? I don’t think its at all inaccurate to say that right wing media lied, though that is only half the story as the left wing MSM lied just was well. Just more people fell for their lies than the right wing media’s.

Pitt Gorilla
11-08-2012, 09:36 AM
Is there video of Roves meltdown? I'd love to see it. Been at my farm and haven't had a chance to watch it during election nite but heard it was awesomei watched Fox News exclusively on election night. His refusal to believe the numbers was embarrassing. The rest of the clowns on there were pretty entertaining as well.

RedDread
11-08-2012, 09:38 AM
Every other reference has magically disappeared. The really good part starts at the 2 minute mark from FOX. The best breakdown is on dailshow.com

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-7-2012/post-democalypse-2012---america-takes-a-shower---karl-rove-s-math

The_Grand_Illusion
11-08-2012, 09:43 AM
Projection? I don’t think its at all inaccurate to say that right wing media lied, though that is only half the story as the left wing MSM lied just was well. Just more people fell for their lies than the right wing media’s.

I agree to a point but I don't think the right wing media thought this country had gone this far left like it played out. You are correct, more people fell for the left wing media as well. This president has been a disaster on many levels and that was downplayed, dismissed or even covered up. Much of it from the left wing media and parroted here. I see things through the prism of freedom versus tyranny and were definitely trending on the tyranny side but that's how this culture has been trending since the radical leftists of the 60's have taken over our culture.

TGI

CoMoChief
11-08-2012, 10:00 AM
The GOP shot itself in the foot, allowing Romney to get into a bullshit fest w/ Obama.

They could have won had they injected real issues into the debates

Ron Paul would have slaughtered Obama in a debate, because people like liberty, freedom, and want to be free from income taxes and the federal reserve.

There are MUCH more democrats that are on board w/ Paul than w/ Romney

Donger
11-08-2012, 10:06 AM
I watched the Rove portion and I agree that he looked like a fucking panicked idiot.

jettio
11-08-2012, 10:12 AM
I watched the Rove portion and I agree that he looked like a ****ing panicked idiot.

I think he knew that Romney had no chance in Ohio, but he might have been thinking that the polls were still open in Alaska, Hawaii and Micronesia and he thought an early call could affect turnout and the vote on downballot races there.

listopencil
11-08-2012, 10:14 AM
You trust Fox News...

First of all, no one should trust any news source. You should check out a variety of sources and pay attention to the actual quotes. By the way...sometimes the quotes aren't true either. It's rare but it happens. Also look for hard data in these articles and see if some of that data might be missing that applies to the story. Journalism is dead in this country. You have to be able to sift through the bullshit.

Donger
11-08-2012, 10:14 AM
Ron Paul would have slaughtered Obama in a debate, because people like liberty, freedom, and want to be free from income taxes and the federal reserve.

LMAO

It's still damn funny. Thanks for the laugh.

listopencil
11-08-2012, 10:23 AM
Because a mandate is when you win 50%+ of the vote.

That is a fact.





No, it's not a fact. In an election a mandate is generally regarded as an overwhelming victory. One that is won by a substantial margin. The irony is strong in this thread you created about bias in the media, when you can't resist expressing your own.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:30 AM
Fox is the same thing as it's always been, a decent divining rod and nothing more.

Fox is where I'll go to find interesting thoughts and ideas I hadn't considered. Then I have to run them through an internal BS filter to see what I do/do not buy into.

This is actually not a bad approach to Fox News, so long as you are using it as a point of reference, and not the point of reference.

The OP is directed to people with the latter approach.

At least until you got here:

I still maintain that Glenn Beck was among the most useful outlets for that sort of critical reading for a very long time. He's gone kinda nuts over the last 2-3 years, but prior to that, he often did present useful information that would require a critical eye to discern useful info from bullshit.

I like you a lot, but this is fucking crazy.

You say Conservative Media has failed the Republicans, but the truth is that the MSM has as well. Republicans and conservative independents simply don't have a many options right now, so the one that provides more content (even if it does require a filter) is better than the one that filters it for you in the MSM.

The mainstream media largely provided the poll numbers as they were, did they not?

What did Fox News do?

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:30 AM
Consider your argument destroyed.

Nice rebuttal.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:31 AM
’02, after the midterms when the Republicans picked up House seats.
I remember it as well, Republicans trying to tell Democrats how to fix their party. What did the Democrats do? They certainly didn’t follow Republicans advice, they doubled down on the rhetoric like Republicans want your grandma eating dog food and this “war on women” :BS:.

How'd that work out for them? How did 2004 play out?

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:32 AM
They also pushed Obama’s agenda for him and worked to cover up his failures.

No, they approached his agenda the same way they've approached this election's poll numbers.

You understand your argument is that the "MSM" is in the tank for Obama entirely -- except for the one time we have objective numerical returns that prove they didn't. But for everything else...

Radar Chief
11-08-2012, 10:36 AM
How'd that work out for them? How did 2004 play out?

Which “them”? If you’re talking about Democrats ’04 wasn’t the turning of the tide, ’06 was and from that point on it’s worked quite well.

Donger
11-08-2012, 10:36 AM
No, it's not a fact. In an election a mandate is generally regarded as an overwhelming victory. One that is won by a substantial margin. The irony is strong in this thread you created about bias in the media, when you can't resist expressing your own.

I presume that Direckshun is being silly here.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:37 AM
That's the argument that should be made (though I don't think its an entirely accurate way of making it).

I disagree that independants are just jaded Republicans. It's a quaint way to disregard a beating amongst those that don't claim a party affiliation (as is the case with a ton of people who fall on both sides of the political spectrum), but it's not true.

Swing and a miss.

Independents over the past 4-5 years have become more conservative as the number of people registering as Republicans has dropped.

That's my argument. Which is different than saying "independents are just jaded Republicans."

What may be true, however, is that the electorate has made a slight shift to the left due to the energy created among the D voting base. In so doing, it has convinced what were formerly independents to call themselves Democrats (afterall, it's a popular thing to do right now with the coolest President since Kennedy in office).

That's fair.

In essence, the 'independent gap' is somewhat explained and offset by the rise in Democratic turnout. It seems very likely that the Democrats simply turned some independents into Democrats over the last 2 election cycles.

Good point -- I really think we've both each described half of the "independents" issue, to be honest. Jaded Republicans joining the category, and indeps becoming more enthused for the President leaving the category.

The answer for the Republicans is very simple - they need to inject some youth and enthusiasm into this party to try to inspire that same 're-branding' of independents. They need competent young candidates with experience and cross-over appeal.

They need Marco Rubio and Nikki Haley. Here's hoping neither of them do anything stupid over the next 4 years and can avoid saying rape too loudly.

I don't disagree with this.

But my OP isn't about "how Republicans right the ship."

My thread is simply about one of the most serious symptoms the GOP has suffered from: an adherence to, loyalty for, and reliance on conservative media.

It has betrayed them, as anybody with a brain knew it was bound to.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:38 AM
I have never seen a combination of perfect pitch and perfect idiocy like the "War on Women".

You missed "War on Christmas."

That was an actual thing, according to the conservative media.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:39 AM
If there are people who truly only get their news from FOX and Drudge, then I think the article is spot on. I'd really hope that people aren't so trusting to really assume that those sources aren't necessarily an unbiased viewpoint.

You don't hang around DC much, do you.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:40 AM
First of all, no one should trust any news source. You should check out a variety of sources and pay attention to the actual quotes. By the way...sometimes the quotes aren't true either. It's rare but it happens. Also look for hard data in these articles and see if some of that data might be missing that applies to the story. Journalism is dead in this country. You have to be able to sift through the bullshit.

Solid.

Radar Chief
11-08-2012, 10:41 AM
No, they approached his agenda the same way they've approached this election's poll numbers.

You understand your argument is that the "MSM" is in the tank for Obama entirely -- except for the one time we have objective numerical returns that prove they didn't. But for everything else...

:spock: They got polling numbers right but that’s not even what I’m talking about.
Yes, I thought it was pretty obvious that I’m saying the MSM is in the tank for Obama.
No, the MSM did not approach his agenda “fairly”. Were you sleep walking through the Fluck press conference set up to look like a congressional hearing?

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:41 AM
No, it's not a fact. In an election a mandate is generally regarded as an overwhelming victory. One that is won by a substantial margin. The irony is strong in this thread you created about bias in the media, when you can't resist expressing your own.

I don't deny I have a bias.

Which is why I try to absorb various news outlets with various points of view.

It's impossible to shed your bias.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 10:42 AM
First of all, no one should trust any news source. You should check out a variety of sources and pay attention to the actual quotes. By the way...sometimes the quotes aren't true either. It's rare but it happens. Also look for hard data in these articles and see if some of that data might be missing that applies to the story. Journalism is dead in this country. You have to be able to sift through the bullshit.

This is true. I remember when I first started watching CSPAN (when I was young and had cable TV). It was amazing to see the difference between what a politician actually said on the floor of Congress and how it was reported the next day in the newspaper.

A more recent example is reporting on a Pentagon report produced after sifting through reams of captured Iraqi documents. Mainstream news sources reported that the Pentagon had found no links between Saddam and al Qaeda. But if you look in the report, you find not only links, but collaborative links between Saddam and Ayman al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Zawahiri's EIJ merged with bin Laden's al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and at the time of 9/11, most of al Qaeda's senior leadership supplied by EIJ.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 10:43 AM
The mainstream media largely provided the poll numbers as they were, did they not?

What did Fox News do?

Anyone turning to television of any sort for poll results is a moron.

It's a poll - read it. That's how it's disseminated. Go to realclearpolitics and read them. Derive your results from there.

I'm not going to defend stupid people doing stupid things, nor do I think there is a very large segment of the voting population, conservative or otherwise, that engaged in that behavior.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 10:44 AM
Nice rebuttal.

As if your bald assertion was any better.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:44 AM
Which “them”? If you’re talking about Democrats ’04 wasn’t the turning of the tide, ’06 was and from that point on it’s worked quite well.

The Democrats also had the benefit of a horrifically mismanaged war in 2006, and then a shattered economy in 2008. It's hard to tell if it was the Democrats' "doubling down" on alleged lies that scored them those victories.

George W. Bush scored them those victories.

listopencil
11-08-2012, 10:45 AM
I don't deny I have a bias.

Which is why I try to absorb various news outlets with various points of view.

It's impossible to shed your bias.

Fair enough.

Fish
11-08-2012, 10:45 AM
I agree to a point but I don't think the right wing media thought this country had gone this far left like it played out. You are correct, more people fell for the left wing media as well. This president has been a disaster on many levels and that was downplayed, dismissed or even covered up. Much of it from the left wing media and parroted here. I see things through the prism of freedom versus tyranny and were definitely trending on the tyranny side but that's how this culture has been trending since the radical leftists of the 60's have taken over our culture.

TGI

I just don't get this line of thought. Downplayed, dismissed, or even covered up? Really? People were just unaware of the failures of the administration, and simply missed the fact that the economy sucks and everyone is struggling? I'm not really seeing how that's possible...

Radar Chief
11-08-2012, 10:47 AM
The Democrats also had the benefit of a horrifically mismanaged war in 2006, and then a shattered economy in 2008. It's hard to tell if it was the Democrats' "doubling down" on alleged lies that scored them those victories.

George W. Bush scored them those victories.

I won’t disagree that Bush did the Republicans no favors in ’06 and ’08.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:47 AM
:spock: They got polling numbers right but that’s not even what I’m talking about.
Yes, I thought it was pretty obvious that I’m saying the MSM is in the tank for Obama.
No, the MSM did not approach his agenda “fairly”. Were you sleep walking through the Fluck press conference set up to look like a congressional hearing?

The media didn't "get the polling numbers right." They just reported the polling numbers. Period.

The conservative media, by contrast, plucked out all the favorable Romney outliers.

The New York Times recruited and employed the absolute best polling mathematician in the country. The Drudge Report repeatedly linked to Dick Morris.

So, your argument is that the MSM is in the tank for Obama. Why were they not just plucking hilarious outliers that favored him, like the conservative media was for Romney?

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:48 AM
Anyone turning to television of any sort for poll results is a moron.

It's a poll - read it. That's how it's disseminated. Go to realclearpolitics and read them. Derive your results from there.

I'm not going to defend stupid people doing stupid things, nor do I think there is a very large segment of the voting population, conservative or otherwise, that engaged in that behavior.

How are Fox News' ratings?

Do you think the majority of those folks are regular, consistent viewers who predominantly rely on the network for information? Or just casual channel surfers like yourself looking to accumulate an additional opinion on current events?

Radar Chief
11-08-2012, 10:49 AM
I just don't get this line of thought. Downplayed, dismissed, or even covered up? Really? People were just unaware of the failures of the administration, and simply missed the fact that the economy sucks and everyone is struggling? I'm not really seeing how that's possible...

Exit polling seems to indicate most Obama voters think the economy is getting better.
They also seem to indicate a lot of single issue women voters along with all the minorities.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:50 AM
As if your bald assertion was any better.

I'm not even entirely sure you're aware of what I'm arguing, to be honest.

Radar Chief
11-08-2012, 10:51 AM
So, your argument is that the MSM is in the tank for Obama. Why were they not just plucking hilarious outliers that favored him, like the conservative media was for Romney?

Um, they did. :spock:

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:52 AM
Um, they did.

Go ahead and explain. I'm listening. Who specifically are you referring to.

Fish
11-08-2012, 10:53 AM
Exit polling seems to indicate most Obama voters think the economy is getting better.
They also seem to indicate a lot of single issue women voters along with all the minorities.

OK. But how would that fact lead one to believe that the media is lying or covering up info for Obama? I don't see the connection.

DaFace
11-08-2012, 10:53 AM
You don't hang around DC much, do you.

Nope, and I'll probably bow out shortly. It's been interesting to see this side of the Planet a bit, but now it's quickly turning back into monkeys flinging poo, so I think I'll get out before I get a nice shit pile to the face.

Radar Chief
11-08-2012, 10:54 AM
Go ahead and explain. I'm listening. Who specifically are you referring to.

:eek: Rush calls Fluck a slut!
Were you seriously not paying attention?

patteeu
11-08-2012, 10:54 AM
I'm not even entirely sure you're aware of what I'm arguing, to be honest.

Whatever you're arguing, you led it off with a false statistic.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 10:55 AM
How are Fox News' ratings?

Do you think the majority of those folks are regular, consistent viewers who predominantly rely on the network for information? Or just casual channel surfers like yourself looking to accumulate an additional opinion on current events?

Pretty exceptional.

I think most of them are the latter. Or at least to the same extent that college kids look to the Daily Show as their primary news source.

Hell, the election results speak for themselves in that regard - if Fox News carried the cache that ABC News did, Obama would've been tried for treason and hanged, not given another 4 years.

I think it's clear that the vast vast majority of Americans view Fox as supplemental in nature. My concern is that they don't view ABC, CBS or NBC in the same light.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:55 AM
:eek: Rush calls Fluck a slut!
Were you seriously not paying attention?

You lost me. I thought we were talking about the MSM's allegedly gross distortions of poll numbers.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:56 AM
I think most of them are the latter. Or at least to the same extent that college kids look to the Daily Show as their primary news source.

Hell, the election results speak for themselves in that regard - if Fox News carried the cache that ABC News did, Obama would've been tried for treason and hanged, not given another 4 years.

I think it's clear that the vast vast majority of Americans view Fox as supplemental in nature. My concern is that they don't view ABC, CBS or NBC in the same light.

Based on... ?

Donger
11-08-2012, 10:56 AM
Direckshun, was 2004 a mandate for Bush? Why or why not?

listopencil
11-08-2012, 10:56 AM
Swing and a miss.

Independents over the past 4-5 years have become more conservative as the number of people registering as Republicans has dropped.



That would not surprise me in the least. In my opinion the Republican party isn't Conservative. I've seen the Neo-Con label thrown around, and every time it is I smell bullshit. To me "conservative" means that you want to conserve rights, conserve the Constitution, conserve the fundamental concepts that the nation was founded on. The Pilgrims didn't create this nation. They colonized this continent. Big difference.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 10:57 AM
Direckshun, was 2004 a mandate for Bush? Why or why not?

I think pretty clearly it was.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 10:58 AM
You lost me. I thought we were talking about the MSM's gross distortions of poll numbers.

I think the entire conversation has gone beyond that one. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it sure looked to me like Radar, myself and others have taken the poll numbers discussion to speak to the broader trends prevalent among major media outlets.

listopencil
11-08-2012, 10:58 AM
Direckshun, was 2004 a mandate for Bush? Why or why not?


It was a geographic mandate because he won 31 states, right?

Donger
11-08-2012, 10:58 AM
I think pretty clearly it was.

Just because he won by 50.6%? Did you believe it was a mandate then or has your opinion evolved?

Cave Johnson
11-08-2012, 10:59 AM
The GOP shot itself in the foot, allowing Romney to get into a bullshit fest w/ Obama.

They could have won had they injected real issues into the debates

Ron Paul would have slaughtered Obama in a debate, because people like liberty, freedom, and want to be free from income taxes and the federal reserve.

There are MUCH more democrats that are on board w/ Paul than w/ Romney

R's weren't conservative enough!

/morons

listopencil
11-08-2012, 10:59 AM
I think pretty clearly it was.

I don't think it was. The guy got 50.7% of the votes. He won a bunch of states because that's how the game is set up.

Radar Chief
11-08-2012, 11:00 AM
OK. But how would that fact lead one to believe that the media is lying or covering up info for Obama? I don't see the connection.

Where is the economy getting better? I’m not seeing any tangible evidence of it.
How often did you hear about the failure of the subsidized Green Energy companies?
“Legitimate rape” made more headlines than shovel ready jobs going to Chinese construction companies, never mind the fake press conference set up to look like a congressional hear for Fluck.

listopencil
11-08-2012, 11:01 AM
R's weren't conservative enough!

/morons

They needed less Neo and more Con.

Radar Chief
11-08-2012, 11:05 AM
I think the entire conversation has gone beyond that one. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it sure looked to me like Radar, myself and others have taken the poll numbers discussion to speak to the broader trends prevalent among major media outlets.

I didn’t think it was that hard to follow, I haven’t mentioned polling numbers once. No disagreement there.

Cave Johnson
11-08-2012, 11:05 AM
They needed less Neo and more Con.

Absolutely. A two party system needs a rational, fact-based opposition, as opposed to the Jesus riding a dinosaur crowd they're now courting.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 11:09 AM
Based on... ?

The same thing you're basing your opinion on - supposition based on outcomes.

The roar would've been much louder on Libya had there truly been this massive cabal of FoxNews sycophants.

listopencil
11-08-2012, 11:19 AM
Absolutely. A two party system needs a rational, fact-based opposition, as opposed to the Jesus riding a dinosaur crowd they're now courting.

Let's see...Bush:

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job."

in 2004 in PA. There are a bunch more here, that I haven't verified, but this one looks legit:

http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/wf081507.htm


Romney:

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government...

2006 "Faith In America" address in the NY times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/politics/06text-romney.html?pagewanted=print

FishingRod
11-08-2012, 12:44 PM
Romney:

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government...

2006 "Faith In America" address in the NY times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/politics/06text-romney.html?pagewanted=print

Though I am not at all a religious person I do like this. It goes back to the idea of inalienable rights. We are not supposed to be “subjects” ruled by our Government. “

bsp4444
11-08-2012, 12:49 PM
Yeah it does. People on the other side are just as bad...

I don't believe this. Find me a liberal Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck.

FishingRod
11-08-2012, 12:59 PM
Keith Olberman

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 01:01 PM
I don't believe this. Find me a liberal Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck.

Ed Schultz and Chris "Tingles" Mathews. Bill Maher is easily the flip-side of the Ann Coulter coin.

And yes, Rachel Maddow qualifies as well.

I know, your guys are never as bad as their guys. Here's the problem - they absolutely are.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 01:54 PM
I don't believe this. Find me a liberal Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck.

Dude. :facepalm:

bsp4444
11-08-2012, 01:58 PM
Call me close minded, but I will never be convinced that any of these liberal media hacks are as hateful and venemous as Coulter.

listopencil
11-08-2012, 02:00 PM
Though I am not at all a religious person I do like this. It goes back to the idea of inalienable rights. We are not supposed to be “subjects” ruled by our Government. “


Sure, it sounds good. The problem is that our liberty is neither a gift from God nor an indulgence of the government.

mnchiefsguy
11-08-2012, 02:00 PM
Call me close minded, but I will never be convinced that any of these liberal media hacks are as hateful and venemous as Coulter.

You have not watched any MSNBC then. O'Donnell and Ed Schultz spew venom all the time. Bill Mahrer has had Ann Coulter on his show, he is at least her equal if not more so.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 02:00 PM
Call me close minded, but I will never be convinced that any of these liberal media hacks are as hateful and venemous as Coulter.

You're closed minded.

Bill Maher is every bit as hateful and venomous as Ann Coulter. The shit he says and does to people that have committed no crime but to disagree with him is beyond the pale.

You're either not well-versed in the vitriol extolled by your side of the aisle, or you're just deaf to it.

Fish
11-08-2012, 02:01 PM
Call me close minded, but I will never be convinced that any of these liberal media hacks are as hateful and venemous as Coulter.

Perhaps you think they're more hateful, because you already have bias toward one side?

listopencil
11-08-2012, 02:01 PM
Sure, it sounds good. The problem is that our liberty is neither a gift from God nor an indulgence of the government.


And if you think that's a minor trifle go witness KILLER CLOWN attempting to rewrite the Constitution in the Beck thread.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 02:02 PM
Call me close minded, but I will never be convinced that any of these liberal media hacks are as hateful and venemous as Coulter.

Because conservatives deserve it when your hacks get hateful and venomous, amirite? :shake:

Bill Maher two days ago referring to Karl Rove on FoxNews' election coverage:

"It was a little [like] Hitler's bunker, wasn't it?" Maher quipped, referring to the location of the Nazi ruler's suicide. "I wanted to rush in with cyanide capsules there. I thought he was going to say, 'I do not want to live in a world without National Socialism.' Okay, Mrs. Goebbels."

patteeu
11-08-2012, 02:04 PM
Sure, it sounds good. The problem is that our liberty is neither a gift from God nor an indulgence of the government.

Are they inalienable or not? If they are, then there's nothing wrong with the religious equating that to a gift from God even if you'd rather say they just arise from nature. It's a belief vs belief argument and you can't win that one. If they aren't, you've got an issue with the basic tenets of our country.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 02:05 PM
Because conservatives deserve it when your hacks get hateful and venomous, amirite? :shake:

Bill Maher two days ago referring to Karl Rove on FoxNews' election coverage:

Yeah, I'm sorry, but there's nobody on either side that beats Bill Maher.

Any time a liberal backs that guy, they are of no use to me. There isn't room for people like Bill Maher in an environment that hopes to reasonably debate anything.

Coulter is extremist and certainly vicious in her criticisms. Maher, on the other hand, I believe genuinely loathes the people he criticizes. I feel he sees no human worth in people that disagree with him.

He's the worst of the worst. But of course, the Libs swear up and down that they don't have anyone like that damn awful blonde woman...

listopencil
11-08-2012, 03:00 PM
Are they inalienable or not? If they are, then there's nothing wrong with the religious equating that to a gift from God even if you'd rather say they just arise from nature. It's a belief vs belief argument and you can't win that one. If they aren't, you've got an issue with the basic tenets of our country.

Not true. That phrase comes from the Declaration Of Independence. Our nation was founded upon the Constitution. Our liberty is given to us by "We the people".

tiptap
11-08-2012, 03:00 PM
Bill Maher is the spokesmen for all that is Democratic. There is no one on the Republican side in media with the marshaling power of Bill Maher.

listopencil
11-08-2012, 03:04 PM
Not true. That phrase comes from the Declaration Of Independence. Our nation was founded upon the Constitution. Our liberty is given to us by "We the people".

For instance, based on the Declaration Of Independence, the South was within its rights to secede from the Union. They could use Biblical references to slavery in that case to form a reasonable argument against emancipation even.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 03:09 PM
Not true. That phrase comes from the Declaration Of Independence. Our nation was founded upon the Constitution. Our liberty is given to us by "We the people".

That's a misreading of the philosophical underpinnings of our founding, IMO.

listopencil
11-08-2012, 03:14 PM
That's a misreading of the philosophical underpinnings of our founding, IMO.

Not at all. They had experience dealing with countries where State and Church were mixed. They were well aware of the power of churches in Europe and rule by divine right. They wanted the law to be based on the will of the people, to self govern as much as is realistically possible. That is a common theme running through our Constitution. That's why they chose a republic.

KChiefer
11-08-2012, 03:18 PM
Too bad the polls weren't located at Chick-Fil-A.

bsp4444
11-08-2012, 03:20 PM
Perhaps you think they're more hateful, because you already have bias toward one side?

I think this is absolutely the case.

listopencil
11-08-2012, 03:21 PM
That's a misreading of the philosophical underpinnings of our founding, IMO.


There a lot of quotes available from John Adams. Some of them seem to outright condemn religion and some of them are more abiding of it. Digging through he seems to acknowledge a person's right to engage in religious practices of their choice while decrying any existence of it in formal government policy.

Fish
11-08-2012, 03:27 PM
I think this is absolutely the case.

No worries if that's the case. Everybody's been there. Acknowledging your own bias indicates better understanding of both sides...

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 03:28 PM
Not true. That phrase comes from the Declaration Of Independence. Our nation was founded upon the Constitution. Our liberty is given to us by "We the people".

Except it was really given to us by the states who had to ratify it. If you really want to be technical about it, the Constitution was a violation of the Articles of Confederation which was signed in perpetuity and could only be amended unanimously. The original Constitutional Convention was a runaway convention. It had no right to serve up a new document.

Either way, the Constitution is still a natural rights document which is what the Declaration is. Natural rights means our rights precede govt—they are not given to us by govt. If that were the case govt can take them away. You're making a positive rights argument, not a natural law one.
This is the key difference between our Constitution and all others in the world and it's an important distinction.

cosmo20002
11-08-2012, 03:32 PM
Dude,

Your guy won the election.

If you want to be classy about it, you might think about dialing it back a little.

Fuck that. nlmnlmnlmnlmnlmnlm

listopencil
11-08-2012, 03:39 PM
Except it was really given to us by the states who had to ratify it. If you really want to be technical about it, the Constitution was a violation of the Articles of Confederation which was signed in perpetuity and could only be amended unanimously. The original Constitutional Convention was a runaway convention. It had no right to serve up a new document.

Either way, the Constitution is still a natural rights document which is what the Declaration is. Natural rights means our rights precede govt—they are not given to us by govt. If that were the case govt can take them away. You're making a positive rights argument, not a natural law one.
This is the key difference between our Constitution and all others in the world and it's an important distinction.

Sure it was meant to supersede the Articles out of political necessity. It was signed off on by the representatives of the states thus enforcing the notion of a republic. The interesting thing about the Constitution is that it recognizes the power of the people, through representation, to control the government. Yes the government can pass laws that take away rights but then we can vote those members out of office. It's not perfect but it's one way to go and it does guarantee that the ultimate power resides within us as a group-not the government. That's the difference. The DoI is a letter to the world explaining why we decided to secede from Britain. Our laws are not based on it. The Constitution is our foundation. It establishes us as a representational republic with ultimate power coming from the citizens of the country. Not God.

cosmo20002
11-08-2012, 03:40 PM
Sure it does. Why else would the liberal media be going on about Obama having a mandate, when he barely won the popular vote, and is the first President in history to be re-elected with LESS electoral votes than he got the first time.



From which right-wing media source did you get that?

Trying to diminsh his win any way you can. Its like telling a repeat Super Bowl champion, "Before you scored 40 points. This time you only scored 30. You suck!"

cosmo20002
11-08-2012, 03:44 PM
Ah the old law nature that says both sides must be equal and opposite in all things. It must be comforting, and help stave off any painful introspection, to know than the matter what scurrilous bullshit your side pulls - the other side is always just as bad.

There is no equivalent on the left of the Rupert Murdoch media empire – not in viewership, not in intensity, not in brazenness, not in the level to which their constituents buy everything they're selling.

If it was only the Murdoch empire. Go down a level to the Breitbarts and such, and you're lucky to find anything resembling something true.

cosmo20002
11-08-2012, 03:46 PM
Then Hannity is a legitimate commentator as well. I do not see any difference between them other than their political views. But again, I do not watch either of their shows enough to be an expert.

Both Hannity and Maddow strike me as severely partisan for their points of view.

One is fact-based. The other has Dick Morris as a frequent guest. And I can't really stand listening to Maddow.

cosmo20002
11-08-2012, 03:51 PM
While I disagree with this article, I do believe that people who fall to their knees and worship Drudge, Breitbart, and Fox News are foolish. I'm as skeptical of them as I am of the leftwing news orgs.

There was some guy on here a few days ago going on about Romney having Iowa locked up. Just thinking about those fools who ate that up makes me ROFL.

dirk digler
11-08-2012, 03:52 PM
Good thread D and think we can all admit Bill Maher was right.

I was going to start a similar one but basically I was going to give some friendly advice to my conservative friends which was turn off Fox News and stop listening to Rush, Hannity, and Beck. There is alot of smart conservatives out there like Jonah Goldberg, Reihan Salam, Elizabeth Hoover, Laura Ingraham and even Andrew Sullivan but not Michelle Malkin.

I hardly ever watch MSNBC or Maddow but I did catch a little last night and she said something that was spot on and I believe very true. Enjoy.


Ohio really did go to President Obama last night. And he really did win. And he really was born in Hawaii. And he really is
legitimately president of the United States, again.

And the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make up a fake unemployment rate last month. And the Congressional Research Service really can find no
evidence that cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy. And the polls were not skewed to oversample Democrats. And Nate Silver was not
making up fake projections about the election to make conservatives feel bad. Nate Silver was doing math.

And climate change is real. And rape really does cause pregnancy sometimes. And evolution is a thing.

And Benghazi was an attack on us, it was not a scandal by us.

And nobody is taking away anyone`s guns. And taxes have not gone up. And the deficit is dropping, actually.

And Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction.

And the moon landing was real. And FEMA is not building concentration camps. And U.N. election observers are not taking over Texas. And moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry and the financial services industry in this country are not the same thing as communism.

Listen, last night was a good night for liberals and for Democrats for very obvious reasons, but it was also, possibly, a good night for this country as a whole, because in this country, we have a two-party system in government. And the idea is supposed to be that the two sides, both come up with ways to confront and fix the real problems facing our country.

They both propose possible solutions to our real problems. And we debate between those possible solutions.

And by the process of debate, we pick the best idea. That competition between good ideas from both sides about real problems in the real country
should result in our country having better choices, better options, than if only one side is really working on the hard stuff.

And the if the Republican Party and the conservative movement and the conservative media is stuck in a vacuum-sealed door-locked spin cycle of
telling each other what makes them feel good and denying the factual, lived truth of the world, then we are all deprived as a nation of the
constructive debate about competing feasible ideas about real problems.

Last night the Republicans got shellacked, and they had no idea it was coming. And we saw them in real time, in real humiliating time, not
believe it, even as it was happening to them.

And unless they are going to is secede, they are going to have to pop the factual bubble they have been so happy living inside if they do not
want to get shellacked again. And that will be a painful process for them, but it will be good for the whole country, left, right, and center. You
guys, we`re counting on you. Wake up.

There are real problems in the world. There are real, knowable facts in the world. Let`s accept those and talk about how we might approach our problems differently. Let`s move on from there.

If the Republican Party and the conservative movement and conservative media are forced to do that by the humiliation they were dealt last night,
we will all be better off as a nation.

cosmo20002
11-08-2012, 03:54 PM
I have never seen a combination of perfect pitch and perfect idiocy like the "War on Women".



You ever see the War on Christmas?

KChiefer
11-08-2012, 03:55 PM
You ever see the War on Christmas?

http://popdose.com/wp-content/uploads/Hammer.jpg

cosmo20002
11-08-2012, 03:56 PM
The radical leftists of the 60's and their culture they have been pushing for decades is now the majority. Lot's of deception over decades had to happen to get us to this point. The thread title is nothing but mere projection.

TGI

Those darn hippies with their long hair, rock 'n roll and blue jeans!

RNR
11-08-2012, 04:07 PM
Not at all. They had experience dealing with countries where State and Church were mixed. They were well aware of the power of churches in Europe and rule by divine right. They wanted the law to be based on the will of the people, to self govern as much as is realistically possible. That is a common theme running through our Constitution. That's why they chose a republic.

One of my disagreements with the right is the revisionist bullshit they keep trying to shove down our throats. There is a wall of separation that they have tried to dismiss for years. This country WAS NOT founded as a Christian nation. Madison and Jefferson made that VERY clear. The revised the pledge of of allegiance adding "one nation under god" and adding " in god we trust" to our currency. All happened in the 50s oh wait some Glenn Beck troll will point out it appeared on the nickel in the late 30s if I recall right. Whatever these people try to claim this government was not set up secular and they are simply full of shit. You have the right to believe as you wish but those beliefs were never intended to be integrated into our government. For those who follow whatever belief system good for you and I am glad it provides you happiness. I will fight for your right to do so, just don't try to teach that nonsense to our children in school and don't try to claim that it had anything to do with the founding of our country~

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 04:08 PM
I was going to start a similar one but basically I was going to give some friendly advice to my conservative friends which was turn off Fox News and stop listening to Rush, Hannity, and Beck. There is alot of smart conservatives out there like Jonah Goldberg, Reihan Salam, Elizabeth Hoover, Laura Ingraham and even Andrew Sullivan but not Michelle Malkin...

Wanted to drop in just to see how the celebration was going. I see its going well. I think the OP has some decent points. And while I wasnt sure that Romney was going to win, I was optimistic.

It was pretty apparent that as the swing states were close and others that were 'in play' werent which way this was going.

While I dont feel 'lied' to necessarily, it is a bit disappointing to see that it was close or within 1 or 2 points that it really wasnt. One point I want to make is that Romney got fewer votes than McCain did, and that is surprising.

So, to the quote above...I have decided to disconnect...completely. Im not listening to any of it, left or right. I have pretty much given up. While time may change that, I figure we have a country that wants a larger government in everyone's life. I have to live with that now, and Im willing to accept that.

As long as I dont get persecuted for holding opposing views from the majority of the country, I'll go on living my life and leave the governing to those that think the only solution is higher taxes, printing money and presidential fiat.

I dont honestly think there will be another presidential election in my lifetime. Again, Im willing to accept it.

I'll drop by off and on still, but for all intents and purposes the takers now outnumber the producers in this country. Congrats, you all won! Enjoy!

patteeu
11-08-2012, 04:21 PM
Not at all. They had experience dealing with countries where State and Church were mixed. They were well aware of the power of churches in Europe and rule by divine right. They wanted the law to be based on the will of the people, to self govern as much as is realistically possible. That is a common theme running through our Constitution. That's why they chose a republic.

This isn't a state and church issue. Whether your "God" is Jesus or Mother Nature doesn't matter, but the founding fathers didn't believe that they, as representatives of the people, were bestowing rights. They believed that rights were inherent in our being. For a religious person, that means bestowed by God.

penchief
11-08-2012, 04:23 PM
Because conservatives deserve it when your hacks get hateful and venomous, amirite? :shake:

Bill Maher two days ago referring to Karl Rove on FoxNews' election coverage:

Umm, yeah. I think that joke went over your head. Pretty sure he was not calling him a nazi. I'm reasonably sure he was equating Rove's role as a mastermind hunkered down and in complete denial. I also heard another version of the same reference from some comedian about, "still having two tank brigades on the eastern front..."

I could be wrong but that's not the way I took it. Maybe you're right, though. But maybe you're just missing the irony...

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:24 PM
I think the entire conversation has gone beyond that one. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it sure looked to me like Radar, myself and others have taken the poll numbers discussion to speak to the broader trends prevalent among major media outlets.

I haven’t mentioned polling numbers once. No disagreement there.

Fair enough.

But I bring up the polls for a reason.

For all your crowing about the media being liberal, part of that crowing was over the course of this election season that the media was reporting on polls in ways that were overtly supportive of the Obama campaign.

You were wrong in that assessment. The media was reporting on the polls accurately. It just didn't fit your preferred narrative so you automatically assumed it was an overt slant in favor of Obama.

I think that's indicative of almost every other subject.
Income inequality?
Illegal immigration?
Healthcare?
Energy?
Foreign policy?
Developments in the Middle East?
Gay rights?

You need to explain how "the media" is treating these subjects any differently than it was treating the poll numbers, which turned out to be dead-on accurate.

KChiefer
11-08-2012, 04:24 PM
...
I dont honestly think there will be another presidential election in my lifetime. Again, Im willing to accept it.
...

Are you terminally ill or just had your final dose of the Glenn Beck kool-aid?

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:25 PM
Just because he won by 50.6%? Did you believe it was a mandate then or has your opinion evolved?

I believed it was a mandate then. Why would that necessitate an evolving opinion?

I think most elections act as a mandate for the victor. The only ones that don't are the incredibly contentious, razor-thin ones, or the ones where the victor fell short of a majority, or actually lost the popular vote.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:25 PM
R's weren't conservative enough!

/morons

Believe it or not, this is the narrative on talk radio today.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:26 PM
I don't think it was. The guy got 50.7% of the votes. He won a bunch of states because that's how the game is set up.

Fair enough -- we clearly have differing opinions on what constitutes a mandate.

To me: if you're winning over half the vote, you've won a mandate for your agenda.

It's a democracy. You need one more yay than you do a nay.

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 04:26 PM
Are you terminally ill or just had your final dose of the Glenn Beck kool-aid?

Nope...a realist. FTR, Beck has never stated such. Neither has Rush or Hannity. Im alone in that assessment. I could be wrong. Maybe there will be another. It will most likely between two people that are both left of center. It wont matter.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:28 PM
Absolutely. A two party system needs a rational, fact-based opposition, as opposed to the Jesus riding a dinosaur crowd they're now courting.

Heh.

cosmo20002
11-08-2012, 04:30 PM
You're closed minded.

Bill Maher is every bit as hateful and venomous as Ann Coulter. The shit he says and does to people that have committed no crime but to disagree with him is beyond the pale.

You're either not well-versed in the vitriol extolled by your side of the aisle, or you're just deaf to it.

Hateful and venemous is not the relevant measure. Factual or full of shit is the relevant measure and the right loses by a long ways.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:31 PM
The same thing you're basing your opinion on - supposition based on outcomes.

The roar would've been much louder on Libya had there truly been this massive cabal of FoxNews sycophants.

You've seriously got to be kidding me.

So you're saying that Fox gets these huge ratings from casual channel-surfers, not dedicated, regular watchers?

1 in 5 Americans describe themselves as "regularly" watching Fox News.

Doesn't quite match up with the narrative you're trying to sell.

BigRedChief
11-08-2012, 04:32 PM
Dude,

Your guy won the election.

If you want to be classy about it, you might think about dialing it back a little.lest we forget my choice. :harumph:

But the main point is still valid. If you are only getting your news from Fox News, reading Drudge and listening to Limbaugh, you are getting a very slanted view of the world.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:33 PM
Ed Schultz and Chris "Tingles" Mathews. Bill Maher is easily the flip-side of the Ann Coulter coin.

And yes, Rachel Maddow qualifies as well.

I know, your guys are never as bad as their guys. Here's the problem - they absolutely are.

You're dead wrong.

You may disagree with her take on the world, but she does not regularly air distortions and blatant mistruths.

Maddow is basically a liberal George Will, should he have a TV program.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:33 PM
You have not watched any MSNBC then. O'Donnell and Ed Schultz spew venom all the time. Bill Mahrer has had Ann Coulter on his show, he is at least her equal if not more so.

I actually agree with these comparisons.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:35 PM
Yeah, I'm sorry, but there's nobody on either side that beats Bill Maher.

Any time a liberal backs that guy, they are of no use to me. There isn't room for people like Bill Maher in an environment that hopes to reasonably debate anything.

Coulter is extremist and certainly vicious in her criticisms. Maher, on the other hand, I believe genuinely loathes the people he criticizes. I feel he sees no human worth in people that disagree with him.

He's the worst of the worst. But of course, the Libs swear up and down that they don't have anyone like that damn awful blonde woman...

While I'm not disagreeing about Maher, but you have to be goddamn blind not to see the same character trait in Coulter.

I'm assuming you haven't read one of her books, or have ever seen her speak on a campus.

She's not just extremist, although she is. She is atrocious.

aturnis
11-08-2012, 04:36 PM
Yeah, no.

There is no liberal equivalent to talk radio. MSNBC is definitively liberal but is not intrinsically tied financially and politically to the Democratic Party in the way Fox News is. And coming from someone who reads both religiously, the liberal blogosphere is heads and shoulders more informed and more factual than the conservative blogosphere.

MSNBC is definitively biased, but they absolutely do not fabricate ridiculous conspiracies to the insane level that the right wing machine does.

They may spin words a bit now and then, but not to the extreme of Fox News. Mostly, they just wait and pounce with a GOTCHA! Which is childish enough without making things up...

cosmo20002
11-08-2012, 04:36 PM
I dont honestly think there will be another presidential election in my lifetime. Again, Im willing to accept it.

I'll drop by off and on still, but for all intents and purposes the takers now outnumber the producers in this country. Congrats, you all won! Enjoy!

Are you really old, have terminal illness, or are you just realy fucking stupid?

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:36 PM
Bill Maher is the spokesmen for all that is Democratic. There is no one on the Republican side in media with the marshaling power of Bill Maher.

Mainstream liberalism actually has two pretty reliable programs that air its point of view well: the Daily Show and Rachel Maddow. You can throw Colbert in there as well most days.

I will stand by the claim that Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow accurately represent the face of modern, mainstream liberalism.

KChiefer
11-08-2012, 04:37 PM
Nope...a realist. FTR, Beck has never stated such. Neither has Rush or Hannity. Im alone in that assessment. I could be wrong. Maybe there will be another. It will most likely between two people that are both left of center. It wont matter.

That's still the same hyperbolic "thousand years of darkness" statement many of them spout and is mentality that made the right fail in this election. Who want's to join the party of "if we lose America will cease to exist as a republic."?

Call me crazy, but I prefer to believe America will endure, right or left. One day it will end, but it's classic egotism and fear of the unknown that makes people predict it happening in their lifetime.

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 04:37 PM
Hateful and venemous is not the relevant measure. Factual or full of shit is the relevant measure and the right loses by a long ways.

That's true...when one of Obama's close advisors tweets the following I do tend to believe it:

"After we win this election, it's our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we dont forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve.

There is going to be hell to pay. Congress wont be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this one is over and we have two judges ready to go."

I DO take that as very factual.

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 04:38 PM
Are you really old, have terminal illness, or are you just realy ****ing stupid?

Asked and answered.

RNR
11-08-2012, 04:38 PM
Nope...a realist. FTR, Beck has never stated such. Neither has Rush or Hannity. Im alone in that assessment. I could be wrong. Maybe there will be another. It will most likely between two people that are both left of center. It wont matter.

If Beck, Hannity and Rush are your point of center then hopefully they will be left of that center. I also hope they will be right of MSNBC and the current shitbag in office~

BigRedChief
11-08-2012, 04:38 PM
Mainstream liberalism actually has two pretty reliable programs that air its point of view well: the Daily Show and Rachel Maddow. You can throw Colbert in there as well most days.

I will stand by the claim that Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow accurately represent the face of modern, mainstream liberalism.I agree, at least on TV.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:38 PM
One of my disagreements with the right is the revisionist bullshit they keep trying to shove down our throats. There is a wall of separation that they have tried to dismiss for years. This country WAS NOT founded as a Christian nation. Madison and Jefferson made that VERY clear. The revised the pledge of of allegiance adding "one nation under god" and adding " in god we trust" to our currency. All happened in the 50s oh wait some Glenn Beck troll will point out it appeared on the nickel in the late 30s if I recall right. Whatever these people try to claim this government was not set up secular and they are simply full of shit. You have the right to believe as you wish but those beliefs were never intended to be integrated into our government. For those who follow whatever belief system good for you and I am glad it provides you happiness. I will fight for your right to do so, just don't try to teach that nonsense to our children in school and don't try to claim that it had anything to do with the founding of our country~

Solid post, RNR.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:39 PM
Wanted to drop in just to see how the celebration was going. I see its going well. I think the OP has some decent points. And while I wasnt sure that Romney was going to win, I was optimistic.

It was pretty apparent that as the swing states were close and others that were 'in play' werent which way this was going.

While I dont feel 'lied' to necessarily, it is a bit disappointing to see that it was close or within 1 or 2 points that it really wasnt. One point I want to make is that Romney got fewer votes than McCain did, and that is surprising.

So, to the quote above...I have decided to disconnect...completely. Im not listening to any of it, left or right. I have pretty much given up. While time may change that, I figure we have a country that wants a larger government in everyone's life. I have to live with that now, and Im willing to accept that.

As long as I dont get persecuted for holding opposing views from the majority of the country, I'll go on living my life and leave the governing to those that think the only solution is higher taxes, printing money and presidential fiat.

I dont honestly think there will be another presidential election in my lifetime. Again, Im willing to accept it.

I'll drop by off and on still, but for all intents and purposes the takers now outnumber the producers in this country. Congrats, you all won! Enjoy!

Google News, brother. Google News.

ChiefsCountry
11-08-2012, 04:41 PM
We get all these fucking arguments on both sides about programs that are just entertainment. No different than the bullshit that ESPN puts out about sports. Rush Limbaugh is not a news reporter. Neither is bitch Rachel Maddow. Dennis Miller isn't. Chris Matthews isn't. Its all fucking entertainment. That is all it is. Real news comes from the AP on all of these stations. Its the commentary and how they spin it on either side. Its the same shit as the sports talk radio hosts. They just talk about news instead of sports.

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 04:41 PM
That's still the same hyperbolic "thousand years of darkness" statement many of them spout and is mentality that made the right fail in this election. Who want's to join the party of "if we lose America will cease to exist as a republic."?

Call me crazy, but I prefer to believe America will endure, right or left. One day it will end, but it's classic egotism and fear of the unknown that makes people predict it happening in their lifetime.

I dont call you crazy, a courtesy that you seem to have not extended. It may go on for a while, but now that debt has exceeded GDP and QE infinity on the books, the only other option is serious pain. I dont fear the unknown, it's actually quite the opposite. I fear the known...I know that the takers and those that believe in government outnumber those that think the opposite. It's only going one direction now.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:42 PM
You conservatives need to explain how "the media" is treating these subjects any differently than it was treating the poll numbers, which turned out to be dead-on accurate.

I want this explained to me. I'm quoting it to isolate it.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:43 PM
We get all these ****ing arguments on both sides about programs that are just entertainment. No different than the bullshit that ESPN puts out about sports. Rush Limbaugh is not a news reporter. Neither is bitch Rachel Maddow. Dennis Miller isn't. Chris Matthews isn't. Its all ****ing entertainment. That is all it is. Real news comes from the AP on all of these stations. Its the commentary and how they spin it on either side. Its the same shit as the sports talk radio hosts. They just talk about news instead of sports.

So what you're saying, is you agree with the OP.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 04:46 PM
I dont honestly think there will be another presidential election in my lifetime. Again, Im willing to accept it.

I'll drop by off and on still, but for all intents and purposes the takers now outnumber the producers in this country. Congrats, you all won! Enjoy!

Come in off the ledge, buddy.

ChiefsCountry
11-08-2012, 04:46 PM
So what you're saying, is you agree with the OP.

No because you wrote a bunch of fucking bullshit as well.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:47 PM
No because you wrote a bunch of ****ing bullshit as well.

The point I made, you basically just reiterated.

So, welcome.

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 04:48 PM
Come in off the ledge, buddy.

No ledge, buddy. Im free...relatively speaking. Im freeing myself of the burden of arguing about it. I have realized that the direction I want this country to go has been rejected by the majority. Im willing to accept it.

ChiefsCountry
11-08-2012, 04:48 PM
The point I made, you basically just reiterated.

So, welcome.

No you are fucking idiot.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:49 PM
No you are ****ing idiot.

Compelling.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 04:49 PM
Umm, yeah. I think that joke went over your head. Pretty sure he was not calling him a nazi. I'm reasonably sure he was equating Rove's role as a mastermind hunkered down and in complete denial. I also heard another version of the same reference from some comedian about, "still having two tank brigades on the eastern front..."

I could be wrong but that's not the way I took it. Maybe you're right, though. But maybe you're just missing the irony...

I'm reasonably sure you hear what you want to hear from Bill Maher.

Maher has never even attempted to hide his disgust for anyone that deigns to disagree with him.

You lack credibility in this discussion if you can't recognize Bill Maher for what he is. He's as hateful and vitriolic a commentator as you will ever see.

mnchiefsguy
11-08-2012, 04:52 PM
Fair enough -- we clearly have differing opinions on what constitutes a mandate.

To me: if you're winning over half the vote, you've won a mandate for your agenda.

It's a democracy. You need one more yay than you do a nay.

Actual..it isn't. We are a representative republic. Al Gore had a few more yays than nays, but he did not win, did he?

penchief
11-08-2012, 04:52 PM
I'm reasonably sure you hear what you want to hear from Bill Maher.

Maher has never even attempted to hide his disgust for anyone that deigns to disagree with him.

You lack credibility in this discussion if you can't recognize Bill Maher for what he is. He's as hateful and vitriolic a commentator as you will ever see.

You sound like a very bitter human being. I'm pretty sure you lack the credibility to question my credibility.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 04:54 PM
Fair enough.

But I bring up the polls for a reason.

For all your crowing about the media being liberal, part of that crowing was over the course of this election season that the media was reporting on polls in ways that were overtly supportive of the Obama campaign.

You were wrong in that assessment. The media was reporting on the polls accurately. It just didn't fit your preferred narrative so you automatically assumed it was an overt slant in favor of Obama.

I think that's indicative of almost every other subject.
Income inequality?
Illegal immigration?
Healthcare?
Energy?
Foreign policy?
Developments in the Middle East?
Gay rights?

You need to explain how "the media" is treating these subjects any differently than it was treating the poll numbers, which turned out to be dead-on accurate.

Who's 'you' for most of this post?

I was openly concerned with the polling numbers and admitted that there were way too many people that stood to lose way too much credibility for them to all be wrong.

I never believed there were slants to poll numbers - they're freakin' poll numbers. The methodology is available to anyone that cares to look. How can you slant them? They tell you what they're doing.

But they did oversample Democrats. The only question was whether or not they were justified in so doing and if so, to what degree. As far as I was concerned, polls were one of the few things the media has remained transparent on.

As to the rest of it, the debate's been had. You'll continue to see what you want to see (as will I). But the bottom line is that the media is much easier on Obama than it ever was on Bush. Pundits have done simple word choice analyses to show that. It's never what's reported as much as how it's reported. The adulation cannot be ignored.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:54 PM
Actual..it isn't. We are a representative republic. Al Gore had a few more yays than nays, but he did not win, did he?

He did not. Which I consider undemocratic.

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 04:56 PM
Who's 'you' for most of this post?

I was openly concerned with the polling numbers and admitted that there were way too many people that stood to lose way too much credibility for them to all be wrong.

I never believed there were slants to poll numbers - they're freakin' poll numbers. The methodology is available to anyone that cares to look. How can you slant them? They tell you what they're doing.

But they did oversample Democrats. The only question was whether or not they were justified in so doing and if so, to what degree. As far as I was concerned, polls were one of the few things the media has remained transparent on.

All due respect, but please explain to me how these two thoughts can sensibly exist in your head simultaneously.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 04:57 PM
No ledge, buddy. Im free...relatively speaking. Im freeing myself of the burden of arguing about it. I have realized that the direction I want this country to go has been rejected by the majority. Im willing to accept it.

There will be another POTUS election in 2016. We'll get them then.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 04:57 PM
You sound like a very bitter human being. I'm pretty sure you lack the credibility to question my credibility.

Says the guy that assures us all that Bill Maher's just a harmless little jokester and Ann Coulter is a soulless demon.

I don't know you from adam, but I can absolutely speak to your credibility on this issue as one doesn't need to get much beyond your own words to address it. In fact, you've spoken to it yourself with your very first sentence.

I dare call one of your spades a spade, and suddenly I'm a 'very bitter human being'. You had it all along - the right has a monopoly on personal attacks.

But hey, I'm sure you were just telling jokes that went over our heads, right Billy boy?

Good ol' liberals - don't ever change.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 04:59 PM
All due respect, but please explain to me how these two thoughts can sensibly exist in your head simultaneously.

'Oversampling' isn't a perjorative, it's a term of art.

If you believe more Democrats will vote than Republicans, you include more of them in your sample. You have therefore oversampled Democrats. Oversampling is nothing more than a relative term; how much of one you have over the other taking a 50/50 baseline.

What the pollsters did was not a slant, it was a projection.

Seems pretty simple to me.

BigRedChief
11-08-2012, 05:03 PM
No ledge, buddy. Im free...relatively speaking. Im freeing myself of the burden of arguing about it. I have realized that the direction I want this country to go has been rejected by the majority. Im willing to accept it.Sucks doesn't it. Felt the same way after Bush in 2004. And in 2000 when the majority agreed with me but we still lost.

But, you can still come around and straighten us fools out from time to time. :thumb:

Direckshun
11-08-2012, 05:04 PM
'Oversampling' isn't a perjorative, it's a term of art.

If you believe more Democrats will vote than Republicans, you include more of them in your sample. You have therefore oversampled Democrats. Oversampling is nothing more than a relative term; how much of one you have over the other taking a 50/50 baseline.

What the pollsters did was not a slant, it was a projection.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Makes much more sense. Thanks.

You do realize that, at least based off your responses in this thread, you're not the target audience of the OP?

BigRedChief
11-08-2012, 05:04 PM
There will be another POTUS election in 2016. We'll get them then.Not unless your party changes its demographics.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 05:05 PM
Bill Maher is the spokesmen for all that is Democratic. There is no one on the Republican side in media with the marshaling power of Bill Maher.

Oh yes there is.

Rush Limbaugh swings the same stick that Maher does. Hell, you can make a good argument that Jon Stewart swings a bigger stick than Maher does.

That's the thing - people are people. Just because they have a different political viewpoint doesn't mean that basic human nature fizzles out.

Some people are assholes. Some people are aggressive. Some people are haughty and opinionated and unable to make a point without condescending towards whomever they're making that point to. Some people are extremely good at gathering support among peers and followers alike. Some people are terminally ambitious and extremely charismatic so they rise to a position that allows them to capitalize on or heighten all of the aforementioned traits.

And neither side has a monopoly on any of those people.

Yes, for every single talking head on one side of the political spectrum, there is a doppelganger on the other side. That's just the way humans work.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 05:08 PM
Makes much more sense. Thanks.

You do realize that, at least based off your responses in this thread, you're not the target audience of the OP?

Never really thought I was.

I'm not so much defending myself (I rarely feel the need to do so, it's a fundamental tenant of my arrogance, really), I'm simply trying to unpack the thought a little bit. I believe my first post in this thread was more with the idea that there was a fallacy in the implication (that the Republicans lost because of their own media, indicating that their own media has had a massive impact on their approach). I don't think that's accurate.

Like I said, it seems to me that the OP was left in the dust some time ago.

FD
11-08-2012, 05:11 PM
'Oversampling' isn't a perjorative, it's a term of art.

If you believe more Democrats will vote than Republicans, you include more of them in your sample. You have therefore oversampled Democrats. Oversampling is nothing more than a relative term; how much of one you have over the other taking a 50/50 baseline.

What the pollsters did was not a slant, it was a projection.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Pollsters don't choose the number of Democrats or Republicans to include in their sample. That is a fluid, outcome variable just like which candidate people support.

penchief
11-08-2012, 05:14 PM
Says the guy that assures us all that Bill Maher's just a harmless little jokester and Ann Coulter is a soulless demon.

I don't know you from adam, but I can absolutely speak to your credibility on this issue as one doesn't need to get much beyond your own words to address it. In fact, you've spoken to it yourself with your very first sentence.

I dare call one of your spades a spade, and suddenly I'm a 'very bitter human being'. You had it all along - the right has a monopoly on personal attacks.

But hey, I'm sure you were just telling jokes that went over our heads, right Billy boy?

Good ol' liberals - don't ever change.

Um...I don't recall giving an opinion on Bill Maher. Where did you see that? I simply stated that I didn't take his comment/joke as calling Rove a Nazi. Is that a crime?

I'm "reasonably sure" that you are making an assumption here. The only opinion I've offered in this thread regarding political commentators is one of Rachael Maddow. So you can take your personal attacks based on assumptions about my posts and tuck them away until I give you reason to whip them out. That is, unless you want to come across as bitter...

Good ol' righties. Always jumping to conclusions, overreacting, and spewing contempt...

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 05:16 PM
Sucks doesn't it. Felt the same way after Bush in 2004. And in 2000 when the majority agreed with me but we still lost.

But, you can still come around and straighten us fools out from time to time. :thumb:

This really is 2004 to a T, just with roles reversed.

I remember walking through the halls at Hulston with people absolutely beside themselves over the L. "People are just too stupid to get what we are saying". "How do people not see this guy for what he is?", "I hope we even have a country left to rebuild in 4 years" blah blah blah. The narratives were exactly the same.

That's precisely my point - people are still people. The fact that they have different ideas doesn't fundamentally alter their nature or their character. I know we are in a fairly poisonous political climate that tries to suggest otherwise, but it's really funny to look at this and compare it to 2004.

I'm really startled at how perfectly mirrored the respective reactions are.

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 05:17 PM
Not unless your party changes its demographics.

This is probably the most salient point. In order for Republicans to become electable they have to become a party willing to argue over how much government and government aid to give the demographics versus the democrats. Regardless, it's basically a pandering to taking more from the producers to the takers.

listopencil
11-08-2012, 05:18 PM
This isn't a state and church issue. Whether your "God" is Jesus or Mother Nature doesn't matter, but the founding fathers didn't believe that they, as representatives of the people, were bestowing rights. They believed that rights were inherent in our being. For a religious person, that means bestowed by God.


Sure, I have no problem with that. I'm saying that according to our legal system it doesn't matter where you believe those right originated, that those rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, and exist regardless of God or your believe/disbelief in him. That's the way that the Constitution is worded.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 05:20 PM
Um...I don't recall giving an opinion on Bill Maher. Where did you see that? I simply stated that I didn't take his comment/joke as calling Rove a Nazi. Is that a crime?

I'm "reasonably sure" that you are making an assumption here. The only opinion I've offered in this thread regarding political commentators is one of Rachael Maddow. So you can take your personal attacks based on assumptions about my posts and tuck them away until I give you reason to whip them out. That is, unless you want to come across as bitter...

Typical rightie. Always jumping to conclusions, overreacting, and expressing contempt...

Typical lefty - doesn't want to read the words for what they say:

You lack credibility in this discussion if you can't recognize Bill Maher for what he is.

That's why you qualify statements when you have incomplete information. As I've noted - I don't know you from Adam. If you think Bill Maher's just a harmless jokester, than I'm comfortable saying you have no credibility in the discussion - the man's work is available for all to see. If you don't believe that, well then I guess it's a good thing I qualified it, eh?

We use our words for a reason. One should consider reading them as such.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 05:23 PM
Pollsters don't choose the number of Democrats or Republicans to include in their sample. That is a fluid, outcome variable just like which candidate people support.

Some do, some don't.

Pollsters can, and often do (especially when trying to make projections based on their believed electorate), filter through results and/or drop randomly selected samples if they don't fit the projection model.

The guys that are trying to really predict will absolutely tailor their sample to fit a projected voter pattern, otherwise it's just random chance.

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 05:26 PM
This really is 2004 to a T, just with roles reversed.

I remember walking through the halls at Hulston with people absolutely beside themselves over the L. "People are just too stupid to get what we are saying". "How do people not see this guy for what he is?", "I hope we even have a country left to rebuild in 4 years" blah blah blah. The narratives were exactly the same.

That's precisely my point - people are still people. The fact that they have different ideas doesn't fundamentally alter their nature or their character. I know we are in a fairly poisonous political climate that tries to suggest otherwise, but it's really funny to look at this and compare it to 2004.

I'm really startled at how perfectly mirrored the respective reactions are.

Except in 2004, the debt didnt exceed GDP and the Fed wasn't funding our debt by printing money. But yeah, other than that, everything else is the same.

FD
11-08-2012, 05:29 PM
Some do, some don't.

Pollsters can, and often do (especially when trying to make projections based on their believed electorate), filter through results and/or drop randomly selected samples if they don't fit the projection model.

The guys that are trying to really predict will absolutely tailor their sample to fit a projected voter pattern, otherwise it's just random chance.

As far as I know, only one group does this, and they finished almost last in this election. Choosing the numbers for each party is just choosing the outcome you want to see, which defeats the whole purpose of taking a sample.

You say not doing this leaves you with "just random chance", but the whole purpose of taking a large sample is to reduce the randomness to a small and quantifiable amount. When you aggregate this across many samples, that randomness goes away almost completely, hence the derision poll deniers got and also the reason they were so wrong.

penchief
11-08-2012, 05:34 PM
Typical lefty - doesn't want to read the words for what they say:



That's why you qualify statements when you have incomplete information. As I've noted - I don't know you from Adam. If you think Bill Maher's just a harmless jokester, than I'm comfortable saying you have no credibility in the discussion - the man's work is available for all to see. If you don't believe that, well then I guess it's a good thing I qualified it, eh?

We use our words for a reason. One should consider reading them as such.

Typical rightie, unable to discern between two different things. I was commenting on the joke. Not Bill Maher.

See, I can do that. I think Ted Nugent is a total whack job. And a lot of shit he says is highly offensive. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate his music. I disagree completely with Clint Eastwood's politics and found his convention skit somewhat offensive. But he's one of my favorite directors. Dude makes absolutely fantastic movies. I like him.

You can't just 100% write off anything and everything from someone you disagree with or who offends you. And you can't automatically assume the worst about people. Which you seemed to do in this case when you jumped to conclusions about me simply because I interpreted a joke differently than someone else.

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 05:35 PM
Some do, some don't.

Pollsters can, and often do (especially when trying to make projections based on their believed electorate), filter through results and/or drop randomly selected samples if they don't fit the projection model.

The guys that are trying to really predict will absolutely tailor their sample to fit a projected voter pattern, otherwise it's just random chance.

I heard something yesterday that was interesting...and probably germaine to the 'conservative media lied to you' subject about polls that broke down not between democrat, republican and independent but rather polls between liberal, moderate and conservative. Post election that was the first time I had ever heard of such poll and it told the story exactly.

Conservatives clearly lost out to the moderate/liberal. I think that would have been a better way to evaluate the pre-election polls. Had I known of those polls pre-election I may not have waited an hour in line to vote since there was no point.

BigRedChief
11-08-2012, 05:36 PM
This is probably the most salient point. In order for Republicans to become electable they have to become a party willing to argue over how much government and government aid to give the demographics versus the democrats. Regardless, it's basically a pandering to taking more from the producers to the takers.you have a good basic argument. A smaller more efficient government is better. Most will agree with that ideal.

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 05:37 PM
you have a good basic argument. A smaller more efficient government is better. Most will agree with that ideal.

Heh...thanks for the kind words. It's clear, today, that is not the direction this country wants to go. Therefore, I disagree that 'most' would agree with that ideal.

KChiefer
11-08-2012, 05:47 PM
I hardly ever watch MSNBC or Maddow but I did catch a little last night and she said something that was spot on and I believe very true. Enjoy.
...


I can't believe both Maddow and the OP here totally omitted voter fraud. That's the real reason Romney lost. FoxSpews still going there?

patteeu
11-08-2012, 06:04 PM
Sure, I have no problem with that. I'm saying that according to our legal system it doesn't matter where you believe those right originated, that those rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, and exist regardless of God or your believe/disbelief in him. That's the way that the Constitution is worded.

OK. :toast:

patteeu
11-08-2012, 06:07 PM
Umm, yeah. I think that joke went over your head. Pretty sure he was not calling him a nazi. I'm reasonably sure he was equating Rove's role as a mastermind hunkered down and in complete denial. I also heard another version of the same reference from some comedian about, "still having two tank brigades on the eastern front..."

I could be wrong but that's not the way I took it. Maybe you're right, though. But maybe you're just missing the irony...

It didn't go over my head and I realize he's not calling Rove a Nazi. He's comparing him to a Nazi. Much like Ann Coulter does at times.

I assume that since you laugh Maher off as nothing but a non-vicious jokester that you feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh, right?

dirk digler
11-08-2012, 06:25 PM
Yeah, I'm sorry, but there's nobody on either side that beats Bill Maher.

Any time a liberal backs that guy, they are of no use to me. There isn't room for people like Bill Maher in an environment that hopes to reasonably debate anything.

Coulter is extremist and certainly vicious in her criticisms. Maher, on the other hand, I believe genuinely loathes the people he criticizes. I feel he sees no human worth in people that disagree with him.

He's the worst of the worst. But of course, the Libs swear up and down that they don't have anyone like that damn awful blonde woman...

I always respect your opinion but I am going to have disagree with you here.

If you ever watched Maher's show you would know Coulter is a regular on his show, they fight like an old married couple and wouldn't surprise me if they had something on the side.

Alot of conservatives go on his show and they regularly come back again and again.

So I suppose the point I am making is if Maher loathes\hates people he disagrees with it sure is not showing up on shows or his friends, for example Coulter and Dennis Miller.

Now that doesn't mean Maher doesn't hate some conservatives, but he mostly just hates stupid ones for example Sarah Palin.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 06:28 PM
I always respect your opinion but I am going to have disagree with you here.

If you ever watched Maher's show you would know Coulter is a regular on his show, they fight like an old married couple and wouldn't surprise me if they had something on the side.

Alot of conservatives go on his show and they regularly come back again and again.

So I suppose the point I am making is if Maher loathes\hates people he disagrees with it sure is not showing up on shows or his friends, for example Coulter and Dennis Miller.

Now that doesn't mean Maher doesn't hate some conservatives, but he mostly just hates stupid ones for example Sarah Palin.

You'd say the same thing about Coulter too, right?

dirk digler
11-08-2012, 06:30 PM
Maybe Republicans are learning.

More pessimistic Republicans agreed that the party faces fundamental challenges but questioned whether it would make necessary, painful changes while much of the GOP base is enveloped in an parallel-universe mentality, with Fox News as its only trusted source of information and the memory of the 2010 conservative landslide as its basic framework for understanding politics.

Throughout much of the general election, Republican activists and pundits were more prone to attack the sampling methods of public polls than to consider the possibility that they’d face a historically diverse, unexpectedly Democratic-leaning electorate on Nov. 6. That mind-set of denial collided with objective reality yesterday.

“The conservative media bubble is totally self-defeating for us. It denies us any realistic view of the real world of the general election, assuming instead that all politics is simply an extension of the Republican primary. It blindly drives us off one cliff after another,” said Republican presidential strategist Mike Murphy. “We will not win the real world of big-turnout, presidential-year politics until our bubble realizes that a big world exists outside the precincts of the Republican primary.”

Said Murphy: “Much of the conservative media bubble, with its isolation, denial and semi-paranoia, only incentivized us to lose general elections.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83537_Page4.html#ixzz2BgWF4RIE

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 06:32 PM
Heh...thanks for the kind words. It's clear, today, that is not the direction this country wants to go. Therefore, I disagree that 'most' would agree with that ideal.

I think this election is like the 2004 election with tepid support for Obama, but not a great candidate from the Rs. This was winnable for them based on how issues get polled. ( except for war polling) Hence divided govt.

dirk digler
11-08-2012, 06:32 PM
You'd say the same thing about Coulter too, right?

I used to hate Coulter but she has grown on me so she doesn't bother me in the least anymore.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 06:45 PM
I used to hate Coulter but she has grown on me so she doesn't bother me in the least anymore.

:thumb: I'm not bothered by Maher either. Olberman is another story though.

KChiefer
11-08-2012, 06:57 PM
...

If you ever watched Maher's show you would know Coulter is a regular on his show, they fight like an old married couple and wouldn't surprise me if they had something on the side.

...

I too am convinced that the stick in Coulter's ass has at times been Maher's finger.

GloryDayz
11-08-2012, 07:06 PM
Wow, charitable contributions just took a hit!

KChiefer
11-08-2012, 07:13 PM
Wow, charitable contributions just took a hit!

Just imagine all the money Romney could have donated instead of actually paying taxes the last two years.

dirk digler
11-08-2012, 07:26 PM
:thumb: I'm not bothered by Maher either. Olberman is another story though.

See we agree because I can't stand that prick either :D

Direckshun
01-30-2013, 10:27 AM
Well, enough of you are getting the message.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/fox-news-ratings-hit-year-low-155638.html

Fox News ratings hit 12-year low
By MACKENZIE WEINGER
1/30/13 10:42 AM EST

Fox News had its worst ratings since 2001 in January, according to the latest figures.

The network had a 12-year low in the coveted 25-54 demographic in primetime and fell to its lowest total day ratings since 2008, a press release from rival cable channel MSNBC (http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/msnbc/pressreleases?pr=contents/press-releases/2013/01/29/msnbcupyearover1359494349602.xml) stated on Tuesday.

And January marked the worst month ever for Fox’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” among the 25-54 demo, as well as the channel’s lowest total viewership in the 10 p.m. hour since July 2008.

At note at MSNBC, the cable network saw its ratings go up 11 percent in the 25-54 demo compared to January 2012. And “The Rachel Maddow Show” topped CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” this month, and also ranked number one among the 18-34 demo.

Fox News, meanwhile, had nine of the 10 top programs in January — Maddow’s show was the only non-Fox News program to enter the top 10, in the last slot, as the Huffington Post pointed out (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/fox-news-ratings-lows-cable-news-january_n_2576689.html#slide=2041275).

blaise
01-30-2013, 10:33 AM
So, when MSNBC ratings are low say liberals are too smart for one sided talk, and when the ratings go up, celebrate it. I thought Direcskun's whole thing was that liberals reject "polemnic."

cosmo20002
01-30-2013, 11:20 AM
So, when MSNBC ratings are low say liberals are too smart for one sided talk, and when the ratings go up, celebrate it. I thought Direcskun's whole thing was that liberals reject "polemnic."

MCNBC's ratings are still low. They are just a little bit better than before. And Fox's are a little lower, I assume because their core audience is literally dying off. But they are still way out front.

Lzen
01-30-2013, 11:26 AM
Yeah, no.

There is no liberal equivalent to talk radio. MSNBC is definitively liberal but is not intrinsically tied financially and politically to the Democratic Party in the way Fox News is. And coming from someone who reads both religiously, the liberal blogosphere is heads and shoulders more informed and more factual than the conservative blogosphere.

Oh good Lord this guy is so delusional. :rolleyes:

petegz28
01-30-2013, 11:46 AM
Yeah, no.

There is no liberal equivalent to talk radio. MSNBC is definitively liberal but is not intrinsically tied financially and politically to the Democratic Party in the way Fox News is. And coming from someone who reads both religiously, the liberal blogosphere is heads and shoulders more informed and more factual than the conservative blogosphere.

Bull






Shit

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 12:20 PM
Let me interject; "conservative" is a word used to describe folks that uphold the USC and its premise. It has nothing to do with church views, language views, sexuality views or fiscal spending. Not directly, anyway.

Conserving our USC means upholding the right to view life how we choose and to discuss it, among other aspects of freedom. Hence, "freedom of speech".



Exactly! And there are lies on both sides of the aisle's media as well as some truth. I was told that MSNBC gets money from the govt.

Talk media has never succeeded as well for the left as it has for the right. Fox news, although leaning conservative but not really conservative, has higher ratings than the other networks that lean left or are outright left.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 12:24 PM
I just went to find a source for the MSNBC claim that they got govt money. My keeper heard it on ...talk radio.

It must have been this:
http://www.examiner.com/article/white-house-uses-taxpayer-money-to-fund-msnbc

suzzer99
01-30-2013, 12:26 PM
Oh good Lord this guy is so delusional. :rolleyes:

Bull


Shit

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/348/coverearsup.jpg

Just stay in the bubble. All is well. Ignore this man.

blaise
01-30-2013, 12:42 PM
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/348/coverearsup.jpg

Just stay in the bubble. All is well. Ignore this man.

They're in a bubble for saying MSNBC is also biased. Ok. Makes sense.

patteeu
01-30-2013, 12:43 PM
Well, enough of you are getting the message.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/fox-news-ratings-hit-year-low-155638.html

Fox News ratings hit 12-year low
By MACKENZIE WEINGER
1/30/13 10:42 AM EST

Fox News had its worst ratings since 2001 in January, according to the latest figures.

The network had a 12-year low in the coveted 25-54 demographic in primetime and fell to its lowest total day ratings since 2008, a press release from rival cable channel MSNBC (http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/msnbc/pressreleases?pr=contents/press-releases/2013/01/29/msnbcupyearover1359494349602.xml) stated on Tuesday.

And January marked the worst month ever for Fox’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” among the 25-54 demo, as well as the channel’s lowest total viewership in the 10 p.m. hour since July 2008.

At note at MSNBC, the cable network saw its ratings go up 11 percent in the 25-54 demo compared to January 2012. And “The Rachel Maddow Show” topped CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” this month, and also ranked number one among the 18-34 demo.

Fox News, meanwhile, had nine of the 10 top programs in January — Maddow’s show was the only non-Fox News program to enter the top 10, in the last slot, as the Huffington Post pointed out (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/fox-news-ratings-lows-cable-news-january_n_2576689.html#slide=2041275).

Yeah, Fox News viewers are rushing to change the channel to MSNBC. I believe!

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 12:44 PM
My keeper and I sometimes switch to MSNBC for laughs.

I am one in those numbers that stop watching Fox since the WoT except on occasion. I go to Lew Rockwell, and the Independent Institute more now. I read that many paleo-cons have gone over to Lew's small island.

It must be the NeoCons and that angry belligerent tone that has turned some off of Fox. People are tired of their war mongering.
They've even infiltrated Human Events, my former source for conservative commentary and news.

BucEyedPea
01-30-2013, 12:49 PM
Oh, and last I did watch Fox, O'Reilly still claimed they were ahead of the other networks in ratings. I have to wonder if these reported ratings are true or not some attempt by the lying left to fix numbers the way the current govt is doing on just about everything from unemployment to recovery.