Conservative leaders claim unprecedented media bias

[boutons_deux]

"remarks made 7 months before a presidential election have much more weight than comments made 14 yrs prior"

Jon Stewart showed how Fox Repug network said Romney's May comments were meaningless, irrelevant because they were SO OLD, then trashed Barry for his comments of 14 years ago. Or "14 Mays ago" Stewart crushes.

[ElNono]

I think this is likely to happen too:

Wait for it - Romney's media rebound

A runaway win won't make media as much money as a perceived close contest, IMO. Barring some major Romneybot comment, I suspect the "comeback" narrative will come around when the debates start...

[Homeland Security]

I think this is likely to happen too:



A runaway win won't make media as much money as a perceived close contest, IMO. Barring some major Romneybot comment, I suspect the "comeback" narrative will come around when the debates start...

Makes perfect sense. Romney starts a "comeback," entirely fabricated by the media, just like his current "doldrums" are, as a ready explanation for why the poll margins start narrowing to reflect the actual result.

[LnGrrrR]

HS is starting to sound like whottt

[ElNono]

HS is starting to sound like whottt

What do you mean "starting"?

[RandomGuy]

I don't understand the controversy on the Obama side. To whom is it a surprise that Democrats believe in redistribution? "Left-wing politician supports typical left-wing policies." Ooh, scandal!

He was merely talking about shifting resources between government levels, not individuals.

[RandomGuy]

Poll aggregation is statistically invalid. It propagates errors rather than compensating for them.

Correct.

[RandomGuy]

None of you really give a about data. You give a about following a narrative that validates your worldview.

I would beg to differ. I care a great deal about data.

You did, however, not seem to consider the possibility that the poll shifting was simple coincidence. Improbable, but quite possible.

Flip enough coins and you will get strings of heads/tails. That doesn't mean the coin is rigged.

Better to look at trends than any one weeks results.

[hitmanyr2k]

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...-does-it-mean/

If the president were a conservative Republican rather than a liberal Democrat, I have little doubt that much of the legacy press would be focused more on what is wrong with America. There would be more negative reporting about the economy, more criticism of policy failures and many more withering comparisons between promise and performance. The contrast between a rising stock market and poor jobs performance that the press now doesn’t think of blaming on President Obama would be reported as demonstrating a systemic bias in favor of the rich and the powerful if George W. Bush were in the White House. The catastrophic decline in African-American net worth during the last four years would, if we had a Republican president, be presented in the press as illustrating the racial indifference or even the racism of the administration. As it is, it is just an unfortunate reality, not worth much publicity and telling us nothing about the intentions or competence of the people in charge.

The current state of the Middle East would be reported as illustrating the complete collapse of American foreign policy—if Bush were in the White House. The criticism of drone strikes and Guantanamo that is now mostly confined to the far left would be mainstream conventional wisdom, and the current unrest in the Middle East would be depicted as a response to American militarism. The in and out surge in Afghanistan would be mercilessly exposed as a strategic flop, reflecting the naive incompetence of an inexperienced president out of his depth. The SEALS rather than the White House would be getting the credit for the death of Osama bin Laden, and there would be more questions about whether killing him and then bragging endlessly and tastelessly about it was a contributing factor to the current unrest. Political cartoons of Cheney ing the football would be everywhere. It’s also likely we would have heard much more about how killing Osama was strategically unimportant as he had become an increasingly symbolic figure and there would have been a lot of detailed and focused analysis of how the foolish concentration on bin Laden led the clueless Bush administration to neglect the rise of new and potentially much more dangerous Islamist groups in places like Mali. The Libyan war would be widely denounced as an uncons utional act of neocon militarism, with much more attention paid to the civilian casualties during the war, the chaos that followed, and the destabilizing effects on the neighborhood. The White House fumbling around the Benghazi murders would be treated like a major scandal and dominate the news for at least a couple of weeks.

If Bush were in the White House, the Middle East would be a horrible disaster, and it would all be America’s fault.

Excerpt

What the is this crybaby bull ?!? Conservatives play victim so much it's laughable. I can't believe this was even written. George Bush got away with so much crap in his first term it was unbelievable...especially when it came to foreign policy. And then that MF got re-elected on top of that What more do they want? It's like no one remembers what the happened back then.

In this political climate today can you imagine if the Obama administration did this in his first 4 years?

- Voluntarily rush into a 2nd war based on crap intelligence and fear-mongering to the American people scaring them to death with the thought of nuclear mushroom clouds ad nauseum.

- Blow up Iraq (killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process).

- Prematurely have a grandiose "Mission Accomplished" photo op on an aircraft carrier.

- Stupidly tell the enemy "bring it on" (which they did) from the comfort of the white house while troops are in harm's way on foreign territory.

- Dismiss the mastermind who planned the 9/11 attacks as an afterthought.

- Make the American taxpayers foot the bill to pay for rebuilding the country we stupidly blew up.

- Give no-bid contracts to his buddies so they can make money hand over fist from his dumbass war, never mind the billions that went missing from fraud and waste.

- And to top it all off use some accounting tricks so the cost of these wars don't count on the books. Because "conservatives" cared so much about deficits back then

Can you imagine if Obama did all that during his first term? The -storm that would come down on his head would be tenfold of what Bush got.

[Homeland Security]

What the is this crybaby bull ?!? Conservatives play victim so much it's laughable. I can't believe this was even written.

Walter Russell Mead is a moderate Democrat, and the crust he picked out of his eyes when he woke up this morning knows more about global affairs than you do.

[RandomGuy]

What the is this crybaby bull ?!?

As much as it pains me to admit that DarrinS might actually have posted something worthwhile, I tended to agree with a fair part of what was there.

If Fox "news" wasn't so good at shooting its credibility in the foot with moderates and independents, we might have a more appropriate level of oversight of the presidency. As it is, they fawn slavishly over Republicans, and the right-wing talking point du jour, because that is what drives ratings. If they weren't so obviously devoted to toeing the line, and provided some decent, actually fair opposing views occasionally, we would all be better off.

It took him about six years to start getting things right, but Bush's presidency towards the end didn't suck *that* bad, unforgivable ups in Iraq notwithstanding.

[hitmanyr2k]

Walter Russell Mead is a moderate Democrat, and the crust he picked out of his eyes when he woke up this morning knows more about global affairs than you do.

Don't give a what he knows or who he is. It's absolute idiocy to use the Bush administration as some kind of would-be victim of the media after the crap they pulled. They got off much easier than Obama considering the way they ed this country and made some of the dumbest mistakes in judgment I've ever seen.

[Winehole23]

There's a reason I advocate rounding up all these people and killing them in cold blood. I know they collude to put their thumb on the scales. I know in the debates the moderators feed the Democrat the questions ahead of time and help him script replies. I know they've taken freedom of the press and all over it. The mother ers need to pay for their treason.

the media usually picks one to whack and when they do, the crybabies on the other side are stirred to paranoid, homicidal rage.

I doubt you minded much when it happened to Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

[boutons_deux]

"conservative leaders" denying reality (they do it best) and whining about a polling/media conspiracy to make their Gecko look like a loser (that he really is).

dubya/ head, McLiar/pitbull , Gecko/Ryan, the creme de la creme of conservative civilization.

[boutons_deux]

Nate gives Gecko today a 16% chance of winning


Sept. 26: Could 2012 Be Like 2008?

"If the election were held today, the FiveThirtyEight statistical model shows President Obama favored in all but two of the states he won in 2008."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...r/nate-silver/

[cheguevara]

El Che has to agree that there is blatant bias against the Republicans. I don't think it has anything to do with the Neocons. The Neocons have gove to the shadows, but are still controlling the party, but still, this has to do with a hidden agenda by the media to keep positive about Obama. I guess he is in a superstar level that gives them ratings, that is the only reason I can think why the media would make him their darling.

the way Obama admin handled the murder of the ambassador even outperformed W's Katrina handling. that is coming from a neutral source such as yours truly. Obama should have been crucified for this, and Hilary with him. What a up of gargantuan proportions. Having an ambassador in Lybia of all places, with NOBODY to guard him. and then waiting weeks to call it "terrorism" is laughable and then Hilary's girl to tell a journalist to go himself for questioning the up is just the icing of the cake.

these mother ers in the white house are as y as the worst of the neocons.

Romney should be leading by double digits. but none of the above takes away from the fact that Mitch Romney is one stupid mother er and one of the worst candidates in the history of civilization

what a up of a pair of candidates. dumb and dummer, itchy and scratchy, blood in blood out. I want my money back, I don;t think those clows are worth the trouble of voting

[cheguevara]

and to think 1.5 billion dollars was burned on these pair of clowns. are you ing kidding me

[Clipper Nation]

A runaway win won't make media as much money as a perceived close contest, IMO. Barring some major Romneybot comment, I suspect the "comeback" narrative will come around when the debates start...

They already tried the "comeback" at least three times with Newt this year, didn't work out for them tbh....

[boutons_deux]

and to think 1.5 billion dollars was burned on these pair of clowns. are you ing kidding me

one dollar on your Randian divinities Paul & Son is wasted.

[Homeland Security]

the media usually picks one to whack and when they do, the crybabies on the other side are stirred to paranoid, homicidal rage.

I doubt you minded much when it happened to Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

Kerry's the only one whose candidacy falls in the present era of politics, since everything changed after the 2000 election.

No, I wasn't happy with Bush's re-election in 2004. That was the beginning of my disillusionment with the American political system and my values I'd had up to that date. I didn't vote in that election.

I hated Bush's second term. To me the nadir was that ing circus with that vegetable lady in Florida where you had the ing Senate Majority Leader diagnosing her mental state via video and every Christian in this country screaming for ex post facto laws to "save the life" of somebody who had in effect had been dead for years. Then after that failed, there was absolutely zero effort to change the law that everybody supposedly thought was so unjust. All conservatives' blathering about the Cons ution and the rule of law was revealed to be complete bull in that episode. They don't believe in those things any more than the left does, and socially conservative Christians are the worst of all in that regard. That started a little seed of cognitive dissonance in my head sugesting that the supposed Christian faith of Americans is really a bunch of cultural bull , culminating in my conclusion that religious faith itself is all bull useful for nothing more than manipulating people to believe that whatever those in power want to do is the will of God (Gott mit uns!).

For just a brief time after concluding that the ideology of the right was complete bull , I thought, hey, might as well give the left a chance. I feel tremendous self-hate for that decision. The right is totally worthless, the left has negative value. The cons utional system is dead and buried, might as well let it all come crashing down and build something new on top of the rubble.

[Homeland Security]

the media usually picks one to whack and when they do, the crybabies on the other side are stirred to paranoid, homicidal rage.

I doubt you minded much when it happened to Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

My previous sharing aside, I seem to remember in 2004 CBS News used a clumsily forged do ent about George W. Bush's National Guard service to smear him, and held firm for a while until right-wing bloggers proved beyond a doubt that it had been produced on Microsoft Word. After that, they tried to claim it was "fake, but true."

Does that comport with your claim that the media was out to get Kerry?

[CosmicCowboy]

Kerry's the only one whose candidacy falls in the present era of politics, since everything changed after the 2000 election.

No, I wasn't happy with Bush's re-election in 2004. That was the beginning of my disillusionment with the American political system and my values I'd had up to that date. I didn't vote in that election.

I hated Bush's second term. To me the nadir was that ing circus with that vegetable lady in Florida where you had the ing Senate Majority Leader diagnosing her mental state via video and every Christian in this country screaming for ex post facto laws to "save the life" of somebody who had in effect had been dead for years. Then after that failed, there was absolutely zero effort to change the law that everybody supposedly thought was so unjust. All conservatives' blathering about the Cons ution and the rule of law was revealed to be complete bull in that episode. They don't believe in those things any more than the left does, and socially conservative Christians are the worst of all in that regard. That started a little seed of cognitive dissonance in my head sugesting that the supposed Christian faith of Americans is really a bunch of cultural bull , culminating in my conclusion that religious faith itself is all bull useful for nothing more than manipulating people to believe that whatever those in power want to do is the will of God (Gott mit uns!).

For just a brief time after concluding that the ideology of the right was complete bull , I thought, hey, might as well give the left a chance. I feel tremendous self-hate for that decision. The right is totally worthless, the left has negative value. The cons utional system is dead and buried, might as well let it all come crashing down and build something new on top of the rubble.

It's actually crossed my mind that we may all get put on the real watch list for reading these posts...

[boutons_deux]

Another Great GOP Myth: No, Polls Did NOT Show Carter Beating Reagan in 1980

oday, we even observe Ross Douthat at The New York Times embracing the notion that one big reason Romney is trailing is the media's "horse race" coverage--you know, it's showing that he is trailing. Funny, right-wingers never complained about that until now, even though such coverage has dominated campaign coverage for decades.

But apart from this, the major claim of the past weeks has been this old saw: Hey, all the polls gave Carter a win over Reagan in 1980! And look what happened there! So Romney is in okay shape and if not will surge at the end, like St. Ronald.

Well, there are several possible responses to this:

1) Polling methods have, by all accounts, improved quite a bit since then, as proven in countless races, including presidential. 2) Also by all accounts, voters today are much more partisan and locked-in (partly because of their media choices) than they were in 1980, and less likely to bolt a candidate. 3) Reagan had a unique opportunity that Mitt will miss this year. There was only one presidential debate that year--and, believe it or not, it look place on October 28, little more than a week before Election Day. (One has to wonder which White House genius scheduled that one.) Reagan did very well in the debate, promoting a late surge. Not to mention: American hostages still held in Tehran. 4) Carter's approval rating was about 30% while Obama's is close to 50%.

But let's also consider 5) and that is: The all-the-pollsters-were-wrong meme is actually false to begin with. See this article and graph, which show that contrary to myth, Reagan actually led in tracking polls for most of the final months of the campaign. Yet you will hear or read every day that Reagan charged from "far behind," according to the polls, to win, just like Romney can (will) do.

Let's consider the most prominent poll of all. It's true that Gallup's final pre-debate poll showed a sinking Carter up by 3% -- but a few days later its polling gave Reagan a 3% edge before Election Day. Of course, he won by more than that, but then again, Gallup does not poll ON Election Day.

Also: Even before the debate, two of the other leading polls at the time: AP and Harris/ABC, gave Reagan the lead. After the debate, they showed Reagan with a 5% margin. In fact, virtually every leading poll gave Reagan at least a 1% lead two or three days before the election, and many gave him a wider edge.

So, yes, this notion of the world being shocked by a Reagan win in 1980 is simply nonsense. I remember my only surprise at the time was that the GOP did so well in Senate races. Now I haven't seen such a panic among Republican since Upton Sinclair was nearly elected governor of California in 1934. And in that case, Sinclair was a real socialist--not an imagined one.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170230...g-reagan-1980#

[Winehole23]

My previous sharing aside, I seem to remember in 2004 CBS News used a clumsily forged do ent about George W. Bush's National Guard service to smear him, and held firm for a while until right-wing bloggers proved beyond a doubt that it had been produced on Microsoft Word. After that, they tried to claim it was "fake, but true."

Does that comport with your claim that the media was out to get Kerry?

I think so. all candidates are pinatas. swiftboating and the flip flop meme stuck. the national guard meme didn't. not all sticks to the wall.

[boutons_deux]

Nate Silver: The Polls Aren’t Wrong

In 2008, Nate Silver built a near-perfect model for analyzing the polls at his web site Fivethirtyeight.com. Silver called Obama over McCain in March — and ultimately nailed 49 of 50 states, got every Senate race right and predicted the popular vote within a percentage point. That’s the kind of predictive power we all dream of when we fill out NCAA tournament brackets or a lottery ticket. The New York Times added his blog to its site soon after the election. The numbers geek started a bidding war.

In his new book, “The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail — But Some Don’t,” Silver tries to explain the secret to getting things right — and finds that it often turns on blind ideology and overconfidence. (He’s gotten things wrong himself; in the book, Silver admits that his much-touted baseball statistical analysis system, called PECOTA, actually fared worse than the collective wisdom of the old-school pro scouts, much-maligned in the “Moneyball” era. Hey, he still totally got Dustin Pedroia right.)

http://www.alternet.org/election-201...ls-arent-wrong