Question for Right-wingers

[HudsonGator]

Since we have a "question for lefties" thread, I think it is only fair that we have its counter-part.

So, here's the question, why do you still watch Fox News?

Prior to the 2012 election, Fox News continued on and on about how the polls were all a bunch of liberal media nonsense and that Romney was going to win.

After basically being lied to for months, why would you continue to make these people rich by watching them?

[tegator80]

Two reasons: one because I want to veg out in front of the television and there is so much crap on that some (not all) Fox shows are at least not incompetent. The Five is pretty entertaining when they don't spend too much time whining. The other reason is that if it is newsworthy, they provide at least a modicum of having an opposing opinion on board. The other national television news can't come close to saying that.

But overall unless it is a special report, if I want news I read the paper or the internet. Television news has been corrupted for at least since the OJ Simpson trial.

[fredsanford]

Ratings would indicate they aren't.

They are down big time.

[Tim85]

Since we have a "question for lefties" thread, I think it is only fair that we have its counter-part.

So, here's the question, why do you still watch Fox News?

Well, maybe I'm not exactly a "right-winger," but I don't own a television and even if I did, I doubt it would be on very much, and if it were on, I doubt it would be on Fox News very often, if at all.

Prior to the 2012 election, Fox News continued on and on about how the polls were all a bunch of liberal media nonsense and that Romney was going to win.

After basically being lied to for months, why would you continue to make these people rich by watching them?

See above. However, was Fox News really going on and on about how Romney was going to win?

[G8trGr8t]

not a right winger, more of aliberatarian but I don't watch fox news. get my news from CNBC and WSJ. watch nbc nightly news sometimes but know the bias that is inherent in their reporting

[HudsonGator]

Well, maybe I'm not exactly a "right-winger," but I don't own a television and even if I did, I doubt it would be on very much, and if it were on, I doubt it would be on Fox News very often, if at all.



See above. However, was Fox News really going on and on about how Romney was going to win?

Yeah, and they were pretty much the only one, well, and Rush of course.

[PSGator66]

I still think that the fix was on with the election and rampant fraud gave it to Obama. If you truly watched Fox they didn't all claim that Romney was going to win. Rove was the one who was wrong and he is feeling the wrath.

[108]

our political discourse would be better off without either blatantly biased news channels

divide and conquer

[rivergator]

10 pundits who said Romney would win:

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-sigman/pundits-romney-election-results_b_2088155.html)

[GatorAbe7]

Since we have a "question for lefties" thread, I think it is only fair that we have its counter-part.

So, here's the question, why do you still watch Fox News?

Prior to the 2012 election, Fox News continued on and on about how the polls were all a bunch of liberal media nonsense and that Romney was going to win.

After basically being lied to for months, why would you continue to make these people rich by watching them?

I haven't consistently watched Fox News since 2004. I do still trawl through the Drudge Report and catch various conservative talk-radio, but strictly local city shows (such as "Mornings On the Mall" here in DC or the "Jon Justice Show" in Tucson.)

When I actually "watch" the news it's BBC America.

[g8trdoc]

My belief is that fraud wan the election for Obama and this has been proven over and over in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

[rivergator]

My belief is that fraud wan the election for Obama and this has been proven over and over in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

jeez ....

[g8trdoc]

Then how the hech do you explain precincts voting at 108% of registered voters 100% for President Kardashian?

[Matthanuf06]

Fox is the most fair and balanced of the news stations. Although to get a truly fair and balanced news you have to aggregate and fight all the bias.

And I'm not saying Fox is centrist FYI. They are just more in the middle than say CNN or MSNBC.

[mdgator05]

My belief is that fraud wan the election for Obama and this has been proven over and over in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

I think you need to look up the word "proven" and contrast it with "it makes me feel better to believe that." They are different concepts. This is how the unskewed polls people got you all to believe the entire world was out to get you. It made you feel better. The truth of it doesn't matter. The fact that election results matched the state of the art political prediction models and aggregators doesn't matter.

Much of the inability of the right to deal with this loss resembles how people with family members in hospitals operate. They hang on to every form of irrational hope and are often unwilling to accept logical conclusions. They engaged in a wide variety of biased thinking, such as success bias and an associated belief that any negative outcomes could be prevented or were the result of grand illogical mechanations by those in charge. For examples in a political context, see the number of times one outlying poll from a fairly inaccurate pollster from 22 years ago were mentioned on this board. Since a poll was wrong once, all polls combined must be wrong now. And when that isn't true, well somebody must have cheated so that the outcomes of all of these wrong results were matched very closely.

[mdgator05]

Then how the hech do you explain precincts voting at 108% of registered voters 100% for President Kardashian?

It is explained by not being true.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/nov/19/online-petition/online-petition-claims-obama-got-more-votes-one-co/

The county has a total of 98,213 in the voting age population. The county has 106,258 registered voters. That is 108% of the total voting age population. However, the presence of Bowling Green State University in the county ensures that there is a decent amount of mobility into and out of the county. The county is unable to pull a name off the registration list until it is confirmed they have moved. So you end up with more registered voters than eligible voters.

However, your claim is that they all voted and that they all went for Obama. Both of these claims are simply false. Wood County had 62,338 votes in 2012. Of those, Obama won 31,596, or about 51%.

Confirmation of these results: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/states/ohio

If you look, Obama actually won this county by a closer margin than in 2008.

So both of those claims are false. Which is why the claim was given:

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-pantsonfire.gif

[Tim85]

I think you need to look up the word "proven" and contrast it with "it makes me feel better to believe that." They are different concepts. This is how the unskewed polls people got you all to believe the entire world was out to get you. It made you feel better. The truth of it doesn't matter. The fact that election results matched the state of the art political prediction models and aggregators doesn't matter.

Much of the inability of the right to deal with this loss resembles how people with family members in hospitals operate. They hang on to every form of irrational hope and are often unwilling to accept logical conclusions. They engaged in a wide variety of biased thinking, such as success bias and an associated belief that any negative outcomes could be prevented or were the result of grand illogical mechanations by those in charge. For examples in a political context, see the number of times one outlying poll from a fairly inaccurate pollster from 22 years ago were mentioned on this board. Since a poll was wrong once, all polls combined must be wrong now. And when that isn't true, well somebody must have cheated so that the outcomes of all of these wrong results were matched very closely.

Give me a break with the hyperbole. Or maybe they cling onto hope like an unranked football team that can travel to the number one team's stadium and still win, despite all of the odds? People on here always say things like, "oh the Left or Right will say anything that fits their storyline," the second half of your post is a perfect example.

Ask yourself this : Was it absolutely possible that Romney could win that election? Was it within the realm of reason? I think so, on both accounts. Considering that almost half of the voters in the country almost voted him in, I'd say it was a pretty good chance really, despite the polls. Better chance than a lot of things in this world. Why wouldn't people have hope in that?

[mdgator05]

Give me a break with the hyperbole. Or maybe they cling onto hope like an unranked football team that can travel to the number one team's stadium and still win, despite all of the odds? People on here always say things like, "oh the Left or Right will say anything that fits their storyline," the second half of your post is a perfect example.

It was in response to a display of that behavior. You are right that I should have clarified my post with "many" or "some" but it is not a minority. As I have pointed out before, you have a fairly decent amount of people claiming the election was stolen by a group that doesn't exist anymore.

If it makes you feel better, people's reactions in hospital are often times more visceral and desperate. But they are still based on the same thing. It isn't all that different from those that claim that their unranked football team is going to go beat the number 1 team, especially when it occurs late in the year. People when confronted with information that is unpleasant or disputes their world viewpoint often react with some of the strongest irrational thoughts possible.

Unfortunately, there is an entire infrastructure on the right that spurs this thinking on rather than attempting to suppress it. That is why you have people on the left performing some of the best and most accurate electoral analysis, even in 2010 when they lost, rather than much of what has been performed on the right.

[mdgator05]

Ask yourself this : Was it absolutely possible that Romney could win that election? Was it within the realm of reason? I think so, on both accounts. Considering that almost half of the voters in the country almost voted him in, I'd say it was a pretty good chance really, despite the polls. Better chance than a lot of things in this world. Why wouldn't people have hope in that?

Everything is possible. It was about a 5% likelihood that would require some form of consistent inaccuracy to exist in all state and national polling.

Why would you claim it was a "pretty good chance really, despite the polls?" What evidence was there to suggest this? Or are you engaging in the same irrational behavior of overvaluing what you wanted to happen rather than what evidence tells us will happen.

Hope is not in and of itself a negative thing. However, when it causes people to act in irrational ways, and base their worldviews on irrational thoughts, which then can cause additional irrationality, that hope has a pretty negative aspect. And unfortunately, groups like the unskewed polling people, the petitioners that convinced doc of a completely false result during the election, etc. on the right have fostered this irrationality, which is driving some on the right further and further into the land of unsupportable conspiracy theories. Frankly, we have not seen this as much on the left.

[jdrgator]

jeez ....

haha. What do you expect? A thoughtful answer?

[DaveFla]

Since we have a "question for lefties" thread, I think it is only fair that we have its counter-part.

So, here's the question, why do you still watch Fox News?

Prior to the 2012 election, Fox News continued on and on about how the polls were all a bunch of liberal media nonsense and that Romney was going to win.

After basically being lied to for months, why would you continue to make these people rich by watching them?

Why do you still beat your wife?

[Tim85]

Everything is possible. It was about a 5% likelihood that would require some form of consistent inaccuracy to exist in all state and national polling.

Why would you claim it was a "pretty good chance really, despite the polls?" What evidence was there to suggest this? Or are you engaging in the same irrational behavior of overvaluing what you wanted to happen rather than what evidence tells us will happen.

Hope is not in and of itself a negative thing. However, when it causes people to act in irrational ways, and base their worldviews on irrational thoughts, which then can cause additional irrationality, that hope has a pretty negative aspect. And unfortunately, groups like the unskewed polling people, the petitioners that convinced doc of a completely false result during the election, etc. on the right have fostered this irrationality, which is driving some on the right further and further into the land of unsupportable conspiracy theories. Frankly, we have not seen this as much on the left.

I just mean it was a good chance, because in reality, Obama won what -- like 52% to 48% or something like that? I don't even know, but in reality, that's really pretty close, even if it is millions of people. It's not like Obama won 70% of the votes, or even 60% -- if someone gave me a 48% shot of winning the lottery every day, I would definitely take it.

Also, it's not hope that is causing some on the right to act "irrationally" as you would call it -- it's frustration. They had hope before the election, and now that it's over, they're frustrated with the result -- like anyone would be. A lot of them take out their frustration by making claims and accusations, some of it based on actual events, some of it just based on emotion -- exactly like the Democrats did when Bush II won, and just like any normal people would who believe in something and invest their time, energy, and emotions into it. What I don't like is this partisan view that the Republicans are acting any different than Democrats would given the situation -- it would be the same.

[DaveFla]

I can't find anywhere where FOX News predicted a winner... Can someone show me?

[fredsanford]

I can't find anywhere where FOX News predicted a winner... Can someone show me?

Define "Fox."

Their paid analysts predicted a Romney landslide.

[DaveFla]

Define "Fox."

Their paid analysts predicted a Romney landslide.

Landslide? Who? Where?

[HudsonGator]

My belief is that fraud wan the election for Obama and this has been proven over and over in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

"Proven?"

Obama received 2,695,256 more votes than Romney. So over 2 and half million votes were fraudulent?

Also, even if Obama "stole" Ohio and Pennsylvania, that's only 38 electoral votes. Give those states to Romney and Obama still wins reelection with 294 electoral votes.

[rivergator]

Landslide? Who? Where?


Come on, DAve.

Dick Morris: Romney will win in a 'landslide'

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/11/01/dick-morris-romney-will-win-landslide#ixzz2Lwf8aJvJ

Gingrich Predicts 'Romney Landslide' (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/election-landslide-gingrich/2012/11/06/id/462938)

Romney wins in a landslide -- Las Vegas oddsmaker doubles down on prediction

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/09/romney-will-win-in-landslide-las-vegas-oddsmaker-doubles-down-on-prediction/#ixzz2LwfgCvZ5

[jimgata]

Dick Morris is not Fox News, If it is, I assume Sharpton is the left media.
It is laughable to say Fox is biased, while the rest of the media are nothing more than lapdogs for Obama.
There is more common sense shown in 30 minutes on Fox, than the rest of the media shows in a day. The left media is either stupid or just ignorant, but if the left media is your cup of tea, sip away.

[mdgator05]

I just mean it was a good chance, because in reality, Obama won what -- like 52% to 48% or something like that? I don't even know, but in reality, that's really pretty close, even if it is millions of people. It's not like Obama won 70% of the votes, or even 60% -- if someone gave me a 48% shot of winning the lottery every day, I would definitely take it.

Also, it's not hope that is causing some on the right to act "irrationally" as you would call it -- it's frustration. They had hope before the election, and now that it's over, they're frustrated with the result -- like anyone would be. A lot of them take out their frustration by making claims and accusations, some of it based on actual events, some of it just based on emotion -- exactly like the Democrats did when Bush II won, and just like any normal people would who believe in something and invest their time, energy, and emotions into it. What I don't like is this partisan view that the Republicans are acting any different than Democrats would given the situation -- it would be the same.

That requires a fundamental misunderstanding of the electorate. Winning 48% of the vote doesn't mean you have a 48% chance of winning an election. Mondale won 40% of the vote. Did anybody claim he had a 40% chance of winning the election?

Obama won 51-47. Of those people, the vast majority were not going to vote for the other party. So of the persuadable voters, Obama's margin was gigantic. That is how a group like 538 can make such an accurate prediction. Do you honestly think it is dumb luck that they are able to predict 50/50 states in a Presidential election?

Hope and frustration certainly go hand-in-hand when the hope is irrational. The hope before the election required a belief that an entire industry was wrong all in the same direction, which is highly unlikely. So since most people realize that this is unlikely, many on the right developed a conspiracy theory where an entire industry that is judged based upon their accuracy would systematically and purposefully try to discriminate against Republicans. Then when this absurd belief turned out to be false, it spawned irrational frustration, as has been seen by more than one member of this thread.

I understand your desire to pull out the "Democrats did it as well" card, but the problem is that it simply isn't true. Sure, I would imagine you could find a couple of individuals who did this, but much of the leadership and the intellectual leadership did not engage in this practice. They replaced the ineffective leadership (put in new leadership at the DNC and new leaders for both the Senate and House), renewed focus on expanding the map (50 state strategy), and started promoting candidates with popular positions, such as having consistently opposed the War in Iraq (such as Obama). Republicans haven't replaced a single major leader. They haven't really changed how they allocate election or party resources. Instead, many in the right-wing media have promoted absurd conspiracy theories ranging from "Obama stole the election" to "Newtown didn't happen and was just designed to take away our guns."

I think you are right that the issue is frustration. But it has little to do with Obama winning in 2012, since it started heavily before the 2008 election. The frustration is about the changes that are happening in this country due to a major new demographic group, born in the 1980s, that are coming of age right now. This group does not share many of the values of those on the right. So gay marriage, an issue that was used only 8 years ago to drum up support for Republicans, is now legal in a growing number of states because of the opinions of this age group. This group is more racially diverse, more socially liberal overall, and is either economically liberal or moderate. And this change is causing frustration. And it is easier to lash out in frustration than attempt to deal with it.

[mdgator05]

Dick Morris is not Fox News, If it is, I assume Sharpton is the left media.
It is laughable to say Fox is biased, while the rest of the media are nothing more than lapdogs for Obama.
There is more common sense shown in 30 minutes on Fox, than the rest of the media shows in a day. The left media is either stupid or just ignorant, but if the left media is your cup of tea, sip away.

He was one of their major prognosticators. However, he was not alone in that prediction.

Michael Barone predicted a huge Mitt victory. He is one of Fox's main elections people.

Karl Rove predicted a Mitt victory. He is one of Fox's main elections people.

Krauthammer predicted a Mitt victory. He is a major contributor.

Can you name somebody on their election coverage that predicted anything close to what actually happened?

Maybe that is why you think they have so much "common sense." The concept of "common sense" so often ignores actually being right in favor of what people would like to be true.

[Tim85]

That requires a fundamental misunderstanding of the electorate. Winning 48% of the vote doesn't mean you have a 48% chance of winning an election. Mondale won 40% of the vote. Did anybody claim he had a 40% chance of winning the election?

Obama won 51-47. Of those people, the vast majority were not going to vote for the other party. So of the persuadable voters, Obama's margin was gigantic. That is how a group like 538 can make such an accurate prediction. Do you honestly think it is dumb luck that they are able to predict 50/50 states in a Presidential election?

Hope and frustration certainly go hand-in-hand when the hope is irrational. The hope before the election required a belief that an entire industry was wrong all in the same direction, which is highly unlikely. So since most people realize that this is unlikely, many on the right developed a conspiracy theory where an entire industry that is judged based upon their accuracy would systematically and purposefully try to discriminate against Republicans. Then when this absurd belief turned out to be false, it spawned irrational frustration, as has been seen by more than one member of this thread.

I understand your desire to pull out the "Democrats did it as well" card, but the problem is that it simply isn't true. Sure, I would imagine you could find a couple of individuals who did this, but much of the leadership and the intellectual leadership did not engage in this practice. They replaced the ineffective leadership (put in new leadership at the DNC and new leaders for both the Senate and House), renewed focus on expanding the map (50 state strategy), and started promoting candidates with popular positions, such as having consistently opposed the War in Iraq (such as Obama). Republicans haven't replaced a single major leader. They haven't really changed how they allocate election or party resources. Instead, many in the right-wing media have promoted absurd conspiracy theories ranging from "Obama stole the election" to "Newtown didn't happen and was just designed to take away our guns."

I think you are right that the issue is frustration. But it has little to do with Obama winning in 2012, since it started heavily before the 2008 election. The frustration is about the changes that are happening in this country due to a major new demographic group, born in the 1980s, that are coming of age right now. This group does not share many of the values of those on the right. So gay marriage, an issue that was used only 8 years ago to drum up support for Republicans, is now legal in a growing number of states because of the opinions of this age group. This group is more racially diverse, more socially liberal overall, and is either economically liberal or moderate. And this change is causing frustration. And it is easier to lash out in frustration than attempt to deal with it.

You're right, I did get the percentages mixed up a little bit -- but my point is that nearly half of this country still voted Republican. These aren't 70-30 numbers we're looking at. You can argue the country may becoming more liberal, and socially, I would definitely agree -- but I think there's a great argument to be made that a lot of today's youth want to see reasonable and "conservative" spending by our government.

As far as hope is concerned -- a lot of hope is irrational. I'm not really sure hope and rationality really have all that much to do with each other. There are a number of studies out that show being hopeful leads to a healthier and happier person.(http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/apahope.htm). You say that, "required a belief that an entire industry was wrong all in the same direction," except that it wasn't an entire industry. There were a lot of people who thought it could go either way, a majority of polls may have showed it going one way, but it wasn't an entire industry. Many times entire industries, experts of a given field, scientists, and etc have been proven wrong by a fledgling minority. If your spouse, or child, or someone close to you was put in the hospital -- and the Doctor gave them a 85% chance of dying, would you not still have an ounce of hope that they might live -- and wouldn't it be a good thing for you to? If you don't think having hope in that situation is good, then why not?

You then go onto say that the election caused, "irrational frustration," except, it's perfectly rational, and you basically said it yourself. You said hope and frustration go hand in hand.

As someone who was born in the '80s, I guess I'm just not in the majority. A lot of those people in the '80s were also still voting in the elections for Bush II. I think you're being a bit exaggerative about the direction our country is heading, and forgetting that this President had more momentum than any other candidate in recent history. This guy became a celebrity the moment he was announced, and I've never seen someone in my short lifetime get so much praise, press, and coverage, especially someone who is a politician, especially back when he was first running in 2007. Friends of mine who I'd known never to have a real interest in politics before bought Obama posters or shirts, and even myself was a little curious if this guy could be different than everyone else. (Didn't take long to find out he's just another politician.)

[rivergator]

Dick Morris is not Fox News, If it is, I assume Sharpton is the left media.


See, how you would say that is "Dick Morris is not Fox News. If he is, I assume Sharpton is MSNBC."

[mdgator05]

You're right, I did get the percentages mixed up a little bit -- but my point is that nearly half of this country still voted Republican. These are 70-30 numbers we're looking at. You can argue the country may becoming more liberal, and socially, I would definitely agree -- but I think there's a great argument to be made that a lot of today's youth want to see reasonable and "conservative" spending by our government.

As far as hope is concerned -- a lot of hope is irrational. I'm not really sure hope and rationality really have all that much to do with each other. There are a number of studies out that show being hopeful leads to a healthier and happier person.(http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/apahope.htm). You say that, "required a belief that an entire industry was wrong all in the same direction," except that it wasn't an entire industry. There were a lot of people who thought it could go either way, a majority of polls may have showed it going one way, but it wasn't an entire industry. Many times entire industries, experts of a given field, scientists, and etc have been proven wrong by a fledgling minority. If your spouse, or child, or someone close to you was put in the hospital -- and the Doctor gave them a 85% chance of dying, would you not still have an ounce of hope that they might live?

You then go onto say that the election caused, "irrational frustration," except, it's perfectly rational, and you basically said it yourself. You said hope and frustration go hand in hand.

As someone who was born in the '80s, I guess I'm just not in the majority. A lot of those people in the '80s were also still voting in the elections for Bush II. I think you're being a bit exaggerative about the direction our country is heading, and forgetting that this President had more momentum than any other candidate in recent history. This guy became a celebrity the moment he was announced, and I've never seen someone in my short lifetime get so much praise, press, and coverage, especially someone who is a politician, especially back when he was first running in 2007.

I would agree that many young people want reasonable government spending. But the definition of that term is certainly not the same as what is being promoted by the Republican Party.

Maybe you could make that argument on a national popular vote scale. But on a state-by-state basis, the evidence was overwhelming. There wasn't a single poll used in the final figure for RCP that showed Romney winning Ohio.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

Nor was there one in Wisconsin.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_romney_vs_obama-1871.html

Nor was there one in Nevada.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nv/nevada_romney_vs_obama-1908.html

Nor was there one in Pennsylvania.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/pa/pennsylvania_romney_vs_obama-1891.html

Nor was there one in New Hampshire

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_romney_vs_obama-2030.html

Those combined with the safe states added to over 270. Romney would have had to win every state in which he was behind in all but 1 or 2 polls, and then put together a reasonable number of EVs in states without a single poll showing him in the lead.

I use the hospital example because I understand it very well. Of course I would hold out hope (I did). In fact, if you could properly control the experiment, I am sure you would find that my brain would overvalue the likelihood of their survival by a considerable amount. The problem is that this is irrational, which is why doctors are taught to snuff it out in extreme cases. Holding out too much hope results in people blaming doctors when miracles don't happen. In addition, people don't properly prepare themselves, which causes additional pain. So doctors act in their patients' family's best interest.

However, much of the right wing media and activists have had the opposite reaction. They appear to be feeding the irrationality with the goal of encouraging a steady cash flow from their consumers, who want the irrationality to be true. This will only serve to cause more harm to their cause and will isolate the right in America even further.

[JerseyGator01]

What an incredibly stupid thread. The polls also said that a large percentage of voters were significantly affected by the reporting on Sandy, which would essentially make most polls before the election irrelevant given the timing of Sandy.

What if Sandy didn't happen and Romney actually went Chris Christie on Obama's ass during the last two debates rather than appearing "above the fray?" He wins going away. It would have been close with one of those outcomes, but Romney had it in his hands and didn't finish the job. Basically, he was your typical blue blooded wimp that dominates one wing of the GOP.

[Tim85]

I would agree that many young people want reasonable government spending. But the definition of that term is certainly not the same as what is being promoted by the Republican Party.

Maybe you could make that argument on a national popular vote scale. But on a state-by-state basis, the evidence was overwhelming. There wasn't a single poll used in the final figure for RCP that showed Romney winning Ohio.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

Nor was there one in Wisconsin.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_romney_vs_obama-1871.html

Nor was there one in Nevada.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nv/nevada_romney_vs_obama-1908.html

Nor was there one in Pennsylvania.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/pa/pennsylvania_romney_vs_obama-1891.html

Nor was there one in New Hampshire

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_romney_vs_obama-2030.html

Those combined with the safe states added to over 270. Romney would have had to win every state in which he was behind in all but 1 or 2 polls, and then put together a reasonable number of EVs in states without a single poll showing him in the lead.

I use the hospital example because I understand it very well. Of course I would hold out hope (I did). In fact, if you could properly control the experiment, I am sure you would find that my brain would overvalue the likelihood of their survival by a considerable amount. The problem is that this is irrational, which is why doctors are taught to snuff it out in extreme cases. Holding out too much hope results in people blaming doctors when miracles don't happen. In addition, people don't properly prepare themselves, which causes additional pain. So doctors act in their patients' family's best interest.

However, much of the right wing media and activists have had the opposite reaction. They appear to be feeding the irrationality with the goal of encouraging a steady cash flow from their consumers, who want the irrationality to be true. This will only serve to cause more harm to their cause and will isolate the right in America even further.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't -- I don't really know, I'm not in touch enough with any of the winged media to know, but it seems like it would be normal if they were taking the reaction you described. But knowing that Republicans are wide and vast as far as different types of people, I can't imagine they're all like that. I don't think you can look at Fox News or Rush Limbaugh and say, "I can't believe all Republicans are like this," because simply put, they really aren't, and most of the ones I know aren't.

You make it out to be that having that irrational hope is a problem, but that irrational hope is a good thing, and it essentially keeps people from killing themselves. Doctors shouldn't be taught to snuff out anything as far as that is concerned, they should simply care for their patients, and tell me the truth regarding them -- it's not for them to decide anyone's reactions.

[g8tr80]

I don't watch Fox news as much any more because the election is over. I do watch CNN a bit more now to try to make sense out of the election and how the lo-fos are continuously being manipulated.

Frankly, my days of caring are about over. This country is in the toilet and most Americans could not care less. The president says the most astounding things and everybody just sits and nods their heads. Screw it. Can somebody direct me to where I can sign up to build one of Obama's bridges? We either do it now, or it will cost us more later.

[108]

Fox is the most fair and balanced of the news stations. Although to get a truly fair and balanced news you have to aggregate and fight all the bias.

And I'm not saying Fox is centrist FYI. They are just more in the middle than say CNN or MSNBC.

how does Fox routinely winning the award for least informed viewer fit into this :huh:

[jimgata]

Thanks for Fox, it just gives the left something else to blame for Obama's failures.

[HudsonGator]

Why do you still beat your wife?

Because she's always on me about the fact that your wife won't quit calling me.

[DaveFla]

Because she's always on me about the fact that your wife won't quit calling me.

Interesting. My wife's work is with the mentally challenged.

Thanks for clearing that up for ALL of us.

[wargunfan]

I watch Fox because I am an adult and can differentiate between hard news and opinion shows. I also watch MSNBC because I can spot bias and have a fine BS filter. It's fun and informative to spot the conservative bias of Sean Hannity and the liberal bias of Al Sharpton. For straight news it's hard to beat the BBC.

[HudsonGator]

Interesting. My wife's work is with the mentally challenged.

Thanks for clearing that up for ALL of us.


Well, do me a favor, tell her to quit calling me, it's over.

[g8orbill]

the 47% prez won because they were a well oiled machine and made sure they got their vote out in the most populous counties in each swing state they needed to carry-they ran an outstanding ground game- if I remember correctly prezbo only won 9 of florida's 67 counties, but that was enough to carry the State

the pubs once again nominated a moderate who could not motivate the conservative base to get out and vote-this is on them and the idiots who stayed home

I cannot stand prezbo and what he believes in, but the ........ had a master plan that was brilliant- the Fox pundits just could not allow themselves to believe the polls-the polls were dead on, so they came away with egg on their face-oh well

[fredsanford]

Dick Morris is not Fox News, If it is, I assume Sharpton is the left media.
It is laughable to say Fox is biased, while the rest of the media are nothing more than lapdogs for Obama.
There is more common sense shown in 30 minutes on Fox, than the rest of the media shows in a day. The left media is either stupid or just ignorant, but if the left media is your cup of tea, sip away.

It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to talk about Fox's common sense in the same post discussing how their analysts got the election wildly wrong.

[Minister_of_Information]

I watch Special Report and CNBC for the most part other than that. MSNBC has a couple of shows worth watching. CNN is basically worthless, tabloid TV.

[Matthanuf06]

how does Fox routinely winning the award for least informed viewer fit into this :huh:

America has informed voters?

Seriously, that's like 1% of the population, tops. Take the whole financial crisis, I'm not saying you need to be an expert to understand it, but you need a solid understand of a few fields (particularly finance and economics). How many people really have that, yet everyone has an opinion? More specifically their opinion is shaped by what their politician says, which is the very definition of an uninformed voter.

[g8trjax]

America has informed voters?

Seriously, that's like 1% of the population, tops. Take the whole financial crisis, I'm not saying you need to be an expert to understand it, but you need a solid understand of a few fields (particularly finance and economics). How many people really have that, yet everyone has an opinion? More specifically their opinion is shaped by what their politician says, which is the very definition of an uninformed voter.

This sequester propaganda, is a prime example of pounding the 99% with endless scenarios of gloom and doom. Absolutely amazing to watch.

[tegator80]

Oh, and I forgot about Neil Cavuto. He is an undoubtedly unbiased journalist and does admirably and competently what Bill O'Reilly claims to do. He has all sides on and let's them make their case, and calls BS when they get full of themselves.

[rivergator]

Oh, and I forgot about Neil Cavuto. He is an undoubtedly unbiased journalist and does admirably and competently what Bill O'Reilly claims to do. He has all sides on and let's them make their case, and calls BS when they get full of themselves.

Just for fun:

link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihdb2HV_ceI)

[jimgata]

Making an error in polling data is a lot different than the left accepting every comment made by Obama as truth , whether they know if he is lying or not. Common sense should trigger the act of checking facts, however the left refuses to do that, whether it takes common sense to check facts or not, the left will report nothing that puts Obama in a bad light. Common sense should signal fact checking and reporting truth, if they don't they report lies.