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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Tim85

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

[GatorAbe7]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by g8trdoc

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]

Originally Posted by g8trdoc

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]

Originally Posted by g8trdoc

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/state...-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:

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

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]

Originally Posted by Tim85

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]

Originally Posted by rivergator

jeez ....

haha. What do you expect? A thoughtful answer?