Question for Right-wingers

[DaveFla]

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?

Why do you still beat your wife?

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

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]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

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]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Define "Fox."

Their paid analysts predicted a Romney landslide.

Landslide? Who? Where?

[HudsonGator]

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.

"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]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

Landslide? Who? Where?

Come on, DAve.

Dick Morris: Romney will win in a 'landslide'

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreill...#ixzz2Lwf8aJvJ

Gingrich Predicts 'Romney Landslide'

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

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#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]

Originally Posted by Tim85

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

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]

Originally Posted by jimgata

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]

Originally Posted by Tim85

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/epo...bama-1860.html

Nor was there one in Wisconsin.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1871.html

Nor was there one in Nevada.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1908.html

Nor was there one in Pennsylvania.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1891.html

Nor was there one in New Hampshire

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-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]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

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/epo...bama-1860.html

Nor was there one in Wisconsin.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1871.html

Nor was there one in Nevada.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1908.html

Nor was there one in Pennsylvania.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1891.html

Nor was there one in New Hampshire

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[jimgata]

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

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

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]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

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.