posted
I don't think that is quite true. I think that voting idealistically is great in certain circumstances. For example, local elections where third parties have a chance of winning (because they don't need as much money) and can get some name recognition so as to build to bigger things. Primaries are also good places to vote more idealistically.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: With the exception of Russ Feingold losing to a high school dropout and Prop 19 in CA going down due to midterm young voter apathy, everything I wanted to have happen in this election .. happened.
I find this quite surprising. Off the top of my head I can think of a half dozen things that I would imagine, based on what I know of you, you did not want to happen. Or maybe you're making a strange semantic distinction between things you wanted to have happen happening and things you didn't want to have happen not happening.
Also, I'm surprised that Hickenlooper beating Tancredo didn't make your list.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I find this quite surprising. Off the top of my head I can think of a half dozen things that I would imagine, based on what I know of you, you did not want to happen.
There's plenty of stuff that could have happened that I would have certainly liked, but were outside of the realm of possibility.
Tancredo losing is indeed something I'm happy about but it slipped my mind because I never, ever expected he stood a chance.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It got us Bush elected in '00, which in turn caused a war and countless other problems. This in turn led to a serious backlash against left-wing third-party candidates and no long-term prospects for non-incremental reform.
And then, with all this backlash and his horrible performance, how did Bush win in '04?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without even answering that, it wouldn't change what problems exist with politicians being elected via spoiler.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that is quite true. I think that voting idealistically is great in certain circumstances. For example, local elections where third parties have a chance of winning (because they don't need as much money) and can get some name recognition so as to build to bigger things. Primaries are also good places to vote more idealistically.
In any competitive race between an american left/right candidate, the people who vote third party are basically spoilers for the candidates they are most ideologically opposed to. They're welcome to 'make a point,' but it comes at the cost of them being complete tools. This is why the GOP feeds spoiler Green Party candidates into close races and then encourages people to vote for them, and why in the NY election, conservatives have sicced bulldogs on the Libertarian Party candidate with the intent to destroy him.
In non-competitive races where the conclusion is essentially guaranteed to go one way, sure, go nuts.
This is only really saying though that third party votes are only a good thing in voting that doesn't matter in the first place.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cringe at a Palin presidency. Thing is, in 2012 if it were Palin vs. Obama, I'd probably vote none of these candidates.
I actually like Rubio, but I think he has a long way to go before he should even think about running as a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate.
The biggest problem the GOP is going to have leading up to 2012 is whether or not something changes in the country. I read one statement by a Republican that said "The people didn't vote Republicans in, they just voted the Democrats out." I think he hit it right on the head. I don't think the Democrats lost so many House seats because people are more conservative than they were two years ago.
I'd argue that it wasn't exactly anything the Democrats did or didn't do, but the effectiveness of the Tea Party and Republicans to rile people up.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The tea party? Not particularly. This election was a perfect (and fairly predictable) example of the midterm pendulum effect, exacerbated by the extreme apathy of young voters without a high-profile presidential election to inspire a high 18-35 demo turnout. This is exactly what you get when seniors are at their best voter turnout, and young people are at their worst.
The biggest problem that the GOP will have in 2012 will derive from the fact that just as every midterm swing is predictable, so too is the swing in the other direction, along with the recovery of young voters.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It got us Bush elected in '00, which in turn caused a war and countless other problems. This in turn led to a serious backlash against left-wing third-party candidates and no long-term prospects for non-incremental reform.
And then, with all this backlash and his horrible performance, how did Bush win in '04?
Because the country's population was, and is, both pretty far to the right and irrationally afraid of terrorism?
The backlash I was talking about wasn't a general American backlash against Bush. It was a backlash on the left against third parties. And it's completely erased any "things have to get worse before they get better" effect.
I share a lot of your disgust with Obama and the establishment toadies that make up his administration. But we have both a political culture and a broader American culture to work within. US culture is not hospitable to left-wing ideas the way it used to be. So what we need to do is damage control until that changes. Hopefully the death of the present oldest generation will accomplish that.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
American culture is more hospitable to left-wing ideas than it has ever been. It's just that the 18-35 demographic (which is the most hospitable) has the worst voting habits, and the over-60 demographic (which is the least hospitable) has the most reliable voting habits.
The median american voter is closer to the left end of the party spectrum than the right.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:American culture is more hospitable to left-wing ideas than it has ever been.
Socially, I agree, but young people these days don't seem that taken with economic liberalism.
quote:It's just that the 18-35 demographic (which is the most hospitable) has the worst voting habits, and the over-60 demographic (which is the least hospitable) has the most reliable voting habits.
Fair enough, although the poor voting habits of liberal voters is in a sense a form of cultural inhospitable-ness.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Young people these days are VERY taken with 'economic liberalism,' if in general that means ideas like universal healthcare and stronger safety and support nets via welfare. The poor voting habits are age trends that behave like all age trends before it, so watch what happens when the 18-35 voters become 35-50 voters and the 65 and over voters become mostly dead.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the polls I have ever seen say that the American public in general is right of center, with conservatives outnumbering liberals 2:1. This is why liberal talk shows always fail on radio and TV, while conservative talk shows go on year after year. This is why Fox News has a higher rating that any two and sometimes any three other news networks. Despite what many liberals claim, Fox News is not biased in favor of conservatives. It just stands out from all the other socialist news networks because it actually tries to give you "Fair and Balanced" reporting, with all viewpoints represented. The American public appreciates this, and MSNBC, ABC, and CBS just can't seem to get it that their unprofessional, habitual violations of journalistic integrity are noticed and despised by the public.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is why Fox News has a higher rating that any two and sometimes any three other news networks. Despite what many liberals claim, Fox News is not biased in favor of conservatives. It just stands out from all the other socialist news networks
Someone pointed out that while Fox News shows trounce the other networks' news shows, all the Fox News shows are themselves trounced by much crappy reality television. Viewer numbers are not an indication of quality or truth, just of entertainment value.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It just stands out from all the other socialist news networks because it actually tries to give you "Fair and Balanced" reporting, with all viewpoints represented.
'Mathematicians have long claimed that two plus two equals four. But to keep things fair and balanced, we're going to talk with those who believe that two plus two equals five. Can you believe these brave mathematicians are being hounded out of their teaching positions merely for holding a different viewpoint?! And those liberals say they're open minded!'
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: All the polls I have ever seen say that the American public in general is right of center, with conservatives outnumbering liberals 2:1.
You must limit yourself exclusively to seeing stupid and wrong polls!
quote:Despite what many liberals claim, Fox News is not biased in favor of conservatives.
Oh, aren't you ADORABLE.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are progressives praising the Murkowski victory? Isn't she a R? R and D labels don't matter to progressives. Liberals consider the Murkowski victory a win....she's a Republican. They consider her a gain because she isn't a conservative, despite the R next to her name. The same reason the Democrat party wanted the black Democrat candidate Meek to drop out so the once repulican (Crist) might have a chance against the Tea Bagger latino, Rubio. R's and D's are the same. Charley Crist and Murkowski are not R's or D's...they are progressives and politicians first.
Why would a democrat president ask the democrat nominee to drop out? Compromise is a one party system.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,".... The Who from "Won't Get Fooled Again"
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is why liberal talk shows always fail on radio and TV
Or, I don't need/want to listen to a bunch of talking heads parroting information to me. I've got a brain; I can think for myself. Also, in my experience, those shows aren't giving me any reliable data I can't find in a reputable, written news story.
Politics is so tiring. It's time for me to go lurker on political threads again. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Murkowski victory -- assuming she wins -- is a win because Joe Miller is a nutjob. Dems would rather have someone they can work with.
It would have been smart for Meek to drop out because, as expected, the vote was split between Crist and Meek and Rubio won. Had Crist gotten all of Meek's votes -- which he wouldn't have, completely, as some Dems simply wouldn't vote for him and some had already voted early for Meek -- he would have won, and the Dems knew they could work with Crist. The numbers prove it.
Not sure why you felt compelled to bring race into the Florida issue, as it had nothing at all to do with the realities of the election.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's always compelled to bring race into as many issues as possible, because he thinks he understands racial issues.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: All the polls I have ever seen say that the American public in general is right of center, with conservatives outnumbering liberals 2:1. This is why liberal talk shows always fail on radio and TV, while conservative talk shows go on year after year. This is why Fox News has a higher rating that any two and sometimes any three other news networks. Despite what many liberals claim, Fox News is not biased in favor of conservatives. It just stands out from all the other socialist news networks because it actually tries to give you "Fair and Balanced" reporting, with all viewpoints represented. The American public appreciates this, and MSNBC, ABC, and CBS just can't seem to get it that their unprofessional, habitual violations of journalistic integrity are noticed and despised by the public.
So when Fox News used footage of a Democrat rally instead of what the actual Tea Party footage was in order to make it seem like the Tea Party had significantly higher turnout then it did, this is fair and balanced and not biased in any way?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: All the polls I have ever seen say that the American public in general is right of center, with conservatives outnumbering liberals 2:1. This is why liberal talk shows always fail on radio and TV, while conservative talk shows go on year after year. This is why Fox News has a higher rating that any two and sometimes any three other news networks. Despite what many liberals claim, Fox News is not biased in favor of conservatives. It just stands out from all the other socialist news networks because it actually tries to give you "Fair and Balanced" reporting, with all viewpoints represented. The American public appreciates this, and MSNBC, ABC, and CBS just can't seem to get it that their unprofessional, habitual violations of journalistic integrity are noticed and despised by the public.
posted
I would actually prefer a return to the state of publishing 75 years ago when the various news outlets freely proclaimed their political stances.
This fiction of objective journalism is exactly that, and instead of focusing on politics, people spend a lot of time accusing the other side of failing to live to claims that never should have been made in the first place.
Of course every news outlet is biased. Of course there are slants. Forget the opinions themselves - simply choosing what to cover (and hence what to leave out) is infested with prejudices. There is no news organization that doesn't have a slant. They are written and shot and run by human beings. \
All these shouts of "Fox News is biased!" sound like "There is a pulse!" Congratulations - you have detected humanity. Now contribute something actually useful instead of whining all the time.
I have to admire whomever started Fox News, actually - instead of whining about the liberal media, he started an alternative. If you don't like it, turn the television off. I have to wonder what percentage of Glenn Beck's audience are giving him their time (which he makes money off of) just in order to make themselves mad so get they to feel self-righteous and entertain the illusion that they are being productive instead of actually taking action for the world they prefer to see instead.
Turn off the entertainment and actually make a difference. All this sturm and drang about which polititainer is more pure is ridiculous.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: All these shouts of "Fox News is biased!" sound like "There is a pulse!" Congratulations - you have detected humanity. Now contribute something actually useful instead of whining all the time.
I don't know if they can. MSNBC is dedicated to the left and there isn't much of an uproar about that bias or calls to ban MSNBC or not speak with any of their talking heads.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: All these shouts of "Fox News is biased!" sound like "There is a pulse!" Congratulations - you have detected humanity. Now contribute something actually useful instead of whining all the time.
I don't know if they can. MSNBC is dedicated to the left and there isn't much of an uproar about that bias or calls to ban MSNBC or not speak with any of their talking heads.
Their anchors are regularly criticized by other publications for being smarmy and in the case of Olberman constantly grand standing.
The only criticism I hear about conservative pundits is that they aren't *real* conservatives because they don't go far enough.
Look I don't even know why I'm writing this, I absolutely hate the defense, "Our bad behavior will end when yours does!" I don't need Fox News to ditch a lot of the juvenile political stunts they pull before I am willing to criticize the leftist media. I am perfectly happy to just read from other publications and form my own opinion based on my own attempts to toss out bias on my own part.
That's all any of us can really do anyway.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DarkNight, Chris Matthews of MSNBC will never live down his statement that when Barack Obama comes into the room, he feels "a tingle down" his "leg."
It is truly ironic that President Obama and some of his fellow travellers of the extreme political left keep making statements about Fox News being their enemy, or being terribly biased, or not being a real news organizaiion. Fox News is the only news network worthy of being regarded as being true to the journalistic profession. All the others deliberately and knowlingly make up blatant lies and inject personal political prejudices as if they were factual reporting. Most of the public can see this, and that is why they are held in contempt. The more the fanatical left tries to perpetuate the systematic falsehoods they made up about Sarah Palin (and virtually everything they have ever said about her is completely false), the more Palin will grow in popularity. They may get Palin elected president in 2012. Those leftists who keep using the methods advocated by Saul Ailinsky, will find that those methods do not work in the long run, when the dishonesty and malice of their tactics eventually catches up to them, and they are exposed before everyone.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Says the person who thinks evolution is a myth.
IP: Logged |
quote: All these shouts of "Fox News is biased!" sound like "There is a pulse!" Congratulations - you have detected humanity. Now contribute something actually useful instead of whining all the time.
I don't know if they can. MSNBC is dedicated to the left and there isn't much of an uproar about that bias or calls to ban MSNBC or not speak with any of their talking heads.
I think MSNBC has a pretty liberal slant. However, I don't think they fictionalize a national narrative the way that Fox News does. There's a difference between presenting a story with a liberal slant and creating a story whole cloth to serve a political agenda. They operate on different levels.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think MSNBC has a pretty liberal slant. However, I don't think they fictionalize a national narrative the way that Fox News does. There's a difference between presenting a story with a liberal slant and creating a story whole cloth to serve a political agenda. They operate on different levels.
Really? Maddow has claimed that Stockman knew about the Oklahoma City bombing before it happened, blamed Fox for getting Sherrod fired. Olbermann blamed Bush for 9/11, lied about Kilmeade's statements, and on and on. Same goes for Matthews and the rest.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, evolution is a myth. It is completely impossible for something as information dense as the genetic basis of life to produce more complex lifeforms with more complex genetic codes out of simpler. There is nothing in nature that can do this. Natural Selection has no such power. Why do people who profess to believe in science allow themselves to be such unwitting dupes for a philosophy of science that is so utterly stupid and mathematically impossible?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blayne, evolution is a myth. It is completely impossible for something as information dense as the genetic basis of life to produce more complex lifeforms with more complex genetic codes out of simpler. There is nothing in nature that can do this. Natural Selection has no such power. Why do people who profess to believe in science allow themselves to be such unwitting dupes for a philosophy of science that is so utterly stupid and mathematically impossible?
Because you're taking an analogy (genes are like information) and taking it literally, thus confusing yourself.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The funniest part of this is that MSNBC is still maintaining the fiction that they are objective.
MSNBC can claim to be objective while employing a host who clearly is not objective as long as they are clear about what kind of show he is hosting. Remember, this is the same network that produces the decidedly right-wing "Morning Joe".
I find CNN, MSNBC and FOX to have relatively similar levels of objectivity when they are only reporting the news. FOX seems to have less of their programing time devoted to just reporting the news, however. And I'd be more than willing to accept that MSNBC is similar in their own percentage of news vs. commentary.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whereas FOX, far from forbidding their employees from making even private contributions, makes outright contributions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Msnbc isn't claiming impartiality, so that does not hold a lot of water, katharina. They are just showing that between fox and msnbc, msnbc has better journalistic standards for their commentors.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest," it says. "Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee."
Like I said, after the pathetic and juvenile partisan coverage election night, I can't believe MSNBC is even still trying to pretend to be impartial.
In fact, I suspect that the snickering coverage was behind the suspension, or at the least contributed to his bosses' willingness to suspend without pay. It was embarrasing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Fox News published all the reported criticisms of Sarah Palin. Fox News also published the facts that proved those criticisms were false. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS never acknowledged when the claims were proven false, nor apologized. No wonder so many people have a negative view of Palin. They have been lied to systematically and wholesale, with no correction, by the mainstream media--and the only news organization that shows ANY professonalism and journalistic intregrity--Fox News--is derided as "biased."
Thank goodness for the blogosphere.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did. It points out that both nbc news and msnbc commentors have to get permission from the same person. This person then makes a comment on the impartiality of nbc news. There is no included claim on the part of msnbc being impartial.
now YOU can read it again and check it against my translation and see that I am right.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'll lay it out for you: MSNBC is part of NBC News. The policies are the same for both.
No. Policies differ between different parts of nbc universal. That is why in your own link there is a second part right next to the nbc part part for msnbc showing something different in policy for msnbc.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As an example of journalistic integrity:
Fox News published all the reported criticisms of Sarah Palin. Fox News also published the facts that proved those criticisms were false. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS never acknowledged when the claims were proven false, nor apologized. No wonder so many people have a negative view of Palin. They have been lied to systematically and wholesale, with no correction, by the mainstream media--and the only news organization that shows ANY professonalism and journalistic intregrity--Fox News--is derided as "biased."
Thank goodness for the blogosphere.
Fox news is biased. Msnbc is biased. They are all biased, fox news more than most of them. I like arguing over which is more professional or factual but to say fox isn't biased at all is delusional. So is saying that palin was ONLY the recipient of false criticism which fox 100% refudiated.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fox is biased. They are all biased. Which one is "fair and balanced" in terms of allowing the other side to speak? Fox is considered right wing for presenting the right wing side. In fact, Fox's programs allow presenters from both sides, more than any other network.
96% blacks voting for Obama isn't racist and liberal media is "neutral". Fox gives both sides. I won't deny fox leans conservative, but at least they allow debate. Liberal media claims to be neutral while limiting conservative appearance or firing centrist liberals...ie Juan Williams.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey can we give malanthrop an ultimatum that basically says "stop bringing nonsequitorial racial commentary into every political conversation"
please
can we please do that
Also hey, I am glad that MSNBC will fire their cash cow in response to not adhering to the same standards of integrity that all the op eds have to follow. And I'm not just saying that because I hate Olbermann. But this whole 'having integrity' thing seems like a bad business strategy! They should do what Fox does, which is do stuff like where they put Hannity, O'Reilly and company all technically on Fox's "programming" staff, so that rules of journalistic integrity don't apply to them! Then, never fire them, no matter how many people they call hitler!
Hooray! Journalistic integrity a liability! Network news is great!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
