Romney ends with 47%! I love irony.

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
"*** Obama’s victory was more decisive than Bush’s in ’04: And here’s one final observation about the 2012 race. Per the excellent work by the Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman, Obama’s national lead over Romney continues to expand as votes keep on coming in. It’s now Obama 50.9%, Romney 47.4%. That’s a bigger (and more decisive) margin than Bush’s victory over John Kerry in 2004 (which was Bush 50.7% and Kerry 48.2%). What’s more, the president’s lead has grown to close to 3 points in Ohio, 4 points in Virginia and 6 points in Colorado. One doesn’t win Colorado by six points without winning swing voters; there isn’t a big-enough Democratic base to make that argument."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/29/15540899-first-thoughts-moving-on?lite

The President got Re-elected, in a terrable economy by more than Bush did! My faith in the American voter is growing.
 
Hey, SmarterThanNobody... The President beat Romney in Mischagan by 10%......
 
After all the bullshit that faux news spewed, after all the misinformation, phony numbers, the outright lies and intentional miscalculations, you'd think the wingnuts here would learn that faux is lying and is actually the propaganda wing of the radical right. Faux will say or do anything to get their stooge elected, even if it's a lie that has no base in reality. But no. The brainwashed diddo-heads run back to faux like a heroin junkie for a fix.

If they would lie about the way the election was going why would anybody believe anything they say from that point on?
Personally I hate being lied to and when someone does I have less and less to do with that person. It seems like the radical wingnuts here like to be lied to. Credibility means nothing to them as long as the 2 minute hate* continues 24/7.

You gotta ask yourself a question... why did I think the Republicons were going to win when they lost so miserably? Maybe it had something to do with my news sources.






*See 1984 by G. Orwell
 
Crashk said:
After all the bullshit that faux news spewed, after all the misinformation, phony numbers, the outright lies and intentional miscalculations, you'd think the wingnuts here would learn that faux is lying and is actually the propaganda wing of the radical right. Faux will say or do anything to get their stooge elected, even if it's a lie that has no base in reality. But no. The brainwashed diddo-heads run back to faux like a heroin junkie for a fix.

If they would lie about the way the election was going why would anybody believe anything they say from that point on?
Personally I hate being lied to and when someone does I have less and less to do with that person. It seems like the radical wingnuts here like to be lied to. Credibility means nothing to them as long as the 2 minute hate* continues 24/7.

You gotta ask yourself a question... why did I think the Republicons were going to win when they lost so miserably? Maybe it had something to do with my news sources.






*See 1984 by G. Orwell
Click to expand...

When someone lives in a pretend world built on perversions of reality, they often become desperate for any mirror, no matter how distorted it is, that will reflect the lie they want to see. It becomes pathalogical. Read up on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Many hard right conservatives suffer from it, and they depend on Fox News to prop up the lie. Remember when it was reported that when Cheney stayed in a hotel it was demanded that the television be PRE-TUNED to FOX-NEWS. Cheney was desperate to avoid being confronted with anything inconsistant with his pretend world.

This is why Fox News does well in the ratings, they are narrowcasting to a pre-determined group of people they have identified who will be desperatly hooked to the world view they are selling. For these people to go anywhere else for information about the world would be devistating to the world view these people have created for themselves. Namely that every social or economic ill is created by OTHER people and that they should not be responsable to pay for anything the government provides.

I enjoy when reality smacks pretenders in the head.
 
Jarod said:
When someone lives in a pretend world built on perversions of reality, they often become desperate for any mirror, no matter how distorted it is, that will reflect the lie they want to see. It becomes pathalogical. Read up on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Many hard right conservatives suffer from it, and they depend on Fox News to prop up the lie. Remember when it was reported that when Cheney stayed in a hotel it was demanded that the television be PRE-TUNED to FOX-NEWS. Cheney was desperate to avoid being confronted with anything inconsistant with his pretend world.

I enjoy when reality smacks pretenders in the head.
Click to expand...

And if you're a liberal and all you watch is MSNBC and read Huffington Post, ThinkProgress, DailyKos, and Media Matters do you think you're living in some kind of reality world yourself? That is a rhetorical question because I know you will answer yes thinking there is somehow a difference.
 
cawacko said:
And if you're a liberal and all you watch is MSNBC and read Huffington Post, ThinkProgress, DailyKos, and Media Matters do you think you're living in some kind of reality world yourself? That is a rhetorical question because I know you will answer yes thinking there is somehow a difference.
Click to expand...

If that were the only place you got your news, if you demanded that the television be pre-tuned to MSNBC so that you would not have to risk being exposed to the others... yes, you would be suffering from the exact same disorder.

But the point is that MSNBC was reporting the truth about the Election, FOX was NOT! In this instance MSNBC was reflecting reality, it was not a distorted mirror.

I find that my more liberal friends get there news from a variety of sources, they watch Fox, listen to Rush, read the paper and go to Huffingtonpost, and watch MSNBC.
 
Jarod said:
If that were the only place you got your news, if you demanded that the television be pre-tuned to MSNBC so that you would not have to risk being exposed to the others... yes, you would be suffering from the exact same disorder.

But the point is that MSNBC was reporting the truth about the Election, FOX was NOT! In this instance MSNBC was reflecting reality, it was not a distorted mirror.

I find that my more liberal friends get there news from a variety of sources, they watch Fox, listen to Rush, read the paper and go to Huffingtonpost, and watch MSNBC.
Click to expand...

What truth are you referring to?
 
Jarod said:
If that were the only place you got your news, if you demanded that the television be pre-tuned to MSNBC so that you would not have to risk being exposed to the others... yes, you would be suffering from the exact same disorder.

But the point is that MSNBC was reporting the truth about the Election, FOX was NOT! In this instance MSNBC was reflecting reality, it was not a distorted mirror.

I find that my more liberal friends get there news from a variety of sources, they watch Fox, listen to Rush, read the paper and go to Huffingtonpost, and watch MSNBC.
Click to expand...

And if you get your news from MSNBC, Rush and Fox News you aren't getting news you are getting partisan political spin. If you want real news go to places like The Economist, Financial Times, WSJ.
 
cawacko said:
What truth are you referring to?
Click to expand...

MSNBC was reporting that the election was going to be close but that it appeared the President had the advantage in the swing states. That truth.
The NYT's was publishing Nate Silver's report which was a DEAD ON accurate predection of the election. That truth.

FOX was rabidly attacking Nate Silver for being biased and cooking the numbers. I belive they were Desperatly trying to keep the doners active by making them belive Mitt had a chance. Rove, a paid commentator from Fox News had a clearly documentable interest in keeping the FOX News viewers beliveing that Mitt was in the hunt. That truth.
 
cawacko said:
And if you get your news from MSNBC, Rush and Fox News you aren't getting news you are getting partisan political spin. If you want real news go to places like The Economist, Financial Times, WSJ.
Click to expand...

No, clearly the Economist, the Financial Times and the WSJ have a spin also, maybe less political, but spin none the less. You get your news from a variety of sources and evaluate it to determine the truth.
 
Jarod said:
MSNBC was reporting that the election was going to be close but that it appeared the President had the advantage in the swing states. That truth.
The NYT's was publishing Nate Silver's report which was a DEAD ON accurate predection of the election. That truth.

FOX was rabidly attacking Nate Silver for being biased and cooking the numbers. I belive they were Desperatly trying to keep the doners active by making them belive Mitt had a chance. Rove, a paid commentator from Fox News had a clearly documentable interest in keeping the FOX News viewers beliveing that Mitt was in the hunt. That truth.
Click to expand...

Oh, so if your predictions come true then you are speaking the truth but if your predictions are wrong you don't speak the truth and are a liar. That makes a lot of sense.
 
cawacko said:
Oh, so if your predictions come true then you are speaking the truth but if your predictions are wrong you don't speak the truth and are a liar. That makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

No, not necessarly, but if you had a motive for a "wrong prediction" and its not based on realistic data you are in the lie catagory.
 
Jarod said:
No, not necessarly, but if you had a motive for a "wrong prediction" and its not based on realistic data you are in the lie catagory.
Click to expand...

It was not a guarantee Obama was winning this election. If polling was 100% accurate and people never changed their minds there wouldn't be elections. Because Obama had a lead didn't mean he was guaranteed to win.

Alabama is favored over Georgia. Most 'expert' pundits feel Alabama will win. Should they still play the game?
 
cawacko said:
It was not a guarantee Obama was winning this election. If polling was 100% accurate and people never changed their minds there wouldn't be elections. Because Obama had a lead didn't mean he was guaranteed to win.

Alabama is favored over Georgia. Most 'expert' pundits feel Alabama will win. Should they still play the game?
Click to expand...

I agree that the outcome could have changed, but IF you are going to report data about who is ahead in the polls and who is likely to win, report it accuratly. They did not do that, they wanted to keep there viewers happy and tuned in by promoting the view that they wanted to hear, no matter how different it was from the data that was indicating a particular result. Thats not news, thats FauxNews.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
MSNBC was reporting that the election was going to be close but that it appeared the President had the advantage in the swing states. That truth.
The NYT's was publishing Nate Silver's report which was a DEAD ON accurate predection of the election. That truth.

FOX was rabidly attacking Nate Silver for being biased and cooking the numbers. I belive they were Desperatly trying to keep the doners active by making them belive Mitt had a chance. Rove, a paid commentator from Fox News had a clearly documentable interest in keeping the FOX News viewers beliveing that Mitt was in the hunt. That truth.
Click to expand...


Its the weird logic of pinheads again....

If MSNBC is reporting that the election was going to be close, isn't that the exact same thing as saying that Romney had a chance ?

The reporting was exactly the same on every network BUT MSNBC.....they were the only network to call the election for Obama even before the polls opened...thats bias,
and they're being right doesn't change the fact that they were the ones radically different that every other network....
The other networks were reporting THE NEWS and results as it occurred, not predicting the future.....
Roves opinions and optimism is not FOX NEWS opinions, its Karl Roves.

You just won't admit the difference, and what NEWS actually is supposed to be....NEWS is not predicting the future.....

To say election was going to be close is not different than telling viewers that Romney was in the hunt as you put it.....
Some of you guys have a really hard time were the English language.....
 
bravo said:
Its the weird logic of pinheads again....

If MSNBC is reporting that the election was going to be close, isn't that the exact same thing as saying that Romney had a chance ?

The reporting was exactly the same on every network BUT MSNBC.....they were the only network to call the election for Obama even before the polls opened...thats bias,
and they're being right doesn't change the fact that they were the ones radically different that every other network....
The other networks were reporting THE NEWS and results as it occurred, not predicting the future.....
Roves opinions and optimism is not FOX NEWS opinions, its Karl Roves.

You just won't admit the difference, and what NEWS actually is supposed to be....NEWS is not predicting the future.....

To say election was going to be close is not different than telling viewers that Romney was in the hunt as you put it.....
Some of you guys have a really hard time were the English language.....
Click to expand...

Fox was not reporting "Romney had a chance". They were enthusastically saying that he was clearly winning.
 
Jarod said:
I agree that the outcome could have changed, but IF you are going to report data about who is ahead in the polls and who is likely to win, report it accuratly. They did not do that, they wanted to keep there viewers happy and tuned in by promoting the view that they wanted to hear, no matter how different it was from the data that was indicating a particular result. Thats not news, thats FauxNews.
Click to expand...

"I agree that the outcome could have changed, but IF you are going to report data about who is ahead in the polls and who is likely to win, report it accuratly."

Fox News did exactly that....reporting that Romney must win in PA and VA and FLA to have a chance....and that that outcome was highly unlikely....
What they didn't do was call the winner prematurely....until there was no doubt that Obama was going ahead in those states....
 
bravo said:
"I agree that the outcome could have changed, but IF you are going to report data about who is ahead in the polls and who is likely to win, report it accuratly."

Fox News did exactly that....reporting that Romney must win in PA and VA and FLA to have a chance....and that that outcome was highly unlikely....
What they didn't do was call the winner prematurely....until there was no doubt that Obama was going ahead in those states....
Click to expand...

FALSE, Cite?
 
Jarod said:
Fox was not reporting "Romney had a chance". They were enthusastically saying that he was clearly winning.
Click to expand...


Thats just an outright lie.....I watched them for hours....and they never said Romney was winning the election....that clearly reported what states both
won or were ahead or behind in.....you don't know wtf you talking about.
Rove, on the other hand was clearly cheerleading his side and always looking at it from his perspective....even when it was becoming obvious that Romney was losing
the states he had to have.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top