Failure assesment, and the importance of being accurate.

[rottnrog]

Understanding that Republicans only trust a handful of sources for their information, it makes sense for them to seem shocked and irrationally emotional about President Obama winning.

See, their people have been lying to them this whole time. That's what happens when you bet on rhetoric and propaganda instead of facts and reality.

While all these "liberally biased" sources more or less called the election exactly how it went down, sources such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh had been boasting about an easy Romney victory. Hell some went as far as to say he would get over 300 electoral votes and win the popular vote by 5-6 million.

So if that's all you heard this whole time, of course you would be shocked at just how inaccurate they were. But again that's what happens when you ignore facts and reality, instead choosing to rely completely on your own biased propaganda.

[XQIZT]

Originally Posted by rottnrog

Understanding that Republicans only trust a handful of sources for their information, it makes sense for them to seem shocked and irrationally emotional about President Obama winning.

See, their people have been lying to them this whole time. That's what happens when you bet on rhetoric and propaganda instead of facts and reality.

While all these "liberally biased" sources more or less called the election exactly how it went down, sources such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh had been boasting about an easy Romney victory. Hell some went as far as to say he would get over 300 electoral votes and win the popular vote by 5-6 million.

So if that's all you heard this whole time, of course you would be shocked at just how inaccurate they were. But again that's what happens when you ignore facts and reality, instead choosing to rely completely on your own biased propaganda.

Correct. But now the right and their news sources are turning the order around. To them, the news sources for "the left" didn't report on the win, but instead, had an active hand in creating it by reporting inaccurate numbers that favored Obama. Its a bizarre twist on "the chicken or the egg" thing.

[Texdentist]

Originally Posted by XQIZT

Correct. But now the right and their news sources are turning the order around. To them, the news sources for "the left" didn't report on the win, but instead, had an active hand in creating it by reporting inaccurate numbers that favored Obama. Its a bizarre twist on "the chicken or the egg" thing.

Wow. I just don't get it. Do you really believe that the non-FOX media did not go out of it's way to bend the news cycles in Obama's favor? I watch all of them - not just FOX - and I can tell you those guys were silent on any story that might injure Obama. Even with Sandy - FOX was reporting on Staten Island and the lack of response, while the others ignored Staten Island and focused on lower Manhattan which was much easier to respond to. And on Benghazi, you could hardly find a story about it in the first month after the attack unless you watched FOX. If the tables were turned, and a Republican had been in office, the main outlets would have been eating him alive - especially at election time. IMO, bias is rampant at virtuall all of the outlets, and the left-leaning outnumber the right-leaning at least 10 to 1. As far as polling, it makes me wonder how often you watch FOX before complaining about them. Yes, some individual commentators on FOX were predicting a Romney win (mainly Dick Morris and Karl Rove). But if you listened to all of the panels in the last week, most of them when pinned down for a prediction predicted Obama woiuld win. The multiple paths he had to 270 were too obvious to ignore.

[XQIZT]

Originally Posted by Texdentist

Wow. I just don't get it. Do you really believe that the non-FOX media did not go out of it's way to bend the news cycles in Obama's favor? I watch all of them - not just FOX - and I can tell you those guys were silent on any story that might injure Obama. Even with Sandy - FOX was reporting on Staten Island and the lack of response, while the others ignored Staten Island and focused on lower Manhattan which was much easier to respond to. And on Benghazi, you could hardly find a story about it in the first month after the attack unless you watched FOX. If the tables were turned, and a Republican had been in office, the main outlets would have been eating him alive - especially at election time. IMO, bias is rampant at virtuall all of the outlets, and the left-leaning outnumber the right-leaning at least 10 to 1. As far as polling, it makes me wonder how often you watch FOX before complaining about them. Yes, some individual commentators on FOX were predicting a Romney win (mainly Dick Morris and Karl Rove). But if you listened to all of the panels in the last week, most of them when pinned down for a prediction predicted Obama woiuld win. The multiple paths he had to 270 were too obvious to ignore.

That's not what I am talking about. The "chicken or egg" comment was about whether the predictions of the left created the win...or if the reality of the numbers was creating the predictions.

You know that I know that there is bias all the way around. That's why I don't watch any of them.

[Texdentist]

Originally Posted by XQIZT

That's not what I am talking about. The "chicken or egg" comment was about whether the predictions of the left created the win...or if the reality of the numbers was creating the predictions.

You know that I know that there is bias all the way around. That's why I don't watch any of them.

Got it. Personally, I don't believe polls affect the behavior of voters at all. I think guys like Dick Morris and Karl Rove believe that if they make outlandish predictions, that the voters will follow the pied piper. The Dems do the same thing when they are trailing in the polls. I just have never seen any evidence that it works. While I don't think bending the polls affects the outcome, I absolutely believe that bending the news does - especially in swing states. If the Sandy recovery is going badly and if there is the appearance that the administration is covering up the cause of an ambassador's death, the lack of coverage on those stories can prevent the average, non-political voter to be ignorant of information that might change their mind. Very few non-political people watch FOX news. But most of them watch ABC , CBS or NBC. If they aren't getting the whole story there, they don't have all the information they should have to make an educated decision.

[the machine]

Originally Posted by Texdentist

Well, first of all, I never thought Benghazi was a winner as a campaign issue. But there was a good reason FOX kept at it. Obama had made a plank of his platform that he had killed Bin Laden, that Al Qaeda was on the run and that as a result we were safer because of him. When Benghazi happened, it was pretty clear within a few days that the attack was a terrorist attack and that the Obama administration, with the compliance of the media pretended that it was a spontaneous action. Not a big deal unless you are campaigning against Obama, and it is clear that one of his bragging points is not true. Why should he and his compatriots at the New York Times be allowed to run the clock out on the truth? FOX tried to make sure that the media at least gave the attack a truthful look before the election. It didn't work. But I have already said, now that the election is over, I think those same complicit "journalists" will turn their attention and blame game on members of the Obama administration because it won't hurt him, and it will sell papers.

Tex....did Obama kill Bin Laden???? Did we get lots of inteligence when we killed him??? Where we safer because of all of that...of course. Was Bengazi proof that Bin laden had not actualy been killed or that we were not safer due to his killing??? I would say not. What Bengazi proved is that we are at war with terrorists all over the world. And that in war people die. I recall how Clinton basicaly called Obama an ignorant rube for insiuating that Pakistan was harboring terrorists....and where did we find Bin Laden???

The biggest problem with pointing to the deaths in Bengazi as a political gotcha is that people hate to see politics played past the waters edge. They want our politicians united in foreign policy. When Romney came out even before it had been discovered that our Embasador and three guards had been killed, he looked like a rabid dog that had suddenly found a bone. He came off looking very bad, and I blame the Fox news habit of constantly jumping on the gotcha stories the second they heard them. It is rarely better to be first on a news story if you later end up being wrong.

[the machine]

Originally Posted by rottnrog

Understanding that Republicans only trust a handful of sources for their information, it makes sense for them to seem shocked and irrationally emotional about President Obama winning.

See, their people have been lying to them this whole time. That's what happens when you bet on rhetoric and propaganda instead of facts and reality.

While all these "liberally biased" sources more or less called the election exactly how it went down, sources such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh had been boasting about an easy Romney victory. Hell some went as far as to say he would get over 300 electoral votes and win the popular vote by 5-6 million.
So if that's all you heard this whole time, of course you would be shocked at just how inaccurate they were. But again that's what happens when you ignore facts and reality, instead choosing to rely completely on your own biased propaganda.

Hell even on this site there was some lunatic running around proclaiming Romney would win by 7 points. I wonder where that lunatic went.

[Texdentist]

Originally Posted by the machine

Tex....did Obama kill Bin Laden???? Did we get lots of inteligence when we killed him??? Where we safer because of all of that...of course. Was Bengazi proof that Bin laden had not actualy been killed or that we were not safer due to his killing??? I would say not. What Bengazi proved is that we are at war with terrorists all over the world. And that in war people die. I recall how Clinton basicaly called Obama an ignorant rube for insiuating that Pakistan was harboring terrorists....and where did we find Bin Laden???

No, but it's all about perception during an election cycle. Believe me, it wasn't Pubs who first figured out that the story could be bad for Obama. It was his own people. It is the only possible explanation for Susan Rice going on five shows and proclaiming it was about a movie when everyone in the administration knew better by that time. Don't be preaching at the Pubs. They would not have had a story to tell if the administration had been truthful from the beginning. But Obama's people were afraid of the possible effect on voters if they admitted an Al Qaeda affiliate had done the attack. Early truthfulness would have defanged any FOX story that came out.

[MayZ]

Originally Posted by the machine

Hell even on this site there was some lunatic running around proclaiming Romney would win by 7 points. I wonder where that lunatic went.

Ssshhh . . . . listen closely . . . he's typing as we speak

[the machine]

Originally Posted by Texdentist

No, but it's all about perception during an election cycle. Believe me, it wasn't Pubs who first figured out that the story could be bad for Obama. It was his own people. It is the only possible explanation for Susan Rice going on five shows and proclaiming it was about a movie when everyone in the administration knew better by that time. Don't be preaching at the Pubs. They would not have had a story to tell if the administration had been truthful from the beginning. But Obama's people were afraid of the possible effect on voters if they admitted an Al Qaeda affiliate had done the attack. Early truthfulness would have defanged any FOX story that came out.

Tex, David Petreus, the head of the CIA coroborated what the Obama administration was saying. Susan rice told what she knew at the time. There was no attempt to cover up something, there was just confusion in a country that is all of 3 months old and still full of armed militants. The embasador that was killed was well known to try to move with as small a force as possible so he could more easily meet with what he saw as alies. Even today there are conflicting reports that the attack was indeed not planned but took advantage of the demonstrations against the movie. Why is there such a rush to judgement??? What is the hurry???
This story is only important to people who think it will hurt Obama. But even if we find out that there were all sorts of mistakes made. Even if we find out the very worst, it will not get rid of Obama, it will only give our inteligence agencies another black eye. Do we realy need this? Do the people realy care???? Or does this just add to thier view, that the pubs will do anything to discredit this president regardless of what the people lose in the process.