| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 1:16 am Post subject: Anti-Incumbent... Don't you love media spin? |
 |
|
The media don't dare say people are Anti-Obama in the upcoming elections. No way. The people are "Anti-Incumbent".
| Quote: |
| http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703691804575254791259883152.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I love media spin every bit as much as I do outrage over noise!
I miss SteveMcGarrett. He used to get worked up over such little things. He was good fun to watch! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 4:01 am Post subject: Re: Anti-Incumbent... Don't you love media spin? |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
The media don't dare say people are Anti-Obama in the upcoming elections. No way. The people are "Anti-Incumbent".
| Quote: |
| http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703691804575254791259883152.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read |
|
If they were simply Anti-Obama, how would you explain Bennet's loss in Utah? And Grayon getting killed in KY?
They don't say it because it doesn't apply to numerous races. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 4:40 am Post subject: Re: Anti-Incumbent... Don't you love media spin? |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
The media don't dare say people are Anti-Obama in the upcoming elections. No way. The people are "Anti-Incumbent".
| Quote: |
| http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703691804575254791259883152.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read |
|
If they were simply Anti-Obama, how would you explain Bennet's loss in Utah? And Grayon getting killed in KY?
They don't say it because it doesn't apply to numerous races. |
Glad you read the article.
| Quote: |
It's true that anti-incumbency was marginally responsible for the defeats recently of three-term Republican Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah and 14-term Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia. Voters do at times get tired of elected officials. But Mr. Bennett lost chiefly because he was seen as having "gone Washington" and too eager to compromise with Democrats. Mr. Mollohan was defeated by a conservative opponent more in tune with the state's drift to the right over the past decade.
What demolishes the notion of anti-incumbency as a scourge on both parties are the calculations of credible political analysts�Democrats and Republicans from Charles Cook to Jay Cost to Nathan Silver to James Carville�about the outcome of November's general election. They believe dozens of congressional Democrats either trail Republican challengers or face toss-up races, while fewer than a handful of Republicans are in serious re-election trouble.
Even Gallup, hardly known for its bold analysis of polling data, doesn't appear to regard anti-incumbency as a problem for Republicans. Its current surveys indicate Republicans are likely to trounce Democrats in November. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 5:08 am Post subject: Re: Anti-Incumbent... Don't you love media spin? |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| The media don't dare say people are Anti-Obama in the upcoming elections. No way. The people are "Anti-Incumbent". |
The Wall Street Journal is part of the media. The Wall Street Journal saying it means the media is saying it. So much for your theory.
Here's Foxs News -- you know, the highest rated media channel in the nation -- saying it too (the term "anti-Obama vote is even explicitly used): http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005180070
How much of the media needs to say this before Republicans will stop pissing and moaning? How much of a strangehold do conservatives need over our national media before the whining ends? How gigantic does your megaphone need to be before it's sufficient? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 5:15 am Post subject: Re: Anti-Incumbent... Don't you love media spin? |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
The media don't dare say people are Anti-Obama in the upcoming elections. No way. The people are "Anti-Incumbent".
| Quote: |
| http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703691804575254791259883152.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read |
|
If they were simply Anti-Obama, how would you explain Bennet's loss in Utah? And Grayon getting killed in KY?
They don't say it because it doesn't apply to numerous races. |
Glad you read the article.
| Quote: |
It's true that anti-incumbency was marginally responsible for the defeats recently of three-term Republican Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah and 14-term Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia. Voters do at times get tired of elected officials. But Mr. Bennett lost chiefly because he was seen as having "gone Washington" and too eager to compromise with Democrats. Mr. Mollohan was defeated by a conservative opponent more in tune with the state's drift to the right over the past decade.
What demolishes the notion of anti-incumbency as a scourge on both parties are the calculations of credible political analysts�Democrats and Republicans from Charles Cook to Jay Cost to Nathan Silver to James Carville�about the outcome of November's general election. They believe dozens of congressional Democrats either trail Republican challengers or face toss-up races, while fewer than a handful of Republicans are in serious re-election trouble.
Even Gallup, hardly known for its bold analysis of polling data, doesn't appear to regard anti-incumbency as a problem for Republicans. Its current surveys indicate Republicans are likely to trounce Democrats in November. |
|
\
1. Maybe you should post a link properly
2. We won't know anything until November. And what exactly is a trounce? Getting back the majority? Yes. Narrowing the majority? That's debatable. I sincerly doubt the GOP will win back either house. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 5:17 am Post subject: Re: Anti-Incumbent... Don't you love media spin? |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| The media don't dare say people are Anti-Obama in the upcoming elections. No way. The people are "Anti-Incumbent". |
The Wall Street Journal is part of the media. The Wall Street Journal saying it means the media is saying it. So much for your theory.
Here's Foxs News -- you know, the highest rated media channel in the nation -- saying it too (the term "anti-Obama vote is even explicitly used): http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005180070
How much of the media needs to say this before Republicans will stop pissing and moaning? How much of a strangehold do conservatives need over our national media before the whining ends? How gigantic does your megaphone need to be before it's sufficient? |
Until the media reflects your average american's viewpoint of course! The mainstream media is an elite out of touch with everyone else! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Even Gallup, hardly known for its bold analysis of polling data, doesn't appear to regard anti-incumbency as a problem for Republicans. Its current surveys indicate Republicans are likely to trounce Democrats in November.
"Republicans have had a significant turnout advantage in midterm elections," Gallup said. "This means . . . Republican candidates would most likely receive a higher percentage of the actual votes cast [and] would also be virtually guaranteed major seat gains, possibly putting them in range of recapturing majority control of the U.S. House." |
Of course it isn't a problem for the GOP since it is the minority party. Isn't that stating the obvious? That doesn't disprove the anti-incumbent theory whatsoever.
And as the writer notes:
| Quote: |
Republicans suffered one significant setback on Tuesday. Their polling suggested they might win the special election to fill the House seat of the late Democratic Representative John Murtha. The heavily Democratic district wraps around Pittsburgh in western Pennsylvania. A victory there, Republicans figured, could foreshadow a Republican landslide in the fall.
But their candidate, businessman Tim Burns, lost badly to Mark Critz, a former Murtha aide. Mr. Burns failed to stir Republican turnout with his anti-Obama message. |
You might want to find a strong argument for your case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 7:46 pm Post subject: Re: Anti-Incumbent... Don't you love media spin? |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| The media don't dare say people are Anti-Obama in the upcoming elections. No way. The people are "Anti-Incumbent". |
The Wall Street Journal is part of the media. The Wall Street Journal saying it means the media is saying it. So much for your theory.
Here's Foxs News -- you know, the highest rated media channel in the nation -- saying it too (the term "anti-Obama vote is even explicitly used): http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005180070
How much of the media needs to say this before Republicans will stop pissing and moaning? How much of a strangehold do conservatives need over our national media before the whining ends? How gigantic does your megaphone need to be before it's sufficient? |
The article I linked was an opinion piece ABOUT mass media putting the "Anti-incumbent" spin.
One of my high school students got her Opinion paper published in the Korea Times, does that make her "mass media".
If it truely were "Anti-Incumbent" then the proportion of Republicans that get voted out of office should be the same as the Democrats.
Drink your kool-aid and agree that come November the voters are just "Anti-Incumbent" and not "Anti-Obama". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I like Kool-aid. Perhaps you meant Flavor Aid? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 12:55 am Post subject: Re: Anti-Incumbent... Don't you love media spin? |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| The media don't dare say people are Anti-Obama in the upcoming elections. No way. The people are "Anti-Incumbent". |
The Wall Street Journal is part of the media. The Wall Street Journal saying it means the media is saying it. So much for your theory.
Here's Foxs News -- you know, the highest rated media channel in the nation -- saying it too (the term "anti-Obama vote is even explicitly used): http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005180070
How much of the media needs to say this before Republicans will stop pissing and moaning? How much of a strangehold do conservatives need over our national media before the whining ends? How gigantic does your megaphone need to be before it's sufficient? |
The article I linked was an opinion piece ABOUT mass media putting the "Anti-incumbent" spin.
One of my high school students got her Opinion paper published in the Korea Times, does that make her "mass media".
If it truely were "Anti-Incumbent" then the proportion of Republicans that get voted out of office should be the same as the Democrats. |
So, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News both expressing an idea doesn't count as the media saying it. Okay, thanks for that clarification.
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Drink your kool-aid and agree that come November the voters are just "Anti-Incumbent" and not "Anti-Obama". |
I've repeatedly criticized the Democratic party and Barack Obama on this forum. You on the other hand continue to mindlessly babble Republican propaganda. If anyone's "drinking the kool-aid," it's you, and it's filthy, oily, Wall Street funded Republican kool-aid son. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Anti-Incumbent... Don't you love media spin? |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
So, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News both expressing an idea doesn't count as the media saying it. Okay, thanks for that clarification.
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Drink your kool-aid and agree that come November the voters are just "Anti-Incumbent" and not "Anti-Obama". |
I've repeatedly criticized the Democratic party and Barack Obama on this forum. You on the other hand continue to mindlessly babble Republican propaganda. If anyone's "drinking the kool-aid," it's you, and it's filthy, oily, Wall Street funded Republican kool-aid son. |
Mindlessly babble Republican propaganda? That's your response to anyone who doesn't agree with you. Man, how do you guys do it? How do you live everyday knowing you are right about everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: Anti-Incumbent... Don't you love media spin? |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Mindlessly babble Republican propaganda? That's your response to anyone who doesn't agree with you. |
No, it's not, and we both know it. Maybe it seems that way to you because all you do is babble Republican propaganda, but there are plenty of conservative posters here who I disagree with but don't accuse them of mindlessly repeating Republican talking points, because they aren't.
But don't let me goad you into a little self-awareness. Keep drinking your Republican "kool-aid", and keep furrowing your brow in confusion when your behavior gets called out for what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
