Talk Elections

I'd say a conservative estimate would be 30 million, slightly more than in 2008.

Go away.

40 million or so.

All of his votes, obviously.

Amazing that people still believe those old communication theories from the 1940ies which were empirically disproven numerous times since then.

People aren't "Obama-friendly" because of "Obama-friendly" media. People who are "Obama-friendly" are choosing to read/watch "Obama-friendly" media in order to get their already existing opinion confirmed. People who are "Obama-hostile" are going to avoid "Obama-friendly" media for the most part. And people who are neutral/undecided are probably aware of the fact that "Obama-friendly" coverage is "Obama-friendly". And if they're fed up with "Obama-friendly" coverage, they're going to look elsewhere (zapping between MSNBC and Fox News, for instance).

The bottom line is: Media coverage can very well be biased. However, the effect of media coverage on voting behavior is at best largely overrated... and at worst a myth. Today this is truer than in any time in history, because of numerous "alternative" forms of communication and information, such as the Internet.

100 billion

To clarify I'm not one of those hacks who constantly whine about the "liberal media" but I do think that the media's unprecedented protection of Obama on every news outlet except Fox (which I do admit is very anti-Obama) was just as crucial to his victory as the financial meltdown.

Obviously the media can't change the mind of people who are already heavily engaged in politics, like on this forum, but it can persuade many casual voters who pay much less attention to politics to vote for their man.

Though you seem to know more about this than me, let me propose a situation:

Someone lives in a liberal area, but they're largely politics neutral, and Obama neutral. Everyone they know who's into politics says Fox news is Republican propaganda, but doesn't accuse other media of being biased. He sees reports which are clearly Obama biased, but he takes them to be fair reports merely showing that Obama supports things that are generally good wheras Republicans have plans that are inferior or worse.

Are you saying that even in that case media bias doesn't affect voting patterns?

Because, coming from Westchester county, I know ALOT of people who don't give 2 s about politics, don't care to learn anything about politics, are generally cynical about it, aren't crazy Obama freaks, but voted for him without hesitation.

Not much
Liberals watch liberal stations.
Conservatives watch conservative stations.
Everyone else flips back and forth.

Well, I'd say you already answered your question. In such a case it hasn't that much to do with media coverage or media bias, but with the area they live in and with the people around them. It's true that people's political opinions can be affected by their daily life, their surroundings and their "milieu"... in far greater ways than media coverage could anyway.

It's possible that people who live in a "liberal" neigbourhood are mostly reading/watching "liberal" news. However, this makes the "consumption" of liberal media coverage an effect, not a cause.

Not in the way you think it does. First of all, people who are only barely interested in politics will only barely follow media coverage of political events, be it pro-Obama or anti-Obama. At best, reports from the presidential campaign trail will cause them the switch channels. And like I just explained to Jacobtm, voters are primarily affected by their daily lifes and the "millieu" they tend to life in.

"Propaganda" only works if you want to believe it. So, pro-Obama propaganda only works with Obama supporters. Its purpose is the solidify the own base.

You start a thread as asinine as this and then suggest your ot one of those hacks.....

Did you see the Pew study where Obama's coverage was twice as positive during his first 100 days then either Bush or Clinton. Not only that, but many focused on his leadership and personal qualities, instead of policy.

I know many people who receive news from sources different than their ideology. And what of moderates and independents?

You just contradicted yourself in two clauses in one sentence. You get slight credit for recognizing the obvious: that FoX "News" is biased against anything or anyone  liberal (and not only Obama) unless to spread dissent among liberals.


Not since at least Ronald Reagan have we had a politician at so high a level so adept at  leading the media in the direction that he wants. I remember back in the 1990s when he was a State legislator (!) that Tom Brokaw said to the effect "watch this guy; he is about as slick a politician as there is."

People don't let the media direct them ; they choose media that they find comforting to their core beliefs.

The center--lets say 20%--have no core beliefs other than kicking the bums out when times are tough and letting them stay when times are good.

I'm sorry, but I just can't imagine this guy getting elected and perhaps even re-elected without the media serving as his campaign arm. And its not just me. A Pew poll showed that 44% believed media coverage of the McCain campaign was unfair, for comparison 35% thought this for the first Bush and Dole. A similar percentage say the media has too much influence on the election.

lol, so you believe that McCain should have won by default?

Um... no. That's not what I said.

It's exactly what you said.

"I can't imagine this guy getting elected without the media".

That means you assume that McCain would have won if there hadn't been media coverage.

I *facepalm*'d the second I saw the title of this thread.

He probably would have won if there was fair media coverage. But I'm also referring to the Hillary/Obama match.

so how is my claim false?

Can anyone with a straight face claim that the media didn't help John McCain quite a bit?

Maybe in the primaries before Romney conceded. Not nearly as much as Obama, though.

lol yeah, what about that newschick who asked Biden if Obama was a socialist? (facepalm)
I think it's a little bit of both actually: Mega liberal media is masturbating over posters of Obama while mega conservative media is taking a shit on posters of Obama. There's never been a better time to be a political hack (if you're Democrat or Republican), and the rest of us have to suffer through another 4 years (at least) of partisan bitching. God I hate the American two party system.

The single fact that the media covered Sarah Palin as if she was a serious candidate makes them pro-McCain in my book.
If they had a shred of intelectual and profesional honesty they ought to declare, in no uncertain terms, what a joke her presence on the ticket was. 

Chris matthews will spooge in his shorts again  "Oh barack I get such a thrill up my leg"


Hopefully the people will see through this crap the second time around.

The media is are generally not as powerful as they're often made out to be. From 2001 to 2005 or 06, they were biased towards the GOP. What eventually made them switch over to a Democratic bias from 2006 until the stimulus bill debate this February, was Bush's increasing unpopularity. They are favorable to Obama now, but just wait until the honeymoon ends. In the 2008 campaign, they were almost always biased towards whichever candidates were currently ahead. In other words, they're generally reactive. Reporters react to events and attempt to analyze and justify events retrospectively. The idea that a certain politician is currently winning or that a certain party is currently in the majority due simply to chance, rather than some grand narrative of truth, is not appealing from the standpoint of a media analyst. If they start to believe their own justifications, then they become biased.

Those looking to the media to unlock the key of future elections are looking in the wrong place. The wisest words in politics belong to the late Harold MacMillan. When asked what represented the greatest challenge for a statesman, MacMillan replied, "Events, my dear boy, events."

You've got it. The media might elevate a turkey on occasion but they can't rescue one. The politicians can manipulate media to an extent, but that goes only so far. The media jump on scandals, especially those involving the two subjects that most adults understand (sex and money).  They can easily explain adultery, salacious e-mails, and large quantities of cash that change hands or appear in a freezer. They can relate new unemployment (typically from highly-visible mass layoffs) and death tolls from wars.

They are more likely to catch adultery than deceit about military activities because the former is more easily related than the latter. Liberal journalists would have loved to have exposed deceit and shady dealings by Dubya (the shady dealings including his economic priorities that ultimately led to the  real estate/subprime lending meltdown) because such was more subtle than some politician like Mark Foley getting caught sending salacious e-mails to underage boys, William Jefferson being found with thousands of dollars of cash in a freezer, or Mark Sanford "disappearing" only to have gone to Argentina for (details presumed if not stated).   

Journalists aren't that different from the rest of us. They can fall for the bandwagon effect, and if the "tea party" protests became huge, then they would start reporting them as a major trend of dissent with Obama. They catch rhetorical folly only if it is so blatant as when it comes so obviously from someone like Sarah Palin (as when it appears in dependent and independent clauses in the same sentence).
   

They didn't judge her, they were neutral. They would be biased if they treated her as a joke, just as they would be if they treated her as the second coming of Reagan.

Why didn't they treat Biden as a joke. When he said FDR went on TV in 1929 to ease people about the depression. And no, don't cite his record. There are long standing politicians who are jokes.

The fact is, she was governor of a state for two years. Enough experience for the Presidency? P0robably not. Enough to be taken seriously as a VP nominee? Yeah. Don't forget, Obama was a Senator really for only a year before he started campaigning.

lol.
Good point.

So, what you say is that if McCain, a 72-year old cancer survivor, chose a monkey for his running mate or a mentally unstable person, then the media should just sit back and report without comment.
Sorry but that's not my idea of the Fourth Estate. Palin showed quickly how unqualified she was and her refusal to give a press conference should raise red flags all over the place. To pretend otherwise was disingenuous and had nothing to do with journalistic integrity.

And your comparison with Biden is really hilarious. Biden was a well-known windbag. But nobody ever disputed the fact that he is a very intelligent man and a leading expert on foreign policy in the Senate.

Agreed. These two statements...


... are not compatible.

Well the democRATs had a monkey AND a mentally unstable person on their ticket and the media got a massive hard on for them.  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

...

Sometimes I see posts by Coburn like that, and sometimes I see some that had actual thought in them... perhaps he's just forgetting to log back into his real account for the latter.

Maybe it's a side-effect of the double life he lives as a closeted gay man.
How come your gaydar didn't catch him?

You can't be serious.

A LOT of people thought he was far from intelligent, and questioned his foreign policy credentials.  Sure, he's been involved in foreign policy issues, how does that make him any kind of "expert"? 

"NO" on the Gulf War.
"YES" on the Iraq War.
"NO" on the surge.
Divide Iraq into 3 autonomous states. 

George W. Bush was involved in business for how many years, and no one would hail him as a "leading expert in business."  Give me a break.  He committed more gaffes than Palin during the '08 campaign, and had less of an excuse for them.

I'm sorry, but you have to change your avatar.  You cannot possibly label yourself an "Independent" while defending Joe Biden and calling him an "expert on foreign policy". 

I just fell off my chair.

I would have voted "NO" on all of them. Congratulations for selling out once again. I hope you got a high price for it.

The only bad decision I see is the Yes for the Iraq War, a transparenrtly political vote.

And you seem to be in the minority about his qualifications. His coleagues in the Senate, and the public at large, have a very different opinion. That's why his partition plan drew support even among Republicans.

I hope you didn't broke your hip.

Any so-called "expert" who thinks partition was a realistic solution wasn't living in the real world.

And who cares if his vote for the war was political, would that make it somehow better?

$550 billion later...



And you seem to be in the minority of thinking the Gulf War and the "surge" were mistakes.  You're entitled to your opinions and all, but I'd take the judgment by the public over that by his colleagues in the Senate.  That's 3 of the most important foreign policy votes of the last 20 years that your "foreign policy expert" has been on the wrong side of.



..says the so-called Libertarian who voted for the ticket of "spreading the wealth around" and "paying taxes = patriotism".

I thought the conservative position was to avoid foreign entaglements. But it seems now that the neocons and their admirers have become more Wilsonian than Wilson himself ever was.

And I fail to see how saying that paying your taxes is patriotic, is somehow a gaffe. Unless of course you advocate tax evasion.

Oh, it is. But, you see, poseurs like paul don't care about principle, or about the historical development of that principle. Because paul comes from a clique that has none, a worthless little Trotskyist clique that infiltrated the Republican Party during the Cold War and warped its core tenants to reflect their undying belief in world revolution. His hypocrisy is simply an outgrowth of that.

News flash: the GOP dropped its isolationist platform in 1941.

So getting back to the media, it seems clear that Biden is being respected largely based on the time he's been in the Senate and not on what he actually did. The fact that they glossed over his embarassing debate performance/voting record comfirms that. I wonder if they'll do the same thing in 2012. I mean, no matter who the Republicans nominate they won't have the "experience" of Joe Biden.

Soulless rhetoric devoid of rational content gets one on my iggy list. Never compare any human to any animal unless the comparison is flattering (as in "Mr. Jones is a real workhorse") without qualification. Any reference to a non-white person as a "monkey" is racist. You should know why by now. Your use of RAT is puerile in the context above (it could just as easily be used in  corpoRATe and bureaucRAT).

I'm not going to make any sexual allusions to your support for the Senator closest to fascism in his ideology. Your admiration for him says enough.  

 

There are anti-war Republicans, just like there are pro-war Democrats.  I am an anti-war Republican.  I was merely pointing out that, generally, Americans approved of the Gulf War, disapproved of the Iraq War, and approved of the surge.  If you can counter those points, then counter them.  I made those statements in order to refute your assertion that "nobody ever disputed the fact that [Joe Biden] is a very intelligent man and a leading expert on foreign policy in the Senate."



He said paying more taxes was patriotic (excuse me).  I guess you weren't paying attention to the news at that time.  But, yeah, it was a pretty big gaffe and he took a lot of heat for it. 



In my dealings with you I have not once expressed any pro-war sentiment.  You just made that up.  Just now.  Why did you make that up?  For someone who seems to take a lot of time in his long-winded posts, you have a knack for being easily caught posting blatant untruths.