2014 Midterms

[Tiberius]

 

 

the only thing it proves is that you have no idea what he's talking about.

 

 

Thanks for trying to contribute, but your frustration of seeing a sacred belief exposed as a mere propaganda lie is obvious. The right wing has a vested interest in making the media seem completely wrong. A party stitched together with hate, lies and above all ignorance can't allow any truth to go unchallenged.

 

 

 

Maybe ever-changing. Not ever-expanding.

Ever hear of the Internet?

[Azalin]

 

 

Thanks for trying to contribute, but your frustration of seeing a sacred belief exposed as a mere propaganda lie is obvious.

 

like I said, you have no idea what you're talking about. you never do. your attempt to sound intelligent only makes it worse.

[TakeYouToTasker]

All profit making corporations. That's your "Liberal Media"??? Come on! That's funny. Thanks for posting that. Proves my point not yours

How does this prove your point? (and what point would that be, anyhow?)

 

The modern massive corporation depends heavily on an active partnership with big activist government. These corporations will always act in their own best interests, which is to protect the leviathan state.

[Tiberius]

 

How does this prove your point? (and what point would that be, anyhow?)

 

The modern massive corporation depends heavily on an active partnership with big activist government. These corporations will always act in their own best interests, which is to protect the leviathan state.

No, I'm pretty sure corporations put making a profit ahead of any ideological goals. You can dream on that there is a vast big government conspiracy to liberalize the masses, but that's just your paranoia.

 

So my point is "the media" exists as a profit making venture first and foremost. Rush Limbo wouldn't see a day on the radio if he wasn't making a profit for someone while he is blathering is hate and idiocy to the *poor victims of American government overreach and the liberal elites*

[IDBillzFan]

No, I'm pretty sure corporations put making a profit ahead of any ideological goals. You can dream on that there is a vast big government conspiracy to liberalize the masses, but that's just your paranoia.

 

So my point is "the media" exists as a profit making venture first and foremost. Rush Limbo wouldn't see a day on the radio if he wasn't making a profit for someone while he is blathering is hate and idiocy to the *poor victims of American government overreach and the liberal elites*

 

So to recap, corporations don't care about anything other than profits and to suggest there is bias is just paranoia...unless you're Rush Limbaugh, in which case he does care about profits and is filled with hateful bias because....SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

[B-Man]

Away from the squirrel, and back to the Midterms.

 

With Midterms Four Months Away, Dashboard Is Blinking Red for Democrats

By Jim Geraghty

 

Back to November . . .

With Midterms Four Months Away, Dashboard Is Blinking Red for Democrats

 

John Couvillon of JMC Enterprises in Louisiana

examined the turnout in states that had contested primaries for both Democrats and Republicans in statewide races this year and four years ago — 14 states so far.

 

Here’s what he found, compared to four years ago:

 

Republican enthusiasm (percentage-wise) is stronger than it was in 2010, and (2) overall turnout volume is lower than in 2010, although Democratic turnout volume has deceased far more than Republican turnout.

Republicans made up 55 percent of the turnout four years ago; this year they’re 63 percent of the turnout. Of course, Democrats may have a particularly boring or lopsided set of primaries this cycle.

 

Politico

concludes

:

 

With four months until Election Day, Republicans are as close to winning the Senate as they’ve been since losing it in 2006. They’ve landed top recruits to take on first-term senators in New Hampshire and Colorado, nominated credible female candidates in open-seat contests in Michigan and Iowa, protected all of their incumbents from tea party challenges and thwarted more conservative candidates that could have hurt the GOP’s chances in states like North Carolina and Georgia.

You notice how it feels like Obamacare dropped out of the news, right? Don’t worry.

You’ll be hearing about it again in the fall

:

Most state health insurance rates for 2015 are scheduled to be approved by early fall, and most are likely to rise, timing that couldn’t be worse for Democrats already on defense in the midterms.

More the link:

[Chef Jim]

All profit making corporations. That's your "Liberal Media"??? Come on! That's funny. Thanks for posting that. Proves my point not yours

 

Yes because we all know only conservatives are spreading their agenda for profit.

[DC Tom]

Ever hear of the Internet?

 

No. Do please tell us how that determines the make-up of the White House Press Corps.

 

!@#$ing retard.

[Koko78]

No. Do please tell us how that determines the make-up of the White House Press Corps.

 

!@#$ing retard.

 

Several seasons of 'White House Press Corps Idol'?

[Deranged Rhino]

bull ****. It doesn't matter where you get your "coverage" from.

Why not?

 

"The Media", in the political sense, are the primary source of news and information for the public. If the majority of the public is not getting their information from the traditional media (network news / newspapers), or their reporters, then we need to redefine what we are talking about when we say "the media". Otherwise, what are we talking about?

 

The vast majority of all media, regardless of source is hard core liberal and anyone who doesn't think that is a fool.

 

The vast majority of all media is not "hard core liberal", that's just nonsense. Take a breath, a deep one, and let's have a conversation more than a debate. I know plenty of journalists in my line of work who would be offended if you labeled them as moderate let alone hard core liberal. If you want to make the case that the majority of mainstream, or traditional media (to keep our terms straight -- by that I mean what I think you mean by media: the ABCs, CBSs, NBCs, Wall Street Journals, Times et al) and their journalists lean left, you'll get no argument from me. We will probably disagree on the degree of that slant and how much is merely perceived vs a product of the profession itself, but I'm not arguing those traditional sources are bias free.

 

I'm arguing that those institutions are irrelevant for an increasing majority of Americans.

 

It's just not how they get their information anymore. Today consumers get their information from the sources they choose, and people choose things they like, hence we now have a personalized media; or if we don't today, we will by tomorrow. Claiming that "the media is biased" used to mean something when people's only options for sources were 3 networks and a few newspapers... but now? Now it's just screaming at ghosts.

 

The media is choosing winners and losers because the average person is indoctrinated and unable to do any critical thinking on their own.

 

This is a different discussion, one we can't truly have until we agree on our definitions of "the media". I won't argue that average person is likely to do much critical thinking when it comes to sourcing news stories or their biases. In fact, that's a primary reason why personalized news has become such a financial success and also an incredible danger to original intent of the fourth estate itself. It's not that people won't think anymore, it's that they no longer have to think at all. Once they program the alerts on their smart phones to whatever wire source they prefer, the job is done. People believe the first thing they read always and forever. And now, the first things we read (the general we) are those headlines on our devices and screens that come from our own personalized choices. When you say "the media" is biased in an age where media is personalized, that's like yelling at the mirror.

 

You want to talk about indoctrination, you've traveled the world more than most from what I know of you (and if I'm wrong, forgive me), this is about to become a global problem, not just an American one. The more isolated and insulated we become, the easier it is to control the message. Because you're right, the media does pick winners and losers, and I'm conspiratorial enough to see the dangers lurking in this new reality we're facing. So I wish we could lament the right problems, not the irrelevant ones.

 

You can't seriously be contending that a shift in how someone gets content has anything to do with bias, right? Because that's absolute nonsense.

 

http://www.mrc.org/m...l-bias-part-one

 

I'm not saying that there has only been a shift in how we get our content, but also in how that content is created and consumed. That's an important note. The whole claim of "the media is biased" depends on there being exclusively liberals creating that content, right? So who creates the content matters implicitly.

 

Twenty years ago there were a handful of content creators, and you could make the case that they leaned left as I previously conceded. Worse, you had news directors and station heads who had to approve the stories, making it easier to demonstrate institutional biases. That's all well and true. But today you have hundreds if not thousands of content creators, most of whom are their own news directors and station heads.

 

And now that consumers are free to choose these new options for news suit their biases, there's no need to suffer through any opinion that offends your politics or view of the world. A reassuring, reaffirming perspective is a mere mouse click away.

 

 

“So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.”

— Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.

 

Again, this is an examination of a dead or dying model and serves no purpose dwelling on when presently a growing majority of Americans get their news from content creators outside this narrow definition of "the media".

 

Greg:

 

Comcast, News Corp, Viacom, Disney, CBS, and Time Warner own 90% of all media content.

 

Yes, of traditional media content. I'm well aware and even in a few of their employ. But again, you're talking about the old notion of what defines "media" in the political sense. If anything, I would hold that example up to make my point. This contraction of the market is the snake eating its own tale and part of the reason for the success of new media platforms. Consumers hungry for balance (or their own preferences) have been flocking to new media outlets in droves to escape the ever increasing corporate presence in the old system. That's why networks are dying, both news wise and entertainment wise. Big Corporate knows the model's dead and they are squeezing all they can from the corpse.

 

The youngest demographics have figured this out and are growing up in a world where the idea of watching the nightly news -- national or local -- is as antiquated as knowing how to do the Charleston. A chunk of that demo is already voting, the trend will only continue to swing away from those old platforms and definitions.

 

I count all of it: Network news, cable news, late night talk shows, Comedy Central, sitcoms, movies, newspapers, websites, radio, etc.

 

It's not that there aren't sources of different news for the political junkie who's actively seeking answers; it's about the message that reaches the average Joe on a daily basis, and that message is overwhelmingly liberal.

 

I'm not basing that on the political makeup of Hollywood and the average newsroom, although I do believe that's where it starts, but I'm basing it on the coverage. I honestly don't get how any serious person who was above the age of 12 during the Bush years could argue otherwise. Others have cited several of examples of Obama scandals that never get traction. That's because outside of Fox News, Drudge, and Talk Radio no one talks about them. By contrast, Bush could have farted in a crowded elevator and it would have been national news for two weeks.

 

Bush fired a handful of US attorneys, which is nothing. You gotta be trying really hard to find a scandal to run with that, but they did. You didn't have to track that down or watch news media to know about it. It got more coverage by media not overtly conservative than any of Obama's blunders that have been mentioned in this thread.

Again, we're talking about two different things. And that's why there is a disconnect. Try looking at it this way (and this will be a terrible analogy but I'll wing it, and by terrible I mean awful):

 

Ten plus years ago the writing was on the wall for the NFL, 'ground and pound' was on its way out and the spread offense and high flying passing attacks were the future. The majority of fans didn't see it coming because the majority of fans live in the past or at best the present. But the league did, which is why it changed the way DBs could cover WRs as well as making breathing on a QB a near capital offense. The rule changes altered the game in really drastic ways that a lot of fans didn't even notice at first. How many topics were started on TSW between old school fans stating their belief that a power running game and defense were all it took to win, or from prescient fans who saw the future coming over the horizon and pointed out that a franchise QB was the first, and second and third, ingredient needed to win a Lombardi trophy. I know I sure remember a bunch of those stupid threads.

 

The thing is, those debates were ultimately fruitless because both sides were actually talking about two different things. The old school fans were talking about the game as it was, the new school fans were talking about what the game had become.

 

You and Alaska are right that traditional media leans left. But that's just not as relevant today because the game has changed.

 

No. Do please tell us how that determines the make-up of the White House Press Corps.

 

!@#$ing retard.

 

Not to pick up the shield for G-Man, but I would argue the internet forever changed the make-up of the White House Press Corpse. Abstractly of course, but also in a practical sense. The make-up of the press corps became irrelevant, at least in terms of press access, once they started live-streaming every one. It's public domain footage if you pull it from the whitehouse.gov sources, and with most home computers today, anyone can edit a from the sounbyte to put in their story.

 

True, those not in the room can't ask questions and shape the byte, but they can still use them and distribute them via the internet however they wish.

[Tiberius]

Remember Bush's little WH reporter Jeff Gannon? Ha ha!

[Nanker]

Larry Sinclair

[DC Tom]

True, those not in the room can't ask questions and shape the byte, but they can still use them and distribute them via the internet however they wish.

 

Which also means they don't get to choose what's covered. That's a little bit important, you know...the White House doesn't set the agenda for press conferences, the press present at the press conference does.

[Deranged Rhino]

Which also means they don't get to choose what's covered. That's a little bit important, you know...the White House doesn't set the agenda for press conferences, the press present at the press conference does.

I don't think it's as hermetically sealed as you are portraying it. Yes, not being in the room doesn't allow them to shape the byte, however a blogger can take Press Secretary's response (or President, Vice President, Senator, whoever), edit it, blog about it, and if it catches on in that news cycle all the questions will be about that story/controversy. So blogger X can still shape the traditional media's coverage and agenda, even without being in the press room directly.

 

It's still not direct action in terms of being in the room, but considering how fast technology is moving, it soon will be.

Edited July 9, 2014 by GreggyT

[B-Man]

JOHN FUND: Democrats in 2014: The Obama Albatross.

 

 

 

DNC Chair Predicts Party Will Exceed Expectations in 2014.

 

 

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

Seems like the Dems have a good chance to win most of the presidential elections for the next 20 years. The demographics just favor them in high turn out elections. Since 1992 the Republican candidate has only won the popular vote once. And that pattern is increasingly in the Democrats favor. And the Republicans Look poised to have much better luck in the mid term elections where the average voter is older.

[/dev/null]

DNC Chair Predicts Party Will Exceed Expectations in 2014.

Reminds me of that old MadTV skit with the video dating service...Lowered Expectations:

[OCinBuffalo]

Seems like the Dems have a good chance to win most of the presidential elections for the next 20 years. The demographics just favor them in high turn out elections. Since 1992 the Republican candidate has only won the popular vote once. And that pattern is increasingly in the Democrats favor. And the Republicans Look poised to have much better luck in the mid term elections where the average voter is older.

This is a myth. Demographics is simply a myth, and it seems no amount of white papers detailing it as a myth will ever be enough for some people.

 

A poll that just came out clearly shows that the current 18-34 group is much more conservative in their values, by far, than expected. This is an analysis of that, from a leftist point of view: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/upshot/why-teenagers-may-be-getting-more-conservative.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMediaHigh&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

 

It's hilarious that this moron conveniently leaves out, from the same sources he cited, that the same people who support the list he created, also support School Choice, low taxes, and basically the entire Republican Fiscal agenda.

 

From the right side of things: http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/07/ken_braun_poll_says_young_vote.html (And you'll noticed a considerable improvement in intellectual honesty in this link)

 

There are “big government” cross-currents: 66 percent think taxing “the rich” helps the economy, versus 13 percent who say “hurts.” And a “bigger government with more services” is supported by 54 percent, with 43 percent choosing smaller government.

 

But prices matter and millennials are teachable. When an identical audience was asked about a bigger government with more services and higher taxes, the millennials flip to 57 percent in favor of smaller government, including 60 percent of Asians, 56 percent of Hispanics and 46 percent of Blacks.

 

They define their liberalism more by social issues. Overall, 53 percent of our youngest voters say they’d support a “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” candidate, including 60 percent of the “liberals,” 55 percent of Latinos and 46 percent each for Blacks and Asians. (Tellingly, it is conservatives who don’t like this mixture.)

You are losing whites a record pace, and, as the above shows, you don't have anywhere near the lock on "minorities" that you think you do. This is why Chris Christie can whip Hillary so easily. This is why Ds have to destroy him, because they know the #s much better than I do, and the numbers show that if he runs, he has Reagan-like landslide potential.

 

Perhaps in 2017, when you stop howling that the Rs stole the election....you'll actually realize the massive damage that Obama has done to activist government/progressive politics. Maybe you'll realize it next year, maybe in 20 years, but in all cases, whether you like it or not, Obama has poisoned an entire generation against, at the very least, what government is capable of doing..

 

In fact, I've noticed that nobody has used the word "progressive" in quite some time. As I predicted: your bad results/behavior have killed off yet another word.

[keepthefaith]

This is a myth. Demographics is simply a myth, and it seems no amount of white papers detailing it as a myth will ever be enough for some people.

 

A poll that just came out clearly shows that the current 18-34 group is much more conservative in their values, by far, than expected. This is an analysis of that, from a leftist point of view: http://www.nytimes.c...v=top-news&_r=0

 

It's hilarious that this moron conveniently leaves out, from the same sources he cited, that the same people who support the list he created, also support School Choice, low taxes, and basically the entire Republican Fiscal agenda.

 

From the right side of things: http://www.mlive.com...young_vote.html (And you'll noticed a considerable improvement in intellectual honesty in this link)

 

 

You are losing whites a record pace, and, as the above shows, you don't have anywhere near the lock on "minorities" that you think you do. This is why Chris Christie can whip Hillary so easily. This is why Ds have to destroy him, because they know the #s much better than I do, and the numbers show that if he runs, he has Reagan-like landslide potential.

 

Perhaps in 2017, when you stop howling that the Rs stole the election....you'll actually realize the massive damage that Obama has done to activist government/progressive politics. Maybe you'll realize it next year, maybe in 20 years, but in all cases, whether you like it or not, Obama has poisoned an entire generation against, at the very least, what government is capable of doing..

 

In fact, I've noticed that nobody has used the word "progressive" in quite some time. As I predicted: your bad results/behavior have killed off yet another word.

 

As I've said many times, the party in power always screws up. It's simply the Democrats turn and they are doing a fine job of screwing up. It'll be interesting if we end up with a Republican House, Senate and White House after 2016. This country desperately needs common sense, pragmatic, principled and tough leadership. It's been a while since we had that.

Edited July 23, 2014 by keepthefaith

[Chef Jim]

As I've said many times, the party in power always screws up. It's simply the Democrats turn and they are doing a fine job of screwing up. It'll be interesting if we end up with a Republican House, Senate and White House after 2016. This country desperately needs common sense, pragmatic, principled and tough leadership. It's been a while since we had that.

 

Which we'll get from Republicans.