White House Attacks Fox News

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

The republican base is 40%, the democratic base is 20%. You're right that it isn't about voter registration, it's about who the voters elect. As I pointed out, they elected Republicans in 1994, then Bush in 2000, then increased republican majorities in both houses in 2002, then re-elected Bush in 2004 and increased the majorities again.

What we have in between is "throw the bums out" and that mentality is not over - it'll affect the democrats soon enough.

The country is right of center. When Clinton governed to the left he got blasted. When he figured out to govern right of center, he was enormously popular. Even so, he never won the presidency with 50% of the vote, though his approval rating was over 60% (more than 10% higher than Obama's now) even during the impeachment.

Bush clearly lost the bulk of his base. He won reelection with over 50% and lost 30%+ in approval ratings by the time he left. The reasons are not because of the wars, but because of the big spending and big spending on social programs, his position of amnesty for illegal immigrants (he was governor of Texas, speaks fluent Spanish, what would he know about it?), and that sort of thing.

There was a virulent hatred of the guy on the left from the time he was elected to the time he finished his second term. But they couldn't get motivated to elect a Democrat in his place, or Ralph Nader, or whoever.

These things are what I observe and have long been backed by the polling data and election results.

Seems like a whole lot of wishful thinking there to me. Democratic victories are "throw the bums out", and Republican victories are evidence of the fundamental values of voters? Sure. The wars didn't affect Bush's popularity? Okay... Next tell me about the tooth fairy, please?

barfo
 
The republican base is 40%, the democratic base is 20%.

I just don't know how to convince somebody who starts from this point. It's just so weird and so different from what I see in my own life. And I live in Idaho.

I think both sides tend to hear less and less of the other and more and more of themselves. They think their side is the dominant voice, because they have self-selected out most of the media that disagrees with them.

If you ask most extremely conservative people, I bet you'd find they'd all agree with you. If you asked most extremely liberal people, I bet you'd find they think the exact opposit--that Dems are 40% and Reps are 20%.

That's life in the echo chamber.
 
Excellent post. Rep'd.

As somebody who likes open debate, I'd like to see the administration appear on there.

From a strategic perspective, though, I can see why they don't. Most people who watch Fox aren't going to budge in their views. Obama isn't going to convince anybody. Just imagine Shooter sitting through a 20 minute interview with Obama and being convinced of anything good about our president. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

On the other hand, Obama has proven that he can pretty much live with right wing media sniping at him. In fact, it doesn't really matter.

If a right wing media outlet like Fox were so important anymore to American thought, would Obama have won? Would the Democratic party have scored so hugely in the last election? Wouldn't there be much more support for the wars? Or Dubya?

If Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest were such kingmakers, would McCain have been the Republican candidate? Would Palin have poled so badly among voters?

Fox news is important to political media the same way Apple is important to computer manufacturers. Sure, it's huge. Just like there are a lot of Macintoshes out there. But relative to the overall US population, it's not terribly representative, or even watched.

The right more and more resembles a pack of Mac fanboys, complimenting themselves on how true blue and sleek their product is, how without compromise it is. They'd never dare be in the same room with one of those disgusting and inefficient and ugly Windows PC's, no matter that it's what the majority of Americans are (ie, not conservative Republicans).

Now, it appears, after years of getting sneered at, liberals come to conclude it's just not worth disrupting the fan club. In fact, the less they do to actually confront them, the more the fanboys will just compete among themselves about who is the most true blue, driving themselves even more to the fringe. After so thoroughly demonizing the word "liberal", they now seem to have turned their attention to the idea "moderate". And they don't seem to realize that it's a lot harder to demonize something that most people are.

IMO, the problem isn't Obama's. The echo chamber hasn't hurt him yet, and it's certainly done its best. It's not really a problem for Fox, either. They have a captive audience--where else can the fan boys go?

This is a problem for the Republican party. They have to realize at some point that it's not good enough to have 100% of a steadily shrinking base. They need to break free of the echo chamber and figure out a way to live with *gasp* ideas like "moderate" and "compromise." It's not going to be easy, though. Their media is against them.

I hope they do, and soon. I'm liberal, but I'm not insane. One part rule is never a good thing in the long run.
 
I just don't know how to convince somebody who starts from this point. It's just so weird and so different from what I see in my own life. And I live in Idaho.

I think both sides tend to hear less and less of the other and more and more of themselves. They think their side is the dominant voice, because they have self-selected out most of the media that disagrees with them.

If you ask most extremely conservative people, I bet you'd find they'd all agree with you. If you asked most extremely liberal people, I bet you'd find they think the exact opposit--that Dems are 40% and Reps are 20%.

That's life in the echo chamber.

I'm looking at election results. From 1980 on.

Reagan, Reagan in a massive landslide. GHW Bush becomes the 2nd sitting VP in history to win the presidency. Clinton wins twice when Perot splits the republican vote (republicans still got 43% of the vote). Bush wins twice. Congress changes hands in 1994. Republicans gain seats in an off year election in 2002 (rare occurrence!) and gain seats again in 2004 (again, rare).

Obama governs left of center and his popularity drops 20%+, and is barely 50% overall. And he's a rock star.

I say it's throw the bums out because that was the sentiment in 2006 and certainly in 2008.

I don't think people are happy with govt. at all, either party. I'm not happy with either party, and I'd much rather see split government and gridlock than either party pushing their agendas.

How can you see it otherwise? Anecdotal evidence from your (long) neck of the woods? I think the actual data is more compelling.
:cheers:
 
Last edited:
I think it's safe to assume, however, in an election that absent a huge scandal, the positive and negative coverage of each candidate should be equal.

The straight news press is there to inform, not to campaign.

These 2 sentences are mutually exclusive.

Assuming the 2 candidates are not clones of each other, one is bound to be worse than the other, have more faults than the other, be less honest than the other.

I would expect an accurate uncensored news reporting medium to be quite unbalanced in it's number of positive vs negative reports for each candidate.
 
I would love to see the Federal Government pass a balanced budget amendment, to be exceeded only in the exception of war. As part of that amendment, I'd love to have the US Government get put on a payoff plan for our national debt, say between 30-50 years. If you did that, the Fed's power would decrease dramatically and we would solidify the USD's status as the world's currency because people would know it was a responsible investment.

If you want new or increased spending, then request new or increased taxes. Right now, politicians can give, give, give without ever having to deal out any pain.

Edit: To be clear, under my idea of a balanced budget amendment, the only amount you'd be able to exceed in a war is the difference between the projected peacetime defense budget and the amount the war costs.

Funny you didn't suggest this before Bushbaby bankrupted our wealthy, budget-surplus nation.

Never work with exceptions, especially exceptions for the military-industrial complex that is the sole over-run.

Abolish our entire military presence overseas (over 3/4th of the entire "defense" community costs) and provide free healthcare to every American with the savings. Use the extra for infrastructure catchup.
 
The Pew Research Center is a right-wing think tank founded by an oil baron.

I'm sure you find their "research" to your liking.

Andrew Kohut

President, Pew Research Center

Andrew Kohut is the president of the Pew Research Center. He also acts as director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (formerly the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press) and the Pew Global Attitudes Project. He was President of The Gallup Organization from 1979 to 1989. In 1989, he founded Princeton Survey Research Associates, an attitude and opinion research firm specializing in media, politics, and public policy studies. He served as founding director of surveys for the Times Mirror Center 1990-1992, and was named its Director in 1993. He is a past president of American Association of Public Opinion Research and the National Council on Public Polls. In 2005, he received the American Association of Public Opinion Research's highest honor, the Award for Exceptionally Distinguished Achievement. He is a frequent press commentator on the meaning and interpretation of opinion poll results and the co-author of four books, including, mostly recently, America Against the World (Times Books). He received an A.B. degree from Seton Hall University in 1964 and studied graduate sociology at Rutgers, the State University, from 1964 to 1966.
 
Tom Rosenstiel

Director, Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism

Tom Rosenstiel is the founder and director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. He is the former executive director and current vice chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, an initiative engaged in conducting a national conversation among journalists about standards and values. A journalist for more than 20 years, he is a former media critic for the Los Angeles Times and former chief congressional correspondent for Newsweek magazine. He is the editor and principal author of PEJ's Annual Report on the State of the News Media, a comprehensive report on the health of American journalism. He is the author of five books, including with Bill Kovach, Warp Speed: America in The Age of Mixed Media (Century Foundation 1999) and The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect (Crown 2001), winner of the 2002 Goldsmith Book Prize from Harvard University, the Society of Professional Journalist Sigma Delta Chi award for research in journalism and the Bart Richards Award for Media Criticism from Penn State. His writing also has appeared in such publications as Esquire, The New Republic, The New York Times, Columbia Journalism Review and The Washington Monthly. A former media critic for MSNBC's The News With Brian Williams, he is a frequent commentator on radio and television and in print.
 
I'm looking at election results. From 1980 on.

And that's the right period to look at why? Because it fits with your conclusions?

I'm looking at election results. From 1930 on. Wow, the conclusion is rather different.
I'm looking at election results. From 2006 on. Again, a rather different conclusion.

Yes, Reagan was a hell of a politician, and had the benefit of following a president widely considered to be a failure. Hmm, what's the modern parallel of that situation? Democrats are going to be running against Dubya for the next 30 years. He's the Republican Carter.

barfo
 
And that's the right period to look at why? Because it fits with your conclusions?

I'm looking at election results. From 1930 on. Wow, the conclusion is rather different.
I'm looking at election results. From 2006 on. Again, a rather different conclusion.

Yes, Reagan was a hell of a politician, and had the benefit of following a president widely considered to be a failure. Hmm, what's the modern parallel of that situation? Democrats are going to be running against Dubya for the next 30 years. He's the Republican Carter.

barfo

30 years isn't a long enough snapshot?

From 1960 to 1980, Democrats controlled both houses of congress and 12 years of presidency. I'd say the situation was reverse back then.
 
30 years isn't a long enough snapshot?

From 1960 to 1980, Democrats controlled both houses of congress and 12 years of presidency. I'd say the situation was reverse back then.

Exactly my point. There isn't anything permanent here. Just because the Repubs had a couple of good (for them) decades, doesn't mean that the next few decades will be Republican decades.

Given the current state of the R party, I'd say it is looking highly unlikely that their run will continue, but we'll see.

barfo
 
30 years isn't a long enough snapshot?

From 1960 to 1980, Democrats controlled both houses of congress and 12 years of presidency. I'd say the situation was reverse back then.

Not for "global warming". We need at least 50 years for that, but only if you disrgard the past 11 years. :devilwink:
 
I just don't know how to convince somebody who starts from this point. It's just so weird and so different from what I see in my own life. And I live in Idaho.

I think both sides tend to hear less and less of the other and more and more of themselves. They think their side is the dominant voice, because they have self-selected out most of the media that disagrees with them.

If you ask most extremely conservative people, I bet you'd find they'd all agree with you. If you asked most extremely liberal people, I bet you'd find they think the exact opposit--that Dems are 40% and Reps are 20%.

That's life in the echo chamber.

If I recall the number properly--and I'm not sure that I am correct--is that 40% of the population described themselves as "conservative" and 20% described themselves as "liberal".
 
If I recall the number properly--and I'm not sure that I am correct--is that 40% of the population described themselves as "conservative" and 20% described themselves as "liberal".

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602

Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll
Monday, August 17, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) - Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”

Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.

During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.

According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.

“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.

“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.

“While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level,” said Gallup. “Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”

Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey’s margin of error for the state. In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.

In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.

Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal. In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.

Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.

In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.

Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.

Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.

The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.

For a ranking of all 50 states by the advantage that self-identified conservatives have over self-identified liberals see the Gallup analysis here.
 

Do you ever think part of that may be because for the last 20 years the GOP has been bashing the term liberal to mean something it really doesn't? So people are "scared" to associate with that term?

I can immediately dismiss a poll that is telling me that Hawaii and Mass. have more people as "conservative" than "liberal". Please. I would suggest that perhaps they need to rethink how they are issuing this poll and the wording involved.
 
Last edited:
Founded by a rich redneck family, it originally funded some despicable causes. Through 6 decades it has adopted more liberal leanings, and in 2004 became a "non-profit" in order to be able to legally spend part of it's enormous budget on lobbying, through the Pew Trusts.

From wiki:

The Trusts, a single entity, is the successor to, and sole beneficiary of, seven charitable funds established between 1948 and 1979 by the adult children of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew. The four co-founders were J. Howard Pew, Mary Ethel Pew, Joseph N. Pew, Jr., and Mabel Pew Myrin. The Trusts is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with an office in Washington, D.C..

Joseph Pew and his heirs were politically conservative. The J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust had as its mission to "acquaint the American people with 'the evils of bureaucracy' and 'the values of a free market' and 'to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won.'" Joseph N. Pew, Jr. called Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, "a gigantic scheme to raze U.S businesses to a dead level and debase the citizenry into a mass of ballot-casting serfs."[2]

Most of the early beneficiaries were conservative organizations such as the John Birch Society, the American Liberty League, and the American Enterprise Institute,
[3][4] although the beneficiaries also included a cancer research institute, a museum, higher education, the American Red Cross, and historically black colleges. For many years, the Trusts tended to fund charities and conservative causes located in Philadelphia.

In 2004, the Pew Trusts changed from a foundation into a nonprofit. It can now raise funds freely and devote up to 5% of its budget to lobbying the public sector.

According to the 2007 Annual Report, five of the 12 persons currently serving on the Board for the Trusts are named Pew, including the Chair.

from the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006499

Although it has changed colors and objectives over time, it is obviously one of the biggest lobbyists in America and can never be mistaken for being unbiased. It exists solely to influence people to accept it's biased views.
 
Do you ever think part of that may be because for the last 20 years the GOP has been bashing the term liberal to mean something it really doesn't? So people are "scared" to associate with that term?

I can immediately dismiss a poll that is telling me that Hawaii and Mass. have more people as "conservative" than "liberal". Please. I would suggest that perhaps they need to rethink how they are issuing this poll and the wording involved.

I'm a Liberal. I don't care what anyone else thinks about that.

Now why would some small minority of people be able to smear the term so the majority won't want to be associated with the term?
 
The problem with this poll is that Republicans have spent 30 years fairly successfully demonizing the word "liberal", so people tend not to identify with that label anymore. I'm skeptical you'd get the same results if you used less loaded words, or identified people based on what they believe in, rather than how they label what they believe in.

barfo

Edit: apparently I type too slow, as yakbladder already made this point.
 
Founded by a rich redneck family, it originally funded some despicable causes. Through 6 decades it has adopted more liberal leanings, and in 2004 became a "non-profit" in order to be able to legally spend part of it's enormous budget on lobbying, through the Pew Trusts.

From wiki:

The Trusts, a single entity, is the successor to, and sole beneficiary of, seven charitable funds established between 1948 and 1979 by the adult children of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew. The four co-founders were J. Howard Pew, Mary Ethel Pew, Joseph N. Pew, Jr., and Mabel Pew Myrin. The Trusts is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with an office in Washington, D.C..

Joseph Pew and his heirs were politically conservative. The J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust had as its mission to "acquaint the American people with 'the evils of bureaucracy' and 'the values of a free market' and 'to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won.'" Joseph N. Pew, Jr. called Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, "a gigantic scheme to raze U.S businesses to a dead level and debase the citizenry into a mass of ballot-casting serfs."

Most of the early beneficiaries were conservative organizations such as the John Birch Society, the American Liberty League, and the American Enterprise Institute[3][4] although the beneficiaries also included a cancer research institute, a museum, higher education, the American Red Cross, and historically black colleges. For many years, the Trusts tended to fund charities and conservative causes located in Philadelphia.

In 2004, the Pew Trusts changed from a foundation into a nonprofit. It can now raise funds freely and devote up to 5% of its budget to lobbying the public sector.

According to the 2007 Annual Report, five of the 12 persons currently serving on the Board for the Trusts are named Pew, including the Chair.

from the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006499

Although it has changed colors and objectives over time, it is obviously one of the biggest lobbyists in America and can never be mistaken for being unbiased. It exists solely to influence people to accept it's biased views.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Pew Research Poll
Obama Approval Rating
Approve 52%
Disapprove 36%
Difference 16%

It's the second most skewed poll in Obama's favor. Behind that piller of objectivity, CBS.

You figure it out.
 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/16/conservatives-maintain-their-lead-over-liberals/

"Compared with the 1992-1994 period, the percentage of moderates has declined from 42 percent to 35 percent, while the percentages of conservatives and liberals are up slightly - from 38 percent to 40 percent for conservatives and a larger 17 percent to 21 percent movement for liberals," Gallup said.

So liberals are growing at twice the rate of conservatives.

Furthermore...

But, she noted, 73 percent of Republicans call themselves conservative, while only 38 percent of Democrats call themselves liberals. About 40 percent of Democrats like to describe themselves as "moderate."

"While Democrats prefer the 'moderate' label, 'liberal' still isn't a very popular label," she said.

What's interesting is that with the massively aging population (no offense Denny) I'd expect to see a great climb in conservatives and then a sudden drop-off at some point.
 
The problem with this poll is that Republicans have spent 30 years fairly successfully demonizing the word "liberal", so people tend not to identify with that label anymore. I'm skeptical you'd get the same results if you used less loaded words, or identified people based on what they believe in, rather than how they label what they believe in.

barfo

Edit: apparently I type too slow, as yakbladder already made this point.

There are no liberals, clearly.

Liberals stormed the 1968 convention and risked getting thrown in jail or getting cracked across the skull with a nightstick.

Now they're afraid of a word, "liberal."

LOL
 
I'm a Liberal. I don't care what anyone else thinks about that.

Now why would some small minority of people be able to smear the term so the majority won't want to be associated with the term?

Well when that was the GOP talking point for several years, to call everyone a liberal. But more likely an Ivy League liberal or a Mass. liberal or anyone of a number of modifiers.
 
I'll quote my earlier post. With emphasis:

The republican base is 40%, the democratic base is 20%. You're right that it isn't about voter registration, it's about who the voters elect. As I pointed out, they elected Republicans in 1994, then Bush in 2000, then increased republican majorities in both houses in 2002, then re-elected Bush in 2004 and increased the majorities again.

What we have in between is "throw the bums out" and that mentality is not over - it'll affect the democrats soon enough.

The country is right of center. When Clinton governed to the left he got blasted. When he figured out to govern right of center, he was enormously popular. Even so, he never won the presidency with 50% of the vote, though his approval rating was over 60% (more than 10% higher than Obama's now) even during the impeachment.

Bush clearly lost the bulk of his base. He won reelection with over 50% and lost 30%+ in approval ratings by the time he left. The reasons are not because of the wars, but because of the big spending and big spending on social programs, his position of amnesty for illegal immigrants (he was governor of Texas, speaks fluent Spanish, what would he know about it?), and that sort of thing.

There was a virulent hatred of the guy on the left from the time he was elected to the time he finished his second term. But they couldn't get motivated to elect a Democrat in his place, or Ralph Nader, or whoever.

These things are what I observe and have long been backed by the polling data and election results.
 
from wiki:

For the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Gallup was rated 17th out of 23 polling organizations in terms of the precision of its pre-election polls relative to the final results.

Not the absolute worst pollster, but close.

I'd agree with that. CBS isn't better.

My top two are Rasmussen and Gallup.
 
There are no liberals, clearly.

Liberals stormed the 1968 convention and risked getting thrown in jail or getting cracked across the skull with a nightstick.

Now they're afraid of a word, "liberal."

LOL

I'm not sure those who stormed the convention are the same people that Gallup might reach in a survey of suburbia.

I'm happy to be known as a liberal, but I can see why joe six-pack would call himself a moderate.

barfo
 
Well when that was the GOP talking point for several years, to call everyone a liberal. But more likely an Ivy League liberal or a Mass. liberal or anyone of a number of modifiers.

So what? What's the Nazi Party talking points, and who cares?

The people polled were given the choice of "moderate" and chose "conservative."
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top