With primary voting upon us tomorrow, it looks like I’ve run out of campaign to cover. Here then is a quick, scatter-shot batch of snippets on various races:
Posts Tagged ‘MSM’
Robert Caro’s The Passage of Power, the latest volume in his acclaimed Lyndon Baines Johnson biography, came out May of last year, but Garry Wills just got around to reviewing it in The New York Review of Books.
The sad thing is that for the first few thousand words, it’s a really interesting review. Caro’s book is about how Johnson’s and Robert F. Kennedy’s mutual hatred for each other drove much of the Johnson’s Presidency. By this point, anyone beyond Democratic hagiographers know that both LBJ and RFK were nasty pieces of work, and it’s no surprise that both of them loathed each other. Caro is a good historian, I’m sure the book is quite fascinating, and the review conveys its central points well.
Then, alas, the Garry Wills kicks in.
For those who can’t lay their hands on The Field Guide to Liberal Fossils, Wills is a historian who started out as a protege of William F. Buckley but then started moving steadily to the left and has kept moving ever since. He came down with a full-blown case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and penned one of the nastiest hit pieces on Romney after he lost. He has such a bad case of it he can’t resist getting in digs at Bush43 while reviewing a book that takes place 30+ years before he entered office.
“He [LBJ] also tried to work the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, requesting an office in the White House with a bulked-up staff for military and security issues. He was trying, we now see, to have the parallel presidency that Dick Cheney secured for himself under a compliant George Bush.”
This is the sort of wacky “Cheney is the puppetmaster” conspiracism that had the nutroots convinced that “Fitzmas” was going to result the wholesale indictment of the Bush Administration for treason before The Great Fizzle. A professional historian believing in it is akin to treating The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a real document rather than a Czarist fake.
Honorable mention goes to the line “Americans hated communism so much that they thought every Russian was a threat.” Yeah, funny what an ideology killing 100 million people and having some 5,000 nuclear warheads pointed at you by an evil empire will dampen your enthusiasm.
At some indefinite point in the future, I hope to read all of Caro’s volumes on LBJ. But I see no need to read anything by Garry Wills ever again.
See if you can fill in the blank for the following headline:
“Homebuilder Confidence in U.S. BLANK Fell in February”
Having trouble? Try again with the first sentence
“Confidence among U.S. homebuilders BLANK dropped in February from a more than six-year high, a sign the real-estate market will take time to accelerate.”
If you’ve been reading Instapundit for any length of time, you know exactly what the word replaced with BLANK is. And that word is “unexpectedly.”
Gee, how could anyone possibly have seen that continued high unemployment and an economy that is shrinking might negatively impact the housing market? (And of course, when the economy shrank, the shrinkage happened “unexpectedly.”)
Obama and friends keep trying and trying neo-Keynesian pump-priming and keep getting the same results: economic stagnation. While trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of madness, that doesn’t matter to them, since it allows them to continue the payoffs to cronies and interest groups that keep the Big Government Class in power (and rolling in taxpayer dough). Germany and Estonia performed no or minimal “stimulus” deficit spending and their economies are growing again. Obama and congressional Democrats have taken the opposite tack: Keep pouring money down the big government rathole and hope that results this year won’t be identical to the last four. My prediction: higher deficits, continued high unemployment and continued economic stagnation.
And each and every negative economic indicator the media will report as arriving “unexpectedly.”
So remember right after assault on our Libyan embassy in Benghazi, Mitt Romney issued a statement, then clarified those statements the next day?
Let’s roll the video, shall we?
Remember how the press jumped all over him, said it was a potentially campaign-ending gaffe?
Since then we’ve learned that:
This video timeline might help:
Watching and listening to Romney now, who do you agree with more: Mitt Romney, or reporters sounding outraged at his criticisms of the Obama Administration?
Both the Obama Administration and their lapdog media surrogates seem far more interested in defeating Obama’s political opponent than America’s Jihadest enemies, or telling the American people the truth.
Right after I talked about how the mainstream media thinks you’re stupid enough to swallow badly skewed polls, Jim Geraghty reports that the New York Times is proving my point all over again by publishing a poll with more Democrats and fewer Republicans in the sample than in 2008 exit polls.
Ohio 2008 exits: 39% Democrat, 31% Republican, 30% Independent.
Ohio New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 35% Democrat, 26% Republican, 35% Independent.
In this sample, the partisan split is D+9 compared to D+8 four years ago, and the GOP is five percentage points smaller than in 2008.
Pennsylvania 2008 exits: 44% Democrat, 37% Republican, 18% Independent.
Pennsylvania New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 39% Democrat, 28% Republican, 27% Independent.
Somehow a D+7 split has turned into D+11 split, and Republicans’ share of the electorate is nine percentage points less than they were four years ago.
Florida 2008 exits: 37% Democrat, 34% Republican, 29% Independent.
Florida New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 36% Democrat, 27% Republican, 33% Independent.
Each party’s share only shifts a few percentage points, but the overall split goes from D+3 to D+9.
One again, the New York Times thinks Republicans are too stupid to figure out the con. If they’re going to be that absurdly biased, why not just cut out the middleman and poll Obama for America staffers directly?
Remember: The business model of The New York Times is to envelop liberals in a soft, warm, comforting cocoon of reassurance that their ideas and leaders are popular. You saw this in 2010, when it dangerously blinded them to the coming Republican wave until too late. The same patterns is repeating itself this year.
Remember how how incredibly tight the 1980 election was? How Ronald Reagan managed to edge Jimmy Carter at the last minute despite losing Texas and New York?
Probably not, mainly because that didn’t happen. But as Jeffrey Lord’s story makes clear, that was the narrative the New York Times was pushing most of the fall, and they had “polls” to back it up.
In the pantheon of lies, damn lies, and statistics, polls aren’t even as valid as statistics. At this point, polls by the usual MSM suspects (NYT, PPP, CBS, MS/NBC, Time, Newsweek, NPR, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, just to name a few) aren’t designed to gauge the race, they’re designed to encourage Democrats and discourage Republicans. They are, as Lord notes and Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee admitted to Ed Rollins, offering up “in kind contributions” to the Democrats.
So let’s take a brief look at the many ways in which the MSM is distorting polls for the benefit of Obama and the Democrats.
Every week you see the media going to bat for Obama, and every week we see more evidence of lack of enthusiasm on the part of Democrats compared to 2008. 2010 did happen, no matter how much the media would like to pretend it didn’t. The Tea Party hasn’t gone away, nor suddenly decided that they like Obama’s free-spending ways after all. The fundamentals of our ailing economy and staggering unemployment haven’t gone away either. And remember: Republicans now outnumber Democrats in party identification.
There’s a lot better chance that this election’s results will look like 1980 than that they will look like 2008.
This is the time of year when the political world is awash in polls. Some otherwise sensible Republicans take a look at those polls and go “Oh my God! Obama is up by 2! Or 5! He got a big convention bounce!”
I could wade into the murky swamps of different polling companies, different methodologies, different biases, the problem with cell phone vs. landline samples, partisan weighting screens, the comparison between citizens, registered voters and likely voters, or a dozen other variables. But I’m not going to.
Instead, one piece of advice, and one explanation.
The advice: Chill.
The explanation: Barack Obama was elected in 2008 with 52.9% of the popular vote to 45.7% for John McCain, the best popular vote margin of any Democratic Presidential contender since Lyndon Baines Johnson captured 61.1% of the vote in 1964. (People forget that Bill Clinton, for all his retrospective popularity, never broke 50% of the popular vote; Al Gore got 48.4% of the vote while losing in the electoral college in 2000.) Ignoring (for now) the electoral college and minor changes in the composition of voters, that means only 4% of the people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 need to switch their vote for Mitt Romney to win.
Do you think Obama might be 4% less popular than he was four years ago? Perhaps among those who have lost their jobs? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that Obama is less popular than he was four years ago, his inability to fill campaign events the way he used to being one, and numerous elected Democrats in tough reelection fights avoiding the DNC being another. So who are you going to believe: MSM polls or your lying eyes?
The media is desperately trying to pretend that 2010 never happened, or that it was an aberration.
The polls are part of the media trying desperately to maintain what Instapundit Glenn Reynolds calls “preference falsification,” a willingness on the part of the political and media establishment to manufacture a false consensus that (in this case) liberal policies and politicians are popular. When it comes to the current election, the question might be most crassly boiled down to “Do you support Obama, or are you a racist?” In 2010 and now we’re finally seeing a “preference cascade” of people unwilling to buy that liberal narrative. The walls are finally coming down.
Which is not to say the election is in the bag for Romney. There’s still a lot of hard work to be done, and a lot of work to make sure Republicans and anti-Obama independents get to the polls, especially in swing states. But there’s no reason to get worked up over each and every little poll. Time is not on Obama’s side.
Still trying to get back in the swing of things, so here’s a LinkSwarm for a lazy Friday:
Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many 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.
There’s a lot to digest and discuss about Ted Cruz’s victory over David Dewhurst, and I’m sure I’ll have more tomorrow. But here are a few myths that Cruz’s victory laid to rest tonight.
More race analysis tomorrow.
I know, dog bites man.
In the course of talking about a phony-baloney, Dewhurst-friendly poll, Paul Burka has proven, yet against, that he doesn’t understand Republicans in general and conservatives in specific. You have to scroll down a little to find out his reaction to Richard Mourdock terminating Dick Lugar’s senate career, but it exhibits the same keen insight we’ve come to expect from his political commentary:
I can tell you what I think of Lugar’s loss. I think Republicans have gone nuts. Lugar has been a distinguished senator for many years.
It used to be that Republicans could skate by talking like conservatives then voting like liberals. That was several trillion dollars worth of debt ago. Now Republican voters demand that their representatives actually do something about out-of-control federal spending and unconstitutional enlargement of a runaway federal government, and those that don’t will find themselves being sent home in short order.
When Burka says “a distinguished senator for many years,” what actual conservative voters (perhaps Burka should make the acquaintance of a few) see is someone who has become part of the problem: The get-along-to-go-along Republican establishment that was willing to let the federal welfare state grow indefinitely rather than fight to control it.
Either we get runaway government spending under control, or we go the way of Europe, where the cradle-to-grave welfare state is destroying economies across the entire continent and “unacceptable austerity” is reducing Greece’s budget from 9% of GDP to 7.5% of GDP.
The Red State model of government embodied by Texas under Rick Perry is kicking the ass of the Blue State model represented by Jerry Brown’s California, much to the consternation of Burka and his fellow liberal MSM journalists. Low taxes, holding the line on government spending, and a business friendly climate do wonders for your state economy. Democratic control, high taxes, out of control spending, and powerful labor unions bleeding the state dry? Not so much.
If Republican elected officials won’t scale back the size and scope of federal power and spending, we’ll replace them with people who will. Republican voters have been sending that message to Washington loud and clear for the last three years, and even the Republican establishment has been forced to take notice. I think Texans will send that message at the polls loud and clear May 29, and Americans on November 6.
And it’s quite possible that Burka will be just as baffled by the results.