Posts Tagged ‘Media Watch’

Romney Sweeps the Floor With Obama in First Debate: Roundup and Reactions

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012

We now have a whole new Presidential race.

I didn’t see the entirety of the debate, but in the parts I did see, Romney firmly trounced Obama. Romney looked sharp, engaged, lively and presidential. Obama looked like he was looking at his Blackberry when he wasn’t speaking.

Nor am I alone in my judgment, as even the Obama-friendly press and liberal pundits said Romney won (some in NSFW language):

  • John Hindraker: “It’s over. I’ve been watching presidential debates for quite a few years, but I have never seen one like this. It wasn’t a TKO, it was a knockout. Mitt Romney was in control from the beginning. He was the alpha male, while Barack Obama was weak, hesitant, stuttering, often apologetic. The visuals were great for Romney and awful for Obama. Obama looked small, tired, defeated after four years of failure, out of ammo.”
  • Jonah Goldberg: “I had a pretty good feeling about tonight’s debate. But I had no expectation that Romney would simply control the night the way he did. I don’t think Obama did terribly on the merits, even though he clearly lost by a wide margin on points. But you don’t really score a debate like this on points. Romney simply dominated and deflated Obama.”
  • Rich Lowry: “It was overwhelmingly Romney’s night. He was more confident, more energetic, and better informed than President Obama. He exposed the president’s shallowness and got under his skin.” On Twitter, gay righty turned lefty Andrew Sullivan bluntly declared “this was a disaster for Obama.” Also: “How is Obama’s closing so fucking sad, confused, lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost election tonight.”

  • Hell, even CNN’s non-rightwing audience thought that Romney won the debate by a landslide of 67% to 25%.
  • All Washington Post columnists who weighed in scored it for Romney.
  • Even Chris Matthews though Obama got his clock cleaned.
  • Here’s the debate in full:

  • If Romney had debated and campaigned this well in 2008, he’d probably be President right now.

    More tomorrow.

    The New York Times Really Does Think You’re a Moron

    Wednesday, September 26th, 2012

    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.

    A Bit on Polling (or, Why the Media Thinks You’re a Moron)

    Tuesday, September 25th, 2012

    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.

  • Dick Morris (who knows a thing or two about polling) thinks the idea that an Obama victory is in the offing is bunk. “All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin.” He also notes that even the skewed polls show Obama at less than 50%, and “the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent.”
  • By one analysis, pollsters are oversampling Democrats by an average of 6.1%.
  • More evidence that the media is oversampling Democrats.
  • A technical analysis of how that dynamic applies to Pennsylvania.
  • Jay Cost notes that “polls that do a poor job of differentiating enthusiastic non-voters from enthusiastic voters are going to overestimate Obama’s margin.”
  • 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.

    Polling in Perspective (or: Chill)

    Monday, September 10th, 2012

    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.

    LinkSwarm for September 7, 2012

    Friday, September 7th, 2012

    Still trying to get back in the swing of things, so here’s a LinkSwarm for a lazy Friday:

  • Texas is on track to enjoy a $5 billion budget surplus, which I thought news too good to hold for the next Texas vs. California roundup.
  • The vast, yawning Obama jobs gap.
  • How Obama destroyed the Democratic Party.
  • The outgoing New York Times public editor just comes out and admits the paper is a shill for the Democratic Party:

    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.

  • Dwight covers yet another green scam.
  • Those self-identifying as Republicans now outnumber Democrats among American voters.
  • Here’s irony for you: The Obama Administration’s War on Fossil Fuels is harming the environment in the Gulf Coast.
  • If you haven’t seen the Democrats’ self-inflicted God debacle, here’s the video:

  • And here’s Allen West’s ad about it.

  • One democratic delegate was so offended he left the party and joined the Occupy protestors.
  • Speaking of Occupy, the would-be Occupy Cleveland bridge bombers have pleaded guilty.
  • The $4.351 trillion difference between Obama and Clinton.
  • More economic rumbles from China, which is no surprise to anyone who has heard about the “Ghost Cities.”

  • Toll road between Austin and San Antonio to have 85 MPH speed limit.
  • Dispatches from the Ted Cruz Victory Lap

    Monday, August 6th, 2012

    The echos from Ted Cruz’s victory over Dewhurst are still echoing not only around the state, but the nation as well. Here’s just a small sampling of the most important reactions:

  • Cruz’s victory is a wakeup call for the establishment.

    “It’s difficult to overstate the achievement of Cruz beating Dewhurst,” said Democratic strategist Harold Cook of Austin. “That Cruz won amplifies the extent to which tea partiers are at war with establishment Republicans, and at the moment, winning it.”

  • Jonah Goldberg looks at the Cruz campaign and sees an end to boring white guy candidates. Emphasis on the “boring.”
  • Cruz was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News:

  • National Review covered his Fox News appearance.
  • The Hill takes notice as well.
  • Forbes gets it: “We’re tired of the big-spending compromises!”
  • Michael Barone on the MSM failing to credit the Tea Party in Cruz’s victory. Dunno, maybe out of state, but I saw a lot of Tea Party mentions from Texas outlets.
  • Cruz gives Romney a hand in pushing back on Obama’s “you didn’t build that” gaffe.
  • Cruz isn’t the only conservative Hispanic Republican winning big these days.
  • The Houston Chronicle interviews Vincent Harris, the head of Cruz’s social media team.
  • This bland “Hispanics are our future” thumbsucker does have one standout line that deserves repeating: Cruz’s victory demonstrated that “Texas Republicans are more interested in conservative ideals than in ethnicity.”
  • A Democratic analyst’s look at Cruz’s victory. Don’t agree with it 100%, but it’s focused on technical analysis and free of liberal bile (unlike the column of certain former Texas Agricultural Commissioner I’m not linking to).
  • Ted Cruz Victory Already Paying Dividends

    Thursday, August 2nd, 2012

    Thanks to his runoff victory Tuesday, Ted Cruz is now a political figure with clout, and, as this video shows, he’s already making the case for controlling spending and limited government to a national audience:

    Myths Ted Cruz’s Victory Killed

    Tuesday, July 31st, 2012

    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.

  • Hispanics can’t win statewide Republican primaries in Texas. This one was born in Victor Carrillo’s defeat in the 2010 Railroad Commissioner’s race. It was sour grapes by Carrillo (and wishful thinking by the liberal media) then, and was debunked tonight.
  • The Tea Party has peaked and is in decline. Cruz is just the latest Tea Party candidate to knock off an establishment Republican. And Sarah Palin looks more and more like the most powerful kingmaker in the Republican Party.
  • Big money will always trump grassroots enthusiasm. Dewhurst was a quarter-billionaire who outraised Cruz (at least initially) and dumped a ton of money on TV advertising. It didn’t help.
  • Social media isn’t nearly as important as TV and newspaper ad buys. The Cruz campaign was far more adept and nimble using Facebook, Twitter, etc., and it was a big factor in locking up grassroots support early. And many observers have noted that Dewhurst’s ad buys probably hurt him.
  • Negative campaigning is the key to victory. Dewhurst went negative early and often, and it not only raised Cruz’s profile, but backfired when people found out the issues they were hyping were trivia (the Chinese tire case) or outright lies (the amnesty and kids-for-cash smears). Honest negative campaigning is still a useful tool, but the Internet makes it so easy to debunk lies that obvious falsehoods no longer have time to take root before they’re debunked.
  • Media endorsements are vital to winning voter support. Dewhurst got the lion’s share of MSM endorsements. It obviously didn’t help him.
  • More race analysis tomorrow.

    Texas Senate Race Update for July 30, 2012

    Monday, July 30th, 2012

    Tomorrow’s election day! Get out there and vote! And if you’re still making up your mind, you might want to read my endorsement of Ted Cruz.

    Now the final roundup of pre-runoff Senate race news:

  • Evan at Perry vs. World debunks Cruz’s role in Dewhurst’s last-minute “cash for kids” ad. “Ted Cruz was trying to help the Kids for Cash victims get the money they deserved from an insurance company.”
  • The more detailed explanation that Evan links to is here. “In either case, Cruz had nothing to do with the creation of the fund or how much it pays victims. He was not one of the attorneys listed on the agreement. If anything, Cruz’s only involvement in the case would have resulted in more—not less—money for victims.”
  • Michelle Malkin on why electing Cruz is so important.
  • Democrat says why he’s voting for Dewhurst: “Ted Cruz has not exhibited progressive behavior at all.”
  • The inmates over at Democratic Underground have joined the chorus of liberal Democrats urging a vote for Dewhurst.
  • Even Paul Burka can see the writing on the wall: “Nothing Dewhurst has tried has changed the dynamics of the race at all. If anything, the millions Dewhurst has spent on TV have hurt his own campaign. The China ad and the Kids for Cash scandal ad have not achieved anything. Dewhurst’s array of consultants has never been able to lay a glove on Cruz.”
  • Politico joins the list of those expecting a Cruz victory. “We’re on the 2-yard line. We have marched the entire length of the field. We started out up in the hot dog stands.”
  • Final day of campaigning: “At Dewhurst’s stopover at an Austin Chick-fil-A franchise early Monday, about a dozen supporters waved Dewhurst placards—and close to half of them were lobbyists.”
  • Coverage of The Woodland Ted Cruz rally featuring Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint.
  • Ted Cruz rally montage:

  • Ted Cruz at FreePAC:

  • Q: So Dewhurst, are any of your staffers working for the SuperPACs slamming Ted Cruz? A: No. Q: Former staffers? A: Uh….

  • Fox Houston: “Early voting numbers show Cruz ahead by 10 percent.” I assume they mean the PPP poll, as they usually don’t release actual vote totals until the polls have closed on election night.
  • KVUE talks about the Tea Party angle.
  • Final day roundup story.
  • Dewhurst is still campaigning. Here’s his last-minute-push video with Rick Perry:

    At least it’s refreshingly free of dishonest slime attacks against Cruz…

  • And yes, the Democrats are having their own runoff tomorrow. The Texas Democratic Party all but says “Screw neutrality, you better vote for Paul Sadler if you know what’s good for you.” They also commit a factual error. As readers of this blog know, Grady Yarbrough has been endorsed by a newspaper, The Austin Villager. Since the The Austin Villager is a black community newspaper, if a Republican omitted them, you know they would be accused of racism…
  • Yarbrough comes out for illegal alien amnesty, which might be a we tad inconsistent with his previous stance on putting the Berlin Wall on the border.
  • If Yarbrough does win the Democratic runoff, $20 says Sadler and the TDP try to get him thrown off the ballot for not filing his FEC forms…
  • Really? That’s It? That’s Your National Occupy Gathering?

    Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

    You may not be aware, but Occupy [Place Name Here] had their national gathering in Philadelphia this week. Via Twitter, we have a picture of their national march.

    Really? That’s it? 45 people? Even the crappiest local science fiction convention I’ve been to had more members than that. And I dare say the average Texas Senate Race forum had at least four times as many people as that (mainly because by then all the seats had been filled and they wouldn’t let additional people in).

    When will the national media stop pretending that Occupy is even remotely important?

    (Hat tip: SooperMexican’s Twitter Feed.)