I know this is bad form .. (4.00 / 2)

but it bares saying anyway ... AdNags is a f-ckin' idiot!!

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 19:03:20 PM CDT

It's a bit ironic (4.00 / 2)

That these folks keep clucking about how it's not a blowout but they desperately want it not to be a blowout.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 19:26:15 PM CDT

everything is ALWAYS good for the rePubs (0.00 / 0)

don't you all know that!

---

by: BlueFranco @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 23:22:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

www.adamnagourney.com (0.00 / 0)

I have no idea who used to run that site or why it shut down, but for a long time (circal 2003-2004) it was the funniest shit on the web.  That and "Get Your War On".  I honestly don't think i could have made it through those dark days without these sites.  If anyone knows who wrote it or what happened to them, please post here.

Anyway, clearly the magic number you want to win by is 3% because that's a MANDATE.  Anything less and its a close election and if you win by more than that you are just rubbing it in and totally cheated and ruined everything by not letting McCain have a fair shot.  I can't wait for Obama to win by >3% and the pundits say its no mandate and its time for the country to come together and let bygones be bygones.  That's what the democratic pundits will say.  The GOP will scream FRAUD if its under 7%.  

Anyway, please go back to writing on your personal blog adnags.  We need you now more than ever.  

---

by: roberto_jordan @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 19:27:43 PM CDT

Two things (0.00 / 0)

a) Yeah, stop complaining.

b)  Would Dark Knight have been a good movie if  the Joker or Two-face didn't provide a real challenge to Batman? Or, given your taste, would Battlestar Galatica have been interesting if the Cylons had destroyed all the humans, or the humans have destroyed all the Cylons in the first episode? Its entertainment.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 19:31:24 PM CDT

Obviously (4.00 / 2)

elections are for entertainment only.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 20:43:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

For the media yes (4.00 / 4)

Let me explain it to you the way it was explained to me by a fairly well known tv director of dramatic series (well known because most tv directors aren't known, but this guy is). His quote to me over tv and content is as follows: "if they could sell you the ads with a blank screen in between, they would"

Of course, they can't sell a blank screen, so that's why they program. They sell what they think will entertain because they want you to stay for the ads. If staying for ads through entertainment happens to coincide with what's accurate- great. The same is true if that happens to coincide with creative, then great (which was the directors point).

If not, then whatever. Entertainment to keep eyes watching the commercials is the first goal. The goal is to sell ads. When people ask how dare they keep Bill Kristol around- part of it is that they are trying to seem even handed, but part of it is that it gets people riled up and reading papers or watching tv.

What's more interesting? Someone who completely agrees with you or someone who seems completely on another planet from you? This isn't me agreeing with it, but pointing out to Chris that his goal-- media that produces accuracy or narratives that are logical isn't their goal. Their goals are to sell ads or obtain subscribers or people sitting in a theatre. Accuracy isn't entertainment. So,w ith the news media there is a conflict in goals that parties like the right can exploit. It's like with the swiftboating of Kerry- it was more interesting to repeat the lie because there was this controversey. Like watching a car accident.

I don't think that way about the news, but in a perezhilton.com as news way the fact they want to keep the race close makes entertainment sense like the Batman versus Joker or Two-Face.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 22:36:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

For the media yes (0.00 / 0)

Let me explain it to you the way it was explained to me by a fairly well known tv director of dramatic series (well known because most tv directors aren't known, but this guy is). His quote to me over tv and content is as follows: "if they could sell you the ads with a blank screen in between, they would"

Of course, they can't sell a blank screen, so that's why they program. They sell what they think will entertain because they want you to stay for the ads. If staying for ads through entertainment happens to coincide with what's accurate- great. The same is true if that happens to coincide with creative, then great (which was the directors point).

If not, then whatever. Entertainment to keep eyes watching the commercials is the first goal. The goal is to sell ads. When people ask how dare they keep Bill Kristol around- part of it is that they are trying to seem even handed, but part of it is that it gets people riled up and reading papers or watching tv.

What's more interesting? Someone who completely agrees with you or someone who seems completely on another planet from you? This isn't me agreeing with it, but pointing out to Chris that his goal-- media that produces accuracy or narratives that are logical isn't their goal. Their goals are to sell ads or obtain subscribers or people sitting in a theatre. Accuracy isn't entertainment. So,w ith the news media there is a conflict in goals that parties like the right can exploit. It's like with the swiftboating of Kerry- it was more interesting to repeat the lie because there was this controversey. Like watching a car accident.

I don't think that way about the news, but in a perezhilton.com as news way the fact they want to keep the race close makes entertainment sense like the Batman versus Joker or Two-Face.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 22:36:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sadly this is just false! (4.00 / 1)

It's comforting nonsense.

Because your statement would indicate that they don't really care what they put on air, so long as advertising is sold. So, if a leftist-liberal could gather a large audience then they put him on and sell advertising, and if Rush Limbaugh can do it, they put him on and they're indifferent to content.

They just flat aren't. They fired Phil Donohue although he was their highest rated daytime show at the time because he dared question the war! They have either fired or in the vast majority of cases simply not promoted people because they failed to parrot right-wing views.

Is the nation so right-wing that they have to do that for commercial reasons? Of course not! In fact, the people as a whole are much more liberal on issues than either political party (although Americans have been taught that "liberal" is a dirty word, so they don't like to describe themselves that way).

The success of shows like the Daily Show and Colbert Report and Keith Olbermann shows a crying need for MORE liberals on air to represent popular opinion.

People want more real news, not less, but what they get is less all the time. The news is stage-managed and squeezed of all content that might upset the right-wing elites.

Now, how is any of this "necessary" to appeal to masses of people who might buy commercial products over TV? It just isn't. It's done for reasons having to do with ideological control and NOTHING to do with free-market competition.

You recently saw CBS- News-babe Laura Logan say she'd blow her brains out if she had to watch U.S. TV coverage of the war. Practically everything she tried to report was censored out or filtered or dumbed-down to be politically acceptable to the Bush administration and war-cheerleaders.

In fact, TV networks work very hard to present elite views that are as rigidly controlled as those of Pravda in Brezhnev's Russia.

---

by: Cugel @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:43:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't say they didn't have their own taste levels (0.00 / 0)

which is all you really added. believe me- I am a black guy trying to make movies for a living. I know all about how logic of money making isn't the only point, but it is the dominant driving force, and for every special example you can show, I can show you  a lot more that doesn't require some kind machivellian scheme- just a pressumption about why they make media to accompish the same effect. What's fiction is to sit around thinking one requires some bias against you . that's a bit self centered.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 13:32:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know what they want (0.00 / 0)

That doesn't mean that'll match up with reality.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 13:42:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's the problem you keep thinking reality has something to do with it (0.00 / 0)

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 17:59:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two things (4.00 / 1)

a) Yeah, stop complaining.

b)  Would Dark Knight have been a good movie if  the Joker or Two-face didn't provide a real challenge to Batman? Or, given your taste, would Battlestar Galatica have been interesting if the Cylons had destroyed all the humans, or the humans have destroyed all the Cylons in the first episode? Its entertainment.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 19:31:24 PM CDT

I think it's the South anyway (4.00 / 2)

Obama is never going to hit 50% in the South -- or even 45% -- and that drags him down natiowide.  He will get over 50% in the Northeast, Midwest, and West.  I was thinking about that last night, but before I wrote a post, I saw kos had the Research 2000 numbers to show it.

That is more than enough to take the electoral college.

(I am not suggesting he can't win Virginia or Florida.)

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 19:36:06 PM CDT

beating expectations (4.00 / 2)

is the name of the game if you are the front runner.

yesterday i watched fox sunday for the first time ever and it was instructive. rove went thru his talking points, mostly lies, but then the panel of conservative pundits, who didn't seem to want to lie, were really at a loss to criticize the campaign.

let them make stuff up about how he is really behind and doing badly.  how if he wasn't winning he would be losing...i don't see how it hurts us and it is better than if the media was repeating the rovian lies.

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 20:15:57 PM CDT

It's always good for the Republicans (4.00 / 3)

even when it isn't.

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 20:51:57 PM CDT

Yowzers that's a big helping of dumb (4.00 / 3)

The only purpose -- unconscious or conscious -- for writing/publishing an article this airy and factless would be to cast doubt about Obama -- perceptions about momentum have a real effect on a candidates numbers and it's just not responsible for reporters to speculate in the absence of some kind factual information about something so gossamer as how we expect people to feel about a presidential candidate.

I mean -- implicit in the suggestion that he's not doing as well as he should is the idea that he's more awesome than his numbers reflect. Can you imagine the New York Times running an article with a headline like "Obama Warrants a Bigger Lead in the Polls."?

I can't.

It's just asinine.

Here are some alternative headlines which I think better reflect what the article conveys:

"Why Doesn't the Data Meet My Subjective Expectations?"

"When a lead is not a lead."

"Why Aren't People Thinking What We Think They Should Be Thinking or . . .  waitaminute . . . They Are Thinking What We Think They Should Be Thinking Just Not As Much As We Think They Should Be Thinking It."

 

---

by: timothysull @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 21:43:14 PM CDT

What would the media be writing if McSame (4.00 / 1)

were ahead:

"Obama can't close the gap."

"McCain keeping Obama at bay"

"Lying works."

etc.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.

---

by: MC @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 23:01:05 PM CDT

McCain leads with likely voters (0.00 / 0)

Here is where this is coming from, Dems have always led in the summer- Dukakis was up by what, 17%? And taking into account the so-called Bradley effect, there is a big disparity between how the race looks on the teevee and the "real" numbers coming in.

Yea, it's time to worry.

---

by: dualdiagnosis @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 03:51:49 AM CDT

Yes, Dems ALWAYS Lead In Virginia (0.00 / 0)

And keep things close in Montana.

It's soooo predictable.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:20:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Likely Voter screen (0.00 / 0)

This far out, any "likely voter" screen is likely to be inaccurate.  It will overstate older people and GOPers who vote regularly.  It won't pick up new voters, or will assume they won't vote.  This is a hard election to poll because of hundreds of thousands of new voters, appeal to the youth and minority votes, changes in party ID, the race factor, Obama's ground game etc.  We won't know until Nov 5 how these potential trends play out.  Maybe it will be the same ol' folks voting, but I'm hoping there will be a million or more new voters, and that it will propel Obama to victory by 5%.

But I'd be REALLY suspicious of a "likely voter" poll at this point.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:12:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually (0.00 / 0)

Given that the MOE is about 3% in most polling, it really isn't statistically significant.  

---

by: fladem @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:54:10 AM CDT

Historical perspective (0.00 / 0)

The one defense I'd throw into the mix (and it is a MINOR one) is that if you look back to the elections of the 1980s and 1990s, you saw much bigger swings in poll numbers.  I don't have the graphs in front of me right now, but I'm pretty sure double-digit swings this early in the campaign season were considered reasonable.

Thing is, that isn't happening anymore regardless of the candidates.  It's the same reason we saw so much less "momentum" in the primaries than we did in the 80s and 90s.  Those opinion poll swings were based on a very limited media environment in which people only could turn to a few sources for their news.  In that environment, most voters would here nothing about a candidate, or only one thing, for a long time.  then when they heard something, or something new, you'd see a lot of poll movement.

With the 24-hour cable news channels, that started to change.  With the blogosphere, forget about it.  Now there is such information abundance that opinion poll swings are much smaller.  The media doesn't get that because A)they don't take the time to look at the data and B)it's an insanely nerdy explanation that would never attract viewers.

That said, you're right about the horserace, overwhelming subjectivity, and right-wing/"centrist" bias in the news.  And yeah, it's hella-annoying.  I just think it's also very predictable.  Obama was going to get smaller swings, b/c we get smaller swings in this day and age.  The media was going to incorporate that into their framing, because it seems like news compared to a baseline of the 1980s and 90s.

---

by: sierradave @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:21:27 AM CDT