• Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On September - 16 - 2011

In the modern era of punditry and media, we have now become accustomed to news being a never ending chain predictions. As the crude saying goes, predictions are like assholes, every news show has them.

And what’s great for pundits is that being wrong is not a problem, there is no penalty, you don’t lose money, you don’t lose your job or future bookings on news shows for hawking such absolute certainties to millions of people such as the war in Iraq will pay for itself, the Bush tax cuts in 2001 will bring millions of jobs by 2008, Tim Pawlenty will be the 2012 GOP nominee or even, on numerous issues, that Americans are “smarter than that”.

Here’s how the 24 hour news cycle works: The most immediate or recent development on any story redefines reality completely…until the next development happens which then that redefines the current redefinition and all that came before it.

To demonstrate:

On Monday, Pres. Obama received a small bump upwards in polling due to his jobs speech. The meme for that day was, “Americans support Obama on this.”

On Tuesday, a conservative Jewish Republican wins in a conservative, Jewish district in New York. We erase yesterday’s meme with today’s, “Americans don’t support Obama.”

To buy the overall proposition of most pundits, we’d have to believe that the American Public flips back and forth on their beliefs faster than a meth-addicted Cirque Du Soleil troupe.

For many pundits and news networks, reality is something they write each day with the “overwrite” key on their keyboard selected. There is very little resembling respect for even their own previous declarations. Instead of acknowledging the past and using it in total to extrapolate the future, they predict and describe reality by wrapping themselves in the immediate and reaching for the closest conclusion.

There are of course the pundits and alleged news networks that have a petrified view of reality, all that can be fit or twisted to fit into it is broadcast while all that can’t and would dispute it is ignored. They however seem less annoying than the ones that blow in the wind with the latest reported event. At least you know that a clock whose hands never move is broken. A clock whose hands may suddenly spin in any direction at any time, would seem worse.

And there is no leap too big, no conclusion too far away from an event to predict. We’re told fourteen months before an election, that the current dynamics mean this or that for the election. Oh really? So what about 14 months ago when the hype over how bad Dems are and how great the Tea Party will be when they come to government was the rage? Why isn’t that what people think today?

So many allegories come to mind, like declaring in 1970 that bell bottoms will be the dominant style of pants in America forever or when Obama was elected president, proclaiming that we’ve finally arrived in a post-racial society.

Consider the predictions pundits and newspeople would have if they rode on a rollercoaster:

First Report:  “This ride only goes up a steep track, a slow, monotonous, terrible and boring ride, one that will disappoint everyone who tries it. It’s a failure.”

Second Report: “Once at the top, the coaster goes straight down, it’s frightening and is on course to crash straight into the ground, killing all aboard and clearly about to destroy itself.”

Third Report: “The coaster has swerved sharply to the right, this rightward course means it will circle for eternity with no escape for those on board other than a painful death from starvation and dehydration.”

Reality is not a disconnected series of bite-sized, individual events with no relation to the events that have preceded them or are occurring at the same time, each incident and moment is a snapshot of a small part of reality. To define the Grand Canyon by a single photo of a tiny section of it would hardly portray it accurately.

With little apparent desire to put a new event in context with past events, each and every development these media people ramble on about becomes a necessarily corrupt view of reality. What passes for news today is often tunnelvision focused solely on the latest event to the exclusion of what surrounds it or preceded it so it is necessarily limited and frequently misleading.

If a pattern of events is simplistically broken up into separate and independent incidents, like regarding each piece of a jigsaw puzzle as a complete and independent image, one can never put the pieces together and see the big picture. Maybe that’s the point, as long as people are set against each other in arguing the meaning or impact of one isolated incident after another, the big picture of what’s going on can’t be focused on or sought.

On the other hand, as a main goal of the corporations that own the media is greater and greater wealth, isn’t it easier to sell simple provocative statements about easy-to-describe, new events than to spend time explaining critical thinking and perspective about how the context of a new situation could make its meaning different and/or more complex than “good for Obama/bad for Obama”?

In the end, if one is seeking the truth about how things will unfold in the near and distant future, there is something that has an accuracy rate as good or better than most news shows and pundits:

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

76 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. SueInCa says:

    Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.”
    — Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.

    “Everything that can be invented has been invented.”
    — Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.

    “Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction”.
    — Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

    “The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon”.
    — Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.

    “640K ought to be enough for anybody.”
    — Bill Gates, 1981

    “$100 million dollars is way too much to pay for Microsoft.”
    — IBM, 1982

    “Who the h_ll wants to hear actors talk?”
    — H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.

  2. ADONAI says:


  3. SueInCa says:

    Here is a prediction that unfortunately did not come true

    “Before the twentieth century closes, the earth will be purged of its foulest shame, the killing of men in battle under the name of war.” -- Andrew Carnegie.

  4. KQuark says:

    Another great article AdLib.

    The real problem with the pundit class is there is no real accountability, save for ratings which means the more outrageous things they say to their hyperpartisan choirs the more stable their jobs are. This leads to the crazy and cynical predictions because negativity sells. Then you add group think when the lazy minded outsource their brains to these pundits and soon these predictions are taken to be fact.

    One of these days I’m going to list all these crazy wrong predictions.

    • SueInCa says:

      Perhaps that is why I have stopped listening to them. I would rather watch Brian Williams at 5:30 locally and even that I don’t watch regularly. I wish cable would carry Al Jazeera or Democracy Now. Perhaps when I move I will get satellite again.

    • AdLib says:

      Thanks for the kind words, KQ!

      I would like for there to be some penalties for pundits when they predict wrong, maybe inserting electrodes into them that go off when they predict wrongly, allowing for public flogging of pundits for a “3 strikes” violation or maybe a betting pool could be set up where they have to pay those who bet that his prediction was wrong.

      At the very least, there should be a site dedicated to listing and following the predictions of all pundits and giving them ratings for accuracy. Maybe those at the bottom of such a list wouldn’t get invited on shows as much? Or might lose their shows?

      One can always dream…

      • Emerald1943 says:

        Adlib, I agree! My son always gripes about the weather channel and how wrong they get their forecasts MOST of the time.

        He maintains that anyone in ANY job who had that bad of a record would be fired! He’s right! 🙂

        The President’s numbers have really been all over the map, depending on who you are talking to..or which pundit is doing the prognosticating. It’s all very silly in that it has absolutely NO bearing on what the mood of the country will be in another 14 months. Things could be very different.

        My #1 concern is not so much the Presidency, but the House and the Senate. If we lose both of them, we are going to be in a world of hurt! I am encouraged with the President’s stance on this AJA…he’s taking it to the rethugs and the people like this aggressiveness. The Dems in Congress are a whole other story!

        • AdLib says:

          What’s the difference between a political pundit and a tv weatherperson?

          Their hairstyle.

          That is of course my top concern though the reality is that as long as we hold the WH, the Repubs still will be blocked even if they take The Senate and keep the House.

          However, I think the Dems are looking okay on keeping the Senate, though it will be a tough fight. Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy in MA gives the Dems a stronger shot at keeping the majority. And It is absolutely not a long shot for the Dems to recapture the House.

          I think it is the Repubs who have more to worry about, their ratings in Congress are far below Dems and the Tea Party is now strongly disliked.

          Is America happy with a Repub House? I don’t think so. The Senate has been pretty quiet comparatively and with Dems more liked than Repubs in Congress, the stars seemed to be more aligned in favor of Dems than Repubs.

          But it’s going to take hard work to win, the Kochs aren’t going to just roll over.

          • AlphaBitch says:

            “What’s the difference between a political pundit and a TV weatherperson? Their hairstyle.”

            That applies only if you exclude the Focks (Fox Chicks). Their hairstyles can best be described as “breezy, without a chance of brains”.

        • agrippa says:

          yes, we do need to regain control of Congress in Nov 2012. There is no guarantee of good results. The 111th Congress did not do as well as I hoped but much better than in earlier Congresses.

          Obama is doing what needs to be done. I think that he relied entirely too much on the Democrats in the previous Congress.

        • SueInCa says:

          Same for the government. How many times have we heard of a certain department or cabinet level group apologize because someone did not follow through? It is like there is no accountability anywhere in DC. Same with banks, state agencies and the list goes on and on. I worked at Visa USA and I could not believe the number of people who screwed up and kept their jobs. I had a project manager who was responsible for a 150,000 dollar loss and they told me not to fire her.

  5. Emerald1943 says:

    Adlib, good article! It makes me think about a recent criticism of the media by Howard Kurtz. He cited about a dozen different news reporters who prefaced everything concerning the President’s agenda as “the defining moment of this Presidency”! It was comical to see every one of them describe every issue using the very same words.

    It also reminds me of the constant criticism of the President for the extension of the Bush tax cuts. The media pudnuts never seem to remember that he was between a rock and a hard place…that was the only way he could get an extension of unemployment benefits for long-term out of work people. It always sets my hair on fire that they conveniently “forget” or just fail to mention the extenuating circumstances.

    The stories about the President’s poll numbers have been all over the map this week. I’m just not going to pay any of them any attention at all. It really has no bearing on the outcome of the 2012 election. We would all do well to ignore it and just keep working to get the President re-elected.

    Thanks for your article! Interesting, for sure! 🙂

    • Is journalism even taught any longer? If so, what in the hell are they teaching?

    • agrippa says:

      How many ‘defining moments’ have there been?

    • AdLib says:

      Thanks Emerald! Yes, that “defining moment of his presidency” crap is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. Jon Stewart did a funny bit a while back, stitching together that quote by pundits from a variety of times and issues.

      In fact, has there been a single important decision by Obama that hasn’t been “the defining moment”?

      As for forgetting the context of things, one of the instances that annoys me most is the “Well, Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts.” I’ve seen most hosts just let that go as is. It was only 9 months ago and they can’t remember that far back?! That the Repubs again took hostages to get what they wanted, denying UI for the unemployed…OVER XMAS!…unless Obama agreed to extending the tax cuts.

      Had Obama called their bluff, today he would be attacked for not extending UI benefits with no reference to the Bush Tax cuts blackmail.

      I am interested in the poll numbers but the specifics are meaningless this far away from Nov 2012. What is encouraging is that Obama is still mostly beating Romney and Perry in polls when he should be trailing them if people really want a new President.

      This is the best Romney and Perry will look to the public, as they beat up on each other over the next several months, they will only look more battered and bruised. Obama has already been discounted for all of his weaknesses and he is still ahead of Perry and Romney.

      It doesn’t mean he will surely beat them without our dedicated work, just that he isn’t in as big of a hole as the MSM keeps trying to portray.

  6. funksands says:

    “We don’t like their sound. Groups of guitars are on the way out.”
    Decca executive, 1962, after turning down the Beatles.

    “I’m just glad it’ll be Clark Gable who’s falling on his face and not Gary Cooper.”
    Gary Cooper, after turning down the lead role in Gone With The Wind.

    “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.”
    Albert Einstein, 1932

    “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”
    Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corp. 1977

    “We don’t need you. You haven’t got through college yet.”
    Hewlett Packard excuse to Steve Jobs, who founded Apple Computers instead.

    “Stocks have reached a permanently high plateau.”
    Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929

    “No matter what happens, the U.S. Navy is not going to be caught napping.”
    U.S. Secretary of Navy, December 4, 1941

    “Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.”
    William Thomson, Lord Kelvin English scientist, 1899

    • Funk, Willie Nelson was turned down in Nashville because they said he “didn’t have a country voice.”

    • Emerald1943 says:

      Funk, that’s a great list! I remember almost all of them, except of course, the one in 1899! I’m not quite THAT old! 🙂

    • AdLib says:

      Wow, that’s quite a remarkable list and you’ve only scratched the surface.

      The tragedy is that even though individuals and organizations made such comments, newspapers generally didn’t predict or judge. They reported.

      TV journalism is a quite different animal, it is always judgmental and always extrapolating and predicting and passing that off as facts.

      All of the items you listed above are clearly opinions but to viewers of the MSM, similar comments are poured out into people’s living rooms daily as news. No wonder a vast amount of Americans are so poorly informed about issues that greatly affect their lives.

      • Emerald1943 says:

        Adlib, where is “Uncle Walter” when we need him so desperately??

        I’ve mentioned it before…we need our own version of FUX News!

        • AdLib says:

          In the current media environment, Cronkite would be swiftly branded a liberal tool of the left because he dared not to affirm the lies of the right.

          We don’t have the kind of media platform or politics anymore for a professional journalist to be respected as a professional and not dissed the moment he/she doesn’t toe a distinct ideological line.

          And unlike the old days when as a nation, people from both parties watched the same news shows, Repubs watch Fox and Dems watch elsewhere. The “news” and opinions people get today isn’t the same so of course there is more polarity, Fox News watchers walk around with heads full of propaganda thinking they’re informed.

  7. foodchain says:

    AdLib; another great piece. I wish contributors here had one simple point. It would be easier to make a point that did not leave out other good points. But, I still think our greatest problem is the non message from our House and Senate leadership: Obama would do well with even some support. The news can say what they want but if our people spoke up, they would have to say that as well. HighSchool English: say it, say it again, summarize. We aren’t anywhere close to basic messaging.

    The GOP are on message all the time. We not only have no message, we don’t attack their message. My concern (here we go) is that the people the Democrats need to defend (and should) are the very ones under attack by the very popular GOP conservatives. Racism is an issue not only for the GOP--using it, but the Dems--avoiding it. I see examples of the Democrats moving away/afraid to support the very people who need help: “let them die!” as stated in the GOP debate.

    I wish all of us would unite. I am a liberal, a feminist, who wants government programs but wants them to run a whole hell of a lot better than they do. What we need is to stop the family feud and fight the enemy.

    From your article: “So many allegories come to mind, like declaring in 1970 that bell bottoms will be the dominant style of pants in America forever or when Obama was elected president, proclaiming that we’ve finally arrived in a post-racial society.”

    I am angry at the Democrats who abuse the liberal name to vote GOP: I am not against any liberal platform. I am against the GOP use of racism. But I am also against our using single platform issues against the GOP and against our party. It is a losing strategy.

    The Democratic Party is beginning to feel like “Breaking Bad”.

    • Emerald1943 says:

      Foodchain, good comment! I agree with you about the repubs always being on message. This is one of my biggest gripes! They come out of meetings and literally run to the closest live mic to spout their lies and complete distortions! And it’s taken as fact by the MSM! Both Boehner and Cantor are experts at doing that. But how often do we see Democrats grabbing the mic away from them? I can’t remember the last time I saw either Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi on TV. In fact, Nancy hasn’t been visible at all in a long time.

      I think I’m going to get a stop watch and do a little survey, recording the amount of time the Repubs are on the airwaves and the same for Dems. I’ll bet I can predict that it won’t be “fair and balanced”! The rethugs will win, hands down.

      This afternoon, for example, Wolf Blitzer has spent almost his entire program interviewing all the rethug candidates and reviewing their last debate that he moderated days ago. There has been NO sign of any Democrat on the program…almost 3/4 of an hour! It’s all rethug talking points…except for the Cialis commercials of course!

      • AlphaBitch says:

        Good grief, Em! Cialis commercials make me break out laughing. Rriiiggghhhttt -- you’ve finally gotten the guy do to some work around the house, he sees you (or now sometimes you see him), and BINGO! it’s a romantic moment.

        Fer cryin’ out loud. I’d say: Finish up here, Honey, and I’ll go sit in that lovely bathtub out back, filled with rose petals, and THEN we can talk about getting intimate.

        I especially HATED the one where she was on the ladder, painting, and he hands her a brush or something and she finds herself overwhelmed with passion.

        Truth in advertising used to matter. Why can’t there also be truth in politics? In fact, truth all around. I’d slap the jack hat who thought I wanted to be romantic when I’m doing laundry. Just doesn’t happen that way, mates. Or maybe it’s just me?? Whatever. Doesn’t happen that way for ME.

    • AdLib says:

      Cheers Foodchain! One problem with regards to the Dem Leadership being very visible in supporting Pres. Obama…is the MSM won’t cover them.

      Going back to my point in the article, the MSM wants simple storylines of conflict in each story and broadcast, they see no point in broadcasting that Congressional Dem leaders support Obama but…if Steny Hoyer says he doesn’t, THAT gets on the news.

      The reason GOP messaging is so much easier is that they aren’t trying to make anything better. Saying “No” is easy to do in a chorus while explaining the details of a proposal to help the economy isn’t. Add to that, the GOP is mostly a racially monolithic, authority-based party, a central voice that followers march to. The Dem Party is a coalition of many different groups of Americans, many of whom have their own minds on what needs to be done and in what order.

      By nature, it’s hard for Dems to conform to a single talking point. Though, it’s not impossible as was proven when most said the damage of the Bush regime had to be reversed by electing Obama.

      This can indeed happen again, I do see a big tent issue which most Dems could gather under, that is, thwarting the corporate domination of our economy and politics that is tearing apart our rights and our standard of living.

      That covers a lot of the issues at hand.

      Bottom line, we do indeed need an activated public that gets involved and out on the streets.

      As for those who claim to be one of or support the Dems but attack Obama incessantly, they are as much adversaries of Dems as Republicans. There is no difference between someone who is pulling the support beams out from under a house and someone who is pushing them. Both are trying to undermine the house, however their justifications differ.

      I agree that there are some Dems in Congress and at large who are fearfully shrinking from their commitment to their party and President but I also see a renewed support from many who, seeing the GOP debates, clearly see how imperative it is that Obama and the Dems succeed and prevail.

      There have always been cowards in both parties, in the Dem Party the cowards concede and/or run away, in the GOP the cowards bury themselves in conformity with the army of mindless followers. It can be surprising to see who turns out to be a coward but they are a minority.

      The best thing to happen to Obama is to be facing a Romney or Perry who will openly admit they will lock America down into oppression by the minority. All he and the Dems need to do is get that message out throughout the campaign and they could be very successful.

  8. AdLib says:

    Just for some perspective, giving them a little credit, MSNBC just did news briefs between segments of Hardball:

    1. Violent crime is down across the US by 12% from 2009 -- 2010.
    2. Wall Street had 5 positive sessions in a row with the Dow up 4.7% this week.

    Positive news under Pres. Obama is relegated to “briefs” meanwhile anything negative is blown out across the PunditLand for days.

    • bito says:

      I don’t have a link to this but:

      stiNgo100 Dorothy Rissman
      by Emilia1956
      Breaking news! latest NBC-WSJ poll, Democrats approve of his performance by an 81%-14% margin. I am smiling.

      To listen to the pudbuts the numbers are reversed

      • AdLib says:

        Well, when the facts don’t cooperate in furthering lucrative conflict in the media…just change the facts. I mean, hey, when you’re the media, who’s going to stop you?

  9. choicelady says:

    First -- great post. Second -- great graphic! You do find the oddest and most interesting visuals!

    The thing that bothers me the most is the point you raise about the media not remotely reflecting on its OWN STORIES. Back in ’83 when the US invaded Granada, the Providence Journal solemnly reflected that this was essential since Cubans (GASP! RECOIL!) were constructing a runway n the tiny country that could accept -- JUMBO JETS THEREFORE MAKING GRANADA A STAGING POINT FOR INVADING THE U.S.!!!!!!!!

    Except -- a couple of months earlier, the Providence Journal had duly reported that no, a BRITISH company had built the runway to accommodate, yes, jumbo jets -- to increase tourism to Granada. A handful of Cuban day laborers were doing the finishing work since the Brits, unlike the US, don’t give a rip that the workers were from Cuba.


    I once wrote a major expose of a cover up by major media about accidents at nuclear power plants and related facilities. The reason I could do that was that it was NOT a cover up but sheer negligence. The information was totally public -- just no one “remembered” to cite it when extolling the virtues of the nukes. So from day one, the REAL stories about nuclear problems could be found almost exclusively at very small and energetic papers such as the Beaver County Times in Beaver Falls, PA but not the majors.

    Whether these omissions and distortions come from isolated reporters (who apparently don’t read back stories before writing new ones) or editors mindful of their paper’s or TV station’s sacred cows, is just not clear. But when the cycle of news now IS the length of a roller coaster ride, you’d think SOMEONE would recall what they’d said less than 24 hours earlier!

    BTW -- you noted the roller coaster went slowly UP. Then it came crashing DOWN. Then it went to the RIGHT. But you NEVER mentioned it went to the LEFT. UNBALANCE AND BIASED REPORTING!!!!

    See? Anyone can play this game. It’s soooooo easy!

    • AdLib says:

      Thanks Choicelady!

      Such poor and untrue journalism may be intentional or the result of laziness and/or the corporate disinterest in investing in quality journalism.

      And one thing people should keep in mind is that the way the corporations that own the media make their money…is from advertising from other corporations! So, there can be nothing other than pro-corporate sensibilities in the MSM.

      Yes, they aren’t shy about putting on shows that will rake in Progressive audiences but isn’t there something wrong with a segment of Hardball being followed by a bullshit propaganda commercial from Exxon on how Fracking is safe or from food corps on how high fructose corn syrup is just another sugar to your body? Or for that matter, Huckabee on a “Kill Obamacare” commercial?

      We’re just being played by these corporations to wring what money they can out of us while supporting their fellow corporations and agendas.

      As for the rollercoaster report, everyone knows the MSM has a strong Right bias! 😉

  10. escribacat says:

    Great post, Adlib. It’s a perfect description of the “infotainment” the news cycle has become. I’ve noticed over yonder that every week they have either “Bad News for Obama” or “Good News for Obama.” Since her highness doesn’t like Obama, it’s almost always “Bad News for Obama.” The stories these headlines click to are invariably meaningless.

    • AdLib says:

      Thanks Escribacat! Yep it’s mostly Bad News for Obama over there, whether it’s a hurricane or a bank robbery, it’s all bad news for Obama.

      And as for the headlines over there, they have figured out that making them as non-descriptive as possible causes people to click more because the have no idea what the damn article is about.



      “END OF THE WORLD???”

      Doesn’t matter what the article is about, it could be about puppies being given away at supermarkets and the title would be “MARKET HAVOC!!!”.

      They give crappy journalism a bad name.

  11. SueInCa says:

    If you have not seen it yet, watch Jon Stewarts take on the Tea Party Debate with CNN. It was hilarious. I did not get to see the whole thing so not sure CNN really did this but that Star Spangled song lineup is on the mark.


  12. SueInCa says:

    One thing I would add here is the pundits they bring on to speak about any given item are usually pundits who have a stake in the happening and/or issue.

    Talking about outlawing abortion. They would bring on someone with a right to life organization or pro-choice with innocent sounding organizations and there are way too many people who just listen and dont’ bother to think, why would that person be for it, or against it? Or the pundit could bring on only the advocate for that particular story because they believe in it and again you have someone with a perfectly innocent sounding name but you are only getting one side of the story.

    I never used to look past what was shown on the tube until I watched Orwell Rolls in His Grave. That movie had such a powerful impact on me that I barely watch the networks for my news now. I know now how they manipulate opinion on subjects and I just get pissed and yell at the screen.

    • AdLib says:

      This is another major aspect of today’s sad excuse for journalism that pisses me off.

      The moronic proposition that there are always two legitimate sides to every issue (“We now have a guest who is pro-childhood diabetes.”).

      And I see as a sub group of that thinking, having guests on these shows who are extremist ideologues supporting or opposing what is being discussed.

      Of course anti-choice extremists oppose abortion and anything related to protecting rights to it. And the reverse is true as well.

      When a Tea Bagger is a guest on a show, do we ever hear any real discussion or just a spouting of preprocessed talking points? Is it enlightening or does it progress anything for people to just talk over or past each other with committee written talking points?

      They should have guests on who can have reasoned arguments and discussions but that’s not as good for ratings as Thunderdome.

  13. Well done AdLib. You have certainly put today’s news media in it’s proper place. I feel the same about many polls taken this early in the election cycle. A lot can change in 14 months. Like the polls about Perry and Obama, I don’t put much faith in them, because Perry is still a relatively unknown character among many people in the US. The average voter that doesn’t follow politics like we do here and others at different sites, most likely don’t know a thing about Perry. So it’s hard to say that X% of Americans prefer Perry to x% of Americans that prefer Obama. Most everybody knows of Obama.

    • AdLib says:

      Cheers Killgore!

      At this time 4 years ago, all polls showed the Dem nominee in 2008 being Hillary and the GOP nom being Giuliani. In Dec of 2007, Hillary led Obama by 20% in polls.

      And what is extremely worthless are polls using generic opposition. Obama vs. a generic Repub? That’s as pointless as polling Perry against a generic Dem presidential nominee. What’s the point? No one runs against an imaginary character (except that one presidential election between FDR and Lex Luthor).

      Also, polls taken in a race against a sitting president are doubly meaningless because the airwaves will be filled with the other party’s nominees attacking the president, lowering his numbers, while he hasn’t started his campaign yet which will push down their numbers.

      Many polls at this point, unless an economy is booming, will typically show a president with worse numbers than they will have closer to an election.

      So unless we’re mistaken and we did elect a President Giuliani, polls and pundits who announce what will happen in 2012 based on them, should be ignored.

  14. ADONAI says:

    Still can’t believe Democrats lost Wiener’s seat in New York. It’d been Democrat for like 100 years or something.

    But looking at who they ran and how he ran his campaign, I kinda get it. But you think they would have been more prepared. That pretty much neutralize the pickup they made there of a Republican stronghold.

    But, to the point of the piece, the pudnuts. A Democrat lost his seat because he ran a terrible campaign. But, according to FOX News it’s the end of Obama’s Presidency. WTF?

    Same when that Republican seat wen to Dems. Again, the Republicans ran a mediocre campaign. According to MSNBC it was sign that the GOP was on life support.

    It’s boring to say, “Well, that’s politics. Let’s move on to the next story.”

    No we gotta stay on this molehill and build it into a mountain. Find the best way to twist this to fit our editorial bias. Make this somehow important to every man, woman, and child in the country.

    And then there’s CNN. God bless’em. The try.

    • AdLib says:

      That district has been changing into a more and more conservative district but Weiner’s strong pro-Israel stand and being Jewish equalized that since so many Orthodox Jews live there. As you say, a weak Dem candidate with little backup lost a race because of being a poor candidate. It happens.

      But as you say, it doesn’t stimulate and whip up viewership to say “It happens” but saying, “This signals doom!” does. So everything is taken out of context as the only indicator of doom or success…until the next incident replaces it.

      The reality is, The Dems won in a red NY district because the Repub supported killing Medicare and the Dem was a strong candidate. The Repub won in a Blue district because the Dem was viewed as not being a strong supporter of Israel (as they feel about Obama) and was a weak candidate.

      As the old saying goes, all politics is local. Easy to understand each election when understanding the people in that district.

      That would require professional journalism though so we shouldn’t have such high expectations of the MSM.

  15. Dorothy Rissman says:

    AdLib, All I can say is Hammer meets Nail. Good job. It is so frustrating that the media has lost their collective minds.

    • AdLib says:

      Thanks Dorothy! It’s the dumbing down of news to double digit IQs.

      Seems there are three factors at play, pandering to the lowest common denominator for greater profit, reducing the expense of real journalism and keeping the masses misdirected from seeing the big picture…which would threaten the status quo of corporate domination and the ongoing destruction of the standard of living for most Americans.

      Thank goodness for the web, don’t know where this nation would be if all we had to rely on for the truth was cable news.

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories