• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Media Tried To Keep Democrat Hopes Alive

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, they tried to do it with bogus polls and a bunch of talk about the Democrat voter turn out machine.

After the fact analysis shows that the polls skewed 4% in favor of the Democrats, according to Nate Silver on his blog.

In the final stretch of the campaign, pundits on the left and right portrayed Orman as a possible winner over Roberts. Alison Grimes as a possible winner over McConnell. Kay Hagan as a possible winner over Thom Tillis. Michelle Nunn as a possible winner over David Perdue. Bruce Braley a possible winner over Joni Ernst.

They did all of this, and more, on the basis of polls that showed these races to be incredibly tight. Even allowing for undecided voters breaking for the GOP, reporters and commentators used these polls to describe a real horse race, when in fact McConnell clobbered Grimes by 15 points and Nunn couldn’t even get to the runoff that everyone expected.
Click to expand...

Of course, to be fair, the voter turn out was the key to why the polls missed. The turnout was low so Republicans did better than polls indicated. But media expectations of a big Democrat turnout hinged on the idea that Democrats had this big ground game, a way to get the votes out. But this was all hype that the media was all too willing to believe. In the end the turnout machine didn't turn out anyone. Reminding people to go to the polls or sending a bus doesn't work if people don't want to vote.

Why the media, seduced by the polls, were stunned by huge Democratic defeat | Fox News
 
LowDown said:
Yes, they tried to do it with bogus polls and a bunch of talk about the Democrat voter turn out machine.

After the fact analysis shows that the polls skewed 4% in favor of the Democrats, according to Nate Silver on his blog.



Of course, to be fair, the voter turn out was the key to why the polls missed. The turnout was low so Republicans did better than polls indicated. But media expectations of a big Democrat turnout hinged on the idea that Democrats had this big ground game, a way to get the votes out. But this was all hype that the media was all too willing to believe. In the end the turnout machine didn't turn out anyone. Reminding people to go to the polls or sending a bus doesn't work if people don't want to vote.

Why the media, seduced by the polls, were stunned by huge Democratic defeat | Fox News
Click to expand...

Interesting read.

One exception to the MSM’s Democratic-centric coverage has been crediting the Republican Party with recruiting good candidates rather than forfeiting winnable states with a Todd Akin or Christine O’Donnell.

By the way, not sure that point gets mentioned enough, but that was a huge difference in this election versus previous ones. The GOP managed to NOT nominate totally ridiculous candidates, for the most part.
 
It wasn't until a day or two before the election that the media had to start being honest about the coming election because at that point the writing was on the wall and they had to worry about their credibility.
 
LowDown said:
Of course, to be fair, the voter turn out was the key to why the polls missed. The turnout was low so Republicans did better than polls indicated. But media expectations of a big Democrat turnout hinged on the idea that Democrats had this big ground game, a way to get the votes out. But this was all hype that the media was all too willing to believe. In the end the turnout machine didn't turn out anyone. Reminding people to go to the polls or sending a bus doesn't work if people don't want to vote.
Click to expand...

Maybe "the media" expected the Democratic "Ground game" to work well in 2014 because it worked really ****ing well in 2012.
 
The polls likely overeastimated turnout on the left (multiple reasons why they would).

As for the media, I think it far simpler. They make money by getting views, a non-competitive race does not get views, so of course they'll try anything besides outright lies (well cable channels might outright lie) to get people to think the races are close or their side "has a chance."
 
tres borrachos said:
Interesting read.

One exception to the MSM’s Democratic-centric coverage has been crediting the Republican Party with recruiting good candidates rather than forfeiting winnable states with a Todd Akin or Christine O’Donnell.

By the way, not sure that point gets mentioned enough, but that was a huge difference in this election versus previous ones. The GOP managed to NOT nominate totally ridiculous candidates, for the most part.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Aiken and Moudock probably caused losses in other states besides their own in 2012, Wisconsin and Virgina come to mind right off the bat and I am sure there are a couple more. Thompson and Allen were good candidates, but were tied to Aiken and Mourdock and poof, away they went. This election cycle the Republicans did put up a batch of better candidates.
 
coyotedelmar said:
The polls likely overeastimated turnout on the left (multiple reasons why they would).

As for the media, I think it far simpler. They make money by getting views, a non-competitive race does not get views, so of course they'll try anything besides outright lies (well cable channels might outright lie) to get people to think the races are close or their side "has a chance."
Click to expand...

This is definitely true; if we remember in 2012, despite the fact that Romney was clearly behind significantly heading into the presidential election, the narrative was that it was a neck-and-neck race. Close races sell ad buys.
 
LowDown said:
Yes, they tried to do it with bogus polls and a bunch of talk about the Democrat voter turn out machine.

After the fact analysis shows that the polls skewed 4% in favor of the Democrats, according to Nate Silver on his blog.



Of course, to be fair, the voter turn out was the key to why the polls missed. The turnout was low so Republicans did better than polls indicated. But media expectations of a big Democrat turnout hinged on the idea that Democrats had this big ground game, a way to get the votes out. But this was all hype that the media was all too willing to believe. In the end the turnout machine didn't turn out anyone. Reminding people to go to the polls or sending a bus doesn't work if people don't want to vote.

Why the media, seduced by the polls, were stunned by huge Democratic defeat | Fox News
Click to expand...

I no longer believe the democrats had a so-called great turnout machine. If they did...where was it in 2010 and 2014? The surprising thing is that for the first time, none of the standard democrat party tactics worked this time. Class warfare did not work. The war on women taunt backed up by free contraceptives courtesy of obamacare did not work. The race baiting tactics especially pushing the lunatic suggestion that republicans were pushing voter ID bills with the intent of suppressing the minority and elderly vote tactic did not work. Attempting to distance themselves from Obama did not work. Bubba and Hillary Klinton campaigning for them did not work. And even the media could not protect them. Perhaps in 2016, they might actually campaign on the issues.
 
Kobie said:
This is definitely true; if we remember in 2012, despite the fact that Romney was clearly behind significantly heading into the presidential election, the narrative was that it was a neck-and-neck race. Close races sell ad buys.
Click to expand...

To be honest, every presidential race in my lifetime has been reported by the media and the polls as too close to call right up to election night. Both of Ronald Reagan's Landslide elections were depicted as too close to call by the media.
 
LowDown said:
Yes, they tried to do it with bogus polls and a bunch of talk about the Democrat voter turn out machine.

After the fact analysis shows that the polls skewed 4% in favor of the Democrats, according to Nate Silver on his blog.



Of course, to be fair, the voter turn out was the key to why the polls missed. The turnout was low so Republicans did better than polls indicated. But media expectations of a big Democrat turnout hinged on the idea that Democrats had this big ground game, a way to get the votes out. But this was all hype that the media was all too willing to believe. In the end the turnout machine didn't turn out anyone. Reminding people to go to the polls or sending a bus doesn't work if people don't want to vote.

Why the media, seduced by the polls, were stunned by huge Democratic defeat | Fox News
Click to expand...

The Polls Were Skewed Toward Democrats

For much of this election cycle, Democrats complained the polls were biased against them. They said the polls were failing to represent enough minority voters and applying overly restrictive likely-voter screens. They claimed early-voting data was proving the polls wrong. They cited the fact that polls were biased against Democrats in 2012.


The Democrats’ complaints may have been more sophisticated-seeming than the ”skewed polls” arguments made by Republicans in 2012. But in the end, they were just as wrong. The polls did have a strong bias this year — but it was toward Democrats and not against them. . . .
 
ObamacareFail said:
To be honest, every presidential race in my lifetime has been reported by the media and the polls as too close to call right up to election night. Both of Ronald Reagan's Landslide elections were depicted as too close to call by the media.
Click to expand...

Funny how that works, isn't it? If an election is a foregone conclusion, then off go the TV sets. People will find something else to do.
 
Kobie said:
Funny how that works, isn't it? If an election is a foregone conclusion, then off go the TV sets. People will find something else to do.
Click to expand...

I stayed up until North Carolina was called for Tillis and then I went to bed. But by that time West Virginia, Arkansas, South Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Colorado had all been called switching to the GOP, Kentucky, Georgia and Kansas as staying in Republican hands. North Carolina was a miss for me in my predictions.
 
There were close races like Virginia. If it was about ratings and tight races they were there in several gov races too. That simply can't be used as an excuse when those races were ignored and others made up.


coyotedelmar said:
The polls likely overeastimated turnout on the left (multiple reasons why they would).

As for the media, I think it far simpler. They make money by getting views, a non-competitive race does not get views, so of course they'll try anything besides outright lies (well cable channels might outright lie) to get people to think the races are close or their side "has a chance."
Click to expand...
 
ObamacareFail said:
I no longer believe the democrats had a so-called great turnout machine. If they did...where was it in 2010 and 2014? The surprising thing is that for the first time, none of the standard democrat party tactics worked this time. Class warfare did not work. The war on women taunt backed up by free contraceptives courtesy of obamacare did not work. The race baiting tactics especially pushing the lunatic suggestion that republicans were pushing voter ID bills with the intent of suppressing the minority and elderly vote tactic did not work. Attempting to distance themselves from Obama did not work. Bubba and Hillary Klinton campaigning for them did not work. And even the media could not protect them. Perhaps in 2016, they might actually campaign on the issues.
Click to expand...
The democratic machine, as good as it might be, isn't good enough to beat a good candidate. See Scott Walker. All the liberal money, ground game, media bias, and faux outrage couldn't beat this guy in a blue state. Romney lost because Obama was the better candidate. But you do have to ask yourself why it is that liberals don't turn out for off year elections. Answer: Politically active and knowledgeable people turn out in the off years. Low information voters just aren't as interested in who runs the congress
 
Fletch said:
The democratic machine, as good as it might be, isn't good enough to beat a good candidate. See Scott Walker. All the liberal money, ground game, media bias, and faux outrage couldn't beat this guy in a blue state. Romney lost because Obama was the better candidate. But you do have to ask yourself why it is that liberals don't turn out for off year elections. Answer: Politically active and knowledgeable people turn out in the off years. Low information voters just aren't as interested in who runs the congress
Click to expand...

2008 and 2012 should be a lesson for the GOP. They ran tired old geriatric "it's my turn" RINO candidates against a relatively youthful and charismatic Obama. McCain especially was a dumb choice. The democrats look poised to make the same mistake with Hillary.
 
ObamacareFail said:
2008 and 2012 should be a lesson for the GOP. They ran tired old geriatric "it's my turn" RINO candidates against a relatively youthful and charismatic Obama. McCain especially was a dumb choice. The democrats look poised to make the same mistake with Hillary.
Click to expand...
I think that is right. Democrats have put all their eggs in the Hillary basket for 2016. There is a very good chance that she will look old and tired championing ideas that are old and tired--much like McCain in 2008. Just as McCain was seen as four more years of an unpopular Bush, Hillary can and probably will be painted as four more years of an unpopular Obama. After 8 years of 'change' people may very well be looking for a change. And that doesn't bode well for Clinton who isn't a particularly good campaigner nor all that likeable in the first place. Dems are in a bind in 2016, they just don't realize it yet.
 
The best ground game in the world and the media in their pocket, which the Dems have traditionally had, may have saved Barry in 2012 but the shizz hadn't hit the fan so hard and so often as it has since then.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Polls Were Skewed Toward Democrats

For much of this election cycle, Democrats complained the polls were biased against them. They said the polls were failing to represent enough minority voters and applying overly restrictive likely-voter screens. They claimed early-voting data was proving the polls wrong. They cited the fact that polls were biased against Democrats in 2012.


The Democrats’ complaints may have been more sophisticated-seeming than the ”skewed polls” arguments made by Republicans in 2012. But in the end, they were just as wrong. The polls did have a strong bias this year — but it was toward Democrats and not against them. . . .
Click to expand...

I was going to mention that. It's been that way. But the times they are a changin'.
The polling outfits need to re-evaluate their methodology, weighting, and sampling ... the honest ones will.
 
Fletch said:
I think that is right. Democrats have put all their eggs in the Hillary basket for 2016. There is a very good chance that she will look old and tired championing ideas that are old and tired--much like McCain in 2008. Just as McCain was seen as four more years of an unpopular Bush, Hillary can and probably will be painted as four more years of an unpopular Obama. After 8 years of 'change' people may very well be looking for a change. And that doesn't bode well for Clinton who isn't a particularly good campaigner nor all that likeable in the first place. Dems are in a bind in 2016, they just don't realize it yet.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Hillary's entire political career has been on the coattails of her husband...who was a charismatic candidate. If she does run and is nominated, she will be humiliated. I am more afraid of Elizabeth Warren.
 
Kobie said:
Maybe "the media" expected the Democratic "Ground game" to work well in 2014 because it worked really ****ing well in 2012.
Click to expand...
I dont see how anyone could have not seen this election result coming. There was NO base in play for the democrat party in 2014. None. Seriously...was there a national message? Cohesion? Candidates were denying affiliation with the president, refusing to admit they supported his policies, there was no way the black voter base was going to be invigorated, the war on women is so 10 years ago, amnesty is a democrat party loser...I mean really...where were they supposed to get electoral support?

I dont think this necessarily means ANYTHING for 2016, but this election was over essentially 2 years ago.
 
VanceMack said:
I dont see how anyone could have not seen this election result coming. There was NO base in play for the democrat party in 2014. None. Seriously...was there a national message? Cohesion? Candidates were denying affiliation with the president, refusing to admit they supported his policies, there was no way the black voter base was going to be invigorated, the war on women is so 10 years ago, amnesty is a democrat party loser...I mean really...where were they supposed to get electoral support?

I dont think this necessarily means ANYTHING for 2016, but this election was over essentially 2 years ago.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is the democrat party was so sure that some of those tactics were going to work for them. They really did think that going against Voter ID and handing out free contraceptives hoping to portray a republican war on women was going to save them.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Agreed. Hillary's entire political career has been on the coattails of her husband...who was a charismatic candidate. If she does run and is nominated, she will be humiliated. I am more afraid of Elizabeth Warren.
Click to expand...

Will: Time to rethink Hillary Clinton’s 2016 hopes

Now that two of the last three Democratic presidencies have been emphatically judged to have been failures, the world’s oldest political party — the primary architect of this nation’s administrative state — has some thinking to do. The accumulating evidence that the Democratic Party is an exhausted volcano includes its fixation with stale ideas, such as the supreme importance of a 23rd increase in the minimum wage. Can this party be so blinkered by the modest success of the third recent presidency, Bill Clinton’s, that it will sleepwalk into the next election behind Hillary Clinton?


In 2016, she will have won just two elections in her 69 years, the last one 10 years previously. Ronald Reagan went 10 years from his second election to his presidential victory at age 69, but do Democrats want to wager their most precious possession, the presidential nomination, on the proposition that Clinton has political talents akin to Reagan’s? . . .


 
Kobie said:
Pretty much everybody did.
Click to expand...
Which was the point of the OP. I watched numerous interviews as late as last week with democrat leadership showing how they were going to not only win the senate but make gains in the house. They looked rather silly.

I sincerely hope both parties look at the results and election turnout and make the decision to improve the quality of candidates. I dont have a ton of hope that they WILL...but for all our sake I certainly hope so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom