-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
It's almost that time again: Election Night 2012!!!!!
- Thread starter johnnya2k6
- Start date
Not that it matters now, but it's still worth mentioning:
As per DCRTV.com, Sinclair Broadcast Group - that wonderful conduit of conservative propaganda - had some of its stations in Ohio and Florida air a anti-Obama special disguised as a "special report" on Monday night, apparently using local news talent. In the case of one station, this "special" preempted both the network newscast and Nightline. The blurb sourced both NewsBlues and Talking Points Memo; since NewsBlues requires an subscription, here is Talking Points' article on this (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/sinclair_broadcast_group_ohio_anti-obama_special.php).
It's amazing the lengths these firms go to push their message.
As per DCRTV.com, Sinclair Broadcast Group - that wonderful conduit of conservative propaganda - had some of its stations in Ohio and Florida air a anti-Obama special disguised as a "special report" on Monday night, apparently using local news talent. In the case of one station, this "special" preempted both the network newscast and Nightline. The blurb sourced both NewsBlues and Talking Points Memo; since NewsBlues requires an subscription, here is Talking Points' article on this (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/sinclair_broadcast_group_ohio_anti-obama_special.php).
It's amazing the lengths these firms go to push their message.
Rollo-Smokes said:
Well lets examine at Frank Luntz of CBS News he shows us that being a pollster and a pundit is just a knee jerking job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yz8UwRsWPA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5xbeTq93IA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBpALCfhsOI
landtuna said:
Unfortunately, I fear the lesson may be that *not enough* money was spent on politics this time.
Here's what I'm seeing here...
In 2008, roughly 70 million people voted for President Obama. After the election, Obama didn't really do anything particularly surprising -- those on the right may not have *liked* Obamacare or the stimulus programs, but they hardly could have been *surprised* by them. The 70 million people who voted Obama in 2008 knew what he was going to do when they cast their votes.
In 2012, more than 8 million of those people did *not* vote for Obama. *
You can't attribute those 8 million lost votes to people who were surprised by Obama adopting policies they didn't like -- they knew he'd adopt those policies going in.
I think you have to attribute the 8 million lost votes to people who favored Obamacare (and other Obama policies) in 2008 but were convinced to change their minds about those policies over the next four years. And I think they were convinced to change their minds through continuous political advertising. (and an ongoing media campaign using other methods) It wasn't just about the presidential campaign; there were "call your Congressman" ads throughout the last four years.
I fear the lesson learned will be "$X worth of advertising cost the Democrats 8 million votes. In 2016, $X+Y will cost them 12 million, and we'll take the White House.".
* They didn't vote for Romney either... as Romney polled roughly 2 million fewer votes this week than John McCain did in 2008.
w9wi said:
You could be right. I can only speculate, but IMO, another factor was that the reality of real politics and the first four years of Obama have disillusioned many potential voters who didn't get the "hope and change" they were expecting. In 08, Obama was really an unknown quantity and people (especially on the left) had unrealistic expectations about what he could achieve. I suspect many ofthose people just stayed home this time.
I'd speculate that it was the same factor with some Republicans. Reardless of what you think about John McCain's politics, he was always reliably consistent and honest about his beliefs. You knew what you were getting. That wasn't the case with Romeny, who ran hard to the right until well after the convention, then tried to "etch-a-sketch" his way back to the middle in the waning weeks of the campaign. I suspect many conservatives weren't buying it.
R.D.P. said:
I assume you're using hyperbole. After elections, people talk in absolutes -when Jimmy Carter won in 76 after Watergate, people talked about the Republican Party being "dead" - but the GOP roared back to life just 4 years later by electing Reagan. On the flip side, many people assumed it was a new era of conservatism when the Congress went Repulbican in '94 - and that "The Contract with America" would change things and Clinton would be defeated in 96. We all know what happened - the arrogant Gingrich over-reached and scared people, and Clinton easily won re-election.
In 2001, I read numerous blogs from pundits on both the right and left who believed that the election of Geroge W. Bush along with the Republican Congress meant that we would enjoy (or suffer through, depending on your viewpoint) "40 years of conservative rule." Bush managed 8 years, but people were angry and wanted a big change in '08.
So if unemployment is still high in '14 - the Democrats will lose seats in the Senate - it might even go Republican. But "done for" - I hardly think so. American political parties are pretty resilient.
While your argument is largely correct, it ignores the stand-out story from this past Tuesday- Obama won the election without winning a majority of the White voters. The changing demographics of this nation have allowed a coalition to be built around non-White, young, and female voters in a way that hasn't been seen in any of the past examples about how one political party was pronounced dead.
I'm not saying the GOP is dead, but without moving back to the center, it is certainly going to be difficult to win a national election with just the White electorate.
Even a Romney adviser said back in August that 2012 would be last time that any candidate ran on what is essentially the new Southern strategy- demographics just dictate that, especially when it comes to the Electoral College. A Republican candidate could rack up huge popular vote totals in states like Mississippi, but with Georgia, Arizona and maybe even Texas possibly in play in 2016 due to shifting demographics- something will have to change in the GOP's platform to attract the people that shyed away from the party this time.
I'm not saying the GOP is dead, but without moving back to the center, it is certainly going to be difficult to win a national election with just the White electorate.
Even a Romney adviser said back in August that 2012 would be last time that any candidate ran on what is essentially the new Southern strategy- demographics just dictate that, especially when it comes to the Electoral College. A Republican candidate could rack up huge popular vote totals in states like Mississippi, but with Georgia, Arizona and maybe even Texas possibly in play in 2016 due to shifting demographics- something will have to change in the GOP's platform to attract the people that shyed away from the party this time.
justpassingthough said:
Oh, I agree totally. Check out David Frum's column at Daily Beast. Frum is a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, and a pragmatic moderate conservative.
Speaking of which, it's worth noting that "W" for all his faults, took a moderate stance on immigration - closer to Obama and the "Dream Act" than to Romney's "self-deportation" nonsense; and W got 40 percent of the Hispanic vote while Romney got only 23%. Going forward, political candidates who frighten Latino voters will be doing it at their own peril.
Lkeller said:
I read David Frum and watch his appearances (he was just on "Hardball" today) regularly. Even though I'm not a conservative, I respect his consideration and moderation. He reportedly stated today that conservatives in 2012 were duped by the 'conservative entertainment complex' into believing that their stances on issues would ultimately land with voters, which in hindsight, we know they did not. Its great to see that there are voices like Frum, heck even Meghan McCain, who are seeing Tuesday's loss for what it was- a repudiation of old school GOP rhetoric from the same neo-cons and Tea Party candidates who got it wrong before.
I've always said to friends (to the horror of some) that I'd be a Republican, if the Republicans would consider being Republicans, too.
I read David Frum and watch his appearances (he was just on "Hardball" today) regularly. Even though I'm not a conservative, I respect his consideration and moderation. He reportedly stated today that conservatives in 2012 were duped by the 'conservative entertainment complex' into believing that their stances on issues would ultimately land with voters, which in hindsight, we know they did not. Its great to see that there are voices like Frum, heck even Meghan McCain, who are seeing Tuesday's loss for what it was- a repudiation of old school GOP rhetoric from the same neo-cons and Tea Party candidates who got it wrong before.
I've always said to friends (to the horror of some) that I'd be a Republican, if the Republicans would consider being Republicans, too.
[/quote]
Agreed on that, too. Gee, maybe we should date... ;D
Another sensible conservative (and also a Bushie) is Mathew Dowd of ABC News. I believe Dowd was in charge of W's re-election campaign in 04. He's predicted Obama's victory a few weeks ago, citing many of the same things we've been discussing, and that Frum has been writing about.
I've always said to friends (to the horror of some) that I'd be a Republican, if the Republicans would consider being Republicans, too.
[/quote]
Agreed on that, too. Gee, maybe we should date... ;D
Another sensible conservative (and also a Bushie) is Mathew Dowd of ABC News. I believe Dowd was in charge of W's re-election campaign in 04. He's predicted Obama's victory a few weeks ago, citing many of the same things we've been discussing, and that Frum has been writing about.
R.D.P. said:
I may be taking your post out of context, in which case I apologize... Anyway...
I got the distinct impression Mr. Rubio spoke at the RNC in the hopes he'd improve the GOP's chances with Hispanic voters. IMHO it's not going to work...
Thing is, Rubio is of Cuban descent. Cuban-Americans have a very different set of values and concerns than, say, Puerto Ricans or Mexican-Americans. And they're GREATLY outnumbered by these other groups. (according to the Pew Hispanic Center, only 3-1/2% of Hispanics are of Cuban descent. 9% are Puerto Ricans and 63% are of Mexican descent)
I kinda think the GOP has had a problem with that kind of thing for some time. They have problems with a demographic group, and think they can fix them by nominating a member of that group. They fail to notice the reason members of that group aren't voting GOP is because they don't like Republican policies, not because they don't vote for white males. It was IMHO the same thing with Sarah Palin.
Lkeller said:
Agreed fully.
It seems apparent to me that Obama's difficulty in getting things done was, for the most part, beyond his control. However, it's also apparent *many* voters didn't see it that way. I think to a large degree that's Obama's own fault -- I don't think he's very good at defending himself.
This too. And... his earlier statements hurt him with the more centrist undecided voters who weren't sure "Moderate Mitt" was the one on their ballot. I have my suspicions the ill-advised rape comments by those two Senate candidates scared a lot of moderates.
R.D.P. said:
Here's where Obama is IMHO a victim of timing.
His problem is that the Great Recession hit at the *end* of Bush's term. (indeed, many of the effects didn't hit until after Bush left office) Americans *don't know* what would have happened to them under a GOP government in a recession, because that government left office right after the recession hit.
Remember that the voters gave FDR three terms to clear up the Great Depression -- and then re-elected him *again* in 1944 after the Depression was over -- and then elected his VP in 1948. The difference IMHO is, that the Great Depression hit at the *beginning* of a GOP term. The Americans of 1932 knew what the economy would look like with a depression under a GOP government; they had three years' experience.
The Americans of 2012 don't have that experience.
I believe the GOP will come back even stronger in 2014 and 2016.
It will depend on these two things however (1) The economy doesn't improve and (2) The right kind of people run for those offices during those two election cycles.
As I've been hearing it, the Republicans would fair best if they stuck to the tried and true Conservative message and not blink at all.
Those ideas win out every time when articulated correctly.
I believe Obama won because Romney was another John McCain type of person.
Hope in 2016 someone with a real backbone will run and win.
No more moderate thinking people please Republicans.
R.D.P. <><
P.S. Should Biden and/or Clinton run in 2016 and win their party's nomination, does anyone reading see them winning the election and serving out two terms as well? Just curious.
It will depend on these two things however (1) The economy doesn't improve and (2) The right kind of people run for those offices during those two election cycles.
As I've been hearing it, the Republicans would fair best if they stuck to the tried and true Conservative message and not blink at all.
Those ideas win out every time when articulated correctly.
I believe Obama won because Romney was another John McCain type of person.
Hope in 2016 someone with a real backbone will run and win.
No more moderate thinking people please Republicans.
R.D.P. <><
P.S. Should Biden and/or Clinton run in 2016 and win their party's nomination, does anyone reading see them winning the election and serving out two terms as well? Just curious.
R.D.P. said:
Most of the nation has repudiated the GOP, their candidates and their platform. If they are to come back they are going to have to rid themselves of the rabid extremists and Stone Age miscreants and build a platform and candidate list that is much closer to the American electorate.
Much will depend upon how well the economy is doing and a variety of other things such as foreign relations. Voters were unwilling to change horses in mid-stream as pertains to the economy in 2012 but they will not forgive another four years. If you will notice though the voters took Congress to task as well as a variety of state positions. It is very clear that voters hold Congress responsible for the failure to move forward fast enough. If the Republicans are seen, once again, as obstructionists they will suffer further and more drastic defeats.
R.D.P. said:
I don't know what that message might be since it was all over the place in the campaign but whatever they come up with, it better dove-tail seamlessly with the new American demographic or they will find themselves on the outside looking in....again.
R.D.P. said:
If you think McCain and Romney had anything in common you haven't been paying attention. McCain was a doddering old fool during his campaign and his fumbling and selection of the inept and incompetent Sarah Palin shot his election in the foot. Romney is a polished carnival barker who spins the truth into nonsense and lies when he can't come up with anything better. The majority of American voters saw through that act.
R.D.P. said:
I'm unsure what qualifies in your mind for "backbone" since running for the office of the president takes a significant amount, even for the loser. But I think it is a big mistake to confuse Mr. Obama's quiet demeanor for lack of backbone. In this election he held the moral high ground and in the end I think that made a difference.
R.D.P. said:
If you think the Republicans need more of the bat-crap crazy lunatic candidates to bring them back I will direct you to the long list of Republicans who lost this year.
R.D.P. said:
Biden will not be nominated for a variety of reasons. Should Hillary finish out her second term as SoS successfully and desire to run I think she would be nominated and I think she would win. Whether that would translate into a two-term presidency is anyone's guess at this point.
R.D.P. said:
Predicting presidential primaries 4 years out is futile, and I wish the media at large would ignore such prediction for at least a couple of years.
PTBoardOp94 said:
Agreed, again. But it's easy to predict that if things don't go well for Obama and the Democrats in the next four years, a Republican victory is a good bet, IMO. Since the end of World War II, Americans have consistently turned to the candidate of the opposing party after 8 years. Examples: Eisenhower (R) to Kennedy (D) in 1960). Johnson (D) to Nixon (R) in 68. Carter (D-who served only one term) to Reagan (R) in 80. Actually, Reagan/Bush did 3 terms in a row for the Republicans, and that breaks the pattern, but then Bush lost to Clinton (D), and it went back to George W. Bush (R) after 2 terms of Clinton, then Bush to Obama after two terms.
Of course, there are other factors - Kennedy was more photogenic, charismatic, and likable than Nixon, the 2000 election was arguably stolen from Gore, etc, etc. But the pendulum does swing back and forth regularly.
But considering the demographic changes in the population that we've been discussing, the Republicans will have to move to the middle on immigration and taxes. If Romney could have gotten the nomination by being the Moderate Mitt who was Governor of Massachusetts without having to coddle the right-wing base, then look like a sleazeball pivoting back to the middle in October, I believe he would be President-elect Romney right now.
As for Hillary, I believe her time has probably passed. If she runs in 2016, she would be 70 when she took office in 2017. That's the same age Reagan was when he took office, but that's unusual.
Obama officially carried Florida; final total: Obama, 332 electoral votes;
Romney, 206.
Enough about politics; this is a TV forum, although I will mention an
article I read yesterday about a 34-year-old statistician who called
the outcomes in all 50 states correctly.
I want to talk instead about the networks: I was completely loyal
to ABC during the Smith/Reasoner and Reynolds/Jennings/Robinson
years; I watched some of ABC's coverage Tuesday night but just
cannot warm up to Diane Sawyer, and I agree that there seemed to
be nothing but pundits (Stephanopoulos, Will, Cokie Roberts, et. al.).
I'm more partial to NBC, only because I consider Brian Williams the most
palatable (to my tastes, anyway) but I'm not much on David Gregory
(boy, how I missed Tim Russert and his whiteboard).
What I really wish is that Bob Schieffer was about 15-20 years younger and
had taken Dan Rather's place instead of Katie. He and John Roberts are the
only people who could have converted me to CBS. Likewise, I wish Charlie
Gibson was a few years younger; he made watching ABC palatable for me.
Romney, 206.
Enough about politics; this is a TV forum, although I will mention an
article I read yesterday about a 34-year-old statistician who called
the outcomes in all 50 states correctly.
I want to talk instead about the networks: I was completely loyal
to ABC during the Smith/Reasoner and Reynolds/Jennings/Robinson
years; I watched some of ABC's coverage Tuesday night but just
cannot warm up to Diane Sawyer, and I agree that there seemed to
be nothing but pundits (Stephanopoulos, Will, Cokie Roberts, et. al.).
I'm more partial to NBC, only because I consider Brian Williams the most
palatable (to my tastes, anyway) but I'm not much on David Gregory
(boy, how I missed Tim Russert and his whiteboard).
What I really wish is that Bob Schieffer was about 15-20 years younger and
had taken Dan Rather's place instead of Katie. He and John Roberts are the
only people who could have converted me to CBS. Likewise, I wish Charlie
Gibson was a few years younger; he made watching ABC palatable for me.
This has been surprisingly civil for a debate about politics.
Back to television, though. I feel like we should be taking all of the reporters and pundits to task at each and every network for the laundry list of questions and/or policies that were not addressed during the campaign:
the fiscal cliff
climate change and the respective candidates "solutions"
the Federal Reserve and monetary policy
the Drug War, Mexico and border security
The list goes on and on. I don't know how anyone can maintain a straight face and say the mainstream media is biased, when it appears they've all but given up even trying. Traditionally, journalists were viewed as the fourth estate and an effective check on government. It turns out they're largely too incompetent to set the tone or choose what issues get discusssed (that arrangement seems to fall largely on the political parties and their big money donors almost entirely now).
Back to television, though. I feel like we should be taking all of the reporters and pundits to task at each and every network for the laundry list of questions and/or policies that were not addressed during the campaign:
the fiscal cliff
climate change and the respective candidates "solutions"
the Federal Reserve and monetary policy
the Drug War, Mexico and border security
The list goes on and on. I don't know how anyone can maintain a straight face and say the mainstream media is biased, when it appears they've all but given up even trying. Traditionally, journalists were viewed as the fourth estate and an effective check on government. It turns out they're largely too incompetent to set the tone or choose what issues get discusssed (that arrangement seems to fall largely on the political parties and their big money donors almost entirely now).
- Status