Monday, February 18, 2008

No Media Bias?

Just a thought: Why do we not see stories saying "If Obama loses Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, is he out?"

Oh I see, because it is likely that he will indeed lose all three contests and that's morally unacceptable. It's best to spin his "inevitability."

Can someone Fed Ex me a copy of the new liberal bible so I too can be hip to the new orthodoxy?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's a bit of a stretch. Obama's and HRC's electoral positions are not equivalent. Hillary is in a clearly weaker position right now. Nevertheless, the endless speculation and prognostication of the horse race is tiresome. And most of the rubes in the punditry are not good at it. It's been pretty comical watching the smarmy Dick Morris backtrack and change all of his assertions.

The liberal bible is a living, breathing document. Libs don't believe in writing anything down on paper if they can help it. It makes the endless revisions much more messy...

The Iconic Midwesterner said...

The point is no one put these sorts of false premises onto Obama.

The truth is that Clinton has won (or is likely to win) 7 of the 8 largest electoral college states, with only Illinois going to Obama, the hometown candidate. Those states where Clinton has or is likely to win represent 205 of the 270 electoral college votes needed to win the presidency or 76%. Any (non-messianic) candidate that had lost so many important states would be seriously questioned as to his electability.

Anonymous said...

I just don't see that these are false premises. The theory of HRC's campaign was that she needed to score a knockout on Super Tuesday. She shot her wad, and failed to get the early knockout. She is like George Foreman in the "Rumble in the Jungle". The press is reacting to the scent of blood, as much as to the rather obvious admiration for Obama.

The large-state argument is weak and sounds more like campaign spin than an accurate analysis. According to the agreed-upon rules established prior to contest Obama is winning. This would be like the 1960 Yankees arguing after the fact that the World Series title should go to the team that scored the most runs in the series rather than to the team that won the most games. (My apologies for all the sports metaphors, but sometimes they're very useful!)

I agree that the outcomes to date suggest that Obama is probably unelectable. The MSM probably should be discussing this aspect of it. The absence of this discussion may suggest bias, but it can also be attributed to myopia in the MSM. They have a long record being both overly simplistic and biased.

There is some poetic justice in the outcomes of the primaries so far: HRC came out in favor of abolishing the Electoral College and proportional representation. She is being hoisted on her petard.

Anonymous said...

Okay, I just read what I wrote and the second-to-last sentence makes no sense. What I meant to say was: There is some poetic justice in the outcomes of the primaries so far: HRC came out in favor of abolishing the Electoral College and favoring proportional representation in the wake of the 2000 general election debacle. I wish I could say that this would teach her not to shoot off her mouth, but it probably won't.

The Iconic Midwesterner said...

"The theory of HRC's campaign was that she needed to score a knockout on Super Tuesday. She shot her wad, and failed to get the early knockout."

I think this is false. Did she probably think she could have the nomination pretty such "in the bag" on Super Tuesday? Yeah, probably. Did she "need" to?? I can't see why.

"The large-state argument is weak and sounds more like campaign spin than an accurate analysis. According to the agreed-upon rules established prior to contest Obama is winning."

Obama can't even win AMONG DEMOCRATS in the most populous and important states...for anyone else that would be considered a drawback (to say the least.) When Clinton loses in Idaho, Alaska, Virginia, Washington DC, and Maryland, she's supposedly "toast."

I dont buy it. And I dont buy that the intent isn't to bolster Obama's chances in a long campaign.

Anonymous said...

I think this is false. Did she probably think she could have the nomination pretty such "in the bag" on Super Tuesday? Yeah, probably. Did she "need" to?? I can't see why.

She spent over $100 million in the campaign up to Super Tuesday, and was pretty much broke after Super Tuesday. If she wasn't going for an early knockout, why didn't she leave herself with some reserves to continue the fight? Foreman didn't need the early knockout either, but he did need it once he set himself on an unsustainable pace. Besides, her 2 biggest assets going into primaries was her name recognition and her war chest; I do think that she needed wrap the nomination earlier rather than later, because her support was broad, but it was never deep. Frankly Edwards dropping out is what killed her, because he was splitting the anti-Hillary vote.

Obama can't even win AMONG DEMOCRATS in the most populous and important states...for anyone else that would be considered a drawback (to say the least.) When Clinton loses in Idaho, Alaska, Virginia, Washington DC, and Maryland, she's supposedly "toast."

This speaks to the rules of the game, which the Dems likely will change in the future. McCain couldn't win among Republicans either. Moreover, HRC won the big states by pretty tight margins, while the Potomac Primaries were blowouts. If she had won the large states with the kind of proportions that Obama won in the Potomac primaries, HRC would likely still have a lead in the delegate race. Like Giuliani, she's gone from being the "front-runner" to being the underdog, which makes for a good story.

I'm sympathetic to your underlying point about the MSM and Obama, but I think that when you push it too far as in this case, you do yourself a disservice. This kind of an argument not very persuasive.