My Two Cents on the Election

[TheWalrus]

I agree with a lot of what Awsi saying but I think he's overstating Romney's chances. I've been reading Nate Silver's writing since he was posting as "poblano" on DailyKos, and I thought his early projection on Romney was not very well considered... building hard statistical formulas without enough data for a truly realistic study and applying them to a situation too fluid to be analyzed that way in either case.

A "foundational evidence" argument is much better made on the relatively short time the Democrats have been in power and the dramatic ideological battle being fought within the Republican party. There's no good precedent for Obama's defeat on those grounds. The Carter parallel, often trotted out, ignores that Carter never should have been elected in the first place. The country was reeling from Watergate and Carter seemed the perfect antidote: a pious outsider. Even then, the country slowly realized what it was about to get in to and Ford nearly came back to win anyway despite being like 20 points behind in the polls and facing a stiff primary challenge from Ronald Reagan. The shift in the voter preferences of SAMs (which is a great term) from Democrat to Republican kicked off by Civil Rights was just hitting it's stride, setting the table for what should have been 20 years of avalances were it not for the immense corruption and stupidity of Richard Nixon. It took years for the Democrats to truly reassemble the base from the shock of it. Clinton patched together an awkward centrist framework and combative style that won him elections but made it harder for everyone else in the party. Only in 2008 was Humpty Dumpty put back together again, some 44 years after LBJ's reelection.

I maintain as I have all along that this race is essentially a repeat of 2004, even down to some interesting, almost nonsensical details, like the uninspiring upper crust challenger running a bad race (in many of the same ways) and an essentially invented wedge issue pushed to prominence by the incumbent (gay rights in 2004... reproductive rights this time) to help secure a healthy turnout by the base.

I've seen nothing to knock me off my months old projection of 303 electoral votes for Obama, with Florida the next in line to fall if things break favorably late (which they seem to be doing) and either Colorado or Ohio being the first to fall back in Romney's favor should things go that way. The issues in the margins (of which the economy is the key one) have made Obama vulnerable but Romney has been too weak to capitalize on them. When it's all said and done, that will the story written about 2012.

[TrojanFin]

Very lengthy post. Sorry in advance.

Here’s my rebuttal to Awsi.

I sampled the thread quickly and noted the misconception that the race should be a slam dunk for Romney. That falls in line with the false overconfidence from Democrats in 2004. Obama is in the most favorable situational spot in American politics -- an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term. Extreme benefit of a doubt from the electorate. They aren't tired of the party or convinced the other side has all the answers. I think it's 9 for 10 over the past century+, the only defeat Carter in 1980.

The misconception is believing that being an incumbent makes you the favorite. 70 percent of those who have served as president since 1825 (26 of 37) failed to win two consecutive terms. To say people aren’t tired of this administration is merely speculation on your part, and only among undecided voters is there any doubt regarding which side has the answers.

If Obama were saddled with Carter's high 30s, low 40s approval rating and overseas hostage turmoil, Romney would indeed cruise. But with Obama at high 40s it's a tight race. The incumbent tends to mirror his approval rating on election day. That's the number to keep an eye on, along with national polls. The averaging of national polls these days has become so reliable it wipes out all the old desperate crutches, like claims of slanted polls. Also, don't fall for the conventional wisdom garbage that state polls are all that matters. The national margin dictates each state, which fall in line with their typical relationship to the national indications. It's called partisan index. If either man leads the national poll averaging by 1.5 to 2 or greater on election eve, he's the winner.

I'm not convinced this race tilts to Obama as much as the current polls assert. Early this year, during the GOP primaries, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com broke down every potential matchup and concluded that Romney had an 83% likelihood of victory if he were the nominee and the economy didn't improve by November. Same with sports, I always like to remember foundational evidence as opposed to infatuation with the latest news or results. There had to be a reason for that 83%. Silver now ignores it, defaulting strictly to current polls and the applied 75% theoretical advantage to Obama. I sense the truth is much lower than that 75%.

Again, polls are merely speculative, but you are wise to be skeptical concerning the data. The mainstream media is doing its best to make Obama look favorable by skewing the numbers.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If anything, the polls being close favors Romney since independent voters will often vote for the challenger.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Has the economy improved? The public apparently believes it has. The right track/wrong track number jumped to 42/48 recently. Not good but notably higher than previous trends. For reference purposes, that number was in the 13/87 range in the months leading to the election in 2008. Quite precious of Romney to claim Americans can't say they are better off.

If we are going to look at other statistics, 50% of likely voters trust Romney more than the 43% that trust Obama.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Furthermore, just because there is a sense of perceived optimism according to these “polls”, it doesn’t factually mean we are better off. Case in point, look at the link to the article by the LA Times crunching the actual numbers and the impact of the recession (wealth plunged 40%).


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

or

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The following section will feature harsh themes and won't be popular but I'll post it anyway: The GOP is running a campaign more likely to succeed in midterms than a presidential cycle. Young females don't show up in midterms. Women are roughly 50.5% of the electorate in midterms compared to 53% in presidential years. Married women still participate in midterms but single women stay home. Consequently, the SAM voters that the conservative message is targeted to -- and delivered by -- don't have nearly the same pull in presidential years. SAMs are Simplistic Angry Males. That's the GOP base, beyond senior citizens or the wealthy. Young and predominantly white males grow up believing Republicans are the daddy party and Democrats the mommy party. They'll swallow every line, like the poster who announced that Romney will create 12 million new jobs and personally hand out a voucher to heaven. Or maybe that's Paul Ryan. Sorry. The SAM belief system is currently fixated on -- but not limited to -- birtherism, Obama as a Muslim, voter fraud, socialism, fear, exclusion, more fear, guns, more guns to justify the fear, coddling corporations regardless of their screw tendencies, and taxes as the one word to default to as substitute for paying attention. For decades it's been ridiculous that Democrats sat back and allowed it to happen, for the SAM messaging of the moment to take hold. Only Bill Clinton frustrates Republicans and dismantles their argument piece by piece. During the early stages of his speech a few weeks ago I impatiently urged him to, "Get to the math. Get to the math." Naturally he delivered it in even more devastating fashion than I projected but it's like the early minutes of a college game with 40 point favoritism. You know where the deck is stacked but until the touchdowns start to pour in there a bit of apprehension that the side relying on cheap parlor tricks may not be fully exposed.

This section does not feature harsh themes so much as it makes overarching generalizations concerning the makeup of the Conservative Party from a liberal perspective. It further enumerates progressive talking points by taking some very real issues of contention and dismisses them. Plus a conspiracy issue like “birthers” should not be given equal weight to that of bloated government that continues to come up with new “taxes” like Obamacare.

As for your moniker, you might as well take it one step further and insert “white” to make it SAWM. If you are going to denigrate a group, you might as well be specific. You reveal your prejudice in your presumption that minorities will always favor the Democrats in the subsequent paragraphs.

Concerning Bill Clinton, he addressed everything through a series of omissions, half-truths or by unverifiable statements (like in commercials when they say 9 out of 10 agree that…). He didn’t earn the name Slick Willy for nothing. Click the below link if you want examples.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I wouldn't have gone this far until two weeks ago. My elderly dad was hospitalized for a week. He was stuck sharing the same room with a prototype SAM. Absolutely maddening. The genius SAM put himself there by abusing alcohol and drugs while tailgating. We were watching the convention on our side of the curtain while the SAM ranted against Obama as a Muslim who hates America and will force the country into socialism if re-elected. His girlfriend is an Obama supporter who kept asking for evidence. His response, in an animated voice: "How do I know? Because I know." Unbelievable. Every time I think MSNBC or Bill Maher are going too far with their tones, I run into SAMs in Las Vegas sportsbooks, or sample their posts on certain message boards. College football boards are a SAM staple right now, given the SEC dominance of late.

There are always going to be uneducated voters on both sides. I talked with a girl that said she hated Republicans. When I asked why, she couldn’t give me a reason other than she was raised a Democrat. I have dealt with those that said Bush was killing everyone in Iraq for oil money, and he was the reason that gas prices were rising. Laughable now that I am still paying 4 bucks at the pump.

I'm reminded of children's literature, and a potential slogan: "SAM I Am." Heck, they probably wouldn't balk at it. Once again I'll default to situational impact. I grew up in opposition to the GOP but not unimpressed by their leaders or spokesmen. Short burst big picture ideas. Somewhere along the line it changed. William Buckley and George Will gave way to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I came to realize that the over the top conservative mouth pieces had grown up during the '70s and particularly the '80s, when all you had to do was mock Democrats as liberal and twist the candidate into anything you wanted. That was guaranteed to work when the math was on your side: Reagan ran with whites as 90% of the electorate in '80, and '89% in '84. Now it's down to 74% and steadily sliding. That's why I always get a kick out of calls for another Reagan. He wouldn't enjoy nearly the same advantages today. It's like me pretending as a Canes fan that it's 1980 again, with the Orange Bowl still intact and rocking, with Bernie Kosar and Vinny Testaverde and all the other greats nearly ready to assemble on campus. Limbaugh and all the others awaited their turn as most influential, with no comprehension that the electorate had already begun to shift the other way, dramatically altering the margin for error.

It is fairly obvious that you are not a fan of the GOP, and likely do not listen too much talk radio today.

I'm hardly saying Romney can't win. He absolutely can win. With unemployment numbers like we have, and below average growth rate, an incumbent is undeniably vulnerable. Romney already won a race against a poor situational backdrop in 2002. The economy had dropped from Clinton highs. 9/11 caused unease. Voters were determined to lash out against somebody and in state after state the holding party took it on the chin in gubernatorial races if an incumbent wasn't there to state his/her case. It was a ridiculous percentage over the span of a few years, something like 21 of 23 states changing hands if it was an open race. That's how you got so many weird gubernatorial takeovers in 2002, like Republicans in Maryland and Hawaii, with Democrats in Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming, Tennessee, Arizona, Montana. But in Maryland the trend should have pointed to Shannon O'Brien, the Democrat. Massachusetts was already run by a Republican, prior to Romney. When Romney defeated O'Brien against the trend -- and by several points -- I took notice and worried about his national prospects. I view the guy as a creep but obviously that's not unanimously shared.

Yes, if people are not satisfied with the status quo, they will general trying something new. This can be both good and bad depending upon what’s behind door number 2.
As for your portrayal of Mitt, you can call him uncharismatic, but what makes him a creep? I usually reserve that term for the Sandusky’s of the world.

If Romney prevails it will be narrowly. That's what I was getting at. Republicans have forfeited most of their huge natural advantage -- 33% self-described conservatives nationwide to 21% liberals -- by alienating a huge chunk of the electorate and somehow ignoring the shifting math, the demographic trends working against them. Florida is a convenient example. In 2004 George Bush won Florida when 72.6% of the registered voters were white. That dropped to 69.1% in 2008, and is down to 67.5% this year. That's what Romney is dealing with. Cubans may be pro-Republican but any time that percentage of whites drops it's bad new for the GOP. That's why they desperately invented voter fraud as a means to massage the electorate at the other end, as a counter to demographic shifts.

So reading between the lines, the GOP is the party of the Caucasians and the Dems cater to minorities. You would have us believe that voter fraud is only in issue because the GOP makes it one, because they fear that voting base will eventually be outnumbered and need to keep the minorities from the voting booth. I see it as organizations like Acorn which highly favor liberal candidates created the need for stricter practices. If we can ID for things like booze or cigarettes, I don’t think it’s much to ask to provide ID for something as important as voting.

Granted, if Romney wins this time in he'll enjoy the same situational advantage in 2016 that I mentioned long ago in the opening paragraph -- incumbent/party one term in power. It's extremely, extremely unlikely that trend would be overcome two cycles in a row. For one thing, Romney and his party would receive credit for the economic uptick, which is inevitable. That's why this race is essentially a 2-for-1 for Romney. He'll be our president until January 2021 if successful in 6 weeks. Supreme Court nominations and everything else.

I view it differently. I see Romney having to make tough choices, many of which will be unpopular with a percentage of the population that relies on pension/entitlement/etc. programs. Unions and the media will crucify him and every decision he makes if elected, and he’ll likely be one and done even if gets the economy back on track.

And 2016 is the only logical prospect for a lopsided GOP victory. If Romney fails this time, the Republicans will face an open race four years from now, with the demographics further moving away from them, putting states like Arizona in play.

“Demographics “equal more Latino Democrats, or is it transplanted Progressives in regards to Arizona? Yes, Obama has done a great job at making this country more divided than ever. He has every “demographic” broken down to be pandered to.

[TheWalrus]

The mainstream media is doing its best to make Obama look favorable by skewing the numbers.

Stopped reading right here.

[Spesh]

Concerning Bill Clinton, he addressed everything through a series of omissions, half-truths or by unverifiable statements (like in commercials when they say 9 out of 10 agree that…). He didn’t earn the name Slick Willy for nothing. Click the below link if you want examples.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

When trying to establish credibility about someone else's lack of credibility, you probably shouldnt post a completely partisan website as proof.

Former President Bill Clinton received a hero's welcome on the second night of the Democratic National Convention, where he spoke issue by issue to try to make the case for President Barack Obama's re-election.
Clinton claimed a victory of sorts comparing job gains under Democratic presidents vs. Republicans. "Since 1961 … our private economy produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million," Clinton said.
We dug into those numbers and found his statement is
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Clinton also said that the stimulus program "cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people." It actually cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers. We awarded Clinton a
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for leaving out that critical qualifier.

His statement that "in the last 29 months, our economy has produced about 4.5 million private-sector jobs," earned a
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. The statistic is correct but some cherry-picking was involved in getting to it.

Clinton addressed recent Republican attacks on changes to welfare. Obama, he said, is not gutting the program's work requirements, as Romney campaign ads have said. Instead, Obama is seeking state ideas that would increase employment. PolitiFact has looked into the welfare controversy and rated the Romney ad claims
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Clinton praised Obama for taking a "balanced approach" to debt reduction, mentioning the work of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which was charged with finding ways to cut the national debt over the long term. Last week after Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan spoke at the GOP convention,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
that Ryan criticized Obama for abandoning the commission's recommendations but failed to mention that he himself voted against them.
Clinton also touched on recent claims about Medicare, saying "both Gov. Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the president for allegedly robbing Medicare of $716 billion." That's also one we've checked before. What we found: the $716 billion represents reductions in future Medicare spending, not cuts to benefits or the program's current budget. The Ryan attack rating:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Clinton also noted that Ryan attacked Obama for "the same amount of Medicare savings that (Ryan) had in his own budget." Clinton is correct that the Ryan budget plan included cost savings that were part of the health care law, and we rated the statement
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Clinton touted Obama's accomplishments on student loans. Student loan legislation under Obama, he said, "lowers the cost of federal student loans." "And even more important," he said, "it gives students the right to repay those loans as a clear, fixed, low percentage of their income for up to 20 years." We rated this
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. He's basically right, but he slightly oversimplifies the process through which the percentage of income is determined.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Former president Bill Clinton's
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
was a fact-checker's nightmare: lots of effort required to run down his many statistics and factual claims, producing little for us to write about.
Republicans will find plenty of Clinton's scorching opinions objectionable. But with few exceptions, we found his stats checked out.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Broke up the first link into the different claims. Second link is more of a summary from Factcheck.org. Didnt feel like hunting through their site, but it has all the links for their conclusions. So, other then a exaggeration or two, the actual numbers are solid.

Meanwhile, the link you provided had this to say:

Let's see:
-
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

-
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

-
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

-
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

-
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

We're better off? Really?

Democrats talk of alternative energy but are content to ship
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Instead of enslaving us to Persian Gulf oil,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

In his closing remarks, Clinton threw out a few new phrases which have become hallmarks of modern progressive, socialist-Democrats [my emphasis]:

Passing off personal opinion as fact. Fear mongering(bonus points for using some variation of the word slavery). And my favorite, name calling and cries of socialism. I am unimpressed. Im willing to bet Romney is to:

Ahead of his speech, Romney poked fun at Clinton's influence on the 2012 race. After Clinton praised the former Massachusetts governor's support for the service programs City Year and AmeriCorps, Romney joked about the former president's glowing introduction.

"If there's one thing we've learned this election season, it's that a few words from Bill Clinton can do any man a lot of good," Romney said. "After that introduction, I guess all I have to do is wait a day or two for the bounce."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


(Mostly wanted to include that last quote because Romney actually made a joke that was amusing. Not to shabby).

[TrojanFin]

When trying to establish credibility about someone else's lack of credibility, you probably shouldnt post a completely partisan website as proof.

These links would argue that your fact checker has bias as well.

I simply used Breitbart for the purposes of expediency since I don't have the time to sift through every word myself. The fact that I have to go to Breitbart to do this would shows the mainstream media has gotten lazy and is not being critical enough in their coverage.

][/QUOTE]
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The funny part is when someone quotes the New York Times or the Huffington Post most on here just take is a gospel. The minute you quote Fox News or Breitbart with a differing opinion, it is simply dismissed. It's funny how that works. I'm sure those like the Walrus would have no issue saying that Fox News has definite bias, but would like offer MSNBC a pass. Other than Joe Scarborough (a RINO), name any other Conservative commentators on MSNBC?

As Mark Twain once said: "There are 3 lies in this world; lies, white lies and statistics."

Lastly, I am just going to comment on the first fact to prove my point. I would be curious to see the role that Congress plays in job creation. Many Republican Presidents had to reside over an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. It would be interesting to note how job creation fared during those years compared to the Clinton years with an overwhelmingly Republican Congress. Most Dems would agree that mid-nineties were are prosperous time in our country's history.

[TheWalrus]

I'm sure those like the Walrus would have no issue saying that Fox News has definite bias, but would like offer MSNBC a pass.

You would be wrong.

I will say this, though of course I'm wasting my time in doing so. It's one thing to have a differing opinion about something. You and I would disagree on tax policy, I assume.

But what isn't true is that there are two sides to every argument. If I say the sky is blue and you say the sky is a rutabaga, that's not a dispute. I am right. You are insane.

Guys like Andrew Breitbart and Glenn Beck (who's appropriate opposite number is Michael Moore, not the NYT, for chrissake) do not deal in facts. They deal in conspiracy theories, and like any good conspiracy theorist knows, the first step is to attack the facts themselves, which in practice always means an ad hominem attack on the source of the fact. Hence a liberal (more liberal than me, in fact) friend of mine who believes in conspiracy theories calling any refutation of her beliefs on scientific grounds "the tyranny of science" (seriously, that's what she calls it).

In this, conservatives have been very successful, turning the phrase "mainstream media" into a pejorative, among other sterling achievements in the Obfuscatory Arts. This allows the creation of a very safe bubble where up can be down and bull**** flows like a chocolate river in Wonkaland, free from dissent or corroboration.

But that is silly nonsense, just as it's nonsense for some birkenstock wearing butt**** to laugh off structural engineers and metallurgy experts who say a plane fully loaded with jet fuel could, in fact, bring down the World Trade Center buildings.

[trojanma]

As I have posted before it is sad that there is no real unbiased arbiter of information in the US.

Some time ago the Economist wrote an article that everything is commentary now and there are no unbiased sources of information. I choose the Economist which I feel is fairly centrist. The economist stated that multiple biased sources of information from various sides could replace an unbiased one. I disagree with this. It is very hard to make an informed decision.

[TheWalrus]

As I have posted before it is sad that there is no real unbiased arbiter of information in the US.

Some time ago the Economist wrote an article that everything is commentary now and there are no unbiased sources of information. I choose the Economist which I feel is fairly centrist. The economist stated that multiple biased sources of information from various sides could replace an unbiased one. I disagree with this. It is very hard to make an informed decision.

There has never been an unbiased source of information, ever. Everyone is subject to their own personal biases and they show up inevitably. All you can hope for is a honest treatment of factual information (which does exist, even in a world without perfect moderators).

For example, a politican gives a speech and a reporter's covering it. Now, even if the story is unimpeachably factual... the lede, their choice of quotes, the way they structure information to include rebuttals. All of it is subject to bias. It's human nature for someone's personality to intrude, and howling against it is like howling at the moon.

But where the Breitbarts and Glenn Becks cross the line is where they intentionally piece things together to give them a different meaning than the one intended or even stoop to outright invention (as when Breitbart, I believe, claimed there was a tape of Michelle Obama saying "whitey", and the other more recent example where he pieced together two quotes from someone -- a black congresswoman, I believe -- to totally reverse the meaning of her position on some statement). That's where, to mix metaphors, the horse**** meets the road.

[Spesh]

These links would argue that your fact checker has bias as well.

I simply used Breitbart for the purposes of expediency since I don't have the time to sift through every word myself. The fact that I have to go to Breitbart to do this would shows the mainstream media has gotten lazy and is not being critical enough in their coverage.

The funny part is when someone quotes the New York Times or the Huffington Post most on here just take is a gospel. The minute you quote Fox News or Breitbart with a differing opinion, it is simply dismissed. It's funny how that works. I'm sure those like the Walrus would have no issue saying that Fox News has definite bias, but would like offer MSNBC a pass. Other than Joe Scarborough (a RINO), name any other Conservative commentators on MSNBC?

As Mark Twain once said: "There are 3 lies in this world; lies, white lies and statistics."

Lastly, I am just going to comment on the first fact to prove my point. I would be curious to see the role that Congress plays in job creation. Many Republican Presidents had to reside over an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. It would be interesting to note how job creation fared during those years compared to the Clinton years with an overwhelmingly Republican Congress. Most Dems would agree that mid-nineties were are prosperous time in our country's history.

I posted two seperate fact checking sites to avoid any claims of potential bias. Had one been mistaken the other would have called them out. Of course, you seem to have taken that as both sides(which inheritently compete against one another for viewership) are in together to try and distorte everyone with their liberal bias. I intentionally avoided New York Times and Huffington Post to, again, avoid claims of bias, but clearly thats your go to.

Politifact is a Pulitzer Prize winning site that lists exactly why they agree or disagree with something, weigh the material in front of them(even when its against those dirty democrats) and evaluates if something is based on evidence, which they then present, and not conjecture. While Politifact is a Tampa Bay Times program(and the Tampa Bay Times are a profit driven company), Factcheck.org is non-profit.
Glenn Beck, who you just linked as evidence against liberal bias, in a outspoken conservative entertainer who has been throw off television not because of his personal bias, but because his personal bias was so filthy that Fox News, a conservative entertainment and news channel, could no longer deal with the amount of complaints against him. He provides no actual evidence and instead relies on conjecture, innuendo, and outright lies to sell a product. For example, he or guests he brought on(and did not object to what they said) refered to Democrats as Nazi's over 200 times in his first 18 months at Fox News. The product he is selling is himself. He is out for a profit.

One group has little to no reason for bias. The other overwhelmingly does. There is nothing wrong with Glenn Beck or Breitbart making money for what they do, there is reason to distrust what is said....especially when they regularly indulge in logical fallicies like TheWalrus mentioned. I listed every major claim in Clinton's speech and every single one of them had links to show where the data came from. I provided a second link to show a second non-profit website that came to a very similar conclusion. You listed a site that called democrats socialists and Clinton a liar because "we arent better then we were 4 years ago"(which varies from person to person, doesnt it?). Which sounds like it deals in logic and evidence?

You have successfully gotten me to defend websites(or people making the arguments and not the argument itself) and not the "logic" you originally presented. Your mission of ad hominem has been completed and you win a conservative gold star.

[Spesh]

As I have posted before it is sad that there is no real unbiased arbiter of information in the US.

Some time ago the Economist wrote an article that everything is commentary now and there are no unbiased sources of information. I choose the Economist which I feel is fairly centrist. The economist stated that multiple biased sources of information from various sides could replace an unbiased one. I disagree with this. It is very hard to make an informed decision.

Your correct, there is no true unbiased news source in America. Some of that is malicious and some of that is just basic human nature. Two educated and intelligent people, with the best of intentions, can look at the same situation and come to two wildly different conclusion.

That said, there is cases of intentional bias. Not providing evidence, name calling, outright lies, are all attempts to bias your opinion. Glenn Beck(and guests) refered to Democrats as Nazis over 200 times. That was just the word Nazi, and it did not include the words "Hitler", "Fascist", "Socialist", and/or "Goebbels". Fox News had no problem promoting him, but also made no attempt to censor other anchors(supposed anchors, not Beck who was clearly entertainment) who also refered to Democrats as Nazis. Is there any evidence whatsoever that the Democratic Party has decided to turn into the Nazi Party? Of course not. There is no point in making those claims other then intentional bias.

Shifting through news distortion isnt difficult. Check multiple sites, check the numbers or examples provided, watch out for labeling or insult throwing. I dont have a problem with people not wanting to do any of that. I dont even have a problem with someone buying into intentional bias. What i have a problem with is those who make absurd and outlandish claims and pretend they are statements of fact. What i have a problem with is those who defend their "facts" by attacking other peoples sources and not the argument presented.