Were Democrats determined to appear unbiased?

[badger]

There were various media reports before the fact that presidential polls were biased in Obama's favor to the point that people didn't trust their accuracy.

There were also reports of bias of media sources that try to appear unbiased on TV, namely ABC's George Stephan...and so on.

Do you think that with open questioning of media credibility and questioning media being unbiased that Obama entered a no-win situation at the first debate, where media were determined to appear unbiased and therefore, not against Romney?

Thoughts?

[yermom]

wat?

[OU_Sooners75]

Do what?

I guess you didn't watch MSNBC before or after the debate.

I could have sworn that that network was about to blow up after the debate because their golden boy lost the debate.

[badger]

George Stephmonopoly said at one point that it was a tie. That's why I'm asking. That and everything else leading up to the debate that suggested liberal bias, then all of the sudden afterward, people were leaning Romney.

Were people really as unbiased as they claimed all along and called the winner just as everyone in the mainstream public did? Or, are they determined to appear unbiased and say something non-liberal this time around?

[OU_Sooners75]

I don't see anythin unbiased unless from a true undecided.

Thing is, most of the Fox people have made up their mind. So has most of the CNN and MSNBC.

The debate was far from a tie, and you know it wasn't when chris matthews and rachel maddow both say Romney won it. Didn't hear Ed Schultz said. But I imagine his words were something about how bad Romney is or that it was the altitude like Gore presented.

There was plenty of bias from what I have been seeing before and after the debate.

[rock on sooner]

George Stephmonopoly said at one point that it was a tie. That's why I'm asking. That and everything else leading up to the debate that suggested liberal bias, then all of the sudden afterward, people were leaning Romney.

Were people really as unbiased as they claimed all along and called the winner just as everyone in the mainstream public did? Or, are they determined to appear unbiased and say something non-liberal this time around?

I think that Stephanopolos mentioned a tie in the framework of "If it's
a tie, wouldn't it go to the President?" At any rate, it was no tie...

[XingTheRubicon]

It was kind of bizarro world because I could swear Fox was calling it less of a blowout than pMSNBC. Chris "we need to help the president" Matthews looked like he was gonna start balling right there in spin alley.

[yermom]

i'm not convinced this wasn't some kind of rope-a-dope maneuver ;)

[rock on sooner]

i'm not convinced this wasn't some kind of rope-a-dope maneuver ;)

You might be on to something. I've been puzzling about the Obama
strategy for two days now. I look at him out on the stump yesterday
and today and he's throwing one sledgehammer blow after another,
two COMPLETELY different Obamas...the one one Wednesday night
described as timid, lost it, uninterested, etc, but, on the stump it is
fire, hail and brimstone...one zinger after another. Maybe Obama
just wanted to see which Romney was gonna show...could be, who
knows? Interesting thought, though...

[XingTheRubicon]

i'm not convinced this wasn't some kind of rope-a-dope maneuver ;)

You're supposed to knock the guy out in the 8th round, not just methodically get the sh*t kicked out of you.

Some of those questions are not gonna be asked again.

[badger]

i'm not convinced this wasn't some kind of rope-a-dope maneuver ;)

So we're about to see John Cena overcome the odds once again in the main event of the WWE pay per view as the kiddies and women cheer and the predominantly male crowd boo loudly??

OK, so many probably don't get that reference... ummm... ROCKY IV! We're gonna see the roided Russian beat up Rocky for pretty much every round only for Rocky to fight back to win in the end?

Maybe not? OK... so Oregon football is going to lose its season opener to Boise State and have their starting running back punch one of BS's d00shie players afterward, only for them to win the Pac 12 and go to the Rose Bowl?

I suck at this.

In any event, I started this thread because something just didn't seem right after that debate.

[Skysooner]

So we're about to see John Cena overcome the odds once again in the main event of the WWE pay per view as the kiddies and women cheer and the predominantly male crowd boo loudly??

OK, so many probably don't get that reference... ummm... ROCKY IV! We're gonna see the roided Russian beat up Rocky for pretty much every round only for Rocky to fight back to win in the end?

Maybe not? OK... so Oregon football is going to lose its season opener to Boise State and have their starting running back punch one of BS's d00shie players afterward, only for them to win the Pac 12 and go to the Rose Bowl?

I suck at this.

In any event, I started this thread because something just didn't seem right after that debate.

I agree, but it isn't also like Obama is a great debater. He is a great speaker (speech reader per some), but he isn't a great debater. The only nefarious reason I could see would be to get his opponent on record and then use it in a last series of campaign ads or appearances in the last month before the election. I kind of doubt that though. I think in this case he was just off. He is ahead in the polls in swing states, and the road to victory for Romney is narrow at this point.

The whole idea that the polling is so widely skewed is laughable. Don't people realize that these polls are conducted by independent agencies or companies. They don't get hired if they don't use great technique. Yes, polls can be wrong, but to suggest that the vast majority of polls is off because of some bias on their part is ridiculous. The polls can and may change prior to the election, but prior to the debate, Obama had this thing sown up. Who knows what happens between now and then.

[XingTheRubicon]

I agree, but it isn't also like Obama is a great debater. He is a great speaker (speech reader per some), but he isn't a great debater. The only nefarious reason I could see would be to get his opponent on record and then use it in a last series of campaign ads or appearances in the last month before the election. I kind of doubt that though. I think in this case he was just off. He is ahead in the polls in swing states, and the road to victory for Romney is narrow at this point.

The whole idea that the polling is so widely skewed is laughable. Don't people realize that these polls are conducted by independent agencies or companies. They don't get hired if they don't use great technique. Yes, polls can be wrong, but to suggest that the vast majority of polls is off because of some bias on their part is ridiculous. The polls can and may change prior to the election, but prior to the debate, Obama had this thing sown up. Who knows what happens between now and then.

Rasmussen, the most accurate poll the last 2 POTUS elections, has Romney ahead in FLA and 1 point behind in OH.

yeah, seems pretty sewn up.

[sappstuf]

You might be on to something. I've been puzzling about the Obama
strategy for two days now. I look at him out on the stump yesterday
and today and he's throwing one sledgehammer blow after another,
two COMPLETELY different Obamas...the one one Wednesday night
described as timid, lost it, uninterested, etc, but, on the stump it is
fire, hail and brimstone...one zinger after another. Maybe Obama
just wanted to see which Romney was gonna show...could be, who
knows? Interesting thought, though...

Easy to throw sledgehammers at a punching bag... Much different when against a person that can throw punches back.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I get most all of my TV news from CNBC. Maria Bartiromo, Joe Kernan, and Rick Santelli hammer Obama every day. Melissa Lee and David Faber are more diplomatically in the Romney camp. Others, such as Jim Cramer, try to avoid taking political sides on the air. I think the overall near-consensus on CNBC is that a Romney win would be good for the markets, but that resolution of the fiscal cliff - no matter who wins - is key so that investors and business folk know what they are in for.

I can't recall watching MSNBC.

[cleller]

I get most all of my TV news from CNBC. Maria Bartiromo, Joe Kernan, and Rick Santelli hammer Obama every day. Melissa Lee and David Faber are more diplomatically in the Romney camp. Others, such as Jim Cramer, try to avoid taking political sides on the air. I think the overall near-consensus on CNBC is that a Romney win would be good for the markets, but that resolution of the fiscal cliff - no matter who wins - is key so that investors and business folk know what they are in for.

I can't recall watching MSNBC.

I may have to go back to CNBC. I used to watch them all the time, then got pissed at NBC and threw CNBC out with the bathwater.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I may have to go back to CNBC. I used to watch them all the time, then got pissed at NBC and threw CNBC out with the bathwater.

It's fun to watch during bull markets but hard to watch during bears.

I've heard that during the 90s, many retired people turned on CNBC each morning, and if the market was having a good day, they stayed at home and watched. If the market was down, they'd turn off the TV and went out to do something.

[OU_Sooners75]

You might be on to something. I've been puzzling about the Obama
strategy for two days now. I look at him out on the stump yesterday
and today and he's throwing one sledgehammer blow after another,
two COMPLETELY different Obamas...the one one Wednesday night
described as timid, lost it, uninterested, etc, but, on the stump it is
fire, hail and brimstone...one zinger after another. Maybe Obama
just wanted to see which Romney was gonna show...could be, who
knows? Interesting thought, though...

All with the help of his friend, Mr. Teleprompter!

The guy is a heck of an orator when he has the help of a teleprompter. But they guy is a crappy orator when he has to say something on the fly.

Face it, that is why he looked bad. He wasn't prepared for what Romney would throw at him.

IMO, these debates do very little. Also IMO, after debate #1, we all knew Obama would come out taking potshots at Romney while calling him names.

It is what liberals do best when behind. Forget the facts and accuracy. Just attack the character of your opponent.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...IMO, after debate #1, we all knew Obama would come out taking potshots at Romney while calling him names.

It is what liberals do best when behind. Forget the facts and accuracy. Just attack the character of your opponent.They stridently go that route most all the time. Obama's MO is always to attack the character of His opponent(ususally by mis-characterization)It's how they win elections. Destroying the oponent is the only thing that really works for them, since their political and economic ideas are out of Das Capital, and this is (still, and just barely) the USA.

[Skysooner]

Rasmussen, the most accurate poll the last 2 POTUS elections, has Romney ahead in FLA and 1 point behind in OH.

yeah, seems pretty sewn up.

I said prior to the debate....I also said "Who knows what happens between now and then" but don't let my direct quotes change you misquoting me.

I also said that claiming bias on the polls is a stupid thing. Thanks for pointing out Rasmussen. Interesting read. Most of the other polls don't use the 3 day rolling average which means they aren't reflecting the post-debate bounce.

[FaninAma]

There were various media reports before the fact that presidential polls were biased in Obama's favor to the point that people didn't trust their accuracy.

There were also reports of bias of media sources that try to appear unbiased on TV, namely ABC's George Stephan...and so on.

Do you think that with open questioning of media credibility and questioning media being unbiased that Obama entered a no-win situation at the first debate, where media were determined to appear unbiased and therefore, not against Romney?

Thoughts?

No. If Obama had not been totally obliterated in the debate the media would have spun it as a win for their guy. But it is sort of hard to do that when the debate, had it been a boxing match, would have been stopped by the moderator.