Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For some Fox is real news just like MSNBC is for others.

Just want to point out how hilariously off-base such comparisons are. When Fox has a far-left ex-Congressman as the host of a four hour morning news program every day, then we can talk about how Fox and MSNBC are two sides of the same coin.


http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2012/11/05/27478/msnbc-morningjoe-20121105-floridavoting

Unfortunately, your point is absurd. I'm sure Fox news can (and they have) defend the fact they are not all right leaning by pointing out all of the democrats/left leaning hosts and or commentators just the same. You will next tell me that having SE Cupp surrounded by 3 liberals on MSNBC is also "fair" in some way.

I am by no means a fan of Fox but to even attempt to suggest that MSNBC isnt the lefts answer to Fox news is absurd and an insult to my intelligence.

4 hours of Scarborough some how gives MSNBC that "fair" title just as much as Fox tried to do the same by saying Alan Colmes having a show with Hannity, disproved the notion that Fox wasnt some right leaning station.

MSNBC does not claim to be fair and balanced. that is the difference. I know many people who watch MSNBC, but they do not consider it news. Just opinions they happen to agree with. But my FOX-loving friends consider it their primary news source. There is a HUGE difference.

Anonymous wrote:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with our Presidential election process. Aside from the de facto voter suppression we see in places like FL and OH.

...by the Dems

Uh...riiiight...

There's absolutely nothing wrong with our Presidential election process. Aside from the de facto voter suppression we see in places like FL and OH.

...by the Dems

Anonymous wrote:Eliminate the electoral college.

No, don't eliminate the electoral college. Award electors based upon congressional districts. The final two (from the senate seats) could be awarded based upon which candidate wins the state. It would solve a lot of problems. Each state can make the decision to do this based upon state legislation. Maine and Nebraska already do.

Yes, this increases the gerrymandering problem but states should create independent boards to deal with establishing boundaries anyway. Just look at the current situation in Maryland if you need any further evidence for this. Seven states, including California, already have these independent boards to draw the lines for congressional districts.

Anonymous wrote:

I think it's hilarious that a self-describe Democrat in 2012 could get so excited about a candidate who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Obama is essentially a center-right Republican of the 90s. I'm really, really curious what the "ick" parts of the Obama agenda are for you.

Please stop deluding yourself. Obama is not center anything much less center right.

In any event, we are doomed as long we have news media (and this is news media as a whole) that editorializes instead of reports.

It would be interesting if you could possibly support this position. What exactly leads you to say he's not "center anything much less center right"? Certainly every policy he's pursued is in the centrist Republican tradition. Got specifics?

Anonymous wrote:

I think it's hilarious that a self-describe Democrat in 2012 could get so excited about a candidate who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Obama is essentially a center-right Republican of the 90s. I'm really, really curious what the "ick" parts of the Obama agenda are for you.

Please stop deluding yourself. Obama is not center anything much less center right.

In any event, we are doomed as long we have news media (and this is news media as a whole) that editorializes instead of reports.

I think we're all familiar with the sorry excuse for a news station that is "Fox News," and MSNBC is nakedly partisan. But other than a few other clumsy efforts to be a conservative "newspaper" (i.e., Washington Times, Daily Caller), I can't think of any other news organization that fits your description. Please elaborate. With examples.

I think it's hilarious that a self-describe Democrat in 2012 could get so excited about a candidate who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Obama is essentially a center-right Republican of the 90s. I'm really, really curious what the "ick" parts of the Obama agenda are for you.

Please stop deluding yourself. Obama is not center anything much less center right.

In any event, we are doomed as long we have news media (and this is news media as a whole) that editorializes instead of reports.

Anonymous wrote:Eliminate the electoral college.

+1. when I saw the Title of this thread I thought that'd be the entire post.

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of 24-hour news. Seriously - the PP who said we used to have newscasters whose job was to get things right - yes. We used to have newscasters who had one shot to deliver the news - at 6:00pm (or 5:00 or 6:30 or whatever). They did not say it over & over & over & over all day long in 129 different ways. We did not have the kind of agonizing, pick-it-all-apart, analyze every nuance, obsess over every detail etc., kind of coverage that we do now.

I don't think it makes sense to debate solutions which violate the constitution. We have to believe in something, and free speech is one of our biggest. So while 24 hour news may be counter-productive, we don't really have much choice.

Anonymous wrote:

The primaries have become increasingly problematic. 2008 was bad enough, but this one was a four-ring circus. In order to survive the primary, the candidate has to go so far to the right or left. Then, once they become the candidate, they have to make their way to the middle. How does one do this without losing all credibility? Perhaps we should all be allowed to vote in the primaries. So, dems and independents can vote in the republican primaries, and vice versa. I realize that the problem here is that some would vote for the one who would be easier to beat. Too bad we couldn't count on people to realize that this person could become their president, so they should vote for the best choice.

I agree. As a Democrat, I would LOVE LOVE a candidate that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I love some things Obama has done but others, ick, not-so-much. But I just wish we could have a moderate, logical candidate!!

I think it's hilarious that a self-describe Democrat in 2012 could get so excited about a candidate who was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Obama is essentially a center-right Republican of the 90s. I'm really, really curious what the "ick" parts of the Obama agenda are for you.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with our Presidential election process. Aside from the de facto voter suppression we see in places like FL and OH.

Let's get a few things straight right off the bat:

1) There are 320 million people in the country. Only about 2, maybe 3 million of them watch Fox News.

2) Similarly, only about 1.5 million, maybe 2 million watch MSNBC.

So, while cable news has eradicated the discourse, it doesn't quite have the impact people think it does. It's more the mindless repetition of the talking points from both that OP talks about. That's a problem. It's more a social media problem than it is a problem about the origins of the lies.

I agree that teaching critical thinking in schools is a good way to fix things, but that will take a generation. But in the meantime, we can stop pretending that certain things are worthy of equal discussion (i.e., "intelligent design" or other faith-based notions that aren't supported by empirical evidence) and ridding ourselves of our testing culture.

We should also engineer a complete and total backlash against the Internet and the echo chamber it presents.

This is a cultural thing.

Get rid of 24-hour news. Seriously - the PP who said we used to have newscasters whose job was to get things right - yes. We used to have newscasters who had one shot to deliver the news - at 6:00pm (or 5:00 or 6:30 or whatever). They did not say it over & over & over & over all day long in 129 different ways. We did not have the kind of agonizing, pick-it-all-apart, analyze every nuance, obsess over every detail etc., kind of coverage that we do now.

I want to vote for 15:49's candidate too. Problem is that sounds a lot more like a conservative democrat than any republican we would see soon. Rs rely too my h on the enthusiasm of hard core social conservatives to risk giving it up.

Anonymous wrote:

The primaries have become increasingly problematic. 2008 was bad enough, but this one was a four-ring circus. In order to survive the primary, the candidate has to go so far to the right or left. Then, once they become the candidate, they have to make their way to the middle. How does one do this without losing all credibility? Perhaps we should all be allowed to vote in the primaries. So, dems and independents can vote in the republican primaries, and vice versa. I realize that the problem here is that some would vote for the one who would be easier to beat. Too bad we couldn't count on people to realize that this person could become their president, so they should vote for the best choice.

I agree. As a Democrat, I would LOVE LOVE a candidate that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I love some things Obama has done but others, ick, not-so-much. But I just wish we could have a moderate, logical candidate!!

Lifelong Dem, but I have to believe this will be the next incarnation of the GOP after they lose tomorrow. They simply can't keep pandering to the aging, white, far-right 20% base much longer.

If they ran a candidate who was a true fiscal conservative (not just desperate to end Medicaid and welfare and privatize Medicare and SS, but also willing to cut military spending and raise taxes) AND who had 21st century social views, they would claim a lot of ground.