Msnbc coverage of election is absolutely horrible

Gee. how come Fox paid Santorum a huge amount of money the years before and never let IOWA know why Santorum lost that record election..
The corruption rating of # 3 ?

Fox wont say anything that could help Romney.

It wouldn't be bad if they were fair and balanced..But NOT reporting something is just as bad as negative reporting.

Megan on the Romney speech that night ..noted that Romney was going to use a teleprompter but his people took it down minutes before...
And that Romney just repeated his speech from earlier that day ..while Santorum spoke from the heart...
Why she had to add any of that is beyond reason except to make Romney appear more plastic and machine compared to the Fox darling Santorum.

You wont hear anything bad about Newt anymore..or Perry..( the one whose waiting in S.C. )

 

Does it matter? No one watches...

 

I can see why Cons hate MSNBC ... all they do is playback Conservative Talking Points after they are caught Denying they said it.

 

Not sure about Megan Kelly purposefully leaving stuff out. I've seen her report negatives a lot. However the one who is the far worse at this is Rachael Maddow. Any negatives about Obama will never make it on her show unless she can spin it to the republicans. Watch her show after negative job numbers come out or something. No reporting about it whatsoever. Fox may be guilty of this also but they are nowhere near as blatant as msnbc.

Heck everyone goes on to the O'Reilly show without fear of being destroyed by him and attacks. Jon Steward or Rosanne Barr are common guests, however you will never ever get a conservative to receive the same standards on the Ed show or the Maddow show. They will be like attack dogs.

 

Originally Posted by Phoebe Bump
"I think what you are referring to is called "Rovism". Hey, I don't like it either, but it is the way the game gets played post-Bush. Didn't Rove tell us that McCain fathered 11 children while in Vietnam? Or was it 9? Didn't he also tell us that McCain was gay because he was meeting with the Log Cabiners? And Rove never goes on MSNBC."

No. I think that was reported just a short time ago by Phoebe Bump.

Complaining that MSNBC covers politics poorly is tantamount to complaining that sugar is sweet or lemon juice is bitter. MSNBC is a branch of the DNC. A rotten branch but still a branch.

 

Better check your leg.

 

Rubbernecking. Just like when people pass an accident on the highway. They pretend to be aloof and not sneak a peek. So it is with channel surfing. You get to MSNBC and the 'rubbernecker' in you rears it's ugly head.

 

I'm working on my doctorate in political science so have to wade through all these news sources as part of my project. Not only ours but other countries also.

 

Isn't 'political science' somewhat of an oxymoron?

 

Well not really. We aren't that far away from a mathematical model to predict political moves certain countries will make based on current conditions in different aspects of their society as opposed to ours. Its based off of the Nash Equilibrium.

 

Really? I say oxymoron because; Politics is rife with free radicals that effect opinion and perception, RE: the MSM, the opinions of favored celebrities, the physical appearance of politicians, influence of special interest groups etc. Whereas science deals with facts in evidence.

 

Lol, it really doesn't matter the opinions of celebs or what a politician looks like.

Game theorists use the Nash equilibrium concept to analyze the outcome of the strategic interaction of several decision makers. In other words, it provides a way of predicting what will happen if several people or several institutions are making decisions at the same time, and if the outcome depends on the decisions of the others. The simple insight underlying John Nash's idea is that we cannot predict the result of the choices of multiple decision makers if we analyze those decisions in isolation. Instead, we must ask what each player would do, taking into account the decision-making of the others.

Its really fascinating actually at how accurate it can be.

 

May I refer to the last presidential election in which a candidate with absolutely no real experience running anything (business wise or politically) Little, if any knowledge of economics, foreign or domestic policy that had previously lived in almost total obscurity...was elected president of the United States. And why? because the electorate thought he 'looked good' and an army of celebrities endorsed him. Now you fit that into an equation.

 

You obviously don't understand what a Nash Equilibrium is. What question are you trying to find the answer to in that statement? Here is the definition of it so follow this formula and rephrase your question:

Let (S, f) be a game with n players, where Si is the strategy set for player i, S=S1 X S2 ... X Sn is the set of strategy profiles and f=(f1(x), ..., fn(x)) is the payoff function for x S. Let xi be a strategy profile of player i and x-i be a strategy profile of all players except for player i. When each player i {1, ..., n} chooses strategy xi resulting in strategy profile x = (x1, ..., xn) then player i obtains payoff fi(x). Note that the payoff depends on the strategy profile chosen, i.e., on the strategy chosen by player i as well as the strategies chosen by all the other players. A strategy profile x* S is a Nash equilibrium (NE) if no unilateral deviation in strategy by any single player is profitable for that player.

Now its very easy to plug in Obama's election campaign into this but this game requires multiple players since as I said before you can't predict outcomes with players isolated. The equilibrium derives from how decisions will be formed when all players decisions are measured against each other.

 

I think I'd rather play chess....or Monopoly.

 

Haha.. me too sometimes!

 

You can't really believe that's why Obama won. Obama was elected because people saw him as the most credible candidate - not surprising when he was running against a 70-some-year-old man who wanted to "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" with Sarah Palin waiting in the wings as VP.

I was so upset when Hillary Clinton didn't get the nomination that I decided I just wouldn't vote. Then I started really looking at McCain-Palin and it scared me so badly I volunteered for our local Obama GOTV and RAN all the way to the polls.

It's interesting to me that you would be so against a candidate with all your perceived deficiencies as you listed above, yet you would vote for Sarah Palin?

 

Just goes to show how little Republican/conservatives really know. Obama not having any political experience? He was an Illinois Senator for 6 years, then a US Senator for 2. He headed several foreign policy committees in the US Senate. Sarah Palin doesn't even know how to spell foreign policy, couldn't finish her job as governor, and yet most Republican/conservatives think she is qualified to be President!
Enough said.