Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

November 7, 2012 - Morning Headlines

*** President Barack Obama has won reelection ***


  1. I think this might be one of my less popular posts, but I feel rather passionate about it and believe it’s important enough to share.

    First though, just on the chance that the activity dies off a bit as the political focus of many tends to falter following an election… I do want to say that it’s a pleasure discussing and debating things with everyone here and I wish everyone well in the coming years, and look forward to continuing it in the future. :)

    On to my point:

    I think that this election is rather conclusive in proving that the platform of the GOP needs some reevaluation.

    There is little room for debate in that this was definitely one of the most (if not *the* most) defeatable incumbents to ever fail to be unseated in our history. And certainly the most defeatable, period, in the past several decades. This being true for a number of economic, foreign, and domestic circumstances.

    That, combined with the fact that the majority of the voters still reaffirmed on election day that the economy was the most important issue in this election. While at the same time, the majority also saying that they didn’t believe Obama scored well in spurring the economy. Democratic voter enthusiasm was also ranked far below Republican, voter turnout was also expected to be lower for Democrats, and the sudden changes to voter registration/ID laws were also expected to benefit the Republicans.

    All of those in mind, one would think that this would have been a landslide in favor of the Republicans across not just the presidency but even Congress.

    But despite all of the above, we have the results of this election showing that this wasn’t even all that close of a race. The electoral victory is practically a landslide if FL goes to Obama, as it is projected to… And even the popular vote will have a sizeable margin towards Obama, likely settling in at around a 51-48% victory as the final counts are tallied in the larger urban areas and CA. Which while seemingly close, really is rather terrible when that is largely due to low Democrat turnout/enthusiasm in states that were already certain to go red/blue. Not to mention all of the proceeding.

    And again, this applied for Congress as well, against even more unlikely odds. Not only did the Republicans fail to pick up more seats in total, but it seems as though they ultimately will even stand to lose some.

    1. Continued~

      This should all be very clear, that the platform of the party is flawed to this electorate and the current direction of America. I don’t see any realistic way to credibly argue that no single part of it (even if small) should change.

      The absolute worst thing that can come of this election is ignoring that and to instead blame things entirely on the system, or the campaigns, or the money, or the media. There are certainly many credible arguments that can have those as factors that came into play, as they should, but even combined in total they fall short of explaining all the circumstances and results. And ultimately it ends up as little more than a cop-out that ignores the figurative ‘elephant on the room.’

      This also very clearly isn’t simply a matter of an uninformed populace that thought Obama did gravy and somehow didn’t find the economy to be a factor, or was swayed into believing differently by the media; this is an electorate that as a whole acknowledged that the economy was the most important factor, but still willfully voting in the person that they also acknowledged didn’t do well with it.

      But again, of course, the level that those and various other factors come into play is always up for debate.

      But I don’t want that to distract from my ultimate point here: that this election very clearly represents and demonstrates that GOP needs to change its strategy and at least some aspects of the ideologies.

      In 2000 when Al Gore lost to Bush, I was on the side that called for the Democrats to instead respond by evolving their party platform and stop trying to blame it wholly on the system or anything else… and I’m happy that ultimately, they did (believe it or not, the party is far less green energy/global energy centric now than it was in 2000 as a result... which I think was a big part of their loss). I hope the GOP can do the same.

      So the big question would now be: where/what to change and how?

      And I think that is the best debate to be having at this point, and where the energy/efforts of the party should be focused… as opposed to, again, falling back on attempting to blame something else entirely.

    2. Good morning RKen.

      I was asking myself last night as Romney failed to gain any of the swing states if this election was really a rebuke of the GOP. As you've stated, this president was a sitting duck and the GOP failed to even come close to unseating him. I am hopeful that the GOP dials back all of the religious rhetoric and their positions on social issues. That is their weakest point and is the easiest way of alienating large groups of people. The GOP should rely on its fiscal message (which also needs to be re-worked). When you look at some of the ballot initiatives that passed - legalized marijuana (both for recreation (WA, CO) and medicinal (ME); gay marriage (MD) and others, it is clear that this country is moving toward a more liberal social agenda (FINALLY!). I also think that Romney is not a very likable guy and that Sandy did hurt Romney. Those pictures of Obama and Christie (likely the next GOP nominee) glad-handing a week before the election didn't help - it gave the perception that Obama can work across the aisle.

      There were many factors but I agree with your point. The GOP needs to reform its message to be more inclusive socially and to move away from fiscal policy that seems to favor corporations and the wealthy (whether its real or perceived, they need to find a way to lose that label).

    3. Good morning whatsamattausa, I agree with most of your points.

      I think the social issues are probably hurting the GOP the most as well. There simply isn't enough support behind those platforms, and the statistics show that they're dwindling quickly. The election/ballot results last night only prove that further (first openly gay Senator, marriage made legal in a few states). Opposition to these movements simply won't stand the test of time, particularly in the upcoming generations. These issues tend to be non-starters for many as well, where the GOP is losing plenty of valuable votes that they may otherwise get if not for simply having an inflexible platform on these ideas.

      Their fiscal conservative message is the GOP's best bet and strongest alley, but it's not unique enough to the party to be their only message... and I think they can improve on it as well.

      Early in the first term, Obama and democrats were strictly opposed to any cuts whatsoever and didn't take deficit/debt conversations very seriously. And if they kept that up until now, we might even have a different election result. But they've since evolved on the issue and have it as a more integral part of their party platform (how that plays out, time will tell), but the point remains that this takes away some steam from the GOP when the Dems appear to have similar views on the issue. And I think that the hard-line 'no tax increases whatsoever, anywhere, on anyone, ever, in any bill' pledge that much of the GOP seems to follow isn't helping their point either. The majority of Americans and even economists agree that the most reasonable approach to our debt/deficit problems are a balanced approach (revenues AND cuts); not a one-sided one.

      If the party could be more flexible on the social issues, and more focused on a balanced fiscal conservative message… that would be a great start towards winning back some votes in the future.

      *start rant*
      One tidbit you mention that hit a cord I wanted to bring up before, is Hurricane Sandy (or by extension, Chris Christie). Like I mentioned before where some people will attempt to blame this on anything other than the party platform (the campaigns, the media, the money, etc), that’s one in particular that irks me. The polls, which did indeed turn out to be very accurate (most of the aggregators even at 100%), have shown a constant advantage for Obama winning the election (even if narrow at times) throughout this entire election… even at the low-point following the first debate. Even if the statistical odds/polling numbers stayed at the levels before Sandy, or again at the lowest point following the first debate, he still would’ve been more likely to win. Of course, the election would be closer, but once more it would be way past disingenuous to chalk up this loss to nothing other than being ‘lucky’ with Sandy.

      What is most upsetting to me about that though is that people even have the gall to insult/blame/mock Chris Christie for coming together with the other side of the isle in a time of crisis. Our own citizens were struggling/suffering, even dying, and all some people care about is scoring political points? Disgusting to me; no matter who does it. As a nation we unified around Bush for years after 9/11, even to the Democrats downfall in 2004 by failing to capitalize on a chance to label Bush as incompetent, but I’d rather see that than be reduced to a nation of that level of cruelty and disregard for fellow citizens.
      *end rant*

  2. I was quite surprised that Romney couldn't take any of the swing states and even more surprised that the states both Romney and Ryan lay claim to all went to Obama. That doesn't say much for their ticket. This election was ripe for the GOP to take and it really wasn't close.

    I was interested to see that both Washington and Colorado both legalized marijuana for recreational use. I'm interested to see how the federal government responds to this. I'm also interested in what you conservatives think. I, of course, think it should legal on the federal level but now the states are taking it into their own hands. Do you think the states should be free to do so or should the feds crack down on them?

    Another initiative I felt strongly about was CA's Prop 37 which was an initiative to require the labeling of genetically modified foods (GMO's). Right now, I could almost guarantee that each of you reading this is eating GMO's and feeding them to your families. Right now, there is no requirement to label GMO's. I, personally, prefer my food as god intended it without the need for putting salmon genes in my tomatoes or making it so my vegetables won't die when they're sprayed with Round-Up (Yummy!). Now there are a whole host of other issues beyond that but I'll leave it there as I think you get the point. Anyway, we talk alot about free market here so I wanted to get your opinions in that regard. Can there be a free market without free information. How can one make a choice to not eat scientifically created food if we don't know where it is? It seems to me to be plain common sense but it failed because of the millions of dollars paid by the corporations like Monsanto who don't want their foods labeled for fear that people will not want them (duh!). I'm incredibly disappointed this failed and I hope it finds a successful avenue through the courts as I find it abhorrent that the FDA allows this to continue.

    1. @Whatsamatta

      Ca and Co legalized 'medical' marijuana for sale in the last cycle. Vendors spent tons of money, on state licensing and various fees. Enter the Federal Gov.(not state!) who shut them down and burned the fields. (And, the vendors were not refunded their hard earned cash) This is the same government who allows tons of the stuff to cross our southern border - daily... so I don't get it.

      Marijuana has been studied for decades - it's no more or less detrimental to users or standers-by than alcohol. Tax and regulate (shudder) it in the same manner - problem solved.

      As far as GMO's - personally, I do my OWN research (because, as you know, I have very little trust in the government to do anything properly or efficiently...).

      I also 'grow my own' which is pretty simple to do - even in a small space - like on an apartment porch; even indoors : )

      All that said, you might want to be careful what you wish for in regard to the FDA or ANY government agency 'regulating' even more stuff than they do now... our FOOD sources in particular.

      A very large portion of the Agenda 21 plan involves the taking over of ALL farms and fields - by government... kind of like the old U.S.S.R. (and we saw how that worked out)

    2. edit: 'grow my own' - veggies... : )

    3. Dara -

      I agree regarding marijuana. Especially in our economic situation. Legalization would create countless jobs and provide a new revenue source while relieving the taxpayers of that portion of the war on drugs. You raise a good point that growing it here would stop the flow coming from across the border and may have a positive impact on immigration.

      So, are you for labeling? I too do a lot of research on this but I think common sense is the best kind of research in this regard. Round-Up is meant to kill plants. Making food that can withstand Round-Up is unnatural and nature is a delicate balance. Those foods give us what we need. Messing with them can open many problems. I just can't understand why the measure failed and, more importantly, why the FDA doesn't require labeling (as it requires tuna to have a dolphin safe emblem on it if it is caught in a sustainable way. There is no free market with proper information. We also have our garden which we grow organically. This year we are, for the first time, trying a winter garden... We'll see how that goes (at least no weeds!).

    4. I'm not for labeling for a couple of reasons. I don't really trust the government to do a good job; and I feel it lulls people into a false sense of security. They see the label and eat the food, thinking it's okay, even though it might look/smell/taste weird... I do my own homework.

      I'm also not crazy for 'genetically modifying' anything that we eat. Monsanto initially started doing it to get more crops, better yield, bigger veggies,etc. and later so we (the consumer) couldn't use the seeds to grow our own tomatoes/cukes, etc. as most hybrids are sterile. Win/win for them, as those of us who skip the produce aisle and garden would need to purchase seeds each year.

      My take on messing around with food: Just because our 'modern' technology makes something possible - that doesn't necessarily make it the right, proper, or wise thing to do ~ or maybe ~ I read way to much Sci-Fi stuff... lol.

    5. Dara -

      The label would simply state that it is genetically modified. Have you done enough memorization through your research to know what is and is not GMO? Like you, I don't trust the gov't (especially the FDA) but a label to inform the public is something I can't fathom being against as it informs those unlike you who don't do their homework.

      I agree with you 100%. It doesn't make it right and it likely doesn't make it better. Which is why I'd like to see labels.

      btw - If it came through NV as a ballot initiative, would you vote for it or against it?

  3. Lady Liberty weeps today... the ignorant, ill-informed robots of the Liberal Left - the takers, the infantile crybabies, those who feel 'entitled' to the fruit of another mans labors - sealed our fate - for the next four years.

    These are the same individuals whose priorities were passing gay 'marriage' and legalizing marijuana - as opposed to j.o.b.s - go figure.

    But... those WERE decided at the STATE level, which is where they belong.

    Social issues: I agree, they belong at the STATE level... however, Medicare and Social Security were/are pyramid 'schemes' whereby those who are retired are supported by the working...Whether you like it or not, unfettered abortion has had a devastating effect on those programs by virtue of deleting millions of potential taxpayers from the scenario.

    Along with their other Socialist program inflicted, economic woes, Greece is deeply in the throes of a similar problem - not enough young workers to support the retired, due to a vastly reduced birthrate.

    This is the unintended consequence of a 'social issue' pushed and supported by the left - at the NATIONAL LEVEL.

    Conservatives are forced into an issue, such as gay/women's 'rights' or abortion, by the LEFT who then take their response - for or against - and propped up by the Lame Stream Media, run with it, blowing it all out of proportion (See: War on Women)

    It's an ugly tactic that they've used for decades - and I don't see any way around it in this 'progressive' and increasingly secular America.

    "If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under." - Ronald Reagan

    Our Founders warned us:

    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." President James Madison (1751-1836)

    "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world." - Daniel Webster

    So today... I'll moan, pout and cry in my milk... tomorrow I begin anew to take BACK our great nation! : )

    1. Dara - Considering the passing of recreational marijuana and gay marriage are issues of freedom and equality, respectively, then I gladly stand with those who voted for Obama as I too stand for freedom and equality. But really, you are talking about 4 states with a combined 35 electoral votes so I don't think it's fair to say that those who legalized recreational marijuana and gay marriage are the same people (there is likely significant overlap). As RKen and I were discussing above, to rail against such things that the country, as a whole, is moving toward is to diminish any chance of future victories for the GOP.

      Your connection between abortion and the ability of the working to fund the retired is quite a stretch. We have many without jobs now, a bunch of unwanted children would likely add to that mess and not make it better.

      How does the left force conservatives into an issue? Isn't an issue and issue and a position a position? It's like saying the Dems were forced into the Patriot Act.

      As for your Reagan quote, let's not forget that we once were just 'one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'. I think we'd be better off getting rid of the 'under god' part. Perhaps people would stop caring so much what religion, if any, there leaders or prospective leaders are.

    2. Hey there Dara,

      I just have some comments on the birth-rate topic. :)

      Ironically enough to your point, if we were to adapt the conservative plans for contraception and abortion we would be more likely to increase our debt than decrease it. The statistics rather clearly show that those most likely to not be able to afford contraception, and those that pop out the most kids, are also most likely to be poor/middle class.

      This doesn’t just apply on a statewide level, but on a national level as well:

      You would have a point if the opposite was true, but it isn't.

      Greece is a fair comparison either, as they're in a drastically different situation than we are. Their system relies on much higher benefits (iirc, almost twice the average SS payment), with much lower taxes and enforcement of them (very corrupt), and a much earlier retirement rate (age 50?). All of which, no doubt, are a recipe for a failed system.

      I agree that our system needs some serious revamping, but I don't agree with it being equivalent to Greece.

    3. I never 'railed against' anything - I simply said that social issues, including marriage (gay OR straight) and legal marijuana belong in the STATE arena - just like anything that is NOT set forth in the Constitution.

      As for the economic impact of Rowe v. Wade, the numbers don't lie:

      What you quote is the Pledge of Allegiance. And if the words 'under God' bother you - please, do those of us who respect our country and her customs a favor -- DO NOT recite the Pledge.

      This came FIRST:

      The Declaration of Independence
      The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

      When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....

      Nowhere does our Declaration of Independence (from a tyrannical, tax-everything King) mention 'religion'... only God and our Creator...(yes, Mr. Obama - those words ARE in there - deal with it properly - or STOP quoting our Founders.)

      btw - I believe the Dems already tried to delete God from their platform, 'unsuccessfully', unless you actually HEARD the voice vote... strange (and sad) that they seem to be sooo touchy about Someone they claim to NOT believe in.

    4. Dara -

      I didn't mean to insinuate that you 'railed against' anything. I was using it as a general term.

      I quoted the Pledge because that was what your Reagan quote referenced (unless there is another one nation under god quote I'm missing)... So, I don't respect our country because I don't believe in god? WOW, that's a hell of a stretch! Sounds like something I'd expect to hear in Iran or some other middle eastern theocracy. And, perhaps to your disappointment, I do recite the pledge but I omit the 'under god' part since we are NOT one nation under god... we are simply one nation (or at least we're supposed to be).

      It is unfortunate the Dems couldn't remove god from their platform... all parties should remove it and the people should stop considering it. It is 100% irrelevant and has no bearing on a persons ability to govern. So, the Dems claim not to believe in god? This is news to me, can you provide a link or some support for that statement?

    5. From: The Declaration of Independence

      'And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.'

      Our history and documents tell us that our forefathers BELIEVED in the protection of Divine Providence (God). No way, should that tiny, unprepared little gaggle of men been able to fight off a standing Army... but they did. No way, should they have been able to design a concept so foreign and diverse as our American Constitution... but they did.

      They weren't perfect, but any way you slice it, America was then, and even though We The People have screwed up miserably of late, she continues to be - a miracle.

      She IS One Nation, Under God and you'll never convince me otherwise. I'm sorry you feel the need to remove Him from the pledge to the flag of the Greatest Nation He's ever created. Our forefathers guaranteed that right as well.

      The 2012 DNC Convention voice vote re: the platform amendment to reinsert 'God' and 'Israel' was undeniably 'nay' - all three times. I don't have the link, but I think it's still on YouTube.

  4. Good morning RKen and whatsamattausa, Dara and everyone – Happy Wednesday and Happy post-election day to you both.

    First, let me say that while it has been an absolute pleasure, I certainly hope that the dialogue on this blog doesn’t decrease because the election is over. I actually think it will expand because there is now sooooo much more to talk about with respect to working together going forward. Communication is key. To me, this blog will always be a place to express views and learn from each other. We will always be a country of differences, and I hope this blog is truly a people’s blog that allows everyone and anyone to come together to share ideas, learn, compromise, and go forward united, even if we fundamentally disagree. I will continue to blog, my input won’t change, and I hope that people maintain interest and learn from each other as much as I have.

    Now that the warm stuff is out of the way :)

    RKen – I can certainly see your point to an extent, but I have to admit, I respectfully disagree with most of it… but not all. First, let me get this out there: Monday night, I broke my left index finger in two places, and typing is a bear. I’m not making excuses (it’s my 6th break so I don’t want sympathy lol), but I don’t want you or anyone to feel slighted by a short reply. Your comments on this issue are proof that you care and you put time into this, and you deserve a respectful, well-thought response. Alas, however, I have to keep this short because man… it sucks trying to type with a massive splint.

    The parts that I do agree with, I will say, do go along with something I believe in: federalism. I know I can’t explain it here, but I promise… in the wake of this election, which I don’t think is terribly disastrous, I will be writing out my views on this issue and the GOP in general. It encompasses everything from religion to abortion to you name it. Please don’t think I’m brushing you off… I intend to write about it (though these are my ideological views, they will, coincidentally, pretty much reply to your comment here) and 1… it’s going to be long (I think… and I can’t do that much right now), and 2… they will be my major pieces going forth to help shed some light on what I think the GOP should do to make this a better country. I just don’t want to type it out twice (it has taken me about 17 minutes to get this out lol).

    I do disagree with most of your sentiment. To keep it brief:

    - I think it’s not really accurate to claim the GOP needs some major reevaluation. Maybe some small ones here and there, but not many. Case in point: we succeeded in not reducing our vote total from 2008 by much. Barack Obama, on the other hand, lost 10 million votes. Couple this flatline, non-negative showing with 2010, and I don’t think we have that much to change. Only 3% of voters cast a different vote from the conservative movement; I don’t think that is indicative of a platform that is flawed. As far as the bad parts… there are some, but I don’t see this as a different portion than what exists on the left (damage done by OWS vs The Tea Party… threatening to riot if Romney wins, Stacey Dash attacks, et al… it’s easy to point to loons on the fringe of both sides).

    - To say the media isn’t bias is completely disingenuous. Even the left admits it is. Look at this great write-up here, and just read through some of the Newsbusters articles.
    The fact that the media has created this notion that to be republican is to be inflicted as if it was a disease is disgusting. The slanted media is more powerful and more apparent now, and I don’t know how that could logically be disputed. Newsbusters points out numerous examples of this to which little counter examples on the right exist.


    1. - This election was won by pandering. When GWB won in 2000 and 2004, he carried 44% of the Hispanic vote. When Mitt Romney ran against Obama, he lost this bloc by 44 points! He ran on nearly the same platform GWB did. The difference? Obama pandered to Hispanics by granting a form of “pseudo-amnesty” to illegal immigrants in the early stages of the election. This is just one of many, many examples.

      To say that the GOP needs to tweak its message and its sales pitch is accurate. To say that it needs to change some of its positions, in my opinion, is not. Yes, some positions need to change on both sides, and yes, they are very small. Most importantly, the media absolutely needs to be more objective and less subjective, and though we lost the election, the party that lost 14.5% of its votes might be in need of a little change too when its opponent didn’t lose much at all. I’m not saying the democrats are in trouble; clearly they are not. I’m just saying that I don’t believe this election says much against the GOP since it really wasn’t a mandate for Obama… as many liberal pundits are admitting. In spite of the spin, it was still relatively close, and independents swung heavily for the right this time.

      I look forward to sharing more of my philosophical beliefs now that the election is done and hopefully you and many others will, too. This blog is for you, me, and anyone that wants to express themselves.

    2. All of that said I of course hold the Democrats to the same standard of adapting their platform, but well… being the progressive party, their platform rather consistently changes and evolves. In some parts it does, in some it doesn’t, but in any case I think that it’s pretty clear that the GOP is more likely to resist change. I mean, that’s essentially the difference between progressives and conservatives.

    3. Oops, posted these in the wrong order, but this is the first part:
      Good morning LME!

      I’ll surely still continue to be around. :)

      Sorry to hear about the finger! That’s tough; hope it heals quickly. I don’t even want to imagine how frustrating that would be for typing.

      No worries about saving a full reply for later. Look forward to your write-up on federalism! Thanks for the well-written response in any case.

      I should probably clarify a couple of points.

      First, I don’t think that the GOP platform needs to be completely overhauled or brought back to square one or anything that extreme. But I do think it needs to be re-examined.

      Even if just on a few small issues; the point is more just that I don’t think that running a campaign in 2016 with the focus on exact same platform, with the exact same stances, on the exact same issues, and the exact same strategies… will do anything other than give another victory to the Democrats; even if the economy is still struggling. Social issues in particular are an area that the GOP is falling behind on, and the more time goes by the more that becomes apparent.

      And while trailing by 3% in the popular vote may seem small, that difference is enough to potentially sway an election victory to the other party in 6 presidential elections in the past 50 years. It’s still something to take seriously. Particularly when that 3% loss was against again, one of the most defeatable incumbents in the history of the United States. This wasn’t an election that should’ve been close, much less even lost.

      Once more, that loss also wasn’t just reflected in the presidential election but in Congress as well. History would say that the GOP had a great opportunity to easily sweep control of Congress, but even that in large part backfired.

      I just don’t want to see the gravity of this downplayed or put off on excuses. It doesn’t benefit any of us if a party just buries their heads in the sand and refuses to believe the anything bad is always due to factors out of their control.

      I know that I, personally, would likely be enticed into voting Republican in 2016 with just the 2-3 minor changes I mentioned in my previous post.

      Second, I’m a bit confused as I never made arguments about or said that the media doesn’t have bias?

      I didn’t even discuss that subject; I just simply pointed out that blaming the entire election on the media (or the other examples I mentioned) and nothing else is, to me, a blatant disservice to the reality of this situation. I can never support the idea of ‘we can do no wrong, we’re perfect, it was simply out of our control…’ Which while you of course didn’t say or imply that, it seems to be the line of thinking for others I’ve seen thus far.

      As far as the media subject though, this would spark a much longer conversation but I’ll try to summarize. I’m starting to believe that the media bias and its influence on the voting electorate is getting to the point where its way overplayed/overstated.

      I’ll have to do some searching for the sources, but a slew studies on media viewership and trends between the major outlets concluded that most people do not look to the media to develop, evolve or even ‘obtain’ their opinions on subjects. Most people simply pay attention to what they want to hear and see, and that’s it. It’s not about having their opinions enhanced; it’s about having their own pre-established opinions confirmed to them.

      I know from a psychological standpoint that this is certainly true, in that people in generally focus on and are more accepting to information that tells them what they want to hear, as opposed to anything else (study of confirmation bias). And well, needless to say, viewership trends of course support this.

      It further concluded that the people who tend to keep an open-mind with the media and actually let it help shape their opinions, are the same people more likely to listen to multiple viewpoints and/or do their own research.