One always hears about how journalists should be unbiased in their reporting, and how news ought to be balanced, not favoring one alleged side of an issue or the other. This philosophical bias toward fairness causes a lot of angst against print media, such as ourselves, when it comes to politics. One such example is the indignance aimed at newspapers when they endorse political candidates.

Four years ago, for example, the Daily endorsed Barack Obama. Many other newspapers did as well, such as The Des Moines Register. Conservatives in turn replied with the typical “liberal media bias” stuff so often heard these days when their side doesn’t like something the media says, never mind that Republican presidential candidates the last few elections have been substandard.

Of course, to be fair and balanced here, Democrats would and do make the same bias accusations when the media speaks out against their people, too. It is this back-and-forth misunderstanding of what the media should and shouldn’t do that needs to be addressed: Despite popular belief, newspapers are under no obligation to present political matters fairly.

Newspapers have always been private ventures, owned by individuals. The earliest newspapers in America were exceptionally partisan, and a great many of our Founding Fathers — from Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Jefferson — owned their own newspapers or were good friends with someone who owned one. These papers were used as tools for campaigning, promoting one’s positions and actions, and, of course, insulting one’s opponents in government.

With the invention of radio and the advent of broadcast media (which would eventually include television), the question became whether or not radio stations could broadcast anything they wanted to, politically speaking, just as newspapers could print anything they pleased. It was eventually decided the airwaves were public property, not private property as a newspaper, and therefore stations had to give airtime to various political positions and persons.

Over time, the broadcast journalism ethic of “fair and balanced” reporting spread to newspapers, where today we find Americans constantly griping about how liberal or conservative this or that paper is. While the greatest public duty for a newspaper may often include the inclusion of multiple political sides, newspapers still have no obligation to do so. Newspapers can take sides, and sometimes they should.

So once again the Daily is faced with endorsing a presidential candidate: This year, we endorse no one.

Barack Obama’s inexperience and naivete has led to an ineffective presidency, and the Republican Party has failed to produce a qualified and competent alternative, choosing instead to select a nonpolitical, flip-flopping, quasi-liberal corporatist as their candidate. We cannot in good conscience ascribe to the modern philosophy of selecting the lesser of two evils, as this still constitutes to choosing evil. A better candidate is insufficient. We want a good one.

Our parties are becoming more partisan, our media fails to report facts and instead chooses to entertain, and Americans are increasingly clueless about political issues, themselves choosing to follow propaganda despite knowing how rotten the system is becoming. Until this changes, the Daily refuses to choose an evil.

Our pages are open to you however, and will be through this Friday. At that point, in the interests of printing all the election-related letters Monday and Tuesday, Election Day, we will no longer accept letters related to the candidates and their campaigns. We now leave the debate to you, Iowa State.

(21) comments

Divine
Jon Divine

Run scared of Romney. If he became president he will help only himself and his billionaire friends like Trump and Casino moguls in Las Vegas at your expense.'

Vote Obama, endorse Obama. He care for America and Americans. He plans to spend the savings from the stupid wars on you and me and rebuilding America. Romney plans another war. Romney is a liar.

If you are a woman with any self respect and dignity, send a message that you will not be treated like a cattle who can be "legitimately raped" and you will be required to enjoy the resulting pregnancy as a holy experience by the republicans.
Romney backs those candidates who firmly believe you women are inferior to men. VOTE FOR OBAMA.

Bush took eight years to mess up economy, Obama has taken four years to fix it. Look at this graph. It tell the whole story. We have the best growth in GDP of all the industrialized countries.

Romney thinks the third Quarter GDP growth of 2% up from 1.3% in 2nd Quarter is bad. I have got news for you. GDP growth in 2007 under President Bush:
1Q2008: -2.5% (ECONOMIC BLEEDING BEGAN IN EARNEST)
2Q2008: +1%
3Q2008: -4% (BLEEDING INCREASED)
4Q2008 -9.2% (PROFUSE BLEEDING)
1Q2009: -7% (BUSH'S QE1 SLOWED BLEEDING)
2Q2009: -1% (BLEEDING SLOWED AFTER OBAMA BECAME PRESIDENT AND TOOK SOME DRASTIC MEASURES)
3Q2009: +1% (THANKS TO SOME GOOD CALLS MADE BY OBAMA THAT STOPPED BLEEDING)

For the rest of the data, please go to this link:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/Documents/20120502_EconomicGrowth.pdf

Romney is a liar. Watch these.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByzxFQSlyDA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB7vuo2piak

CycloneSteve
Steve Chapman

Jon,

You see what you want to see & believe what you want to believe. I think most of the modern Presidents have done a poor to terrible job of preparing America for the long term challanges we face. But go ahead and worship BO if it makes you feel better. I don't want you to do anything that makes you sad.

As to the Daily, it sounds like their policy is to only endorse someone if they are a Democrat who they think won't embarase them by being TOO incompetent. (Like Carter for example)

Divine
Jon Divine

Here are Obama's Foreign Policy Accomplishments which never much publicized:
Myanmar Democracy: Obama victory.
Base in Australia to counter China: Obama Victory
Staring down to China for our ally the Philippines: Obama victory
Staring down to Iran and economic sanctions: Obama victory
Free elections in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya: Obama victory
Pakistan Military snubbed and no coup: Obama victory
Joint Military exercise with India and Israel: Obama victory
African countries trust USA again: Obama victory
Peace in Angola after years of turmoil: Obama victory
RENEWED RESPECT AND FAITH IN USA AROUND THE WORLD: Obama victory
Strategic Placement of Quick Response for Guarding American Interest: Obama victory
Strong Defense: Obama victory
Iraq still a democracy: Obama victorious because he knew the truth (republicans don't)
Pakistan military aid cut: Obama victory
The supply route to Afghanistan reopened: Obama victory (I wonder if republicans are trying to work with Pakis to stop it again to make Obama look bad)
Osama dead: Obama victory
Benghazi debacle: Looks like Obama defeat, but time will tell if Obama victorious
Freedom for Women being granted in Saudi: Obama victory
Somalia militia on run: Obama victory
Somali piracy down: Obama victory

One tragedy that resulted in Benghazi due to the politics in the Congress that curtailed the security funds will overshadow all of it due to politics.

Divine
Jon Divine

Why we must pay attention and vote? Romney has plan for further tax cuts for rich people at the expense of the middle class. Romney and the Republicans thrive on the ignorance of the people. Therefore any means of acquiring knowledge will be taxed heavily if the republicans gained power. You can expect the following:

1. Fees for every email
2. Fees for access to the information highway.
3. Fees for he tweet.
4. Fees for any online services.
5. Fees for posting your opinion online.
6. Fees for new avatar.
7. Fees for blogs
8. Fees for phone calls and messages.

Yes, the purpose is to restrict any free exchange of information among people. All those fees will go towards the tax cut for rich. How else can Romney promise it? How else would he pay another 2trillion$ for his Defense budget?

VOTE OBAMA. We are on the right track with employment going up.

CycloneSteve
Steve Chapman

Do you really believe everything you post or are you really a paid republican operative?

I know liberals and I sometimes agree with them, sometimes dissagree with them but rarely do I think they need to up their medication. Are you being paid to make liberals look paranoid, irrational & crazy?

Steve Gregg

So the lefty editors of the Daily are so embarassed by Obama that they can't bear to endorse him again, while at the same time they can't bear to endorse a Republican. It must particularly galling for lefty editors of student papers to realize they endorsed Obama when he has thoroughly screwed up their future, making jobs as scarce as buffalo.

If you want a decent future, you should be voting Romney. Of course, even Romney can't help the juniors and seniors. You're hosed, seriously hosed. However, the underclassmen may well enter an entirely different and robust economy firing on all cylinders. Maybe the freshmen can hire the seniors. Maybe.

By the way, newspapers never adopted a pose of nonpartisanship because of some noble desire to seek truth, but rather because they realized that being partisan hurt sales, driving away half the market of readers. They posed as nonpartisan to make more money, which shows how free markets can fix broken institutions and align them with the public good. Of course, the media never actually became nonpartisan, but became better at hiding their slant.

Rob Stone
Rob Stone

"Over time, the broadcast journalism ethic of “fair and balanced” reporting spread to newspapers"

"Fair and balanced" is NOT an ethic; it is a misleading slogan used by a Rebublican-run cable news network. If the Daily is getting its ethics from FOX then it needs some serious rehauling.

"Barack Obama’s inexperience and naivete has led to an ineffective presidency"

Do ineffective presidents pass sweeping health care reform? Pass $787B stimuli? Pass Wall Street reform? End wars? Eliminate terrorists and the leader of the most dangerous terrorist group in the world? Save the American auto industry? Eliminate the ban on gays serving openly in the military? Help rid the world of dictators? Boost the support for veterans? Credit card reform? Negotiate a new START treaty? Make it possible for victims of the oil spill and Sandy to get speedy compensation and assistance?

You don't have to like what he's done, but to describe Obama as ineffective is even more naive than you accuse him of being.

David Jackson
David Jackson

"Fair and balanced" is NOT an ethic; it is a misleading slogan used by a Rebublican-run cable news network. If the Daily is getting its ethics from FOX then it needs some serious rehauling.”
-Rob Stone

They used the term for what it means, regardless of who else uses it as a slogan. While you’re demonizing Fox for being “Republican-run” don’t forget MSNBC, ABC, the NYT, and others for being Democrat-run.

And now for the reality check of disingenuous claims from the Obama Nation. WARNING! Some of these questions are in fact rhetorical...

“Do ineffective presidents pass sweeping health care reform?”
-Rob Stone

First, he didn’t pass anything, Congress did after he pushed his party to do so, and they did it without bothering to read it first mind you. "Sweeping" reform huh? That’s what you want to call legislation that still allows the same insurance and drug companies making a killing off of price gouging the American People to continue business as usual and gave more power to the politicians who protect those greedy corporations to tax Americans? Nothing was reformed Rob! The same a$$holes who weren’t competing for The People’s money and offering competitive prices for health care, drugs, and health insurance are still getting rich off of inflated prices, and are still legislatively shielded from competing for the common citizen’s money.

“Pass $787B stimuli?”
-Rob Stone

Oh you mean artificially propping up our fledgling economy by printing more money we really don’t actualy have and devaluing the dollar even further.

“Pass Wall Street reform?”
-Rob Stone

Ha! The Dodd-Frank Bill? “..the toughest Wall Street reforms since the 1930s" As Obama proclaims? It’s nothing more than legislation to maintain the status quo of the too-big-to-fail banks and fighting against the bipartisan effort to break them up. A pay off to the financial goons that screw over hard working Americans on the regular.

“End wars?”
-Rob Stone

Which war did he end? I hope you’re not referring to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The campaign that was closed out by following the Bush exist strategy nearly to the letter. President Obama ended nothing.

“Eliminate terrorists and the leader of the most dangerous terrorist group in the world?”
-Rob Stone

So the Central Intelligence Agency tracks Osama Bin Laden for over 5 years, Joint Special Operations Command plans an operation to clandestinely fly into Pakistan to capture or kill him, Naval Special Warfare Development Group executes the raid and brings back his body, but the President is the one who gets the credit because his national security council convinced him to give the word go? Nice.

A leader is responsible for everything those under him do or fail to do. That doesn’t mean he gets credit for everything they do or fail to do. Freaking Big Bird could have been the Commander in Chief and uttered the word “go” over the phone and Operation Neptune Spear still would have gone down. Give credit where it’s due.

“Save the American auto industry?”
-Rob Stone

Negative. You mean the bail out of auto manufacturers whose CEOs give themselves massive raises as a reward for failing to properly manage their business and are now moving some of the jobs you want to claim were “saved” overseas. He rewarded bad business leadership by keeping companies with $hitbag managers afloat when the skilled work force they were in charge of should have gotten better jobs at Ford or even the US Toyota plants when GM failed.

“Eliminate the ban on gays serving openly in the military?”
-Rob Stone

This serves as an accomplishment to judge his effectiveness? Outside of the special interests who love to talk about social justice on the news, this did not drastically change or effect military operations or effectiveness, and there are plenty of service members who can’t openly marry who they want do to existing DoD policy.

“Help rid the world of dictators?”
-Rob Stone

WHO? What dictator did he rid from the world? Funny, I thought he was too busy being endorsed by them: Chavez, Putin, Castro’s family…

“Boost the support for veterans?”
-Rob Stone

What support? After getting out of the military and they sign up for jobs as security team members for the CIA and State Department they don’t seem to get much support. In fact if they are guarding embassies that are being overrun by extremist hoards they will probably be left to die so he can blame it all on an anti-Islamic filmmaker.

“Credit card reform?”
-Rob Stone

Not all bad but not exactly a stellar achievement either. It also continues the trend of breeding irresponsibility in young Americans by telling legal adults they cannot do legal activity without a cosigner because we want to protect the dumb kids.


“Negotiate a new START treaty?”
-Rob Stone

Lol, yeah, that gem of a treaty stops looking so good once you get past the initial headline. Verification measures in the treaty are far weaker than previous arms reduction deals, and considering that Putin is now back in charge that will only hurt us. What this treaty also does to our missile defense is also less than optimal to say the least.

“Make it possible for victims of the oil spill and Sandy to get speedy compensation and assistance?”
-Rob Stone

Not really. He has just continued the inflation FEMA and DHS bureaucracies to make the headlines on the news look better.

“You don't have to like what he's done, but to describe Obama as ineffective is even more naive than you accuse him of being.”
-Rob Stone

Rob, I know your demagogue looks good through your hopelessly partisan coated lenses, but to the rest of America, not so much. As pointed out above your outline of his effectiveness was nothing more than the regurgitated shameless rhetoric and propaganda you find on pro-Obama websites with absolutely no independent analysis present. To the logical independent thinking Americans, his record isn’t so hot. Most Democratic voters aren’t even voting for him because they think he is the best man for the job, they are just voting for him because as Democrats they believe he’s not quite as bad as Romney. The lesser of two evils, which is what this editorial was about.

Rob Stone
Rob Stone

David,

I didn't demonize FOX for being Republican-run, I merely pointed it out. The president of Fox News is Roger Ailes, a Republican who worked for Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush, and Giuliani.

MSNBC certainly caters to the left of the spectrum and appeals more to Democrats but its president, Phil Griffin, has a career in journalism, not partisan politics.

I notice no bias at ABC and apart from the opinion page of the NYT (which includes some conservative voices), its news reporting is not biased.

With regard to Obama, my point was that he has been effective. I'm not interested in arguing over your distortions and disagreements with his policies and actions, none of which comes as any surprise. The fact is that he's been very effective.

"Most Democratic voters aren’t even voting for him because they think he is the best man for the job, they are just voting for him because as Democrats they believe he’s not quite as bad as Romney."--David Jackson

Evidence?

David Jackson
David Jackson

“I didn't demonize FOX for being Republican-run, I merely pointed it out. The president of Fox News is Roger Ailes, a Republican who worked for Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush, and Giuliani.”
-Rob Stone

I’ll give you that you didn’t “demonize” Fox but you did paint them in a negative light as a news source given their bias without acknowledging the at least equal and opposite bias of other “news” sources.

“MSNBC certainly caters to the left of the spectrum and appeals more to Democrats but its president, Phil Griffin, has a career in journalism, not partisan politics.”
-Rob Stone

He does now. He’s the president of MSNBC, a politically and partisanly biased news source

“I notice no bias at ABC…”
-Rob Stone

You must have missed when Brian Ross attempted to erroneously connect the “Joker” theater shooter to the Tea Party with absolutely NO evidence because he thought it could be “significant”. Apparently a guy with the same name living in a city of over 300,000 people that’s also a suburb of Denver was enough to go on. ABC News hired Bill Clinton’s White House spokesman and counselor George Stephanopoulos as a journalist. Obama White House Spokesman Jay Carney is married to ABC News reporter Claire Shipman. Shipman regularly reports for ABC World News Tonight and Good Morning America on political issues with no mention to the viewers that she is married to the Obama White House spokesman. Rob, Rush Limbaugh doesn’t notice any bias on Fox either, like you the fish doesn’t know it’s wet.

“…and apart from the opinion page of the NYT (which includes some conservative voices), its news reporting is not biased.”
-Rob Stone

Not according to Arthur Brisbane, the paper’s former public editor. He was quoted as saying: “Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and under managed, more like causes than news subjects,"

“With regard to Obama, my point was that he has been effective. I'm not interested in arguing over your distortions and disagreements with his policies and actions, none of which comes as any surprise. The fact is that he's been very effective.”
-Rob Stone

That’s hardly a fact but an opinion. Distortions? Yet they were uncontested…

“Evidence?”
-Rob Stone

There hasn’t been a majority vote for president in quite some time, and the party primary picks who represent the entire party in our current system. When is the last time a clear majority of registered democrats voted for the nominee in the party primary? I haven’t found one in the last several election records. In an incumbent election year, who else are registered democratic party voters going to vote for the republican?

Rob Stone
Rob Stone

"You must have missed when Brian Ross attempted to erroneously connect the “Joker” theater shooter to the Tea Party with absolutely NO evidence because he thought it could be “significant”."--David Jackson

How is this (and I've never heard of it before) an example of being "Democrat-run"?

"ABC News hired Bill Clinton’s White House spokesman and counselor George Stephanopoulos as a journalist."--David Jackson

Along with Republicans Matthew Dowd and George Will. For the record, MSNBC hired Republican Joe Scarborough as a "journalist."

"Obama White House Spokesman Jay Carney is married to ABC News reporter Claire Shipman."--David Jackson

Proof that ABC is "Democrat-run"!

Since Mary Matalin is married to James Carville, does that mean she agrees with his politics and has a "Democrat-run" agenda?

"Shipman regularly reports for ABC World News Tonight and Good Morning America on political issues with no mention to the viewers that she is married to the Obama White House spokesman."--David Jackson

It's on her official ABC News bio: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/good-morning-america-contributor-claire-shipman/story?id=4171398

Also: "ABC Declares: Claire Shipman, Wife of New Obama Press Secretary, Will No Longer Cover the White House"
http://www.mrc.org/node/37278

The president of ABC News is Ben Sherwood, a career journalist.

While there are biased people on ABC News, ABC News is not a "Democrat-run" organization.

"Not according to Arthur Brisbane, the paper’s former public editor."--David Jackson

Arthur Brisbane died in 1936. Oh, Arthur S. Brisbane . . . the fourth public editor of the TIMES. In any case, your quote mentions nothing about the TIMES being "Democrat-run."

And you left out the sentence preceeding your quote: "When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so."

In the words of Rick Perry, "oops."

"That’s hardly a fact but an opinion."--David Jackson

It's an opinion based on a large number of huge accomplishments. George W. Bush was also effective in starting wars and effective in cutting taxes mostly for higher income earners.

"When is the last time a clear majority of registered democrats voted for the nominee in the party primary?"--David Jackson

2012.
Before that, 2000.

However, your comment was about the general election, not primaries. You wrote: "Most Democratic voters aren’t even voting for [President Obama] because they think he is the best man for the job, they are just voting for him because as Democrats they believe he’s not quite as bad as Romney."

Where is your evidence that most Democrats are voting for President Obama because he's not quite as bad as Romney?

According to Gallup, Dems are pretty enthusiastic about President Obama: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157547/democratic-enthusiasm-swells-swing-states-nationally.aspx

David Jackson
David Jackson

There is no “oops” Rob. The examples I gave are no more true or false of being “party run” than the one you gave of Fox. If you want to play semantics games play them with someone who cares. There are clear evidence of bias and motivation for bias in all the networks mentioned by both of us.

“It's an opinion based on a large number of huge accomplishments. George W. Bush was also effective in starting wars and effective in cutting taxes mostly for higher income earners.”
-Rob Stone

“Huge” accomplishments! Another opinion, this time about a previous opinion. Opinions about opinions do not add up to facts Rob.

“2012.
Before that, 2000.
However, your comment was about the general election, not primaries. You wrote: "Most Democratic voters aren’t even voting for [President Obama] because they think he is the best man for the job, they are just voting for him because as Democrats they believe he’s not quite as bad as Romney."
Where is your evidence that most Democrats are voting for President Obama because he's not quite as bad as Romney?”
-Rob Stone

Your 2012 comment is void, I already addressed that. My proof? It’s is that more Democrats voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary than Obama, and he has less support now than he did then. Who are hard line democrats going to vote for in this election, Romney?
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=2008&elect=1
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155156/obama-white-base-shows-cracks-compared-2008.aspx

“According to Gallup, Dems are pretty enthusiastic about President Obama: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157547/democratic-enthusiasm-swells-swing-states-nationally.aspx”
-Rob Stone

That poll is irrelevant as it addresses democratic enthusiasm for voting for the President in this election vs. Romney. Not if there were Democratic alternatives to the President.

Rob Stone
Rob Stone

"The examples I gave are no more true or false of being “party run” than the one you gave of Fox."

David, Fox is run by a Republican. Roger Ailes runs Fox. Roger Ailes is a Republican. Therefore, Fox is run by a Republican.

"“Huge” accomplishments! Another opinion"

Yes. And by any objective perspective, successfully bailing out the auto industry, sweeping healthcare reform, killing Osama bin Laden, ending the war in Iraq EARLY, a new START treaty, an almost $800b stimulus package, two Supreme Court nominees, repealing "don't ask, don't tell," Wall Street reform, etc. in only four years adds up to huge.

Again, you don't have to like it all or agree with any of it to admit his accomplishments equate to being effective.

"My proof? It’s is that more Democrats voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary than Obama, and he has less support now than he did then."

He has less support among Democrats? Er, I think it's a bit early to be drinking, David. The link I provided indicates just that.

"Who are hard line democrats going to vote for in this election, Romney?"

No. They'll vote for Obama. By the way, the first link you posted is dead and the second doesn't mention Democratic voters. And it's from June.

"That poll is irrelevant as it addresses democratic enthusiasm for voting for the President in this election vs. Romney."

I know. That's because you suggested that Democrats weren't enthusiastic about voting for Obama but would do so because "he's not quite as bad as Romney." The poll proves that Democrats are voting for Obama because they like Obama.

You just keep changing the subject when you are proven wrong.

Also:
2004, John Kerry got 60.8% of the popular vote during the primaries.
2000, Al Gore got 76% of the popular vote during the primaries.

David Jackson
David Jackson

“David, Fox is run by a Republican. Roger Ailes runs Fox. Roger Ailes is a Republican. Therefore, Fox is run by a Republican.”
-Rob Stone

Rob, is he currently a member of an administration or just a registered republican voter? Big difference.

“Yes. And by any objective perspective, successfully bailing out the auto industry, sweeping healthcare reform, killing Osama bin Laden, ending the war in Iraq EARLY, a new START treaty, an almost $800b stimulus package, two Supreme Court nominees, repealing "don't ask, don't tell," Wall Street reform, etc. in only four years adds up to huge.”
-Rob Stone

So you will ignore counterpoints and simply regurgitate the same rhetoric over and over again. The broken record strategy my work on party minions Rob but not independent thinkers. By any objective perspective DEVGRU killed bin Laden, Wall Street reform hasn’t done much to reform Wall Street, the START treaty has serious issues, and the Bush administration wrote the exit plan that happened under Obama. The only thing that adds up huge is the partisan hype of those who can’t take the reality of what was a lot of hope but not a lot of change.

“He has less support among Democrats? Er, I think it's a bit early to be drinking, David. The link I provided indicates just that.”
-Rob Stone

No it doesn’t, as you either refuse to address the facts or are failing to read what I’m telling you. It states they are “enthusiastic” about Obama in this election, i.e. vs. Romney. NOT if there were Democratic alternatives. Democrats are voting for Obama because he is the Democrat in the race, not necessarily because he is their ideal candidate.

“No. They'll vote for Obama. By the way, the first link you posted is dead and the second doesn't mention Democratic voters. And it's from June.”
-Rob Stone

The first link showed Hilary getting the majority of the popular vote in the 2008 campaign. (apparently it died in the last 24hrs) The second one has data analyzing Obama’s support for this election Rob.

“The poll proves that Democrats are voting for Obama because they like Obama.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, no it doesn’t. In fact it doesn’t say that at all, it says “enthusiastic about voting” Twisting things to your liking again Rob?

“You just keep changing the subject when you are proven wrong.”
-Rob Stone

Ah the same false accusation…is this going to be your new theme when arguing with me Rob?

“Also:
2004, John Kerry got 60.8% of the popular vote during the primaries.
2000, Al Gore got 76% of the popular vote during the primaries.”
-Rob Stone

Does that include all registered democrats or just those who voted in the primary?

Rob Stone
Rob Stone

"So you will ignore counterpoints and simply regurgitate the same rhetoric over and over again."

So you will ignore the comment about not agreeing with his policies and just regurgitate the same distored off-point comments?

I disagree with your opinions. Auto bailout was effective. Approving the risky mission to kill bin Laden was effective. Wall Street reform is effective. START will be effective. Affordable Health Care Act is effective. Two SCOTUS nominees are effective. Ending Iraq war EARLIER than Bush Admin. negotiated was effective. Repealling "don't ask, don't tell" was effective. Directing the federal response to Sandy has been effective.

"Democrats are voting for Obama because he is the Democrat in the race, not necessarily because he is their ideal candidate."

And you have provided no evidence of that. I, on the other hand, provided evidence that the MAJORITY of Democrats are enthusiastic (were enthusiastic) about voting for Obama.

"The first link showed Hilary getting the majority of the popular vote in the 2008 campaign. (apparently it died in the last 24hrs) The second one has data analyzing Obama’s support for this election Rob."

Okay, well 2008 doesn't matter. We all know she got more popular votes than Obama. But after he got the nomination, Democrats enthusiastically supported him. The second one did not analyze Obama's support among Democrats but upon other demographic factors such as race.

"Lol, no it doesn’t. In fact it doesn’t say that at all, it says “enthusiastic about voting"

Haha. I suppose you didn't read the analysis or somehow think that Democrats are enthusiastic about voting for Romney. What a silly response, David. Why can't you just admit you were wrong? Again?

How about we look at how Democrats did vote (including all those enthusiastic about voting ones)? Last night, 92% of registered Democrats voted for Obama. There is no evidence that they did so simply because they didn't like Romney. In fact, the evidence shows who they did vote for and that the majority (73%) were enthusiastic about their vote.

"But the conventions also appear to have energized the Democratic base to a level as yet unseen." http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/12/obama-closes-enthusiasm-gap-with-romney-after-conventions/#ixzz2BXibQhdg
"Democrats have seen a rise in enthusiasm since July. In 12 swing states, Gallup found that 73 percent of Democrats now say they are "extremely" or "very" enthusiastic about voting for president in the upcoming election." http://www.businessinsider.com/gallup-poll-democratic-enthusiasm-republican-obama-romney-2012-9#ixzz2BXj18gMj

"is this going to be your new theme when arguing with me Rob?"

As long as you continue to act that way.

"Does that include all registered democrats or just those who voted in the primary?"

It includes the people who voted in the primaries and caucuses. If you want to know the numbers, do your own research and stop relying on guessing.

Hope you enjoy the next four years as much as I plan to.

David Jackson
David Jackson

I did not ignore the comment about not agreeing with his policies I in fact directly responded to it by arguing the problems with his policies agree with them or not. The points are not distorted or off-point and quite frankly your labeleing of them as such is a cowardly response.

Apparently your definition of “effective” is dependent on your partisan support. The auto bailout was effective at promoting corporatism and limiting the negative consequences of bad business leadership for the CEOs who couldn’t lead. Approving the mission to capture/kill bin Laden was effective, at approving a mission...wow, must have been stressful. The end state credit belongs to those who tracked and killed him, glad to see you backed off your empty lie of giving the President credit for doing that though. Wall Street reform has been effective at preserving the status-quo of unscrupulous business practices of white collar America. The SCOTUS nominees have been effective at being ideological leaning nominees, what credit does this bring the President? He was effective at executing the previous President’s plan for exiting Iraq, so? The reaction to Hurricane Sandy should prove to anyone that centralized micromanagement by the federal government is NOT the way to handle disasters as the federal response has not been effective.

“Okay, well 2008 doesn't matter. We all know she got more popular votes than Obama. But after he got the nomination, Democrats enthusiastically supported him.”
-Rob Stone

Holy sh*t Rob that’s my point! They support him because he is the nominee for their party! Not because he is their favorite leader! He just happens to be the one they have right now. Why is this so hard for you? Democrats are voting for Obama because he is the Democrat in the race, not necessarily because he is their ideal politician.

“And you have provided no evidence of that.” – Rob Stone

Funny because you just admitted to it above huh Rob?
“Okay, well 2008 doesn't matter. We all know she got more popular votes than Obama. But after he got the nomination, Democrats enthusiastically supported him.”-Rob Stone

“Haha. I suppose you didn't read the analysis or somehow think that Democrats are enthusiastic about voting for Romney. What a silly response, David. Why can't you just admit you were wrong? Again?”
-Rob Stone

Because much to your chagrin, I’m not. The poll states they were enthusiastic about voting in the election of Obama vs. Romney. Did you not read the analysis or are your reading comprehension skills really that compromised? It says nothing to disprove the statement I made about overall support being partisan based. In fact it almost supports it. Why can't you just admit you are wrong?

“How about we look at how Democrats did vote (including all those enthusiastic about voting ones)? Last night, 92% of registered Democrats voted for Obama. There is no evidence that they did so simply because they didn't like Romney. In fact, the evidence shows who they did vote for and that the majority (73%) were enthusiastic about their vote.”
-Rob Stone

92% of registered Democrats voted for Obama last night? Where is your link to that statistic? Even if true, that does not counter prove what I have stated as evident from above.

“It includes the people who voted in the primaries and caucuses. If you want to know the numbers, do your own research and stop relying on guessing.”
-Rob Stone

I knew the answer before I asked you, I just like it when you admit you’re wrong. That did not include all registered democrats, so it did not constitute a majority of democratic voters. Thanks for admitting it.

“Hope you enjoy the next four years as much as I plan to.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, oh don’t worry Rob. I’ll enjoy the next four years of watching your demagogue play President, and pointing out to you when he willfully violates the Constitution, runs the economy into the ground, and plays on the emotions of minions like you to institute policy that will continue to gouge away at this country. In fact it might be for the best he was re-elected, If Romney was President the same things would have continued, just at a slower pace givin his first term. Obama will be “effective” at speeding up the decline that apparently needs to happen for The People to wake up and control Washington again. In the end the faster it happens the sonner we will heal. Cheers.

Rob Stone
Rob Stone

"Apparently your definition of “effective” is dependent on your partisan support."

Except for the part where I called George W. Bush effective.

"Democrats are voting for Obama because he is the Democrat in the race, not necessarily because he is their ideal politician."--David Jackson about the 2012 election

Prove it!

You can't, because the facts show the opposite. Exit polls reveal that 92% of Democrats voted for Obama and only 10% of all voters voted against the other guy.

"92% of registered Democrats voted for Obama last night? Where is your link to that statistic?"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll?intcmp=related
How hard is it to find exit poll results?

"Even if true, that does not counter prove what I have stated as evident from above."

Yes it does. It proves that the majority of Democrats voted for Obama in the general election becuase they wanted to vote for Obama. You have provided NOTHING that shows that the only reason they voted for him is because he's the Democratic nominee but would prefer a different nominee (as if it were a significant point to make).

You start off making some remark about how Democrats aren't enthusiastic about Obama, then change the subject to Democratic primaries (where you were flat-out wrong about history) and then try to back away by brining it back to the general election.

Obama won re-election by a huge electoral margin because Democrats came out to support him and enough independents came out to support him. He didn't get the level of independent and Republican support this time, but thanks to the enthusiastic Dems, he won.

"I just like it when you admit you’re wrong."

Unlike you, I do admit when I'm wrong. But, unlike you, I haven't been wrong during this discussion.

"That did not include all registered democrats, so it did not constitute a majority of democratic voters."

A "democratic voter" is someone who votes in a Democratic primary. If you are trying to make a point about registered Democrats, that's different than Democratic voters. I know it sounds complicated but maybe you should be more precise (unless you like to be vague so you can weasel your way out of being proved wrong so often).

"I’ll enjoy the next four years of watching your demagogue play President . . . blah, blah, blah"

It's "you're."

David Jackson
David Jackson

“Blah blah blah, distortion, distortion, lie, sidestep, change subject than accuse the other guy of doing it, blah blah blah”
-Rob Stone

Bottom Line:
“Okay, well 2008 doesn't matter. We all know she got more popular votes than Obama. But after he got the nomination, Democrats enthusiastically supported him.”
-Rob Stone

So he was supported because he was the Democratic Party nominee, by your own admission. PERIOD

“Gallup found that 73 percent of Democrats now say they are "extremely" or "very" enthusiastic about voting for president in the upcoming election.”
-Rob Stone

UPCOMING ELECTION! Obama vs. Romney, not Obama vs any other democrat for support from Democratic voters. He was supported because he was the Democratic Party nominee, by your own admission. PERIOD

Go ahead; twist some more of my words. Try and weasel your way around it some more, it’s actually quite revealing.

"http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll?intcmp=related
How hard is it to find exit poll results?"
-Rob Stone

As usual you have linked to some lame stat that fails to address the point. That was 92% of "No matter how you voted today, do you usually think of yourself as a Democrat" voters who actualy voted! NOT 92% of registered democrats.

The numbers are still being crunched, but right now it's looking like only about 60% of voters actualy bothered to pick the lesser of two evils this election.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/11/07/voter-turnout/1690329/

Rob Stone
Rob Stone

I'm not going to continue playing ping pong with you.

You made a claim. You were wrong so you tried to change the terms of the claim. You were proven wrong about that one too so you tried to change the terms again.

I have no idea what you are trying to prove any longer but I know whatever it is, you are wrong.

David Jackson
David Jackson

“I have no idea what you are trying to prove any longer but I know whatever it is, you are wrong.”
-Rob Stone

You don’t even understand what I’m telling you but you know it’s wrong. Well that sums up any attempts to have a genuine debate with you Rob.

Go ahead and claim "victory."

Steve Gregg

Nice job, Brother Jackson. Fight the good fight. The angels are with us.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.