Run for Your Lives! It's a Landslide!--II [media bias]

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 5/31/06 | James Taranto's Best of the Web

[Gothmog]

Yesterday Taranto asked "if readers could come up with news articles from 1994 that anticipated the Republican landslide that year. A reader named Pete said he tried and failed to do so at the time:

Pete and his son "collected all the New York Times print versions from Labor Day through November to look for bias."

After the "GOP landslide, we went back through, searching for articles referring to the Contract With America or other things that might have signaled dissatisfaction or what might be the preconditions leading to a landslide."

"[H]ere's a summary recollection:

"'Except for the day the Contract was announced (and even that got very little reporting, as I recall), there was no follow-up article, no article of consequence sensing any political unease or vulnerability for the Democrats, nothing indicating that the Republicans were 'on to something'."

[Snip]

"The professionally indignant liberals at Media Matters...did uncover one Times piece anticipating a GOP takeover" by Adam 'Major League' Clymer on "Oct. 26, 1994, 13 days before the election. MM found seven other articles speculating about the possibility of big Republican gains...one each from the Associated Press and USA Today, two from the Washington Post and three from the Christian Science Monitor.

"The earliest...ran June 26, almost a month later in the cycle than the AP 'landslide' article...yesterday, and it was considerably more modest in its prediction: 'Some [Democratic] party officials believe the Democrats are in danger of losing control of the Senate and that their losses in the House could leave the Republicans holding the largest number of seats since the mid-1950s.'"

[Gothmog]

Media bias? What media bias, ha ha ha. Actually I expect the inverse to happen. In 1994, no predictions of GOP landslide -- GOP landslide. In 2006, omnipresent predictions of dem landslide -- no dem landslide.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Probably not a landslide, but I am concerned that RATS could take the House (probably not the Senate).

[sachem longrifle]

Same here, I really think its strange that dems are predicting a landslide before any campaigns are under way. I'm not happy with the GOP, but I sure am hell not voting dem unless they put up a candidate that protects and embraces america's traditional values and will not give rights to al quida. sadly no dem fits that description. Those that do are all dead

[Fruitbat]

I have a hunch that's not gonna happen. I may be way off base here, but I'm thinkin' that the house is standing stronger on illegal immigration. I'll stand by that 'til the election. But we'll see. If ever there was going to be a single-issue election, this is it.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Not one pundit came even close in 1994. One can never predict, but I believe most serious pundits are hedging their bets on a Democrat romp!!! Why? Because at the end of the day, even though a good number of Republicans are whimps, the American voters do not trust the Democrats with the defense of the country, and protection of their families and children. The Pubbies will just about hold the House and Senate!!!

[Gothmog]

Yep, your sentiments match my expectations. The independent/conservative voters (Nixon's silent majority, Reagan Democrats, Perot voters) decide most elections.

Their key issues are cutting the federal deficit, tough immigration reform, congressional ethics reform and a tough foreign policy. Most GOPers running for the House match those criteria more than any Democrat. It is also why Bush's poll numbers are so low.

[Grampa Dave]

As the left wing elite maggots, who control the MSM, lose more market share and following/audiences, they will get more desperate re their rigged polls. This could make them even more unreliable.

[george76]

Sinking readership and revenue, because of biased and mediocre reporting, is finally taking its toll .

[Tulane]

My thoughts exactly. The House Repubs have an issue that 75% of Americans agree with...if they can communicate this to the public, they are in good shape.

Also, gas prices should decline a bit in October/ November.

[Liz]

This is almost laughable---they PRESUME they are smarter than ordinary folk----so why didn't they see the downturn coming, and make the proper financial decisions? Good managment anticipates and plans for such eventualities.

[Grampa Dave]

Liz, you should save this and post it on every MSM Woes Thread:

This is almost laughable---they PRESUME they are smarter than ordinary folk----so why didn't they see their downturn coming, and make the proper financial decisions? Good managment anticipates and plans for such eventualities.

[Beagle8U]

The 94 landslide? There were many factors, but one of the biggest was BJ and Owl Gore going on a gun-banning spree as soon as he got into office, with all the liberal rats eager help.

The NRA and the RKBA groups told them they would pay dearly for the Brady bill, and they did. Owl Gore payed again in 2000 in his home state. All but the looniest of the RATS will admit how stupid it was to declare war on the gun lobby.

[Liz]

OK---will do.

[Joan Kerrey]

All but the looniest of the RATS will admit how stupid it was to declare war on the gun lobby.

And those looniest of the RATS think that the U.S. is New York city and San Francisco.

[Beagle8U]

Yes, thats true. They don't have to face normal voters, they will never learn, or change.

[Rubber_Nose]

The DUmmies use the fact that Republicans won bigger than expected and the Democrats gained less than forecast to prove that the elections were rigged.

[Fruitbat]

Also, gas prices should decline a bit in October/ November.

Even if they don't, American voters would be idiotically shortaighted to vote on an issue that's gonna save them a few hundred bucks annually for who knows how long, but cost them thousands annually down the road.