+1

_________________

Nobody else has found me impossible to talk to. I've witnessed discussions between you and Ed, and I've not typed stuff nearly as extreme or passionate he or some others have. I have no problem with that stuff either, but it's ironic that you have such an issue with me considering. I suppose it's good that you have no more interest in what I say, so hopefully you'll stop responding to me and turning threads into arguments with me.

DP, I know that Stewart makes fun of everybody. I used to watch the show all the time, not anymore. That means that even though I don't watch it "all the time", I do watch sometimes, and still hear or read about his show from other sources. I know that he's left leaning as well and has made most of his career at the expense of right-wingers. That's fine, maybe he'll be able to balance it out at the expense of Obama over the next few years...I really don't care.

Either way, he's been a divisive media source to some extent regardless of his target. Not like a Limbaugh, Olbermann, or Beck, but to some extent. Just because he's a "comedian" doesn't let him off the hook. He's made a willful transition into serious political commentary at times on The Daily Show and appeared on other political shows to voice his opinion. So 1) he is a part of the political media and 2) he has been divisive with his many cheap shot jokes that don't contain any valuable social/political message.

If he had a history of non-cheap shot material and didn't prop himself into larger popularity off the wave of Bush-bashing, and dropped Colbert's clearly partisan character from his routine, it would be a little easier to take the message seriously. If he simply dropped The Daily Show and re-invented himself over a year or two with a more serious show his message would be better received, or at least should be, by people on all sides. For now though, that message sounds/is hypocritical.

I fully trust the social and political agenda of Viacom.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Why did you say that he was one of those (words) pundits until 2008? What changed then?

Is it a case of "Hating on Bush...wack job, hating on Obama...fair and balanced!"?

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

No it's not like that, but that probably wasn't a totally fair statement I made. I don't think he jabs at Obama to the extent he did Bush, but then again there hasn't been and probably won't be the amount of presidential bashing in the media in general as there was during Bush's two terms.

So I should've said "...up through 2008 to a lesser extent." But like I said, he would hardly be an exception because it's probably not possible to bash Obama or whoever the next president was going to be as much as the media bashed Bush.

It's probably not possible to fuck things up the same way he did

_________________

To think that the economy wouldn't have slumped or the housing market crash wouldn't have happened just because of who was president isn't very fair either. The Fanny and Freddie mess started a looong time ago, and the internet bubble burst before anything Bush did had time to take effect.

Too many people think that the position of president is all powerful and so influential. It is in some areas of course, but the economy is it's own monster that one man or administration has little comparative impact on in one or even two terms. It takes decades for ecomomies to complete up and down turns. Obama voters really thought in their hearts that somehow in two short years that things would be all shiny and great, and those thoughts are just way too ambitious, no matter how silly the "hope and change" campaign promises were. I don't like that Obama has nearly tripled the national debt and that congress voted to bailout all these banks and other corporations, but reactionary voting today is equally off the mark as so much Bush bashing was.

I just thought the man was an idiot, in general. Nothing to do with the economy. I understand that the economy cycles; that's fine.

He was just a dolt.

_________________

going into two wars didn't do the economy any favors

_________________

Oh, nice to hear you know the contents of not only my heart, but over half the voters in this country. What gives you this special power? Was it some sort of accidental radiation exposure? Were you bit by a spider in a museum? Whatever it is...I can sleep better now knowing you've got us all figured out.

Oh, and why isnt it raining golden puppy dogs yet? I'm pretty sure Obama hinted at that happening during one of his campaign speeches. I guess that comes later.

Psh, like we had other things to spend a trillion dollars on. Ya dirty hippie.

The economy actually loves billions of tax dollars flowing through DoD contractors.

The credit crisis at the center of our economic problems is not related to our foreign military policy.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Some, or a good number of Obama voters, obviously not all. Come on, don't take it so personally.

You're still generalizing.

So what if I'm generalizing? I've heard and seen Obama voters on radio and TV speak about how they feel let down because "hope and change" hasn't happened yet. I've observed enough of this to be secure in saying some or a good amount of Obama voters feel this way. Is this not a fair generalization? If you don't think so, take a look back through this thread to view a number of generalizations...

"...the 24 hour media and never ending punditry is divisive and damaging for YEARS." - generalization

"...the hyper-partisan-ness that has invaded our culture." - generalization

"The media once was a reliable source of unbiased news. This is not the case anymore." - generalization

"The political system itself is broken in this nation." - generalization

"It's the auto-classification and polarity of everything..." - generalization

Besides, the point was that these disappointed Obama voters had the wrong idea if they thought a new administration was going to magically change the economy in a hurry. They shouldn't be switching to a knee-jerk Republican vote if they truly understood politics, the economy, or what they really wanted from their congressmen or president.

I don't know how you can honestly say that you've 'observed' enough Obama voters to know what a good amount of the 69 million people who voted for him thought. I don't recall all my statistics stuff from college, but I'm pretty sure your sample size isn't even close to representing even a fraction of people who voted for him.

Eh, that's also not a great point; statistics scale pretty well. If 59 out of 100 people voted for him, it's safe to say he's met 59 people that voted for him. Or 30 out of 50, or 15 out of 25. Not hard to talk to at all.

_________________

That's not the point. The point is that he claims to know how a 'good number' of Obama voters felt about the man based on his own personal observations, which is just silly. You cannot draw any reasonable conclusions about a population size of 69M people from the feelings of 50 or 60. Statistically, the margin of error when using such a small sample size is astronomical.

I agree with the margin of error being larger, but there's all sorts of data out there to support many of the generalizations that are made from the past elections. For example:



And minorities went heavily into the Obama camp. Blacks, 96 percent Obama to 3 percent McCain; Latinos, 67 percent Obama to 30 percent McCain; and Asians, 63 percent Obama to 34 percent McCain.

But wait, there's more.

_________________

That tells us WHO voted. Not WHY they voted, which is my point of contention.

The statements that started this all off:





My point is that there's no way that SF1980 can accurately determine what voters were thinking when they decided to cast their vote for Obama.