« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Debunking the Debate/TV Moment theory of Presidential election history

"Game Changer" as fingernails on blackboards

Originally published By Mike DeVine as Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report

“Game Changer”, this year’s ubiquitous word of evidence of the extreme laziness and lack of curiosity of most in the media, is the latest incarnation of this theory. Everytime I hear it is like the sound of fingernails scratching a blackboard.

This theory, while also subscribed to by a large percentage of conservative pundits who worship at the feet of their poll obsessed Beltway idols, is actually an election outcome explanation advanced by the Left for more than 30 years, in the Drive-by Media and the national Democratic Party, to serve three inter-related purposes:

a) Prevent modern day liberalism from being discredited due to its proven failed policies;

b) Prevent modern day liberalism from being blamed for Democrat election defeats; and

c) Establish TV events as the causes of election outcomes so as to enhance the importance of television election coverage and increase viewership.


Conservatives that appear regularly on TV naturally fall into the trap as it enhances the perceived importance of their own work. But even those that don’t earn a living via television fall into the trap out of brainwashed ignorance and laziness. At root, such a theory and view is an insult to average Americans, treating them as fickle in making this very important decision.

I say the theory is poppycock.

First of all the theory and the obsessive use of the term “game changer” (as in “gravitas” in 2000) this season, perfectly fits Rush Limbaugh’s description of the increasingly non-mainstream, and increasingly impotent, media, as like those engaged in a drive-by shooting.

Its easy to report an event. Much harder to report on complicated human beings and trends that would require actual work to discern the trend, especially when the “trend” is against one’s modern day liberal substitute for religion.

The theory is also inextricably tied to polling that invariable shows republicans trailing before the conventions; getting a bounce after their convention; then “falling behind” until 24-72 hours before Election Day, when, miraculously, the media usually gets the winner right, at the last moment (7 out of the last 10 the winner has been the GOP and always is when the Dems nominate a leftist).

All bumps in their polls are always tied to events…that occur on TV, i.e. usually debates or campaign gaffes.

Polling is an art, not a science, and the artists are mostly liberals. Its mostly a scam, obviously, when one looks at their samples of dems and repubs.

I think the scam began in the late 1960s with a non-election “report” from a man I don’t hate, i.e. Walter Cronkite. The man who was deemed the most trusted man in America and that signed off every evening news broadcast with the declaration, “and that’s the way it is,” told us that the Communist North Vietnamese had defeated the armed forces of the United States.

That was not the way it was. And in slandering the US military he also drove a president from office and gave voice to those that would ensure defeat and subsequent genocide at the hands of 1975 congressional democrats.

I look back now and see that we, as a nation, have been betrayed on many levels by the media, as long ago as the 1950s after they inherited a monopoly thanks to the spectrum limiting technology of analog TV to three liberal networks, but I digress.

Reagan did not beat Carter in a landslide because he cocked his head and said “There he goes again.” He didn’t win a landslide against Mondale because he wouldn’t “hold his relative youth and inexperience against him.” Dukakis didn’t lose 40 states because he looked funny helmeted in a tank.

In all of the above cases, modern day liberalism’s vessel lost because it is anathema to the values and principles of 60%+ Americans and because liberal policies are proven failures, domestically and as weak on defense.

What enemy of the United States would fear any of the above, John “international test” Kerry, or Barack “no preconditions for a summit with Iran’s President” Obama”?

Not one.

People may finally decide late in the game, for whom to vote, and, of course, there are events everyday that a lazy liberal “post hoc ergo propter hoc” illogical media may try and pass off as logical fact.

But people accumulate knowledge over time. Events occur that are filed away as they try and get a feel for the candidate and especially, to determine how that person’s policies will affect their family, in their safety from attack and in their pocketbooks. They also see if they share their values and have the character to be worthy of the job. Everyone weighs these factors in differing ways.

What comes across as the height of arrogance, both from liberal and conservative “journalists” is that while they scoff at the idea that they would make their own decision on some isolated campaign event, they are knee-jerk is insisting that most voters do, or at least that a significant portion do, always having a poll close by to “prove” it.

More poppycock.

Americans know that they vote on Election Day. Most, unlike me and other politics obsessed people that includes the media, understanding that, don’t pay much attention to politics until close to that day, knowing from elections past that they can discern the best candidate in time.

I think a lot of conservatives are simply acting human in their acceptance of poll obsession and this false theory. Laziness is not the complete explanation. Heck, everyone does it.

But no, I think the main reason is the fear of the unknown, coupled with the desire to be the first to know, even if it means a reckless announcement of gloom and doom with the added wicked joy of being the first to announce the bad news. Get over it children. It wears off.

People get insecure as so many around them “know” the outcome. Forget that many have “known” based on polls in April, July and yesterday and have switched whom they “knew” would win multiple times.

Any fool can read a poll an extrapolate it out and think they know. What we really need are people like Andrew Jackson in media and the blogosphere, who said

“One man with courage makes a majority.”

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns

Race 4 2008

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • speciallist

    How about this…

    whoever Bets on Obama is a ‘Change Gamer’..

  • aaronbg

    n/t

  • aaronbg

    n/t

  • terilyn

    n/t

  • jimmuy8

    Trying to hammer square made-up sports events like “game changer” into the round political hole is, well, a bit useless.

    I’ve seen a lot of “game changing” moments in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters that never seemed to change the final outcome. Just because a kickoff is run back for a TD doesn’t mean the game is over–and it means even less if the other team marches right down the field and scores.

    Even where a moment changes the game, it is more a function of the better team taking advantage of an error on the other side and running with it–and then only if they keep the tempo up the rest of the game.

    Game changing moments are never, ever, ever identified or known during the game–NEVER. Not until the game is over, from the coolness of the studio, far removed from the battle, in retrospect, is a moment annointed–sexy, flashy and “made-for-TV,” a mere highlight.

    But it ain’t the whole story, not even close–there are five, ten, a dozen 3rd down conversions left out, any one fails and they might have lost. Long after the game, you can’t point to any one play and say, “That’s where the game was won.” You can’t because it means knowing something that never happened.

    What changes a game, what wins: keeping on the attack, taking advantage of the other guy’s mistakes, always advancing.

    And right now: You cannot say McCain is not attacking, not taking advantage nor advancing.

  • gamecock

    pitches pennies?

  • gamecock

    elections.

    Wife: Who is winning?

    GC: Well, the Gamecocks are behind.

    We won’t know who was winning until after they win.

  • woodsman

    In all of the above cases, modern day liberalism’s vessel lost because it is anathema to the values and principles of 60%+ Americans and because liberal policies are proven failures, domestically and as weak on defense.

    People may not realize what they loose, until it’s lost.

  • gamecock

    5

  • speciallist

    That’s 800 nickels for those in Rio linda…totally filled up my little bucket

  • Flagstaff

    that last night.

  • gamecock

    Gamecock!

  • gamecock

    process of winning!

  • Flagstaff

    in real life. There’s no end of the game to strategorize for in real life. Real life won’t end, we hope, in anybody’s foreseeable future, but this election will, so…

    I know this isn’t what the pundits mean by “game-changer,” but there is one grain of truth in that view. For those undecideds, if they haven’t made up their minds yet, what are they waiting for? The facts are out there for all to see, maybe with a little searching. Anyway, for the undecideds, a ‘startling revelation’ of immorality or criminality or documented dishonesty might sway a large group of them, and in this close(?) election they can be decisive. That kind of thing can even cause previous ‘decideds’ to change their minds.

    Of course, that wasn’t what any of the pundits expected during a debate. And why anybody needs more than Obama’s dissembling answers to questions about his associates to know that he isn’t being honest, I don’t know.

    A true game-changer MIGHT be the situation in Ohio. Justice Stevens seems to have decided that cheating in Ohio is ok. Dishonest votes could swing the state for Obama. Changing the rules in the middle of the game certainly changes the game. But again that isn’t what the pundits are talking about.

    I don’t even think a big jump in the DJA would help McCain, because he couldn’t claim credit for it. Another big drop would be blamed on him, though. Go figure. But that would only solidify Obama’s existing support.

    We have to depend on the totality of the campaign and the true comparison of McCain vs Obama to bring us victory. You’ve made a good case many times that it will happen.

  • gamecock

    He has hit a ceiling. The ceiling is the one built by his life with ayers, wright and acorn.

    more later

    its happy hour

  • Flagstaff

    On both accounts, even though it’s just 1:15 here.