Does the election spell the end of FOX News dominance

So, MSNBC can parade out Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, and that's objective political coverage?

 

Joe Scarborough tries to balance Chris and Keith... but the way he's been honked at his party lately... lol

 

No, but then again, MSNBC doesn't try and beat it into the entire planet that FOX does it the right way. KO is way more entertaining than Hannity and O'Reilly.

 

Don't forget Tucker! Not that I've ever figured out when he's on, but he's on there sometime.

 

You folks taking potshots at FoxNews sound like the usual arrogantly bitter Democrat drivel. FoxNews fars outdraws MSNBC and CNN because those latter clowns have paraded out the superficial likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Olderman and Aaron what's his name that got canned by CNN because he had a constant anti-GOP smirk.

FoxNews will get even higher ratings with the Dems in control of Congress because it will rally even more conservatives to watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannityn put the wood to those bozos, like Nancy Pelosi who is about as shallow and stupid as you can get. I just imagine Al Queda is quaking in their sandals knowing that the likes of Pelosi and Charles Rangel are going to be wielding more power.

One more thing about what Double Down said about electoral college. Typical liberal bull. If the 2000 election had worked out the other way aorund, with Bush getting more popular votes nationwide but Gore winning the electoral college, you would not have heard a PEEP out of libs about the electoral college. That's how objective they are. They want all rules and laws to be bent to favor them, and damn anyone who disagrees with them. Sounds pretty foolhardy to me.

 

I've noticed I have more time for constructive stuff when I don't get involved in threads like this.

Funny how, on this board, Fox goes from being a mere nuisance before the election, now suddenly is so "dominant" that the results of a midterm election -- which didn't represent a significant deviation from similar sixth-year elections -- will threaten its success.

 

Somebody's a little cranky about the Dems retaking Congress. Poor baby.

 

Gerrymandering -- I know it's a big word, clutchcargo, but you can look it up -- has nothing to do with the fucking electoral college in this context, especially the president. I wasn't even talking about the electoral college. I'm saying that if you take the total number of people who voted for Democrats in national elections -- presidential, House, Senate -- you'll see that more people have voted for Democrats than Republicans in something like seven of the last eight elections. I'm not saying that means Democrats should be in power if they get more total votes. They shouldn't. I'm perfectly capable of understanding and appreciating how representative democracy works, thanks. I'm saying you can't use those elections as an example that "the country as a whole is conservative," especially when half the people don't even fucking vote. More people live in California than they do in Kansas. Both get two senators. That's a good thing. But it doesn't mean you can use Kansas (or any other state) to cancel out all the people in California, and say, LOOK! The country leans conservative! Michael Savage told me so!

Thanks, though, for assuming that IF Bush had somehow gotten more votes than Gore, I would have immediately took up a crusade (oops, bad word for your crowd) against the electoral college. In fact, I would have found it a perfectly acceptable, since when you go to vote, you're pretty much agreeing to the rules prior to stepping in the booth. It's funny how conservatives continue to tell us liberals what we WOULD do, IF something had happened. Like, we WOULD curl up in a little ball and cry like bitches, IF Gore had been president on 9/11. Really, who knows. Although, we do know that, on that day, Bush wet his pants in front of a bunch of school children, then hopped a plan to Nebraska to get as far away possible from New York, then eventually attacked a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, which was sort of like attacking China as revenge for Pearl Harbor. Oh and bin Laden? He's still free, five years later. (Heck of a job, Rummy!)

So enjoy Fox News for the next two years. I'm sure the ratings will soar. We'll be busy trying to clean up the ridiculous mess you left. And keep telling us what we WOULD say or WILL have complain about next. It seems you're about as adept at mind reading as your are at nation building and emergency disaster response.

 

Just a few years ago, Matthews was a towel boy for W, in case you'd forgotten.

 

'Yab's onto something here. My understanding is that CNN kicks Fox's ass - and the nets still clobber them both -- when it comes to actual news coverage, particularly breaking news. (And those people arguing that Fox's regular news coverage is centrist are all going to have to account for Carl Cameron.) The ratings winners for Fox are all night-time pundit-bloviation hours. And those shows have a guaranteed niche-audience that none of the CNN shows have. Olbermann's building one at MSNBC but he's starting out in a hole.
If I'm wrong, I'm sure the TV types hereabouts will correct me.

 

Sorry to interrupt your spin-fest, HalliburtonHenry, but the last time a sixth-year president was in power, he GAINED five seats.

 

And who would that be, he asked, leaving a nice big fat one out over the plate for Bat.