Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

anAustralianobserver

(633 posts)
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:17 PM Oct 2012

Were the MSNBC pundits spooked into groupthink by the debate 'snap polls'?

If Obama had been as rude, manic and uncomfortable to watch as Romney was, and displayed that bizarre frozen contemptuous smile - and if there were no dubious snap polls to bias first impressions - would the punditocracy have felt they needed to declare Obama the winner on style/theatrics?

Or would a consensus have emerged that Obama theatrically came off as a little unhinged, flighty, bizarre, a loose cannon and so on - and may have blown it?

I was more alarmed by the MSNBC punditry jumping to their consensus (Al Sharpton being an exception from what I saw) than I was by Obama's relatively passive but competent and cohesive performance.

How will the MSNBC pundits react if snap polls right after the second or third presidential debate say Romney won 55-45?

I'm worried they'll be suckered into stating it was a "draw on style, a win for Obama on substance" or some similar feebleness, and that this might work to crystallise the perception of these debates.

35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Were the MSNBC pundits spooked into groupthink by the debate 'snap polls'? (Original Post) anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 OP
Thinking back to 2008... union_maid Oct 2012 #1
Hmm they mostly have been pretty independent minded and on-beam, but I wonder in this case anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #5
Dunno; maybe. elleng Oct 2012 #2
I saw a bit of Lawrence but not Martin Bashir yet :) anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #25
No, they were upset like many of us were budkin Oct 2012 #3
Exactly... regnaD kciN Oct 2012 #6
I thought Obama got off to a weak start with his response to 'trickle-down government' anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #10
It wasn't worse brush Oct 2012 #21
I remember Romney did effectively seed some doubts about the 716B, and that Obama's anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #28
Upset?! I thought they were gonna need a tranquilizer gun for Chris Matthews. gkhouston Oct 2012 #24
Why do they have those jobs then? treestar Oct 2012 #34
I dpn't think they were... regnaD kciN Oct 2012 #4
Right that's interesting because I didn't see it live and wondered about that. anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #8
I watched the debate for about 1/2 hour. Grateful for Hope Oct 2012 #7
Yes my girlfriend had the same reaction to his bully tactics and couldn't watch after half an hour. anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #12
I so hope you are right. Grateful for Hope Oct 2012 #13
Yeah I'm hoping if a spontaneous zinger or 2 comes to mind in the next ones that he'll use it :) anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #22
Of course they were courseofhistory Oct 2012 #9
Yeah the wrestling comparison is good. But I think that mainly fed the bully base anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #14
A lot of Obama bashing, none for Romney brush Oct 2012 #11
That's good to hear that at least one watch party thought he won :) anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #16
Forgive a man Harry_Scrote Oct 2012 #15
I agree. I could see that was part of why he was often looking down. anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #18
No ProudToBeBlueInRhody Oct 2012 #17
How long after did they report the snap polls? anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #20
10 to 15 minutes after ProudToBeBlueInRhody Oct 2012 #29
I see, thanks. Will be interesting to see CH's show this weekend. anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #30
Lawrence Wasn't, and i think he has better understanding JI7 Oct 2012 #19
Yeah I'm curious to see Rachel's latest show to see how she'll qualify her "Romney won on anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #23
yes they were... madrchsod Oct 2012 #26
Why was Obama's performance their TOP STORY? grasswire Oct 2012 #27
Yeah sounds like they forgot for a time that CNN, FOX, the blogosphere etc would be looking to them anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #31
Unrec brooklynite Oct 2012 #32
Yes I concede it wasn't just the snap polls, anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #33
TV pundits are groupthink-mongers Telly Savalas Oct 2012 #35

union_maid

(3,502 posts)
1. Thinking back to 2008...
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:22 PM
Oct 2012

The MSNBC bunch called it for McCain in the first couple of debates. In those cases, the snap polls came back in favor of Obama and they were somewhat surprised. So, I don't think they're driven by the polls, but they are influenced a great deal by things that are not substance.

5. Hmm they mostly have been pretty independent minded and on-beam, but I wonder in this case
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:31 PM
Oct 2012

if the expectations game worked surprisingly well for Romney for some reason.

elleng

(130,152 posts)
2. Dunno; maybe.
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:23 PM
Oct 2012

Their immediate reactions may have been because they didn't have benefit of watching debate as on C-SPAN and/or 2nd viewing.

Working on forgiving them now! Martin Bashir and Lawrence were/are pretty good.

25. I saw a bit of Lawrence but not Martin Bashir yet :)
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:47 PM
Oct 2012

I only saw the c-span split-screen one with Romney's head slightly bigger and smiling like Obama was one of his obstreperous kids or something - very disconcerting.

regnaD kciN

(26,035 posts)
6. Exactly...
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:34 PM
Oct 2012

...the DKos liveblog thread was into full meltdown by the debate's mid-way point. I think the tweet from Andrew Sullivan, terming the debate a "rolling disaster" for Obama, was the initial incident that set it off. That, or the point where Obama suggested that he and Romney weren't that far apart over Social Security.

For me, the debate seemed pretty even until Romney launched his $716 billion Medicare cuts lie yet again. From that point on, the momentum was clear.



10. I thought Obama got off to a weak start with his response to 'trickle-down government'
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:01 PM
Oct 2012

but recovered. Interesting about the Andrew Sullivan factor. I'd like to see the Medicare part again; it may have been worse than I remember.

brush

(53,474 posts)
21. It wasn't worse
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:17 PM
Oct 2012

The President pointed out that the 716 billion was "saved" out of overpayments to suppliers and waste, and not a cent was taken from coverage of Medicare recipients. He made a point to say they found 716 billion in "savings" that were then applied to the Affordable Health Care provisions in terms of "free" wellness doctor visits for recipients, and the closing of the donut hole in drug costs to recipients. He showed that these things actually strengthened Medicare's benefits for seniors. Sometimes you have to remember Sullivan is still a conservative. He hasn't crossed over from the dark side completely yet.

28. I remember Romney did effectively seed some doubts about the 716B, and that Obama's
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:02 PM
Oct 2012

response seemed comforting but didn't respond to all Romney's statements, like about nursing homes and doctors refusing more Medicare patients.

I remember Sullivan on Bill Maher a few times was very good, but another time he was caught out championing some position he didn't really seem invested in. I can't remember what it was atm.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
34. Why do they have those jobs then?
Sun Oct 7, 2012, 03:47 AM
Oct 2012

Why don't they act like professionals instead of little kids?

And why do they do so much to damage Democrats and yet get admired here?

They are just as damaging to Democrats as Hannity and Rush could ever be. Maybe worse.

regnaD kciN

(26,035 posts)
4. I dpn't think they were...
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:31 PM
Oct 2012

...because it seemed to me they were well into group panic mode well before the first instapoll result was reported.

8. Right that's interesting because I didn't see it live and wondered about that.
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:52 PM
Oct 2012

By the time I tuned in it was a 'disaster' for Obama. I know everyone was hoping for a first-round knockout, but then they seemed to overcompensate when that didn't happen instead holding some pundit-ground.

I saw the full debate later with low expectations for Obama, and thought that Romney hadn't in general made Obama look weak. Obama's worst moments weren't near as bad or frequent as Romney's imo. Romney steered the debate much of the time, but he steered it in a way that made everyone uncomfortable, and Obama couldn't just keep grabbing the wheel out of Romney's hands on the first one.

Grateful for Hope

(39,320 posts)
7. I watched the debate for about 1/2 hour.
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:49 PM
Oct 2012

I gave up after that time because I saw that Obama was not himself. Even before the debate started, I thought Obama seemed nervous -- and I had never seen him like that before. I even posted this in the debate thread.

So, I don't know how Obama did after that time. However, what I did see during the time I watched is that Romney was an attack dog, and Obama was subdued and not particularly interested in defending himself.

Our President is a very highly intelligent and competent man, and it hurt me to see how Romney decided he was going to be in charge of that debate - and that Obama acquiesced.

The tactics he was using are so like what some CEO's adopt when they are trying to push through their pet projects within their companies. It is called 'bullying'.

Yes, I turned off the debate partly because I was disappointed in Obama's performance, but the main reason was I couldn't stand to watch a bully in action.

I think the next debate where there will be a town hall format will be very favorable to Obama.

However, I do wish that Obama would let himself go a little bit in future debates and react with emotion. He could joke about it, but he could still inject a zinger or two. I know he is capable of this - he is far more than intelligent enough to do so.



12. Yes my girlfriend had the same reaction to his bully tactics and couldn't watch after half an hour.
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:21 PM
Oct 2012

But Obama's responses were stronger than I'd been led to think by the post-debate talk, even on style, let alone on substance.

Yes I think Obama shouldn't be afraid to prepare a few zingers even though it's not especially his style; and I think he'll feel that he can be more aggressive if necessary now, now that Romney's had a fair chance to establish his presence on the debate stage.

Grateful for Hope

(39,320 posts)
13. I so hope you are right.
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:30 PM
Oct 2012

I think Obama is an amazing man. What I see is that his principles are far more important to him than scoring points (and I admire this). But, I hope he lets go a bit in the next two debates.


22. Yeah I'm hoping if a spontaneous zinger or 2 comes to mind in the next ones that he'll use it :)
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:25 PM
Oct 2012

Probably better for him than preparing them in a contrived way.

I got a feeling a zinger may have been coming to mind to him at the beginning, when he was asked for his response to 'trickle-down government', but unfortunately I think he missed an opportunity there...

Even if he'd said something like 'trickle-down government... that's a new one, very clever, please explain' or something hehe

courseofhistory

(801 posts)
9. Of course they were
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:57 PM
Oct 2012

I've written about this here and on other forums. The knee-jerk reactions and references to sports meataphors and knock outs, out of the ball park comments are what it's all about. They/many people don't look at content or substance. It's kind of like wWII wrestling where breaking the rules and stepping on the other guy is thrilling to many. And it is difficult to stand out from the pack when others are spewing their knee-jerck and shallow opinions for fear of ridicule and ostrization to some extent.

Reflection and measured analysis which is what Obama was doing (not to mention he couldn't counter Romney's lies since they even changed within the debate itself) should be the way everyone decides on who won based on content and verifiable answers which in Mittens' case would show him for what a liar he is.

But people don't do that for the most part and unfortunately it sometimes takes the day.

14. Yeah the wrestling comparison is good. But I think that mainly fed the bully base
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:36 PM
Oct 2012

and may have turned off a larger amount of people, solidifying his bully boss image.

Yeah I think they jumped on board too quickly for fear of being ridiculed for stating that *gasp* Obama maybe came across better to the viewers, even in his sportsmanship.

brush

(53,474 posts)
11. A lot of Obama bashing, none for Romney
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:03 PM
Oct 2012

I think you're right. Except for Sharpton, O'Donnell and Bashir they all seemed a little too eager to jump on the pre-debate meme bandwagon that the media would declare Romney the winner to keep the election close and therefore, their profits from higher ratings up. I thought they would calm down and re-evaluate yesterday after all the fact checkers called Romney on his lie spewings. What's up with that? It's like they were in lockstep with the rest of the media. I watched it at a campaign watch party and we all thought the President had won and were totally shocked when the MSNBC pundits went crazy blasting the President after it was over. We all thought we were watching FOX it was so bad. I was and remain disappointed in Tweetie, Rachel and even Ed as they just kept saying "Romney won, Romney won!", without pointing out or criticizing his shape-shifting lies and bullying at all. And they know he was lying his ass off all night, just like we at our watch party knew all night. If lies, bullying and changing your principles on the fly is all it takes to win these so called liberal pundits over, maybe like Romney, they aren't who we thought they were.

16. That's good to hear that at least one watch party thought he won :)
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:52 PM
Oct 2012

You can't completely separate style from substance, and I'm arguing that even on theatrics Obama won, in the sense that viewers generally saw him as more presidential even if the stars were aligned for Romney on that night.

I mean in one limited sense Romney put on a better, more memorable performance... as a villain taking the spotlight to provide dramatic contrast! So he stole the show, but at the expense of looking presidential and winning the debate, in my opinion.

Maybe Rachel and Ed got contact-high from Romney's Aderall or whatever it was, and are just coming down from it now.

Harry_Scrote

(121 posts)
15. Forgive a man
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:47 PM
Oct 2012

...A black man that is me, but trust me when I say this that if O had come out swinging and as aggressive as ya'll wished him to be, pundits and such would have called him the stereotypical "angry black man," and told everybody to be afraid of voting for him again. I should know, I've been called that as long as I can remember. He is walking a tightrope act and I hope is given more credit for letting his opponent look like the bully he is.

18. I agree. I could see that was part of why he was often looking down.
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:06 PM
Oct 2012

It didn't look as weak to me as some said it did. He took his moments to look Romney straight in the eye.

When Scott Brown avoided eye contact with Elizabeth Warren in their second debate it was different - he was afraid of her gaze.

Obama seemed more afraid of being caught in an Al Gore sigh moment than he was afraid of looking Romney in the eye. Also he was processing Romney's fresh bullshit and didn't want to look too astonished hehe.

I think he'll have adjusted to being on this stage with Romney by the next one.

20. How long after did they report the snap polls?
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:11 PM
Oct 2012

I wonder what other sources they were looking at during the debate for reactions.

(Also, what was Chris Hayes' first reaction? I didn't see that.)

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
29. 10 to 15 minutes after
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:05 PM
Oct 2012

Chris Hayes didn't say much other than Rmoney was obviously making shit up (which they all were saying) but he clearly wasn't in a good mood either.

30. I see, thanks. Will be interesting to see CH's show this weekend.
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:19 PM
Oct 2012

So when the snap polls were announced, did that seem to crystallise anyone's opinion at that point?

JI7

(89,177 posts)
19. Lawrence Wasn't, and i think he has better understanding
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:10 PM
Oct 2012

or at least is able to not be so emotional about it. he is older than Rachel MAddow and has directly worked in politics so has personal experience with history. Rachel might know her stuff but it's different when you personally experience it.

Ed and Tweety are just emotional and will always react to whatever is given to them at the moment. so i didn't really expect much different from them.

23. Yeah I'm curious to see Rachel's latest show to see how she'll qualify her "Romney won on
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:30 PM
Oct 2012

style and presentation" statements.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
27. Why was Obama's performance their TOP STORY?
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:59 PM
Oct 2012

Why weren't Romney's lies the top story in the immediate aftermath?

I consider their reaction to be immature and unprofessional.

They could have immediately talked about the lies. And then talked about Obama's style. The style would have been more understandable as a reaction to the lies.

31. Yeah sounds like they forgot for a time that CNN, FOX, the blogosphere etc would be looking to them
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:53 PM
Oct 2012

Last edited Sat Oct 6, 2012, 06:30 AM - Edit history (1)

for liberal first impressions and analysis. I think they lost perspective and fell into the frame:

If you discount the misleading the public thing, and the being quite mentally/socially deranged thing, Romney actually won!


Maybe it was a Bush-years trauma flashback.
33. Yes I concede it wasn't just the snap polls,
Sat Oct 6, 2012, 12:18 AM
Oct 2012

(though, when the snap polls were announced, did that seem to crystallise anyone's opinion at that point?)

but contend that they fell into a frame in which they couldn't see the forest for the (right-height) trees, as is said in the sub-thread at post #27.

Telly Savalas

(9,841 posts)
35. TV pundits are groupthink-mongers
Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:22 AM
Oct 2012

I don't understand why anybody who takes politics seriously watches those morons.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Were the MSNBC pundits sp...