Hey pundit class: how does a = b and b = c ... NOT equal a = c?

[salin]

Just read an item on Media Matters about Cokie Roberts parroting the whole "if Lamont wins it signals chaos for the democratic party" line. According to Ms. Roberts this would force dems to "play to the base" which would hurt them in elections. Sam Donaldson, reportedly disagreed - pointing out that on the issue of Iraq (as if that were the only issue of discontent) - that being against the current policies in Iraq is not just "playing to the base" - it is playing to the sentiments of the general public.

Makes you want to tear your hair out.

Apparently many political pundits failed basic geometry.

a = b; Many previously considered "safe" republican seats are up in the air - or worse (for the GOP) starting to lean out of "toss up" and into blue territory. The constant meme from the punditry is that the public is unhappy with Bush, particularly but not only because of the Iraq war - and that it is showing up in voter sentiment against GOP congressional reps and senators. The theme (echoed even today in the Editorials of the GOP-favoring Washington Times) is that the GOP majorities are in jeopardy - and that the public appears to be very unhappy with the GOP, Bush and their policies/leadership. Cries of "potential disarray" in the party as a result of the outcomes of the elections are becoming more and more common.

b = c; Sen. Lieberman led Lamont in terms of favor with 'democrats' as recently as at the Connecticut convention, but has lost support and now seems to have a serious problem as poll after poll show him trailing Lamont. The punditry points primarily to the antiwar sentiment as a voice against Bush policies in Iraq - but is beginning to concede that other issues where the Senator is perceived to be too supportive of Bush are harming his reelection chances.

Here is where the punditry gets messed up (or, depending upon your read upon the punditry - where they intentionally try to muddy things up with a pro-GOP tilt). In the first scenario - it is the public's unhappiness with Bush and the GOP congress that supports bush that is the reason for the low GOP polls. Never is it suggested that the numbers are a result of fringe left-wing internet activists pushing the public opinion far to the left (as that would be absolutely absurd).

But somehow in the second scenario - it is rogue left-wing internet activists that are pulling the Dems in Connecticut far to the left... and a win for Lamont would signal that the left-wing internet activist will pull the entire party to the left and result in disarray. Somewhere along the "punditry logic" completely different reasons for the polling numbers exist.

Hey punditry - remember geometry? Let's see if this makes any sense.

A = B The public is very discontent with the war and with Bush policies. They are voicing a likelihood to vote against those who are seen as pushing the Bush policies. Thus, many republicans are in trouble in their election efforts.

B = C The public is very discontent with the war and with Bush policies. They are voicing a likelihood to vote against those who are seen as pushing... or enabling (and silencing dissent) the Bush policies. Thus, Bush's "favorite Democrat" who has voiced support for the president, his War policies and some of his other policies is in trouble with his election efforts.

C = A The public is very discontent with the war and with Bush policies...

ahem - is that difficult?

[bronxiteforever]

1. She drives me insane. Nothing more than apologist for

GOP blunders. She fancies herself a historian but she is unable to fathom the historic blunder of this war! good post

[salin]

2. I had the opportunity to watch her mother in Congress

she was a classy lady legislator from Louisiana. Cokie's shallow turns at punditry do not do justice to her mother's legacy.

[sallyseven]

3. Her mother and father must be rolling in their graves. Both

Democrats with a capital D. I can't stand her she is useless.

[salin]

4. Sadly, she isn't alone... duh - polls show the public just might

punish elected officials who are perceived to have enabled bush and his gang's policies. The reason Lieberman is hurting is the same reason so many GOP senators and congressional representatives are hurting.

[bronxiteforever]

5. i used to watch her husband on Washington Week when Paul Duke was there

I always thought he was a progressive. But I don't know where he went to. Daughter of a great D and look how she turned out! sad.

[EST]

6. I guess it all depends on what the word equals equals.

Actually, there are times when she does turn in at least a somewhat credible job and then seems to allow her logic and intellect to go on break-maybe because they get overwhelmed easily.
Those self-styled pundits all seem to have a kind of stock in trade humma-humma which they fall back into, without even examining it. Pavlov would be doggone proud.

[Cronus Protagonist]

7. Correct conclusion but the logic seems off a tiny bit

Same conclusion, but if A = public rejecting Bush policies and B=GOP losses and C=Lieberman Loss, the formula would be:

A causes B
A causes C

whereas the punditry thinks

A causes B
X causes C

X being the GOP spin on what's causing the Lieberman loss. X is a magic variable since, as you pointed out, A could cause both B AND C and there is no need for an X Factor other than for propaganda purposes.

I hope this clarifies more than it offends.



Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>