Explaining Away the Results
Since nearly everyone seems to be agreed the Republicans will make large gains in next week’s mid-term elections (except for Nancy Pelosi, who probably doesn’t really think differently, and Bob Shrum, who probably does, but since he’s generally on the losing side, that’s okay), the next step for the MSM is to figure out some ways to make the coming victory seem to be a defeat. I present some possibilities:
Since even the less-bullish prognosticators put the expected House gain at 60+ seats, anything in the 50s or below will certainly not live up to expectations and will, therefore, be characterized as nothing more than a normal mid-term swing. Net loss: Republicans.
If the House changes hands and the Senate doesn’t, they can report that it would be the first time since 1930 that’s happened in a mid-term. (Surprising, but true.) Net loss: Republicans.
No matter how sweeping the victory, they can concentrate on a few of the losing Republican candidates they’ve tarred as wacky, and can then talk about how the voters rejected right wing “extremists.” They’d love to be able to use that narrative in Nevada should Reid hold on. Net loss: Republicans.
They can concentrate on a few big-name Democratic winners to demonstrate that it really wasn’t a rejection of liberal policies. Jerry Brown has a chance to become the symbol of that post-election analysis. Net loss: Republicans.
They can continue to paint the entire election as blind fury against incumbents. Since there are more Democratic incumbents, they will, naturally, have suffered greater losses, but Republicans can expect the same fate in 2012. Net loss: Republicans.
I’m sure there are a few other explanations they’ll be able to come up with that I haven’t thought of, and, of course, the more sweeping the victory, the more serpentine the rationalizations will be. It’ll be fun to collect them beginning on November 3. However, no matter how the post-election canvas is filled in, the bottom line will be: Net Loss: Democrats.
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
My favorite pre-mortem has been that the Weather Channel is predicting rain a week out. This supposedly will prevent the charming elderly folk from voting. Especially convoluted since the senior vote leans Republican this year. Apparently the rheumatiz only affects Democratic codgers.
My prediction is that they'll say we failed because Obama still managed to keep the presidency.
May '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
Pat,
I'm going to make a point to use "serpentine" in a conversation today. It's a darn good word and too seldom used.
Re: Explaining Away the Results
Matthew Bartle: Pat,
I'm going to make a point to use "serpentine" in a conversation today. It's a darn good word and too seldom used. · Oct 27 at 9:19am
You just did. Mission accomplished!
Jun '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
One possible meme will be to exaggerate the smallest possible glitch or episode in any middle American precinct and declare it QED that the Republicans engaged in voter fraud, impingement of voter rights, or outright "stealing" of the election. Because everybody knows that R's don't win elections, they conspire to steal them. Anything to undermine the legitimacy.
Edited on Oct 27, 2010 at 9:50amSep '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
The MSM can spin all they want, it won't bother me a bit. To the extent they convince each other of non-reality, that is a net gain for Republicans.
Aug '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
There are many layers to this, and some are bogus. But the Apocalypse (Gr., a parting of the veil) is well under way, and the truth is emerging. The bottom line is the Messiah is a fraud; socialism is failing everywhere; Democrats dream big and fail even bigger.
We American conservatives have erected a brick wall of reality and a lighthouse on a rock. Nothing will ever be the same, regardless of what 'progressives' say.
Jun '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
Unless of course, the Republicans try to spin their way into the good graces of the MSM, by sounding "reasonable" and "willing to compromise" in that wonderful "bipartisan" spirit.
Jun '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
Pat Sajak
Matthew Bartle: Pat,
I'm going to make a point to use "serpentine" in a conversation today. It's a darn good word and too seldom used. · Oct 27 at 9:19am
You just did. Mission accomplished! · Oct 27 at 9:40am
You might even add "labyrinthine." As in, "the more labyrinthine the rationalizations will be."
Re: Explaining Away the Results
Here are the words to look for, in your newspaper on November 3rd, if the Republicans make major gains:
divisive, bitter, radical, Tea Party-supported, racially-tinged, fear, anger, fury, rage, ambiguous, and fractious.
Here are the words to look for, in your newspaper on November 3rd, if they don't:
fringe, centrist, moderate, thoughtful, mature, steadfast, healing, and decisive.
Jul '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
Rob, You forgot white.
Aug '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
Governor Moonbeam reelected to office? Net loss: California.
Oct '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
Nov 3, 2010--New York, NY
Obama knew it must be. His natural gifts--as thinker, as orator, as the healer of the wounds that still bleed in the aftermath of slavery--were simply too great. He had to shield the country from his full splendor, else the transformation would have been too hard. There was but one choice: to accomplish his mission, he had to make his job harder.
The decision will make him stronger. He will learn the language of the masses. He will wrestle single-handedly with the forces of business. And in the end, he will be lifted up on the wings of speeches. History could not give him his due if he had the help of the two little chambers.
Who's he who wishes for more men? Every man who joins him in the fight, be he ne'er so backward, will be his brother. And we will ride with him again in battle, upon election day!
Edited on Oct 27, 2010 at 3:20pmOct '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
Unfortunately, Pat's right about how this will be spun on Nov. 3rd. However, the people are much smarter than the media wants them to be--otherwise the Democrats would coast to an easy victory by maintaining their majority for the next two years.
Jul '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
On the spit-flying, bulging-vein left I expect "the voters are stupid" and "the country is ungovernable" to predominate, but I don't rule out, "That's it, I'm moving to Canada."
Oct '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
I'll take a second to make some predictions on a preceding event--the "Restoring Sanity" self-aggrandization happening in two days--it will be overfunded, underattended, with a message having all the depth of a porn soundtrack, and lots of trash left on the grounds.
But as for the 3 Nov sour-graping...what do I predict will be used as excuses?
- the Citizens United case
- "voter intimidation" due to the Rand Paul rumble
- voter intelligence bordering on the neanderthal
- Halloween Party hangovers and other bizarre non-sequiturs
Anything but the radical leftism that has hijacked the Democrat Party.
Jul '10
Re: Explaining Away the Results
It is a shovel-ready Democrat Congress, but will the Republicans finally do more than slow down the "inevitable" march of government largess/corruption/tyranny. Have they learned? How will they work with freshman Tea Partiers?