Shame on Fox News. They gave anything but a fair and balanced report tonight on the New Hampshire Primary, which is what they claim to do. I had to dig and do my own research to discover the facts about what actually happened in the New Hampshire primary. They could only find one "analyst" to declare it a good night for Romney, and that was Howard Dean's old campaign advisor, but had no shortage of analysts who said he "underwhelmed" with a 16% victory. Karl Rove stopped short of calling it a good night for Romney, but called Romney the presumptive nominee, which isn't exactly a big stretch, calling the frontrunner and poll-leader a presumptive nominee. Everybody else said it was an OK night, but he didn't wow like he needed to. Only 32% of late-deciding voters went his way. Oh no! After get lambasted by every candidate from every side on every issue every day the last 4 days, 1/3 of people still managed to go his direction. What did they expect?
I'm no political expert, but I'd say a night where the guys who are supposed to be your biggest "conservative" rivals are battling for 4th and 5th at less than 10% of the vote, is a good night. In an election where you are struggling to fenagle together a large enough coalition of voters to withstand a two-person race, a night that enourages more people to stay in the race to split the rest of the vote is a good night.
Now, Huntsman will stay in the race, energized by a third place finish, but Romney won't lose many voters to Huntsman. Santorum doesn't get to carry the mantle as the best alternative to Romney after finishing fifth in New Hampshire, and he didn't even win the Evangelical vote there (Romney did, actually, according to exit polls)! His competition is making it harder for someone to dethrone him. And Ron Paul continues to be a wild card, likely unable to win the nomination, but more than capable of preventing any other conservative from knocking him off. If Perry or Gingrich finishes second in South Carolina, that's quite possibly a perfect script for Romney. Three states, three wins, and, most importantly, three different second place finishers. Probably three different third-place finishers too. I'm sorry, whether you support Romney or not, that's a good night.
Fox News also claimed poor voter turnout. The voter turnout was 4% higher than in 2008, or roughly 10,000 more voters in the primary. Romney's percentages increased drastically in each of the state's 10 counties. He won 9 of 10 counties (his only loss a rural northern county with about 4,000-5,000 voters). Adding 2nd and 3rd place together gets enough votes to beat him by less than 2,000 votes. Adding 3rd through last place together and he beats that coalition of candidates. He routed the field. He didn't win by enough? Are you kidding me? Tell it like it is. Romney won. Big. They need to get Bill O'Reilly to do election coverage and stop spinning things towards the candidates the individual analysts support: leave that for CNN and MSNBC.
Fox News also called it a good night for Huntsman. CNN went the opposite: big night for Romney, bad night for Huntsman. No wonder there is such a sharp division among the citizens of the United States: there is such a sharp division among our news sources. They are both half-right. Romney holding his huge lead is good for him. Huntsman exceeding expectations is good for him. I can't wait to see what the expert panel will say if Romney wins by only 8% in South Carolina...
Instead, Fox touts it as a low-enthusiasm, small-turnout primary. More people voted. More people voted for Romney. He won by 15-17%. That is a bigger number than any other non-incumbent in a long time. Report the facts. I do give credit to Brett Baer who questioned the analysts further after they gave a 'meh' to Romney's night, presenting facts and asking "are you sure that isn't good for Romney. To which they replied again: meh. Good journalism. Bad analysis. [Here's a hint: if you want a fair and balanced analysis don't have two of three people on your expert panel from the Weekly Standard. Good grief, it's not good to get "out-fair and balanced" by CNN. Tell it like it is.]
No comments:
Post a Comment