Brock in Shock


What is that yellow goo on David Brock's face? There aren't enough eggs in the world to represent the fatuously wrongheaded disinformation Media Matters spread about the November election.

There are a few good chuckles over at Media Matters, the left-wing website run by self-described liar David Brock. Mr Brock wants you to know, for example:
Several pundits have conceded that polling has not borne out their initial speculation that the release of a videotaped message from Osama bin Laden on October 29 would benefit President George W. Bush politically. As Media Matters for America noted on October 30, October 31, and November 1, polls conducted since the tape's release have shown a stable race or a trend towards Senator John Kerry.

Good call! Media Matters also ridiculed Bill O'Reilly for suggesting that the youth vote was not going to be particularly energized (it wasn't), and slammed commentators for suggesting that battleground states may be trending toward Bush:
Mitchell's claim that recent polling shows that support in New Mexico "is trending toward the president" was misleading.

Yeah, right, whatever. But Brock's biggest embarrassment may well be his definitive statement about polls:
FOX pundits wrong: undecideds do break for challenger
As polls have consistently shown the presidential race too close to call over the last several weeks, conservative commentators have sought to discredit the so-called "incumbent rule" -- the conventional wisdom that undecided voters tend to break towards the challenger in the final days of an election. In fact, this piece of conventional wisdom appears to be true.
Here's what conservative pundits have said:
FOX News Channel TV and radio host Tony Snow: Well, the fact is, that's one of those bits of conventional wisdom that didn't happen to be true. If you talk to people who have been doing presidential polling, just the opposite tends to happen. People tend to break hard for an incumbent in the final days of a campaign. ... So, yeah, I think the one thing you have to keep in mind is, that is one piece of conventional wisdom you can just throw away. The idea they always break toward the challenger -- simply not true. It's not borne out by any recent presidential history, and I don't think this election is going to be any different. [FOX News Channel, FOX News Live, 11/1]
FOX News Channel contributor Pat Caddell, who called the incumbent rule "a great canard": "The axiom that the undecided voters break for the challenger is not the way it works. Nobody's gone back and studied the numbers." [FOX News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, 10/26]
Weekly Standard executive editor and FOX News Channel contributor Fred Barnes: "[U]ndecideds generally don't go ... against the incumbent. I know this is a cliché that's been thrown around a lot. I think it's utterly a myth." [FOX News Channel, Special Report with Brit Hume, 10/22]
But, despite the conventional wisdom on FOX News Channel, several expert analyses have found that undecideds do, in fact, tend to break for the challenger.

Sure they do. Just look at the election results. Mr Brock, get a towel, wipe that omelet off your face, and for once admit that you were absolutely, undeniably wrong. It will do you good.

posted: Wed - November 3, 2004 at 12:22 PM       j$p  send 

gowild00
JD - nice work throughout the campaign - not easy and not fun work but you hung tough and deserve a major league pat on the back!
November 3, 2004, 2:27:46 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Many thanks!
November 3, 2004, 3:58:24 PM EST – Like – Reply


The_SCSIBug
Brock -- more accurately, MMFA as an organization -- may not admit being incorrect about Kerry's lead in the polls... Mostly because they weren't wrong.
 
These pundits (including Pat Buchanan) weren't predicting the outcome of the election in that article. They were expounding upon how bin Laden's strategically-released tape affected the polls. MMFA didn't commission or administer those polls. 3rd party, "independent" polling organizations did. Those whom MMFA sited were simply reflecting on those polls and their predictions.
 
The MMFA may not admit being wrong, but I will: I was wrong about the electorate. I thought all 120,000,000 of us could see what this man has done to this great nation in four years. So, hope sprung eternal, until 3 PM Nov. 3rd, when Kerry conceded. How could more than 58 million people be so blind?
 
BTW: 3% more popular votes vs. the challenger during one of the highest voter turnouts ever isn't a mandate. It's a close call; the closest in U.S. hi
November 16, 2004, 8:57:22 PM EST – Like – Reply


The_SCSIBug
...history. I'll have to watch that unregistered character limit.
November 16, 2004, 8:58:34 PM EST – Like – Reply