The Journal Never Learns

The Wall Street Journal has an op-ed today from Karl Rove called, “How Badly Will The Democrats Do?” Why the Journal found Rove to be a trustworthy prognosticator, I’ll never know. Granted, he’s better than Dick Morris, but that’s not saying much. This go-round, Rove lists a variety of numbers regarding fundraising, primaries, polls, enthusiasm, etc., and comes to this conclusion about the 2010 midterms:

The White House has many tools to change the narrative to its advantage. But it's unlikely swing voters will abandon their concerns about ObamaCare, spending and deficits. The public, especially independents, increasingly believes Mr. Obama's policies threaten America's economic future.

Though this midterm election will likely turn on national concerns, it will still come down to individual contests. While a lot will play out over the next six months, there's no question good Republican candidates running effective races will make this a memorable, perhaps even epic, election for the GOP. Obama Democrats should beware.

Okay, but remember the last time he talked about individual contests, on NPR in 2006? Days before he GOP lost 30 House seats and the majority? Here’s the man’s track record:

SIEGEL: I'm looking at all the same polls that you are looking at.

ROVE: No, you are not. I'm looking at 68 polls a week for candidates for the US House and US Senate and Governor, and you may be looking at 4-5 public polls a week that talk attitudes nationally.

SIEGEL: I don't want to have you to call races...

ROVE: I'm looking at all of these Robert and adding them up. I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up with a different math but you are entitled to your math and I'm entitled to THE math.

SIEGEL: I don't know if we're entitled to a different math but your...

ROVE: I said THE math.

Okay, so, after all that, the Journal still gives the man’s predictions credibility… why, exactly?

Tags: 2010 midterms, Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove, npr (all tags)



We have to objective, Nathan

We have to give both sides equal attention.

Unfortunately, we don't have two political beliefs, we simply have correct and incorrect.

So you're giving half your space to wrong. Nice.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-05-13 10:39AM | 0 recs
RE: We have to objective, Nathan

So print Luntz or Dowd, not Rove or Morris.

by Nathan Empsall 2010-05-13 01:28PM | 0 recs
So wait Karl says we are doomed?

I just got a much better feeling about our chances in November.

by jsfox 2010-05-13 02:04PM | 1 recs
We must force down the unemployment rate

One way would be to block new entrants from entering the workforce until after the election.  If this President had done his job in 2009, we wouldnt have had this problem. 

by Kent 2010-05-13 03:27PM | 0 recs
RE: We must force down the unemployment rate

Yeah, screw you, college grads!!!!

by Nathan Empsall 2010-05-13 03:49PM | 0 recs
rupert's journal

nathan, have you not been following the buzz this week about the politicization of the Journal and the dissatisfaction of long-time Journal reporters about the interference of editorial in the news pages? and the decision, say, to run a BIIIG photo of Elena Kagan playing softball (winkwink nudge nudge)?

 A woman who was a reporter at the WSJ is on a book tour doing an expose at the moment.

Having Karl Rove writing an editorial, though, is SOP for the journal's ed section. This is the heart of the propaganda machine.

by brooklyngal 2010-05-13 10:25PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads