Voting

---

whats the voting for?Each of the 435 congressional seats, 1/3 of the 100 Senate seats, and lots of local races and issues.If the projections can be believed, it looks like the Democrats are winning a lot of close races, including in the deep South.The Virginia (Amanda?) and Maryland senatorial races will be very interesting.

YAY! Our man won! Happy dances! Not to mention the smoking ban passed as well (Issue 5). I am very excited about that. Not to mention the minimum wage increase passed as well which is awesome. Was a good election on my side LoL.

Has anyone been comparing the news coverage? I've been turning to FOX News and I can see the hurt in their eyes. They are wounded

I missed last night's O'Reilly Factor but I'll be watching it tonight. I'm sure he'll be very fair...

you'd probably be surprised how much coverage it got here. The CBC seems to have been pretty objective about it. But that said, most Canadians generally feel more comfortable when the government in the US is leaning a little left rather than right.

Anyone else find it interesting that this is the first election since...oh...about 1998 that the Democrats haven't started screaming about voter fraud and disenfranchisement and all that crap. I guess the only fair election is an election in which the democrats win, huh?As for the Fox news coverage. It's been much more fair then your so called unbiased news sources could think of being. The guys on fox will pretty much be the first to tell you why the Republicans lost and why they very well might have deserved to do so.Ya bunch of Kool-Aid drinking mockingbirds.

Maybe there actually was less "fraud" in this election? Is that a possibility? Do you think that whomever lost, whether Democrat or Republican, wouldn't mobilize the lawyers that they both had, ready to pounce?Or maybe the fraud that occurred wasn't great enough to tip any elections? Or maybe people committing fraud have become clever enough to cover their tracks? Or maybe people who feel that fraud occurred in their own race don't think it's politically expedient to make a big deal about it? (Could that be what George Allen was thinking when he didn't request a recount?)I didn't see too much of the Fox Channel's coverage of the election, but do you find them to be normally unbiased? How did the bias on the other networks manifest itself?Are you unhappy with the results of the election?

Although my post was posted when I was in somewhat of a sarcastic mood, you pose some valid possibilities and good questions.***I didn't see too much of the Fox Channel's coverage of the election, but do you find them to be normally unbiased? How did the bias on the other networks manifest itself?***I've been thinking a lot about this recently. I thing there are two types of possible "bias" when it comes to news coverage: what is reported and how it is reported. I think anyone would be a fool to contend that there is no bias on Fox news when it comes to how things are reported. It's obvious where most of their talking heads stand. But it would be grossly unfair to say this is not mirrored by CNN and the big three networks. Besides, Fox consistently brings on people to represent the left/liberal/Democrats. You don't see this courtesy extended nearly as much by the other networks.As for what is reported, this is where I find Fox to be a bit more "fair and balanced". Fox reports everything that happens, not just things that further their real or imagined political agenda. Not so much on other networks. I could give you a laundry list of stories favorable to the right or the President that were totally buried or even ignored by the old press. ***Are you unhappy with the results of the election?***I'm happy with the results of our local elections, but not so much with the national races. However, let's place blame where it belongs. The Republicans lost control because of what Repulicans were doing or not doing; not because of the Democrats. They have no one to blame but themselves. And I'm happy to see that, other than the Pres and Vice Pres and others in the upper elite, most of the Republican party is acknowledging their losses for what they are.I am indeed a Republican, but I am anything but happy with all of those I helped elect to represent me.

I know very little about American politics Damien, but would be interested to know what the main differences in ideology would be between the Republican and Democratic parties in the US? I myself am a Republican, but I'm sure that word would have a different meaning in the Irish context!

Republicans:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)Democrats:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

How odd that I should come back here at this time and read this post just as some show on TV I cant stand says "Hes the rarest ! He is the Hot Gay nerd.For the record i heard it as I was flipping channels, I was not watching something I cant stand, Im smart enough to change the channel.

Kool aid drinking?you lilly bastard I snort my kool aid, only a wuss would drink it, or a republican

In their regular coverage, I'm not sure what stories each news channel choses not to cover, or not cover well. Newspapers tend to have biases in their news coverage. Even though the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal are way to the right, I'd say their news coverage is fairly down the middle, although I've noticed that they just skip over certain things. I've noticed, in particular, that they've skipped over certain stories that are embarrassing to the Bush administration, but I realize that the WSJ is not a general newspaper.I went to high school with a guy who's now a big-time reporter for the WSJ, and to tell you the truth, I have no idea what his politics are. We recently talked about his career (he spent some interesting years in Latin America), but he didn't address my questions about bias in his paper. In Europe, newpapers and news magazines don't play the "we're so fair and balanced" game. You know where each paper stands, and you can then calibrate yourself for the bias. I think it's less hypocritical...or less fraught with wishful thinking.

Yeah, I would have a lot less problem with bias if it were acknowledged. It's kind of stupid to deny the obvious, no?

Those wikipedia links might be moderately helpful, but I wouldn't give much credibility to any user-edited "encyclopedia".Your best information would come straight from the horse's mouths (or donkeys and elephants).Democrats - www.democrats.orgRepublicans - www.rnc.org

Indeed, but I think most papers really try to be unbiased. It would be better to throw in the towel, not worry about it, and just go with whatever their political point of view is.Fox New's "fair and balanced" slogan is a goof on liberals who have no sense of humor. See the film Outfoxed. According to the FoxNews.com website:In reply to:The film also draws on a study commissioned by Fairness & Accuracy in [Reporting], a national media watchdog group. The study found conservatives accounted for nearly three-fourths of ideological guests on the network's marquee news program, "Special Report With Brit Hume," between June and December 2003, and that Republicans outnumbered Democrats five to one.Here's the original FAIR article. The folks at Fox know that "fair and balanced" is nothing more than an amusing slogan.Fox News really knows it's not fair and balancedIn 2003, a study by PIPA:In reply to:The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

>"Hes the rarest ! He is the Hot Gay nerd."

No no I'm the hot gay nerd!! LOL :grin:

Thanks for the links Damien & CBW. Something that would really interest me (hopefully I'm not about to start a war of words here - I think we've had enough of those!) would be if the American people here put their case (and note I said 'case' not 'argument'!) as to why they support one party and oppose the other.From the little I've read on those links I think I'd be a bit sceptical of the Republican party straight away, because if it's true that they do not condone or cooperate with labour unions that would run perpendicular with my personal beliefs about how a society should be run. I really feel that labour unions are one of the few recourses to fair play and decent treatment that the working classes have got, and that any capitalist society that didn’t recognise the importance of labour unions would be sure to chew itself to pieces, or rather chew to pieces the less advantaged in its society. But maybe I'm mistaken in attaching that position to the American Republican party? I'm not an American and this is only something I've read on a link. Do the Americans on here see that happening in the US? Do the Republicans over there really oppose the existence and the functioning of labour unions?So come on people, cases for and against..

Well unfortunately, at least in the US, labor unions aren't what they used to be. They are too often fronts for corruption and laziness.When I was a teenager, with two teenage siblings and a 2 year old sibling, my parents both worked at the same factory. They went on strike and were out for about 6 months. This was a union strike. It was, as you can imagine, devestating to our family. We survived on food stamps and the kindness of folks at church. My parents both would have worked despite the strike, but they knew that if they did, their children's lives could very well be in danger. That was the reality.Not long before that, my aunt and uncle found themselves in the same situation, but he did cross the line to work. His teenage daughter was almost shot as a result.I hate unions.

I hate unions.By the 70's, unions were getting slovenly and demanding. But they exist for a reason, and the helped correct some horrible things that were going on in the early part of the 20th century. A lot of citizens were treated like chattel. I'm sure you're aware of the conditions coal miners once endured (not that things are so great now).Are you familiar with the early history of labor unions in the U.S.?