Happy Halloween!

From thisisn'thappiness.

Conservative Media Bias

There is now conservative media bias. It has started to happen more and more, but last night was a pristine example of how conservatives have actually taken their alternate reality and imposed it on the mainstream media. I am referring to the presidential debate, which was clearly a win for President Obama. All the polls after the debate gave the president a clear margin of victory. Yet, this is the story today on Politico...

There was far from a consensus view on who won the debate in the hours after it ended. Two instant polls gave Obama a clean edge over Romney, but the pundit class was, to quote Obama, all over the map.

So, the instant polls of the public gave Obama a clear advantage but we aren't really sure who won because the pundit class couldn't agree. I wonder how that could've happened. Here is Kevin Drum's roundup of conservative pundits to help explain:

Was there any rending of garments anywhere else? Not for a second. Conservatives just reveled in the fact that Romney apparently made himself acceptable to undecided voters.Yuval Levin: "Romney clearly achieved his aim." Ramesh Ponnuru: "Advantage Romney." Rich Lowry: "Romney executed what must have been his strategy nearly flawlessly." Bill Kristol:"Tonight, Romney seems as fully capable as—probably more capable than—Barack Obama of being the next president." Stanley Kurtz: "Romney has now decisively established himself as a credible alternative to Obama." Erick Erickson: "Mitt Romney won this debate."

A bunch of conservative commentators just flat refuse to admit that Romney lost and the story becomes "there was no consensus view on who won." Compare this with the first debate that Obama clearly lost, and the reaction of liberal pundits who not only admitted he lost but commenced with wailing and gnashing of teeth. The mainstream media story there was that "Obama was destroyed in the first debate."

And that is where we are today. Conservatives, using their own media outlets, can totally change the narrative of any story simply by refusing to accept reality. I suppose someday liberals will figure this out, and then reality will truly have no meaning at all.

One Rule

God help me, this is my favorite ad in some time...

Go Vote - Drink Sierra Nevada!

This chart from National Journal shows how beer choices correlate with political preferences. Most people I've seen commenting on the chart have been focused on the X axis and what your favorite beer says about your likelihood to be a Democrat or Republican. While that is interesting, I am maybe more intrigued by the Y axis. In many ways, it shows what you would think, the price of beer correlating somewhat with chances that you'll vote.

But what is up with Heinekin? Apart from the fact that I am chagrined that it is the most liberal beer here (I would rather have the conservative darling Shiner Bock), I am also mystified as to why it's relative expense produces no more voters. Are these people too liberal too vote?

Also, cheers to drinkers of High Life. It's cheap, but if you drink it you are more likely to vote than the guy drinking a "fancy" Bud Select. Champagne of beers indeed.

Finally, it seems the whole chart comes together at Bud Light. It represents your average American in most elections it would seem - somewhere in the middle and most likely not going to vote.

Kansas City Sports in Two Pictures