Pollsters were unsurprised. Nate Silver's five-thirty-eight blog for the New York Times predicted every single state result, as did Huffington Post's Pollster. This begs the question: how can left-leaning, liberally biased organizations like these be so spot-on in their assessments? How can such biased organizations be so factually accurate?
Worthy of consideration: perhaps these organizations aren't as biased as people think they are.
And the right raged. Karl Rove on Fox news refused to believe it when NBC, ABC, and even FOX NEWS called Ohio for Obama. Trump went all RWNJ on Twitter - I mean even MORE RWNJ - asking for revolution and stating that other countries were now laughing at us.
Sarah Palin called it "perplexing". No, it wasn't perplexing, Mrs. Palin. It was AS EXACTLY PREDICTED, but the bubble that the right lives in lately just doesn't hear reality.
Romney himself seemed in shock for his concession speech last night - which took almost two hours after the networks called it for him to deliver. He seemed more wooden than usual, a bit simpering, even vacuous. It was an opportunity for him to have one last real moment, and what was called "gracious" by practically everyone was in fact a bit more like Pinocchio. All strings, no heart. Ann would have been a great first lady. I would have liked to lead this country in a new direction, but they chose someone else. I seriously could not watch it. I half expected him to close with the statement "Error 404/file not found."
Obama, by contrast, delivered big-time. While my Facebook page was populated by righties whimpering in defeat about gas prices and how we wouldn't survive four more years, how gloating doesn't suit people, Obama blasted a speech that, despite the obvious teleprompter pacing (so annoyed with this), was easily one of his most inspiring in the last four years.
It is one thing to believe the opinions of these men. But Why do we listen to pundits like Rove and Beck? What is it about their prognostication that lures us in when their relation to fact is so distant? The evidence, as determined by the electoral outcome, is clear. As far as opinions, look at these men in their elements: we had the obvious souls of the Presidential candidates laid before us last night. An energized President. A defeated Romney who couldn't seem to muster genuine praise - who seemed shocked that he had not won it all, and as one reporter put it, seemed like a disgruntled little leaguer mumbling "good game, good game." A billionaire conspiracy theorist with a hit TV show going ballistic. A right-wing shill denying the truth of the moment.
Fox News had to make the decision to ignore Rove last night. The Fox News network had to make the decision to ignore one of their go-to guys to not only call Ohio, but to defend the decision. Let that sink in a moment.
I had a Facebook dust-up last night with someone griping about all the griping(yes, I know). How we're so mean to each other, and "can't we all just get along?" But when one side is factually correct and the other side is factually incorrect, doesn't that mean anything anymore? The griper "un-friended" me when I called him on this.
The griper was a news anchor for a major network in a small town. In my opinion, his determination to remain "fair" overrode his ability to determine right from wrong.
As Bill Maher has said: "Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow are not equals".
Who do you listen to? Were they right last night?
Choose your pundits wisely.