Are You OK, New York Times? Do You Need A Policeman Or A Grownup?

[Nevilledog]

https://www.wonkette.com/are-you-ok-new-york-times-do-you-need-a-policeman-or-a-grownup

Based on an intensive analysis that we just made up completely, we're fairly confident that among the most-tweeted images Tuesday evening had to be of cable news graphics showing Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Crazytown) trailing badly in her reelection bid, with Democrat Adam Frisch ahead in the ballot count. We like this one for its dramatic capture of Steve Kornacki in full Data Doofus mode. (With 90 percent of votes counted when I wrote this Wednesday afternoon, it's still too close to call: The latest New York Times count has Frisch ahead of Boebert by just 3,475 votes, a 50.6 to 49.4 percent split. UPDATE: as of Thursday morning, the count has narrowed significantly, and Frisch leads Boebert by just 64 votes with 95 percent of the votes counted. We're likely looking at a recount whichever way the race goes, huh?)



Another really popular image on Twitter, especially late Tuesday and Wednesday morning, as it became clear that the media-invented "Red Wave" was turning out to be more like a bit of "mid-cycle spotting," was this screenshot of a New York Times "analysis" from three weeks before the vote:



Or maybe it was just really popular with climate scientist Michael Mann, who called for a retraction and I really liked his tweet. In any case, that article, along with far too many media takes, was responsible in part for pushing the narrative that Democrats faced huge losses in the House and the Senate and probably in coroner races all over the nation. The article discussed a Times/Siena College poll that found Democrats maintaining a narrow lead in polls nationwide — which was not enough, naturally, for the Times to point out that Democrats maintained a narrow lead in the polls nationwide. After all, maybe other data — invisible data — showed that Republicans were poised for big wins, because maybe women were finished being angry about the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, and now they're angry with Democrats because groceries still cost too much.

The article also mentioned a Kaiser Family Foundation poll which found only 36 percent of voters had heard that the Inflation Reduction Act would limit medical expenses, so golly, nobody cares about a signature win in Congress. Mostly, though the piece just lazily fell back on "history": The president's party always loses big in midterms, so here comes a Red Wave!

*snip*

[SheltieLover]

1. Yes, they need a non-corporate advertiser grown up!

[yankee87]

2. Apology

As always, the Reich wing NY Times will always crap on the Democrats and never apologize for being wrong

[chowder66]

3. They are too busy interviewing republicans in diners which distorts reality.

[dalton99a]

6. +1

[BumRushDaShow]

4. It's not just them - 538 had Fetterman losing to Oz in the final outlook

538 (PA Senate)
(Fetterman loses by 0.5%)




PA State Election Site
(Fetterman winning by 4.5% as of 11/10/22)



When Gallup had this kind of a bullshit result in 2012 where Obama would supposedly lose to Romney, they did a mea culpa, and stopped doing their "final Election Survey" for Presidential races, and haven't done it since after decades of it being the so-called "gold standard".

[brooklynite]

5. Subscriber since 1978 and continuing...

You may not like all of their writing, but they’re not “right wing”

[W_HAMILTON]

7. The New York Times is absolutely dragged around by the nose by Republicans.

I stopped subscribing to them years ago because of it.

Stop carrying water for Republicans and their bullshit narratives!