According to Politico, Fox News has decided not to re-sign Dick Morris to a new contract. Morris has not been on the network for months following last November’s election, when he repeatedly claimed that Mitt Romney would win in a landslide.
Morris first achieved national fame as a political adviser to Bill Clinton during his tenure as Arkansas Governor and his presidency, and has been regarded as one of the strongest advocates for Clinton’s ‘triangulation’ policy. Basically, this policy involved taking Republican policy advantages off the table by agreeing with them, to a large extent. This resulted in such legislation as welfare reform and DOMA. The idea was that once this was done, then, on the remaining issues, Democrats would hold the upper hand.
After leaving the White House, he became a critic of Clinton and of Democrats, generally.
Morris is scheduled to appear on CNN today.
February 6th, 2013 at 3:57 pm
Good riddance. He is a self-serving idiot.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:14 am
Poor Dick Morris! How will he ever promote his stupid website now?
February 7th, 2013 at 8:15 am
Too bad Fox didn’t fire that idiot, Karl Rove, too! Everybody knows who was really the brains behind the GWBush elections – Grover ‘The Brain’ Norquist!
February 7th, 2013 at 9:45 am
I’d characterize Rove as many things but certainly no idiot. I’ll agree that Norquist influenced the campaign but to dismiss Rove as an idiot is idiotic. Norquuist played more of a role in 2000. What Rove pulled off in 2004 was historic, and brilliant. One should understand the role of both before making such profoundly ignorant statements.
Perhaps you’re basing your claim on Rove’s ranting denial of reality on election night. That’s just who he is and how he operates- forget reality, mislead, misinform, deny deny deny, and sell it with all you’ve got. And I could just give endless examples from mushroom clouds to Valerie Plame to the economy being on solid ground. Prior to the election, Morris and Rove were spewing their own numbers while dismissing credible polls as “skewed”. And then when a few polls leaned their way, they magically were no longer skewed.
Last night, Peirs Morgan asked Morris: “Is there any rational explanation for why you got it so wrong” Morris responded: “I absolutely believed it, and so did a lot of people” or in other words, forget reality, mislead, misinform, deny deny deny, and sell it with all you’ve got.
I do believe that Fox should fire Rove based on their ratings suddenly swirling down the toilet. You have to make changes if you want to keep fooling the same people.
February 7th, 2013 at 9:58 am
Plenty of people believed that Mitt was going to win the election, including those who are pretty skilled in political science and statistics. There were good reasons to believe this:
As far as policy, the high unemployment rate throughout Obama’s presidency;
As far as politics, it was easy to believe, given 2010, that minorities and young voters would vote less than in 2008. Thus, many swing states would be available.
As far as polling, gallup and rasmussen consistently, until the end of october, showed a Mitt lead nationally.
So, this was hardly in irrational belief, although it was based on some false assumptions.
February 7th, 2013 at 10:20 am
Rasmussen?
February 7th, 2013 at 10:23 am
Oh, did I misspell it? I gave myself props for spelling Gallup right.
February 7th, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Arriba, good point. Not just some of the public polling outfits, but their own internal polling had Romney ahead.
February 7th, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Oh, I don’t know about the spelling Arriba?
With so many polls I find it easy to ignore the ones that have an obvious bias.
While I am sure some have an unintended prejudice due to a flawed model, it is obvious that others do have a bias and aren’t exactly going to great pains to hide it.
I prefer to look at companies that do market research for many other “products” as they charge rates and gain customers due to accuracy.
Who is Colgate-Palmolive hiring?
I do, however, understand polls that are biased as they do influence opinion and turnout.
I was surprised in the last few weeks commentators were insisting on a clear Romney victory as most polls had predicted otherwise in the closing weeks.
While I don’t think Sandy was the deciding factor, it did work as the “closer”.
That is why I said, “Rasmussen?”. I would assume that is the name that is most likely to pop into people’s mind when they think of a right-leaning poll. Even to the right of Fox, who is generally pretty accurate when they aren’t asking, “Is it true you beat your wife?” questions.
I am sure there are numerous polls that people would assume are left-leaning, such as KOS. I know many on the right think they all are, but again, inaccuracy will generally put a poll out of business.
February 7th, 2013 at 3:02 pm
Oh, I thought you were pointing out a spelling error.
As far as rasmussen’s bias, obviously for this last election, there was some problem with their model. My own problem with them is that, when they seek an unbiased model, they do it nationally, rather than state by state (I assume to minimize costs). Well, a curious flaw with that is in the South. For example, in LA, I believe that we still have more registered dems than reps, although if your last name isn’t landrieu, you couldnt get elected to anything as a dem. So, their model tends to have a gop bias nationally.
otoh, in previous elections like 2010, ras ended up pretty accurate since most dems didnt waste their energy to vote.
I generally discount ras and ppp on the dem side. For ppp, their internal polls are accurate, but usually the ones they release to the public are silly. I just saw one today where they claim that 92% of people want some gun control measure (I forget which one). You can’t get 92% of people to agree with anything.
If you asked was lincoln a good pres, less than 92% would agree.
The real q in the polling community is can gallup get its mojo back by 14.
February 7th, 2013 at 3:15 pm
I would assume it refers to something relevant to background checks, as that is getting support from both sides of the aisle.
I am also guessing that it will probably be the entirety of what happens (depending on what calamity comes next) regarding gun control.
It “looks like” action and most Americans support background checks, while it also addresses the “it’s the crazy people” segment.
The only other initiative that may be forthcoming is the gun show loophole as that is loosely related to background checks.
Heck, even the gun manufacturers will probably come for it publicly if they have a good PR department.
February 7th, 2013 at 3:28 pm
maybe, buzz. I think that for that to happen, the dems would have to agree to change hipaa rules to keep people who have mental problems from buying guns. I’d guess that that would be a poison pill for them.
February 8th, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Speaking of the GOP strategy to “forget reality, mislead, misinform, deny deny deny, and sell it with all you’ve got”, did anyone catch John Boehner’s new catchphrase of “the president’s sequester”? Wow! Karl is surely proud of John.
February 8th, 2013 at 7:13 pm
“Speaking of the GOP strategy to “forget reality, mislead, misinform, deny deny deny, and sell it with all you’ve got””
Sure Einstein, only the right employs that strategy.
Do you ever get tired of sounding like a brainwashed leftist ? (redundant)
February 8th, 2013 at 7:16 pm
As you said in #4 Ronald;
“One should understand the role of both before making such profoundly ignorant statements.”