
As I suspect is the case with many of you reading this, I’m so ready for this presidential campaign to be over with, to the point where I simply can’t bring myself to watch cable news very much. But I do still enjoy Morning Joe every now and then! Occasional douchebag guest aside, it’s always struck me as the most sensible, balanced and non shout-y cable news talk show going these days.
With that said, I’m kind of sad that I didn’t tune in this morning to see this live: Republican co-host Joe Scarborough, a Romney supporter, recoiling in horror after viewing a clip of the Most Painfully Awkward Man in the World trying to coax a crowd into starting a “Romney/Ryan” chant. Like, Scarborough literally buries his face in his hands and moans, “sweet Jesus.”
And just think: with the debates still to come and Romney as of now estimated to have less than a 4% chance of beating Obama, it’s only going to get more painfully awkward from here!
(Via GIFs From Last Night)



If you want really intelligent analysis of the presidential debate (which I doubt, but I’ve already started this comment), I highly recommend the NYT’s Five Thirty Eight blog. He’s crazy accurate.
I’ll show myself the door.
Shit. I meant presidential election – not debates.
I’m really going this time.
That’s actually who I linked to above where I mentioned the 4% chance of winning thing. He’s the most spot-on accurate person going for that type of analysis.
Intrade usually respects that blog much too much. Interesting.
FiveThirtyEight did predict 50 of the 51 states (including D.C.) in 2008. Not a bad track record. And Morning Joe is so tolerable because it’s about the process of politics and not the ideology.
Did you know that before 538, Nate Silver created the PECOTA system at Baseball Prospectus? He is awesome. And I get all the girls when I share useful, not-nerdy-in-the-least tidbits like that.
I guarantee the Obama supporters can get much more melodic chant going because they are black and have rhythm. Ignorant racism intended.
You’d be surprised how many words rhyme when you don’t say the last syllable of them.
Taggert is that you?
/Camptown lady sing that song doo daa doo daa….
Being Canadian and without cable I somehow avoided watched any footage of Mitt Romney before today. After watching this and the painfully awkward supercut I have to say watching Mitt Romney trying to relate to people is like being back in high school and having one of your friend’s dads try and hang out for a bit.
He also addresses people as “my friend” more than an Armenian shop keep.
“I got the worst fucking attorneys…”
the cutaways after the clip killed me…lmao
The 4% chance of winning remark is either a mistake or intellectually dishonest. That number is if the election was held today. Nate Silver has Romney at 20% chance of winning the election considering it’s November 6th. It’s still not looking pretty for Romney but that’s a big difference.
I think it was a mistake- the 4% figure is Romney’s chance of winning Ohio, not the election.
Still off. Currently Romney has a 19% chance of winning Ohio on Nov. 6th.
Not to get all geeky — but Silver has two estimates on his site for the Presidential election. The 4% was the “nowcast” — if the election were held that very day. The 20% is the “forecast” — the likelihood of Romney winning six weeks from now. Basically, he’s saying that six weeks is enough time for Romney to increase his chances of winning from today (not by much, but still).
I think I’m failing this exam either way and I’m going to go get blitzed over the weekend to forget about it.
I have no idea who that blonde is, but I’m pretty sure that body language between those two screams “drunken inappropriate come on at the Christmas party”
Still pales in comparison to Romney’s attempts to relate to black people:
[www.youtube.com]
Who let the dogs out indeed, Mitt. (Keep in mind this was EIGHT YEARS after the song peaked.)
Still better than 4 more years of Obama.
One doesn’t need to be cool to be president. If four years of a cool president has taught us anything, then it’s that the View and MSNBC are unwatchable.
“I even mentioned this to my friends as we left the rally. I could not believe the MSNBC coverage, trying to validate a news article by completely misleading the public about what really happened,” she adds.
“If you believe the firsthand accounts, the question then remains: did MSNBC intentionally mislead the audience into thinking the crowd was chanting “Ryan!” in order to make Romney look foolish and further the narrative that his running mate overshadows him, or did they misinterpret it on accident?
If you believe the former, MSNBC’s recent history would help justify that theory. This wouldn’t be the first time someone over there has pulled this type of stunt. Indeed, if there’s one thing the Andrea Mitchell Wawa edit taught us, it’s that MSNBC is not above airing video that helps further the “he’s so rich, he doesn’t get us” narrative. And there’s also all that Trayvon Martin stuff.”
[www.theblaze.com]
This is how it works. MSNBC fabriates a false narrative, Uproxx runs a story with the false narrative, and when the fake story is revealed, there is no retraction:
“Interestingly, reporters on the scene did seem certain about what they heard. Live tweets from Politico and Washington Post reporters at the event indicate they heard the crowd chanting “Romney!” and that the candidate then proposed the “Romney, Ryan!” chant. A New York Times piece confirms these accounts. Twitchy has collected many of these live tweets.
Given this information, it will be interesting to see if MSNBC decides to air the clip again tomorrow morning.
UPDATE: After tweeting my original post on this topic, Rich received a response from Byron York, who also said, “I was there, at back of crowd. Clear to me then and now crowd began with ‘Rom-ney!’ and Romney said no, ‘Romney-Ryan.’” Buzzfeed seconded Byron’s account; on Twitter, McKay Coppins’s response to Byron and Rich was, “Yep, I was there too and it was pretty obvious.”
[www.nationalreview.com]