And we saw how well “we make our own reality” worked in Iraq, and with international relations in general ( since other countries aren’t especially interested in propping up our fantasies ). The right wing is VERY fond of declaring reality to be what it wants it to be, and acting on that assumption. That is indeed being “not in touch with reality”, and Reality is not impressed.
There are two sets of people. The first is the guy who was mentioned above, who only listens to Fos News and Rush and those other idiots, and who really thinks Obama is a secret Muslim. The kind of guy Stephen Colbert’s character is. Those guys are out of touch with reality. Then there are they guys who construct these news stories, who know very well what the real facts are. Some of them are doing it for political ends, and some of them are appealing to their viewership base.
It’s kind of like Creationism. Joe Fundamentalist truly believes in a 6,000 year old earth and all that stuff. Philip Johnson is smart enough to know the real story, but decides to deny it for what he sees is the good of the souls of humanity.
Remember Marjoe Gartner? He was a child preacher, who saw that it was all bull, and did a final preaching tour, very successful, while knowing full well that what he was saying was crap.
We’re not talking differences of opinion here, we’re talking out and out lies like the kindergarten sex ed ad.
I think the Fox poll was done to raise the spirits of their viewers, and that the people who ran it knew it was statistically meaningless.
Looking at the question as stated, yes, some right wing supporters are losing touch with reality.
As are some left wing supporters, some centerist supporters, some a little bit left of center and to the right of leftist supporters, some… well you get the point. Probably there isn’t a group of people out there that doesn’t have some percentage of batshit insane members.
So what’s your point? In less than a month we’ll have an election, and the day after either Obama or McCain will have won the election. If Obama wins this all seems like piling on. If McCain wins, won’t you feel like a chump?
There was a lot of piling on by Bush supporters following the 2004 elections. Did any of it make you more likely to vote for their side the next time around, or make you more amenable to listen to their viewpoints?
There’s a story that should be true, even if it isn’t, about Vince Lombardi, who back in the day when the ludicrous goal line celebrations had just started told his players, “When you get to the end zone, act like you’ve been there before”.
It looks to me like the Democrats are more likely than not to win the White House. Try to act like you’ve been there before.
You are spending too much time on the SDMB. “Most Americans” are right wing. Are we to suppose that George Bush was elected twice by accident?
msmith537, Airman, I’m merely asking this out of curiosity-NOT being sarcastic, or trying to pull a “gotchya!”, but who are you planning on voting for?
This is obviously false. If nothing else, more Americans certainly voted for Gore than Bush (I mean, even ignoring Florida, Gore won the popular vote). And 2004 was incredibly close also. And of course in the most recent national election (2006) the left cleaned the right’s clock.
Some Americans are right wing. Some are left wing. And a bunch are in the middle.
Obama.
That doesn’t mean that these endless attacks on behalf of BOTH candidates from their supporters and surrogates aren’t wearing on my nerves. The big appeal of Obama for me was the fact that he could win without getting down and dirty. I found that refreshing. Little did I know that he was going to be able to do that because his attack dogs (read: rabid supporters) were going to do all his dirty work for him. I’m tired of it, and I cannot wait for this election to be over.
I can remember as far back as 1984 when Reagan stomped Mondale into the ground, I can remember all of the famous “Gotcha” moments in political advertising, I can remember when Bentsen handed Quayle his ass in their famous debate, and yet I cannot remember when things were this rancorous. This election cycle is, in my opinion, far worse than the 2004 debacle. Especially here, with the endless anti-McCain/anti-Palin/Republicans Suck threads. Isn’t it enough to emulate your candidate and show some class? Oh, no, that would be too much to ask.
I was tired of it weeks ago, I’m tired of it now, and that’s why I have been conspicuous with my non-participation in political threads.
I said it before and I’ll say it again: I hope Obama wins. But if he doesn’t, this place is going to explode and some people are going to come unglued, because in their minds there is no way that Obama can lose. He can lose, and he may well lose, and I think that some of you need to brace yourselves for that potential outcome. I know how much you have invested in Obama, I know how much you want him to win, but Jesus, people, get a grip. Right-wing supporters are no more losing their grip on reality than you are. McCain supporters genuinely think their candidate can win.
This is exactly my experience with my dad. Fox news is ALL he watches. If the TV is on, it’s Fox. So any political opinion he holds he got from them. I can’t even argue with him because the crap he comes up with is so far off of reality that I’ve never even heard of it. And he calls it “fair and balanced!” Bah!
Not according to this study, which notes that in 2007, 50% of Pew poll respondents identified themselves as Democrats or Democratic-leaning while only 35% identified themselves as Republican or Republican-leaning. Moreover, a majority of respondents identify with liberal positions rather than conservative ones on issues like government support for the needy, acceptance of homosexuals, etc.
Perhaps, but I’m afraid many of the RWs who call Obama the “Antichrist” really mean it.
The problem with your analogy is that Carter was the incumbent during a time of a reeling economy, while Reagan offered a clearly different direction. McCain is in Carter’s position, while Obama is obviously the Reagan-like outsider promising change.
That’s a fair point, but Bush DID win the popular vote in 2004.
I think some of those points are a little open to interpretation. “Gov’t should care for those who can’t care for themselves”? I’m not sure if that’s necessarily a “liberal” position.
I’m not denying that many Americans are also liberal/left leaning, but I think Europeans reading the boards here would get the idea that in America, liberals wake up every morning with Bush’s boot on their throats. The US is a functioning democracy with a fairly elected government with broadly popular policies. George Bush is president because more people voted for him(for the second round, at least, but it’s not as if he rode a tank into the White House in 2000), Iraq was invaded because most Americans wanted it, there is no socialized health care because most Americans don’t want it.
But, addressing your points individually, I think the reason Bush won the popular vote in 2004 was because he was the incumbent and, coming off of 9/11, most people saw him as doing something strong and stand-upish for our rights against those who wished ill on us. Next, I think most folks wanted the war because they didn’t necessarily understand the intricacies involved; IE: that Iraq was and Hussein was one and the same as bin Laden and Al Queda. Finally, just from those that I know that oppose national health care, the reasoning seems to be due to the fact that it’s ‘socialism.’ However, when pressed, I don’t know too many personally that can actually define what socialism means, but have been led to believe that it’s a bad thing.
Just my take on your observations.
Yes they do, if by “socialized health care” you mean “single-payer health insurance”. Solid majorities of Americans polled support universal coverage, even if it means higher taxes. See here.
It’s not the same. For one thing, only the RW batshits have a major cable news network and a set of heavily funded Washington think-tanks reinforcing their antireality tendencies. Democracy Now! and The Nation and such, while they view the world through their own colored lenses, don’t do anything like that for the LW, at least not on anywhere near the same scale – nor on anything like the same level of divorce from reality.
What does it even mean to “lose touch with reality”? It’s not like “reality” exists outside of human perception. We’re not talking about the half-life of cesium-3 or something (that may not even be a real thing that has a half-life, just sounded right for some reason 
).
Just because people disagree on fundamental issues doesn’t mean that one side of the debate has “lost touch with reality.”
That’s heresy if you’re really an Objectivist.
Holy Crap is that biased. I mean I knew Fox was biased, but damn…
I am large, I contain multitudes. I’ve always been more fond of Objectivist ethics and politics than metaphysics anyway (I mean, it’s not like there’s some other system of metaphysics I like more, I just don’t think about metaphysics that much).
People have different views on issues. It doesn’t mean that all views are equally valid (i.e., I can apply my ethics to determine which views are valid and which aren’t), but it also doesn’t mean that the people with the views one thinks are not valid have “lost touch with reality.” A person’s views are their reality, so they really can’t lose touch with reality.
That is self-evident. If they know the facts that know Obama is not a terrorist.
The problem is that half of the people are below average in intelligence. They don’t know the facts. They are easy targets for propaganda.
Take a scarey word like terrorist, use the propaganda technique of “guilt by association,” call a man by his Muslim middle name, get a reasonably attractive person to deliver the message to an audience of untold numbers of unthinking and uneducated people (television land included) and you have planted doubt in the minds of quite a few voters.
Earlier in the campaign that included my 95 year old mother. She had been convinced by another member of my family who had heard it on the best of authority: a circulating email (!) that Obama was a Muslim and had been sworn in on the Koran.
Eventually she came around as did the rest of the family. But too many of us known people who believe that rubbish.
I resent any candidate who would manipulate facts to distort the truth. That’s not “the whole truth” to my way of thinking. Shame on that person if it is done intentionally. That is a deliberate corruption of the system.