Skip to main content

The media needs to put an end to referendums

I know the 24-hour news media has a lot of space to fill, and more times than I'm sure they'd care to admit, they fill that space with information that is less useful than a how-to book on reading how-to books. Having said that, though, they really need to cut it out with their seeming obsession with "referendums" during election season.

Newsflash: Not everything is a referendum! In fact, unless a large majority of the people vote, it's difficult to call any election season a referendum on a previous or current administration. After President Obama was elected and the Democrats lost midterm elections as they so often do, that wasn't a referendum on Obama. That was history repeating itself. When Donald Trump got "elected" president with the vote of roughly 25% of the people whom were eligible, that was not a referendum on the previous president, who had left office with approximately a 60% approval rating. Finally, last night's Georgia special election wasn't going to be a referendum for or against President Trump, regardless of who won.

Anymore, we're lucky to get 60% of voters out to the booths for general elections, 40% for the midterms, and that number decreases even further for special elections. Would winning the traditionally red 6th district have been a huge win for Democrats last night? Yes. But is a loss as detrimental as some are saying? No. Democrats haven't won that district in roughly three decades. The last time they did so was when Jimmy Carter sat at the Oval Office. So, let's be realistic here, Democrat Jon Ossoff losing in Georgia's 6th district last night was not an earth-shattering surprise. Just because he lost, it doesn't suddenly mean the country approves of Donald Trump or of the healthcare repeal-and-replace bill. A poll released yesterday has Trump sitting at just a 36% approval rating, and that's over two times as high as the Republican healthcare bill polls, which is currently sitting at 17% approval.

Last night's defeat just served as a "bigly" learning experience for all parties involved. From it, the media should have learned that they can't realistically coin every election as a potential "referendum." The Democrats should have learned that, while they're continuing to make inroads in traditionally red territory, they still have a ways to go, and it's probably not the best of ideas to throw inexperienced 30-year-olds from outside the district they'll be representing out into the fray. Lastly, the Republicans should have learned that, with Donald Trump as president, no territory is completely safe, regardless of how red it's been in the past. Will any of these parties take these lessons with them? We'll have to wait and see in November of 2018. Until then, it's all speculation and space-filling BS.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"