Dumb jokes about Romney winning in Las Vegas

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/05/politics/romney-Nevada-analysis/index.html

So CNN is so funny. The best news team is so creative in making clever jokes about Romney taking all the cards.  Ok so it is not a surprise that Romney one Nevada considering he just got the Donald's endorsement(Sarcasm). It is well known that Newt controls the bible belt but that's about it, Romney pretty much has a firm grasp in all the other states. I mean come on did CNN really think people were surprised that Gingrich the self proposed future super conservative president of the moon didn't win a state with legal prostitution and gambling. Nevada seems like a libertarian's paradise its more surprising that Ron Paul didn't win most of the state. CNN then goes on to state the reasons why Newt didn't win which were pretty obvious. Ok CNN stop acting like this is a close race and just realize that Romney is going to win any way and Newt is going to lose. Stop focusing so much on the horse race and more on the policy.
All though this may seem like a huge attack on CNN and the way they report on the News I am more upset about the fact that they think they are hilarious by using obvious and dumb jokes its like watching a lame and boring Abbot and Costello routine. If you are going to report obvious news don't be lame about it this isn't open mike night at the chuckle bucket get those hard working producers with the rolled up sleeves to try harder.   

Nevada Primary Results

Article Title: Early Returns In Nevada Favor Romeny

(Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/us/politics/nevada-caucuses.html?_r=1&ref=us)

Where do I begin to count the ways that this article diminishes the significance of our electoral process and the significance that our voting population places on their ballot. The title alone, "Early Returns Favor Romney"...With only eight percent (8%) EIGHT PERCENT!, of the precincts reporting, New York Times journalists believed that it was the appropriate time to call the winner. If I were back in my AP Literature or Language courses, I would cite an ecological fallacy, however we are not. Rather, I must cite the advances in exit polling, mathematical jargon that no one understands, and the fact that Romney just came off a "momentous" win in Florida. (Oh in-case you were wondering, Washington Post just emailed me with 9% reporting, that Romney has taken Nevada). I wish someone would really just point out that despite any of this, it is really Romney's bank account that is the true indicator of this race to the republican national conference later this summer.

Secondly, this quote right here.... "Mitt Romney appeared headed toward his most definitive victory in the month-old race for the Republican presidential nomination on Saturday." Correct me if I am wrong, but wasnt Florida the most definitive victory? Before that, South Carolina (well that was a loss, but they claimed it would be if it were to be won by Romney)? Etc. Etc. Etc. Then in this "month-old race", this campaign or race has been much much MUCH longer than a month. It has been at minimum a year in the making, it is at the least a race that began four years ago when McCain won the Republican ticket and then Obama won the presidency. To even begin to place this race to the Republican ticket as a process of only thirty days from beginning to end is preposterous and continues to poorly educate the public who are not political nerds.

Thirdly, NEVADA has a HUGE Mormon population. Nevada is considered almost home turf for Mr. Romney, who is Mormon. The state has a large Mormon population, who made up roughly a quarter of Republican caucus-goers, according to entrance polls. And it shares a border with Utah, where Mr. Romney won credit for saving the troubled 2002 winter Olympics. Did anyone really think that Gingrich who has been inflating the issue of Romeny's wealth and religion, would stand a chance in this state? 

Finally, the article reports that "More than 4 in 10 of the caucusgoers surveyed Saturday said the quality that mattered most to them in a candidate was his ability to beat President Obama in the fall; three-quarters of them said they backed Mr. Romney." While I agree that voters were looking for someone who could beat Obama, I dont believe that Romney was our only option to beat Obama. Romney merely has the monetary funds to compete against Obama's plentiful war chest of campaign contributions. I personally believe that Huntsman was the best choice, however he's out because the Media only paid attention to the "boisterous Newt Gingrich" and the "Smooth talking car salesman, Romeny" (Sorry, personal rant over). 

In the end, it is quite infuriating when reporters and journalists forget that they are here to serve an objective role: report the facts, remain unbiased, remove the fluff, and keep the commentary to yourselves. Leave that to the blogosphere. This article does nothing to perpetuate democracy, it does however point out that all we need is 8% of precincts to vote and then throw the rest of the votes away because thats all mathematicians need to determine an election. I bet that "hanging chad" scandal that occurred in Florida two national campaign seasons ago (Bush v. Gore) would have barely gotten two days of airtime in this campaign season. Sorry Florida, you were ahead of your time when it comes to ignoring votes and throwing them away.