November, 05 2008, 05:25pm EDT
Fox News Nailbiter!
Conservative channel pushed notion of a tightening election
NEW YORK
One of the most glaring peculiarities about the Fox News Channel's
campaign coverage in the run-up to the November 4 election was the
channel's frequent insistence, in the waning days of the campaign, that
the election was remarkably close, with Republican John McCain surging.
In reality, few polls suggested this was happening (see PollingReport.com; Pollster.com), but Fox
chose to give a handful of outlying, unrepresentative surveys
considerable attention. It was as if the channel were less interested
in accurately reporting the state of the campaign than in presenting an
alternate reality that would be pleasing to partisan viewers.
Here's a sampling of that coverage, day by day:
October 27:
FOX NEWS ANALYST DICK MORRIS: I think that we have to understand that redistribution of income is liberal euphemism for socialism. And you know.
FOX NEWS HOST SEAN HANNITY: Well, I -- and I agree. But let me
move the ball a little bit here.... This is, obviously, a very sensitive
issue for the Obama campaign. They feel like they've been exposed. It
started with Joe the Plumber.
MORRIS: And they're hemorrhaging votes.... Zogby, Rasmussen, and
Gallup, all have this race five points apart.... Zogby down from 12,
Rasmussen down from eight, and Gallup down from six. And Investors
Business Daily has it to 2.8, and Zogby had a one-night finding of
three. The averages that over three nights.
October 28:
"Let me put up on the screen the latest polls,
because we've had a tightening in many of them. Likely voters, Gallup,
it's a two-point race. Zogby, now four-point. AP,
it's dead even. IDP, another close race. Obviously spread the wealth,
socialism, Obama's welfare plan is not going over well with the
American people."
--Sean Hannity
FOX NEWS ANALYST NEWT GINGRICH: "I got a
report earlier this evening that in the very, very close states that,
in fact, McCain has closed the gap substantially, and that internal
polling now shows him within pretty good striking distance in every
single close state.
HANNITY: Well, we're going to go over some of these polls. The likely voter poll, Gallup, now has a two-point race.
October 29:
FOX NEWS ANCHOR MARTHA MacCALLUM: McCain
is blasting Obama, saying his rival doesn't have what it takes to
protect America from terrorists. And that kind of tough talk may be
helping him a bit. Here's a look at new Rasmussen Poll showing McCain
gaining ground with Obama at 50 to McCain's 47. That's the first time
in this particular poll that McCain has been within three points of
Barack Obama in more than a month. Fox's Carl Cameron is with the McCain camp live in Riviera Beach, Florida tonight....
FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT CARL CAMERON: Well, for the last several
weeks, Senator McCain has been focusing on economic issues. And if
anything sort of to be credited with his apparent surge and the
tightening in the national polls, it would be presumably be his
emphasis on Barack Obama's economic policies, which McCain has sort of
tattooed as tax-and-spend liberalism.
***
NATIONAL REVIEW CONTRIBUTOR MARK STEYN:
Clearly, something is working. Because I think whatever one makes of
these polls, there is a general tightening direction. So, clearly,
people are taking a second look at Obama and taking a second look at
McCain.
HANNITY: Let me jump on that, Mark.... Look, it's Scott Rasmussen.
It's Gallup, likely voters. It's Investor's Business Daily and that
poll that's out. It's AP. It's Battleground. This is a two- or three-point race.
October 29:
"Fear is in the air. And while it initially
helped Barack Obama, fear is now beginning to hurt him. Both the
Rasmussen and Gallup daily tracking polls have the race getting
tighter. And in a remarkable turnabout, Rasmussen will release a poll
tomorrow that says Americans now trust McCain more on the economy than
Obama. So NBC News will have to tone down the victory dance.
A series of Obama issues regarding spreading the wealth around have
hurt him. Joe the Plumber and other expositions have caused some fear
among undecided voters that an Obama administration will harm the
economy more than help it. The USA remains a strong capitalist country,
much to the chagrin of the far left. And deviation from capitalism
isn't going to play well here, especially among older voters. And it is
here where the swings are taking place, especially in places like
Florida and Ohio."
--Fox News host Bill O'Reilly
October 30:
"But first--it is close, even closer than it was last night. It is now a three-point race for the White House. A new Fox News poll shows the race tightening, with Senator Obama at 47 percent and Senator McCain at 44 percent."
-- Fox News host Greta van Susteren
"Well, he [Obama] ought to be nervous because
of the margin of error, and he also ought to be nervous because,
clearly, the national race is tightening.... He's not a good closer. I
mean, there is a resistance to him, a doubt about whether or not he's
experienced and qualified enough to be president that causes people at
the tail end of the race not to end up in his column, and I suspect
we're seeing that again.... It's because of this persistent doubt that
people have about Senator Obama."
-- Fox News analyst Karl Rove
* * *
"Now the polling, the Fox News
poll, which shows Obama closing the gap from -- McCain closing it from
9 to 3 shows two completely different trends at work. Young people are
turning away from Obama and toward McCain, driven by the tax issue."
--Dick Morris
MORRIS: My bet is McCain wins all of the undecided in this race.
HANNITY: Well, if that happens, he wins the race.
MORRIS: Right now it's tied.
HANNITY: If that.
MORRIS: No, right now it's about tied.
"Brand new Fox polls are in and this race is tightening."
--Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly
"The latest Fox News/Opinion
Dynamics Poll of likely voters nationwide, which Major Garrett was just
mentioning, shows that the race is tightening considerably from last
week, with Barack Obama's overall lead over John McCain is shrinking
from nine points to three; that's within the margin of error."
--Fox News correspondent James Rosen
October 31:
"We are down to the wire. And guess what? The race is far from over. The Associated Press
is reporting that a study shows one in seven are persuadable. That
means this isn't over. And if you don't believe that, how about this
news? The polls are tightening. A new Fox News poll shows Senator Obama at 47 percent and Senator McCain at 44 percent."
--Greta van Susteren
HANNITY: One of the more amazing things is the numbers of
undecided, anywhere between eight and 14. You know Dick Morris
interprets that that is -- that means Obama can't close the deal and
that people have doubts about him and it appears by the tightening
that's going on that those voters are moving toward Senator McCain. Do
you share that analysis?
ROVE: I think Dick is largely right. There has been a persistent
nagging concern on the part of the American people about whether or not
Barack Obama is qualified to be president.
HANNITY: Are you looking at the polls? There's a real tightening
going on. Very interesting to me, as it's happening. Seems Barack Obama
cannot close. Why?
FOX NEWS ANALYST MIKE HUCKABEE: I think there is the lingering
doubt as to what he's going to do to people's personal income. This is
not about -- you know, right now it's not about even terrorism or
international affairs. Joe the plumber hit the reset button on this
entire election.
"Apparently, for our audience's sake, apparently, big move in the
polls. McCain up by one, Drudge is reporting, in the latest Zogby poll.
It's going to come out tomorrow."
--Sean Hannity
"In a surprise turnaround, get this, a brand new Fox News
poll find that John McCain is surging among younger voters, those under
30 years old. He is catching up to Barack Obama's 48 percent, McCain
has 43 percent. I think those numbers are wrong - 48 to 58 percent
among voters under the age of 30."
--Fox News host Heather Nauert
NAUERT: ... McCain has gained 10 points with the youth vote within the last week?
MORRIS: Yes. In the last week, among voters 18 to 30, McCain has vis-a- vis Obama has closed the gap by 20 points.
November 2:
"Two days and counting until you decide our next president. With the
polls tightening, is John McCain about to pull off one more remarkable
comeback?"
--Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace
November 3:
SEAN HANNITY: Investors Business Daily, which was the most
accurate poll in the last presidential election, now has it down to a
two-point race.... You know, Colorado was just, you know -- a week and a
half two weeks ago, it was supposed to be a blowout. It's now right
there at the margin of error. The same with the state of Virginia.
Again, that was, you know, supposed to be a blowout. And then we look,
for example, we've got Senator McCain is up in Florida. He's tied in
Missouri. He's now up in North Carolina, which was supposed to be a
blowout for Senator Obama. There--something has happened here fairly
dramatic. And do you think that this could even go further by the time
people vote tomorrow?
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I think, first of all, that the mistake of
Senator Obama telling Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the
wealth has clearly slowed down all the momentum for the Obama campaign,
because it turns out most Americans are not very interested in having
politicians decide to take their money out of their wallet and spread
to it the politicians' friends. That may turn out, in retrospect, to
have been the biggest single mistake of the campaign by Senator Obama.
"I think that -- I don't believe these polls. I do not believe any, but
I agree with Dick Morris. Who knows what's going to happen tomorrow
night."
--Sean Hannity
For more information on the obvious and rather dramatic differences in the way Fox News Channel and MSNBC were covering the presidential race see the FAIR Blog. (11/2/02.)
ACTION: Ask Fox News Channel
why it failed to provide its viewers with an accurate picture of
presidential election polls in the lead-up to the November 4 election.
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


