Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

EXCUSES

Dick Morris: 'I'm A Pollster, Not A Meteorologist!'

Former Fox favorite defends inaccurate elections predictions

Next>

by David Mark

Editor-in-Chief t

Image: AP

Dick Morris says he shouldn't be blamed for predictions that Mitt Romney would win the presidential race in a landslide. There was no way of telling how strong the Obama campaign's get-out-the-vote operation would be, he writes on dickmorris.com.

Oh, and Hurricane Sandy. "Romney was, in fact, leading before Sandy and that his chances blew away in the storm with its famous bipartisan photo of Governor Chris Christie with Obama. And there was no way to measure the impact of Sandy since there could not logistically be any polling. Why was I wrong? I'm a pollster, not a meteorologist!"

Except that the Obama's campaign plan was clear from April and May. Obama campaign manager Jim Messina repeatedly said in campaign videos and other public forums that the path to victory was through creating new voters - those who had turned 18 since the last elections, new citizens, etc.

Morris's errant predictions have already cost him. In the wake of the election, Fox News Chief Roger Ailes has decided he wants Morris and Republican strategist Karl Rove, both of whom wrongly touted Mitt Romney as the clear presidential winner, off the air.

Via DickMorris.com.

Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Will you ever believe anything Dick Morris says about politics?

Comments (view in Forum)

  • martydotcom
    !
    add to the lack of trust factor, He's a cheating, toe sucking, hooker loving, whip me beat me type, just great character references. When the Clinton's threw him out for all of the above how did Fox ever perceive him to be a creditable flack?
  • o
    Sonny
    !
    @martydotcom ..LOL...my sentiments, Exactly, martydotcom. I could not have summed up dick morris any better ...LOL!
  • cat2009
    !
    Dick if the GOP had done more to attack Obama and his failed attempt to be President you would have been right. But for some stupid reason Mitt decided to not play hardball. The Democrats kicked the GOP in the nuts and went laughing all the way to the bank.
  • DerivePI
    !
    As a conservative, I have the nasty habit of discarding information obtained from people that are known to be inaccurate. In 2008 Dick Morris was inaccurate and I don't watch the weather channel. I do like his optimism, and, from time to time, I'll read his news letter.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    Look, he was getting paid well. He towed the fox line. Now that its been exposed that two major election commentators (rove and morris) decieved the audience they got rid of them in the hope their brain dead veiwers will remain convinced they can continue to trust the station.
  • Post Removed by Moderators

  • View all 6 replies >

  • u
    Hireman
    !
    I never believed his predictions. His understanding of process is sharp, but he's wrong in one thing: He's as accurate as a Meteorologist
  • u
    ctc
    !
    Wasn't aware he was a pollster....more like a loose cannon.
    If I were a Republican I would consider Dick Morris a mole, planted by the Clinton's to foster overconfidence in the GOP.
    The chip on his shoulder regarding Clinton's and Dem party is a put-on.
  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    I'll certainly believe him before the residents of 1600 Pennsylvania or Number One Observatory Circle.

    DO note.... Dick Morris didn't blame his predecessor or accuse those questioning him of being racist.
  • Zazziness
    !
    Probably because it wasn't appropriate. You Republican fanbois need to develop a sense of history, though. American didn't spring up from the ocean on the day Mr. Obama was elected. It was here a long time and events prior to his election are affecting us today. I don't know why y'all have such a hard time with that concept.
  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    @Zazziness I am nobodies fanboy. The Bamacrats have spent the past three + years reminding us that the world existed before the current president.

    What y'all have a problem with is realizing there was a country here before "W" and his predecessor took a strong economy through a hiccup and laid the groundwork for the current disaster.

    I'all don't have a problem understanding that in the least, nor do I'all need to explain why the current cabal is incapable of accepting responsibility for their own failing. OH wait... I do understand...... Der Fuhrer is infallible.
  • Zazziness
    !
    @Sharpshooter Mr. Bush inherited a budget surplus which he destroyed in no time at all. Our real problem goes back to Mr. Reagan and "Trickle Down Economics" which time has now painfully illustrated to be a detriment to our economy. I didn't expect we'd recover from The Big Crash until the housing market stabilized since most middle-class Americans had the bulk of their assets in their home. The stimulus certainly helped and so has time. The housing market is well into recovery and so is our economy. Now, if the American consumer would stop taking every dollar he gets his hands on and sending it overseas, we could be back on our feet very quickly.
  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    @jessejaymes All Clinton's fault? I never said that, but if you're happy putting the entire blame on his stooped shoulders, be aware that he still wears a Teflon suit in the eyes of many of your like thinking comrades.
    I recall him explaining to his fellow Americans that we need to reinvent ourselves into a service economy. A service economy, providing service to those economies who MANUFACTURE products.
    I guess the schools in Arkansas don't teach economics. The ONLY way to CREATE WEALTH is MANUFACTURING. Manufacturers change raw materials into products selling for many times more than the cost of the materials. Manufactures spend some of the wealth they generate to pay others to SERVICE their products and customers. This country MANUFACTURERED itself into a World Power, using others as employees to serve our needs. Thanks Willy.... Great call.
    Willy inherited a strong vibrant economy that worked quite well. You seem to also forget Jimmah the peanut farmer who wanted to everyone's friend. Remember the economy he created? Gas Lines and 10% unemployment. In case you don't recall, take a look around you right now, it's pretty much the same now.
    Reagan and then George H.W. Bush turned the economy around by focusing on.... you guessed it, MANUFACTURING. Trickle down.... You used the term, I wonder if you can explain it and then explain why it's bad.
    Wealthy people become wealthy because they earn money and put it to work earning more money. Jimmah GAVE everyone in the country $150 if I recall the amount correctly to stimulate the economy. Problem was then as it would be today, the poor spend the money foolishly as they would today buying a big screen TV at WalMart. Stimulate the economy? For China since they MANUFACTURE the TVs and other stuff they buy.
    Put that same $150 in the hands of a capitalist and he will put it to work to earn him more money. On a grander scale, lower his taxes and his money is invested in his business to buy more equipment or inventory which allows him to increase production, thus MANUFACTURING WEALTH and putting people to work. Selling products into foreign markets bringing money INTO our economy rather than funneling it out.

  • View all 11 replies >

  • PNWest
    !
    As for stock market predictions - GOP president=bad market, Democratic President=Good market. A basic guideline - not absolute. It pleases me to give a link from FOX BUSINESS to show this:http://www.foxbusiness.co m/investing/2012/09/04/history -shows-markets-gdp-outperform- under-democrats/
  • Mia
    !
    The mainstream media had the 2012 election sewn up back in 08. They still havent vetted obama. Just wishful thinking on dick's part. Dick is more accurate on most issues than anyone on msnbc.
  • Zazziness
    !
    At times, it really did seem like they were trying to lose. Gingrich running on the family values ticket? I mean, c'mon.
  • Denizen_Kate
    !
    " ... the REPs deliberately lost the election. " I must have missed something during the election cycle. How was this huge loss deliberate on the part of the GOP?
  • u
    Romney_Rube
    !
    @Denizen_Kate You're not the first RINO seeking a free education on this issue. The REPS were supposed to lose because each party has essentially been trading the White House back and forth every 8 years for the past 30 years. Obama's reelection buttresses this assertion strongly. President #45 will be Jeb Bush who will be in office from 2017 through 2025. After that, it will be a DEM for 8 years and so on.

    Ask yourself, in an election where the Republicans proclaimed that victory was a MUST in order to save the republic, how is it that a pack of second string LOSERS ended up vying for the nomination? Romney was supposed to lose just like McCain, Kerry, Gore and Dole did in the past. Why didn't more prominent REPS run in this election if it was such a must win?

    Try these 2 links to begin your belated quest for answers:

    Jeb Bush: No run in 2012, but I don't rule out 2016
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-138...

    From January 2012, in the midst of the REP primary:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/67731...
  • Denizen_Kate
    !
    @Romney_Rube - RINO? Moi? You must be new here. And your explanation, while not without merit, would appear to ignore Carter and Bush Sr. If your intention was sarcasm at the expense of the two main parties, I'm right there with you on that.
  • u
    Romney_Rube
    !
    @Denizen_Kate This scheme began with Reagan which, coincidentally, is when our deficit spending began to irreversibly spiral out of control. The national debt rose 186% during Reagan's 8 budget years, more than double that of Bush 43.

    As usual, some point out the inadvertent break in two term presidencies with Bush 41. In 1988, Colorado Senator Gary Hart was the wonder boy for the Democrats. If you're old enough, then you'll know that his campaign was deep-sixed because he got caught with the cute blonde Donna Rice on a boay ironically named monkey business. Hart was out and Dukakis was all that was left. Dukakis was not in the inner circle of trust and the alternative was for Bush Sr to substitute for 4 years rather than risk it with Dukakis. Inorder for Bush to accomplish this and guarantee a maximum of four years, he needed to pick an unelectable political luddite as his VP in the event something happened to him as he entered office at age 65. Bush effortlessly reneged on the 'no new taxes' pledge because he intended to be a one termer. Within one year after leaving office, two of his otherwise politically inept sons would vie for governorships in two of the most electoral vote rich states that Republicans could win, namely Texas and Florida.

    None of this was by chance. Both parties have a significant interest in all of this being played out this way. Find another time in our nation's history where we have has this many two term presidents back to back in such a short period of time.

    Obama's second term will be as lackluster as the second term of the previous presidents since 1980 to the point that the party in office falls into disfavor while the other party is seemingly more attractive for a change of pace.

    Don't take my word for it but will you even remember this exchange as Jeb Bush is elected in 2016 and reelected in 2020? One wonders who the Democrat will be from 2024-2032?

  • View all 7 replies >

  • Denizen_Kate
    !
    Job? You think Morris looked at it as a job? I thought he was just a panderer for the GOP, getting very well paid to go on the air and emit a lot of hot air about how wonderful Romney was and how idyllic life in America would be after Romney won the election. Now that it's become plain that his hot air is no more than that and Ailes has axed him from regular Fox News programming, he's sounding desperate to hold on to not only credibility but income as well. It's pathetic, but kinda fun to watch.
  • harold
    !
    He's a propagandist, not a pollster. He starts with a conclusion and looks for evidence to justify it.
    If he had been even a little sceptical, he would have tried to find out why his polling was divergent, but it was easier to rationalize. Right up until votes were cast.
  • R Load more comments...