DC Sniper vs. Pennsylvania sniper and the midterm elections.

[Democrats_win]

As the 2002 midterm elections approached the media was in a frenzy over the DC sniper. Now, as the 2014 midterm election approaches, the media is in a frenzy over Ebola and barely mentions the Pennsylvania right wing nut who killed just as many people in this country as Ebola.

Is there any doubt that the media is engaged in a right wing conspiracy to scare America into voting for conservatives?

2002 was a rare midterm election because the party in charge, the right wing bush pResidency, picked up seats giving them complete control of the government for four years until America took it back in 2006. The DC sniper scare provided a tremendous assist in the right wing taking over our country. Now the right wing nutbaggers have an excellent chance to take congress away from Americans again. The right wing media is doing it's part by scaring us with Ebola and not mentioning the true evil of right wing nutjobs who will be emboldened by more wingnuts in congress.

[onenote]

1. Ridiculous.

I don't know to what extent there was a "frenzy" in the national media over the DC sniper, but I know that there definitely was a frenzy here in the DC area. And quite legitimately. When someone gets shot and killed in the parking lot of the Home Depot a mile from your house, it is very real and very much the top story in your life.

But even in the DC area, where the three week "frenzy" was at its greatest, it had no discrenible impact on the 2002 elections (which were held two weeks after the snipers were caught). There was, predictably, no turnover among the incumbents in the Virginia Congressional districts or the Senate. No Democratic office holders were turned out and no Republican office holders were turned out. In Maryland, the other jurisdiction most directly in the "line of fire," there were two incumbents ousted --- both Republicans, which kind of blows up your theory.

Nationally, the 2002 election had very few surprises and hardly reflected an electorate scared into voting for conservatives by the sniper story. For example, in the Senate Republicans won in the states where they had incumbents and generally could be expected to win given the level of opposition (the selection of which predated the sniper attacks). Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, OK, Oregon, Virginia and Wyoming all returned repub incumbents. The repubs also held onto seats (with new candidates) in NH, NC, SC, TN, TX -- hardly surprises. The one seat they lost: Arkansas, which probably is surprising, but not in the way your theory would suggest. As for the Democrats, they held seats where you would expect them to (and maybe a few places that you might think they would be at risk): DE, IL, IA, LA, MA, MI, RI, SD,WV. They held a seat where the incumbent didn't run in NJ (not that big a surprise). The seats we lost? Georgia, MO and MN. And in MN we lost only because Wellstone was killed in a plane crash. The fact is that the repubs picked up three seats, the Democrats picked up one and but for the Wellstone effect, it would have been a wash.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. Umm....probably not.

At least not that specific, no.

[pansypoo53219]

3. CRAPITALIST gnewz media. of course they are the enemy.

subliminally so.

[zappaman]

4. um