I was wondering what the election would look like had the reporting been entirely balanced and just. Fair, how far back? is the immediate question. I'd like to say 20 years, but then all bets would be off on predictions. So what if the MSM reporting had been scrupulously fair, not just about the candidates, but about the war, the economy, et cetera since the last presidential election?
McCain would be leading Hillary Clinton in the polls 55-45, and we would be talking about who would control both houses, not whether there would be filibuster-proof majorities. Sure, there is a possibility that neither McCain nor Clinton would be the nominee, but I think it is at least reasonable to think they might be. Obama would be the VP nominee for the Democrats, and there is a 50/50 chance Palin would be off and Pawlenty, Graham, or Lieberman would be on. So conservatives/libertarians would be in about the same place they are now, having to regroup and refine. The problem of having both a big tent and ideological consistency is ever-present in elections.
For the country as a whole, however, the picture would be very different from today.