In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 If the media is so obviously in the President's corner (and I'm not disagreeing entirely), and if they are cooking the books so to speak, why would they propagate an illusion of Obama gaining? Wouldn't it be more effective to make it look as if it's a dead heat to assure that every supporter votes? this is the part I don't get. If all the pollsters (except Rasmussen) and media are in the tank for Obama, wouldn't that suppress voter turnout for the President, since he's already winning by such a large margin in the polls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 ah, another day, another poll claiming Obama gaining. What else is new? The only question I have is this: WHY does the media appear so obviously in the President's corner on just about everthing? Huh? I think either you or 1bills need to check your math. I get R+1 in FL, D+3 in Ohio... Yeah, wow. I botched that pretty badly--oh, the dangers of multi-tasking. FL: Change between 04 and 08 = +7 for Dems, and +6 is forecasted change this time around. (-1 difference in change) OH: Change between 04 and 08 = +13 for Dems, and +1 is forecasted change this time around. (-12 difference in change) PA: Change between 04 and 08 = +4 for Dems, and +2 is forecasted change this time around. (-2 difference in change) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 So the 2012 forecasts are wrong because they don't match the 2004/2008 results? WTF? But a different way, the polls actually confirm, and even mitigate the trend these very numbers show. FL 2004-2008 +7 for the Dems, and +2 forecasted for this cycle's increase. OH 2004-2008 +13 for the Dems, and +1 forecasted for this cycle's increase PA 2004-2008 +4 for the Dems, and +2 forecasted for this cycle's increase. I think you're confused about cycles which is why you don't understand how the Obama skewed polls are so ridiculous, this 2012 cycle the Rs are up 4 this year... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation Aug/2012 Rep/37.6% Dem/33.3% Other/29.2% = Rep +4.3% I don't mean to burst your bubble, but you guys are on a "down" cycle and you're pointing to polls which are based on record "up" cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 The only question I have is this: WHY does the media appear so obviously in the President's corner on just about everthing? because of this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 If the media is so obviously in the President's corner (and I'm not disagreeing entirely), and if they are cooking the books so to speak, why would they propagate an illusion of Obama gaining? Wouldn't it be more effective to make it look as if it's a dead heat to assure that every supporter votes? this is the part I don't get. If all the pollsters (except Rasmussen) and media are in the tank for Obama, wouldn't that suppress voter turnout for the President, since he's already winning by such a large margin in the polls? For the rather obvious reason that the function is to suppress the GOP turnout the dems might lose some also (as you suggest) but a lower turnout certainly favors the incumbent You are looking at it one sided, you have to see this.....................your posts show that you are both too intelligent not to . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Yes, I thought this too, they may in fact, have the opposite effect. That is, no need to go and vote, the President is going to win no matter what. So, isn't it possible that the reason why the right-leaning polls (or the "objective" polls) are showing the race as a dead heat to make sure Romney's base goes to the polls? Still does not answer my question though... Whoa, I totally missed your question somehow the first time, my bad. Personally I think the phrasing of your question is problematic but I know I'm in the minority on this one. The "media" is such a broad term and the public's relationship with the media has changed drastically with the advent of cable news and the blogosphere. 60% of Americans don't trust the media -- that's an alarming statistic. By in large the traditional media tends to lean left simply due to geography and the demographics of the journalists. Most are liberally educated, live in either New York City or Los Angeles, and driven by the muckraking history of their profession. Prior to cable and the internet, there were a limited number of options for the public to get their news. As such, the aura of journalistic integrity was more revered. Newscasters and journalists had to be more objective (or at least keep their cloak up) simply due to the limited nature of the medium they were working in. But now there's more freedom than ever for people to get their news and information. It accelerated the already competitive nature of the industry and created news that panders to its viewers. Entertainment passed off as information has become the norm. And Obama is inherently more flashy and sexy from an entertainment perspective than Mitt. The right sees it as a liberal conspiracy. In reality it's a business decision plain and simple. But again, I know I'm in the minority on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Boy, for being a bunch of fawning idiots, the lamestream media sure is cunning and calculated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 this is the part I don't get. If all the pollsters (except Rasmussen) and media are in the tank for Obama, wouldn't that suppress voter turnout for the President, since he's already winning by such a large margin in the polls? The media's goal is trying to depress the Romney/anti-Obama voters. They feel that it greatly favors Obama's chances to have the entire electorate depressed rather than have the national enthusiasm for a Romney surge/wave for people to catch onto, and in turn would contrast the jaded, faded and depressed Obama supporters. MSM narrative: "Well he sucks as president but at least Obama's still cool and popular! Poor ol' stiff and uncool Romney, looks like he's out of it. Nice try though. Move forward people, nothing to see here. We said MOVE FORWARD!" Unfortunately for the MSM, their time has past and they still don't know it yet. The new media has taken control of the narrative. The MSM are all liars and the new media are the truth tellers. The MSM have become the uncool and cranky old men yelling at the kids to get off their lawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 For the rather obvious reason that the function is to suppress the GOP turnout the dems might lose some also (as you suggest) but a lower turnout certainly favors the incumbent You are looking at it one sided, you have to see this.....................your posts show that you are both too intelligent not to . maybe, but seems like it would work against the incumbent. I think you'd agree that rather than liking Romney as a candidate, many registered republicans and probably more than a few indies will vote for him because they hate Obama and will do just about anything to get him out of the WH. So, if I desperately want to oust the sitting president, I'm gonna make sure my vote counts. But maybe that's not the case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 For the rather obvious reason that the function is to suppress the GOP turnout . I'm not trying to argue (because I honestly know very little about polling), but wouldn't this have the opposite effect on the GOP turnout? Wouldn't the threat of losing (it's still within the margin of error, isn't it?) wouldn't more supporters turn out for the GOP or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 The media's goal is trying to depress the Romney/anti-Obama voters. They feel that it greatly favors Obama's chances to have the entire electorate depressed rather than have the national enthusiasm for a Romney surge/wave for people to catch onto, and in turn would contrast the jaded, faded and depressed Obama supporters. MSM narrative: "Well he sucks as president but at least Obama's still cool and popular! Poor ol' stiff and uncool Romney, looks like he's out of it. Nice try though. Move forward people, nothing to see here. We said MOVE FORWARD!" Unfortunately for the MSM, their time has past and they still don't know it yet. The new media has taken control of the narrative. The MSM are all liars and the new media are the truth tellers. The MSM have become the uncool and cranky old men yelling at the kids to get off their lawn. Jesus. "That's the media's goal." To what end? Why/how are they incentivized to this? Have you ever worked in the "media?" Didn't think so. Forget the end, how bout the means? Are their morning editorial meetings screw-Romney brainstorms? Is the NYT on the horn with the Chicago Sun-Times and the Washington Post to make sure they get their "facts" right? Every last person to work for a news outlet is brainwashed into compliance? Not one of them has ever left the profession because of the pressures bestowed from the powers-that-be to force a "liberal agenda?" Where are the tell-alls? How is it that only the people on the outside of the media have this knowledge? And why isn't anyone doing anything about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Boy, for being a bunch of fawning idiots, the lamestream media sure is cunning and calculated. Seriously you can't be this stupid, can you? You don't think that the MSM is trying to get Obama elected? We show you real data and this is your comeback? You guys ARE in a cult if you can't even admit what the obvious truth is anymore. You're beyond brainwashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Unfortunately for the MSM, their time has past and they still don't know it yet. The new media has taken control of the narrative. The MSM are all liars and the new media are the truth tellers. The MSM have become the uncool and cranky old men yelling at the kids to get off their lawn. Crayonz? Is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Seriously you can't be this stupid, can you? You don't think that the MSM is trying to get Obama elected? We show you real data and this is your comeback? You guys ARE in a cult if you can't even admit what the obvious truth is anymore. You're beyond brainwashed. Seem my questions above. Seriously. WHY would the "MSM" (what the !@#$ does that even mean anymore, btw?) try to get Obama elected? Seriously. What's in it for them? I'm dying to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Seriously you can't be this stupid, can you? You don't think that the MSM is trying to get Obama elected? We show you real data and this is your comeback? You guys ARE in a cult if you can't even admit what the obvious truth is anymore. You're beyond brainwashed. Umm... dude. You might want to look at your last few posts and rethink your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Jesus. "That's the media's goal." To what end? Why/how are they incentivized to this? Have you ever worked in the "media?" Didn't think so. Forget the end, how bout the means? Are their morning editorial meetings screw-Romney brainstorms? Is the NYT on the horn with the Chicago Sun-Times and the Washington Post to make sure they get their "facts" right? Every last person to work for a news outlet is brainwashed into compliance? Not one of them has ever left the profession because of the pressures bestowed from the powers-that-be to force a "liberal agenda?" Where are the tell-alls? How is it that only the people on the outside of the media have this knowledge? And why isn't anyone doing anything about it? They moved to "Fox". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Umm... dude. You might want to look at your last few posts and rethink your statement. "Umm...I don't know much about polling...because I'm too damn lazy to click on informational links posted to me...but duuuude...you sound brainwashed too!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Crayonz? Is that you? Don't insult crayonz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 If the media is so obviously in the President's corner (and I'm not disagreeing entirely), and if they are cooking the books so to speak, why would they propagate an illusion of Obama gaining? Wouldn't it be more effective to make it look as if it's a dead heat to assure that every supporter votes? Because they're idiots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 "Umm...I don't know much about polling...because I'm too damn lazy to click on informational links posted to me...but duuuude...you sound brainwashed too!" I'll admit, when I see a link posted as being Breitbart.com, hughhewitt.com, and the like, I don't bother looking at them, just like I'm sure you do the same when it's HuffPost or MSNBC. If you want to convince people (in this case those commie brainwashed libs), maybe try a less biased source. Just sayin'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts