soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,785
- 6,032
- 136
Obama also conveniently is pro people having sex and the tax payers paying for it.
Yep those viagra pills are expensive.
Obama also conveniently is pro people having sex and the tax payers paying for it.
When “leaners” are included, the candidates are tied at 48%.
Do you deny that there's any bias in the mainstream press Kozierok?
He's not.
The real question is how it is that with the economy this weak, the Republicans couldn't field a candidate able to beat Obama by 10 points.
Because no matter how rich the campaign you can't counter the willing help of the mainstream media.
Do you deny that there's any bias in the mainstream press Kozierok?
.................No, I don't deny it. I just don't think it's nearly as important as you're implying.
I mean, in 2010 the Republicans romped in the general election. Are you claiming the media is suddenly more biased now than it was in 2010?
Romney is a terrible candidate who is disliked by pretty much everyone. That's true now, and it was also true during the GOP primaries, when it was your fellow right-wingers who were pointing out that he's dishonest and out-of-touch. So the "vast left-wing media conspiracy" claims don't hold much water.
So you don't deny there's media bias in the mainstream media, but then place a quoted, loaded term like "vast left-wing media conspiracy" (where did you get that quote?) in an attempt to dismiss valid concerns about media bias.
You are correct that I have no particular liking for Romney, but I don't have to love or even like a candidate to justify my voting for them, I just have to like or agree what their political position is.
Yes, because as I believe I made clear, I don't consider it a valid concern. I consider it an excuse. If the Republicans were able to field a good candidate, they'd be winning. They weren't, so they're not.
That's true of some voters, but not true of many more. Studies consistently show that people are reluctant to vote for people they don't like -- that's why metrics such as "more likely to want to have a beer with" are measured.
Romney is the only major party presidential candidate in the last 30 odd years to have a net unfavorable rating just a few weeks before the election. This is not because of "media bias" -- it's because he's a detestable person. His favorable ratings were just as bad during the GOP primaries when it wasn't left-wingers pointing out how awful he is.
Of course there is. The mainstream media is owned by conservative business and never informs the American people that conservative thinking today has gone insane and become dangerous the the American people. Open your eyes, there is no progressive media. You live is a conservative bubble and almost never hear anything real.
Thanks Moonie. Are you ready for MoP?
What the Fing H is MoP?
No, it doesn't.http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/20/gallup-romney-obama-tied-at-47-each-in-presidential-poll/
Far from being a sure thing for the Obama camp. This election looks like it will come down to the wire!
[/INDENT]
Mists of Pandaria of course. My wife is already running the scenario. Sorry for the OT.
So you don't deny there's media bias in the mainstream media, but then place a quoted, loaded term like "vast left-wing media conspiracy" (where did you get that quote?) in an attempt to dismiss valid concerns about media bias. You'll notice that Rainsford also used the conspiracy word in a smear attempt.
You are correct that I have no particular liking for Romney, but I don't have to love or even like a candidate to justify my voting for them, I just have to like or agree what their political position is.
That's the thing. Nationwide polling is of dubious importance anyway, and I'm skeptical of Gallup and Rasmussen's methodology because their results are much different from the other reputable pollsters this season.
"The real question is how it is that with the economy this weak, the Republicans couldn't field a candidate able to beat Obama by 10 points."
This just in from the Gallup organization: Americans' distrust of the media has just hit a new record, with six in 10 Americans saying they have "little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly." Forty percent say they have a "great deal" or a "fair amount" of trust, and I assume this is the same crowd who approve of the job Congress is doing. Where do they find these people?
Gallup says the 20-point difference between positive and negative views of the media is "by far" the highest Gallup has seen since it began asking the question in the 1990s. Among those who trust the media, 58 percent identify themselves as Democrats; 26 percent as Republicans; and most interestingly, 31 percent as independents. That means 69 percent of independents don't trust the media. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the implications of that:
" This year's decline in media trust is driven by independents and Republicans. Independents are sharply more negative compared with 2008, suggesting the group that is most closely divided between President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney is quite dissatisfied with its ability to get fair and accurate news coverage of this election."
On the NBC News homepage for politics, there is a chart looking the number of mentions of each candidate on social media: As of yesterday, 30 percent who state an intention to vote for a candidate on social media sites intend to vote for Obama; 38 percent intend to vote for Romney. There have been nearly 33,000 opinions expressed about Obama: Of those, 40 percent are positive, 60 percent negative. Regarding Romney, 21,500 opinions have been posted: 51 percent positive, 49 percent negative. If these numbers are accurate, it tells me this: People aren't agreeing with what they're seeing and hearing from the mainstream media. And they feel strongly enough to post something online about it.
Polls, even exit polls are worth about as much as a screen door on a submarine.
Americans Are Sick of Media's Pro-Obama Bias
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...1/americans-are-sick-of-medias-pro-obama-bias
"As a general rule, InTrade prices express underconfidence relative to true probabilities as dictated by polling medians. This is true even on Election Eve. As I have previously written, they get the direction of the probable outcome correct, but the exact price is not a quantitative measure of probability."
"And now I give some current probabilities. Do whatever you see fit, whether it be to go to Crossroads GPS for Republicans or ActBlue for Democrats. As for other possibilities…we all know that gambling is wrong.
President Obama re-elect probability: 89%. InTrade probability: 70%.
Senate to remain Democratic-controlled: 88%. InTrade: 58%.
House to remain Republican-controlled: 26%. InTrade: 80%."
Now it's Obama 48%, Romney 46%.
Obama's Approval rating jumps back up to 51%, disapproval at 43%.
still doesn't explain why the massive willing accomplices and collusion campaigning hasn't resulted in something in the 20+ point lead.