Kate Pavlich - Probably not.
"The media knows what it's doing and they do it anyway." Re-Elect Obama.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
Why Mainstream Polls Are Skewed Towards Obama
Dean Chambers - This is not at all a conspiracy theory. I don't do conspiracy
theories. This is a very well designed, well planned and they hope,
brilliantly executed plan to help President Obama win a second term. The mainstream media
has no intentions of sitting on the sidelines and merely objectively
reporting the news of the election contest while watching Barack Obama
become another Jimmy Carter.
They will create the perception, via skewed polls, that Obama is
winning and then hope the campaign can take advantage of this perception
and steal enough votes to actually win the election. Then the
perception, and the polls, will validate the stolen election and make it
look all so plausible and realistic. If you don't believe they are
doing this, then ask yourself how a president who is doing worse
economically than Jimmy Carter was can somehow be reelected?
There are two major components to the mainstream media strategy to get Obama reelected. The most well known of the two is the coverage of the campaign. The Media Research Center recently documented that Romney got 86 percent negative coverage during his trip to England, Israel and Poland last week. Former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg has documented and covered the positive coverage of Obama and negative coverage of McCain in 2008 and Romney this year.
The other factor less covered in the analysis and commentary on these issues is how the mainstream media are manipulating the polls to help the president get re-elected. Just recently, the Washington Post/ABC poll was shown to be heavily skewed toward Obama as well as some polls that were released last week. These polls are not skewed simply to make Obama look like he's winning when he's not. The reason is far more sinister than that. The polls are skewed with the belief that doing so actually influences voter decisions, and that many voters want to be voting for who they believe will win the election, and therefore if they have little other reason for their choice and want to be sure to be voting for the winning candidate, they will vote for Obama if they believe he's going to win. This concept is called the “bandwagon effect” that voters will choose the candidate they believe will win.
By repeatedly, almost weekly, publishing the results of one survey or another skewed at least 5 to 10 points in favor of Obama and showing him as winning, the mainstream media are creating a conventional wisdom that the president is winning. And the pundits then explain and analyze the president's campaign and every move it makes as successful and proven so by the skewed polls.
While the media is creating the perception that Obama can and is winning, the campaign and it's supporters are working with their allies and former members and leaders in groups like ACORN and others to change the actual vote outcomes as much as they can. While they are running an almost 100 percent negative campaign against Mitt Romney to decrease his real support, and increase that of the president, as much as they can, they are prepared to move votes in other means too. Yes they are well-prepared to engage in a variety of voter fraud and vote-scamming to win the closer states. By creating the perception that Obama is winning, the media is giving the campaign a margin in which to be able to engage in voter fraud and make it believable. For instance, instance, if the polls consistently showed Obama leading by 3-5 percent in Florida, even if the campaign's own internal polling shows it 2-3 points in favor of Florida, they then know they can steal enough voters in Florida to win it. And if they win it by less than percent, they can site polls showing them up by 3-5 percent to suggest the result is quite realistic after all.
To a limited degree, there was an effort to do this for John Kerry in 2004 when he ran against George W. Bush. The last polls done by many mainstream media outlets showed the race tied or a small lead for Kerry. The exit polls from election day, commissioned by the major news networks, projected Kerry winning in enough states to win the presidency. These exit poll results were leaked, and Kerry's advisers that afternoon were so confident he would in that they started calling him president-elect. But the exit polls were skewed, as they were in 2000, and Kerry's advisers should have remembered that. When the real polls closed and the results came in, Bush won 51 percent to 48 percent in the popular vote and won a majority in the electoral college.
If they can move actual public opinion enough against Mitt Romney and supplement that with a wide perception of Obama leading by skewing the polls, then they are confident they can steal enough votes for Obama to win and make it look plausible and believable. Does that mean the election is fixed and we're going to get a second term of Obama no matter what we do? Of course not.
The more that voters are aware that these major mainstream polls are skewed toward Obama, and see Romney competing well in the very few legitimate polls if they know that those polls are legitimate, the less ability the mainstream media has to sway public opinion, if they have much at all, with the skewed polls.
If the media can't successfully create a illusion that Obama is winning in the polls, it will be that tougher for the campaign to engage in enough vote-scamming to win. And the more we do at the state level to insure the integrity of the voting system from voter fraud, such an enacting and implementing voter identification laws, the less they will be able to engage in vote fraud. More voters should realize this is precisely why Obama's Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder is fighting voter identification laws so strongly. They know they are far less likely to win the if the election if honest and fair.
If we do not let them get away with the lies they are telling about Romney to try to undermine his support, the less likely they are able to get close enough in the polls for the other efforts to be able to succeed. The more the public sees through the viciously negative advertisements being being run by the Obama campaign and the unofficial groups that support him, the more they will realize just how dishonest this president is and how much he seeks to avoid being accountable for his own failure to perform as president.
It all comes down to exposing what they're doing. Exposing the lies in their ads, exposing the skewed mainstream media polls exposing the strategy behind all of this only renders it ineffective if voters understand what is being attempted. A well-informed voter is the very individual on election day the Obama campaign has the most to worry about.
There are two major components to the mainstream media strategy to get Obama reelected. The most well known of the two is the coverage of the campaign. The Media Research Center recently documented that Romney got 86 percent negative coverage during his trip to England, Israel and Poland last week. Former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg has documented and covered the positive coverage of Obama and negative coverage of McCain in 2008 and Romney this year.
The other factor less covered in the analysis and commentary on these issues is how the mainstream media are manipulating the polls to help the president get re-elected. Just recently, the Washington Post/ABC poll was shown to be heavily skewed toward Obama as well as some polls that were released last week. These polls are not skewed simply to make Obama look like he's winning when he's not. The reason is far more sinister than that. The polls are skewed with the belief that doing so actually influences voter decisions, and that many voters want to be voting for who they believe will win the election, and therefore if they have little other reason for their choice and want to be sure to be voting for the winning candidate, they will vote for Obama if they believe he's going to win. This concept is called the “bandwagon effect” that voters will choose the candidate they believe will win.
By repeatedly, almost weekly, publishing the results of one survey or another skewed at least 5 to 10 points in favor of Obama and showing him as winning, the mainstream media are creating a conventional wisdom that the president is winning. And the pundits then explain and analyze the president's campaign and every move it makes as successful and proven so by the skewed polls.
While the media is creating the perception that Obama can and is winning, the campaign and it's supporters are working with their allies and former members and leaders in groups like ACORN and others to change the actual vote outcomes as much as they can. While they are running an almost 100 percent negative campaign against Mitt Romney to decrease his real support, and increase that of the president, as much as they can, they are prepared to move votes in other means too. Yes they are well-prepared to engage in a variety of voter fraud and vote-scamming to win the closer states. By creating the perception that Obama is winning, the media is giving the campaign a margin in which to be able to engage in voter fraud and make it believable. For instance, instance, if the polls consistently showed Obama leading by 3-5 percent in Florida, even if the campaign's own internal polling shows it 2-3 points in favor of Florida, they then know they can steal enough voters in Florida to win it. And if they win it by less than percent, they can site polls showing them up by 3-5 percent to suggest the result is quite realistic after all.
To a limited degree, there was an effort to do this for John Kerry in 2004 when he ran against George W. Bush. The last polls done by many mainstream media outlets showed the race tied or a small lead for Kerry. The exit polls from election day, commissioned by the major news networks, projected Kerry winning in enough states to win the presidency. These exit poll results were leaked, and Kerry's advisers that afternoon were so confident he would in that they started calling him president-elect. But the exit polls were skewed, as they were in 2000, and Kerry's advisers should have remembered that. When the real polls closed and the results came in, Bush won 51 percent to 48 percent in the popular vote and won a majority in the electoral college.
If they can move actual public opinion enough against Mitt Romney and supplement that with a wide perception of Obama leading by skewing the polls, then they are confident they can steal enough votes for Obama to win and make it look plausible and believable. Does that mean the election is fixed and we're going to get a second term of Obama no matter what we do? Of course not.
The more that voters are aware that these major mainstream polls are skewed toward Obama, and see Romney competing well in the very few legitimate polls if they know that those polls are legitimate, the less ability the mainstream media has to sway public opinion, if they have much at all, with the skewed polls.
If the media can't successfully create a illusion that Obama is winning in the polls, it will be that tougher for the campaign to engage in enough vote-scamming to win. And the more we do at the state level to insure the integrity of the voting system from voter fraud, such an enacting and implementing voter identification laws, the less they will be able to engage in vote fraud. More voters should realize this is precisely why Obama's Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder is fighting voter identification laws so strongly. They know they are far less likely to win the if the election if honest and fair.
If we do not let them get away with the lies they are telling about Romney to try to undermine his support, the less likely they are able to get close enough in the polls for the other efforts to be able to succeed. The more the public sees through the viciously negative advertisements being being run by the Obama campaign and the unofficial groups that support him, the more they will realize just how dishonest this president is and how much he seeks to avoid being accountable for his own failure to perform as president.
It all comes down to exposing what they're doing. Exposing the lies in their ads, exposing the skewed mainstream media polls exposing the strategy behind all of this only renders it ineffective if voters understand what is being attempted. A well-informed voter is the very individual on election day the Obama campaign has the most to worry about.
UnSkewed Polling Data
Monday, September 24, 2012 1:18:34 PM |
||||||
| Poll | Date | Sample | MoE | Obama(D) | Romney(R) | Spread |
| UnSkewed Avg. | 9/4 - 9/20 | -- | -- | 44.0 | 51.8 | Romney +7.8 |
| Reason/Rupe | 9/13 - 9/17 | 787 LV | 4.3 | 45.0 | 52.0 | Romney +7 |
| Reuters/Ipsos | 9/12 - 9/20 | 1437 LV | 2.9 | 44.0 | 54.0 | Romney +10 |
| NBC News/WSJ | 9/12 - 9/16 | 736 LV | 3.6 | 44.0 | 51.0 | Romney +7 |
| Monmouth Univ. | 9/13 - 9/16 | 1344 LV | 2.5 | 45.0 | 50.0 | Romney +5 |
| QStarNews | 9/10 - 9/15 | 2075 | 3.0 | 44.0 | 55.0 | Romney +11 |
| NY Times/CBS News | 9/8 - 9/12 | 1162 LV | 3.0 | 44.0 | 51.0 | Romney +7 |
| Democracy Corps | 9/8 - 9/12 | 1000 LV | 3.1 | 43.0 | 52.0 | Romney +8 |
| Fox News | 9/9 - 9/11 | 1056 LV | 3.0 | 45.0 | 48.0 | Romney +3 |
| Wash. Post/ABC News | 9/7 - 9/9 | 826 LV | 4.0 | 45.0 | 52.0 | Romney +7 |
| CNN/ORC | 9/7 - 9/9 | 875 RV | 3.5 | 45.0 | 53.0 | Romney +8 |
| IBD/CSM/TIPP | 9/4 - 9/9 | 808 RV | 3.5 | 41.0 | 50.0 | Romney +9 |
| ARG | 9/4 - 9/6 | 1200 LV | 3.0 | 43.0 | 53.0 | Romney +10 |
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Liberal Media Hates Christians But Loves lslam
Doug Giles - Man, don’t cha love how the Insane Stream Media and their soft-brain
disciples make Christians out to be fish-stickered, bug-eyed equals to
incensed Islam? If you were to accept what the White House, some
atheists and prattling gay activists say about Christians as true, you’d
think the Church is chomping at the bit to chop off some heads of
unbelievers, glory to Gawd!
Yep, if you were to believe the barf belched out by the BS brokers on the ludicrous Left, you’d stagger away stupid with the belief that there is little disparity between conservative Christians and militant Muslims.
As a matter of fact, you probably would be bamboozled into believing that Islam is a peaceful, Little House on the Prairie religion being temporarily hijacked by Jihadist renegades, and Christianity … Christianity is the real vicious, charity-vacant cult that’s vying for the opportunity to seize the whip and whip us good.
Yes, the Insane Stream Media’s reality stylists are working their butts off trying to convince us TV-addled cattle of two primary things: 1) Violent jihad is not based on the Koran, and 2) All conservative Christians are theocrats ready to burn Elton John at the stake, stone Snooki in a nearby gravel pit and governmentally ramrod Christianity down everyone’s pie hole.
I haven’t seen this kind of ham-fisted, farcical façade foisted upon the public since Michael Jackson tried to make out with Lisa Marie in an attempt to convince us all he’d found true love in an adult of the opposite sex.
Look, there’s no denying violent things have been done by the Church and in the name of God, but that has been the exception and not the rule. In addition, when the Church has spent time with its head up its butt doing bogus things, the Church’s leaders have historically owned it when wrong, have not repeated the gaffe, have grabbed the wheel and have effectively steered saints out of any erroneous, detrimental ditch.
Not so with Islam.
In Robert Spencer’s book, Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, Bob shows those who can still be shown anything factual the massive and fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity. They are not equal no matter how much the blatherers of political correctness purport them to be. Their beliefs are not similar, nor their practices, nor their means of spreading their message—and to think otherwise could cost you your ass.
Spencer points out the crystal clear facts that clash with the current anti-Christian hype, such as …
Yep, if you were to believe the barf belched out by the BS brokers on the ludicrous Left, you’d stagger away stupid with the belief that there is little disparity between conservative Christians and militant Muslims.
As a matter of fact, you probably would be bamboozled into believing that Islam is a peaceful, Little House on the Prairie religion being temporarily hijacked by Jihadist renegades, and Christianity … Christianity is the real vicious, charity-vacant cult that’s vying for the opportunity to seize the whip and whip us good.
Yes, the Insane Stream Media’s reality stylists are working their butts off trying to convince us TV-addled cattle of two primary things: 1) Violent jihad is not based on the Koran, and 2) All conservative Christians are theocrats ready to burn Elton John at the stake, stone Snooki in a nearby gravel pit and governmentally ramrod Christianity down everyone’s pie hole.
I haven’t seen this kind of ham-fisted, farcical façade foisted upon the public since Michael Jackson tried to make out with Lisa Marie in an attempt to convince us all he’d found true love in an adult of the opposite sex.
Look, there’s no denying violent things have been done by the Church and in the name of God, but that has been the exception and not the rule. In addition, when the Church has spent time with its head up its butt doing bogus things, the Church’s leaders have historically owned it when wrong, have not repeated the gaffe, have grabbed the wheel and have effectively steered saints out of any erroneous, detrimental ditch.
Not so with Islam.
In Robert Spencer’s book, Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, Bob shows those who can still be shown anything factual the massive and fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity. They are not equal no matter how much the blatherers of political correctness purport them to be. Their beliefs are not similar, nor their practices, nor their means of spreading their message—and to think otherwise could cost you your ass.
Spencer points out the crystal clear facts that clash with the current anti-Christian hype, such as …
· Most Muslims do not condemn jihad.
· Christianity and Islam have neither similar traditions nor similar modern realities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)