The Last Election Thread

[Ben Kenobi]

Want out of your bet Boris?

Obama is campaigning in Iowa.

Oh and your post doesn't actually include the Zogby poll which puts mccain up one.

I wonder why that is.

[Ramo]

McCain's campaigning in Arizona.

[Ramo]

Oh and your post doesn't actually include the Zogby poll which puts mccain up one.

I wonder why that is.

Because it doesn't exist.

[Velociryx]

Oh noes! Not the Liberal Media Conspiracy again!!!

That one's even better than The Jews were responsible for 9/11.

-=Vel=-

(two strange things I observe: a) The media only has a liberal bias when the conservatives feel their much desired control slipping, and b) the rich fat cats (oft defined as "them libruls") own the media, which begs the question how does FOX even exist? And no one from camp conservative has yet answered the curious question about why those "fat cat libruls" (including the ones who own the tv stations that are conspiring against His Holiness McCain and Saint Palin) would even *support* Obama, since he's on record as saying he's gonna raise their taxes! Curiouser and curiouser...and all part of the vast conspiracy, no doubt! What does Bill-O say about it?)

/now back to the ongoing political coverage

[Guynemer]

Yeah, that liberal media that went on and on and on about that liar Al Gore and how he invented the internet. And how that lying traitor John Kerry faked his war record.


Honestly, anytime anyone spouts off about the liberal media, it makes them sound like a drooling moron.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because it doesn't exist.

[Velociryx]

I think (and I know this is a shocking strecth here, but bear with me) that the media in this country is a fairly accurate reflection of the views and values HELD BY the folks in this country.

Big surprise, no?

Which would explain why Fox exists, and it'd explain why it's a clear MINORITY opinion (and why a good chunk of their ratings come from people like me who enjoy watching it for its entertainment value, rather than its a-grade news coverage--I chuckle every time I hear them say "unbiased" and "fair and balanced!" --but hey...let's ignore the most likely explanation and pretend there's a vast conspiracy against the forces of conservatism...those poor downtrodden folks....



-=Vel=-

[-Jrabbit]

Ben, have a good look at the media's treatment of Bush during his first term. Totally in bed with him, fellating with gusto.

[Fake Boris]

What happened to you, Vel? I seem to recall you used to be much more conservative.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If I invited the press into my house to talk to me about my election platform, then I lose the right to censor what they publish about me. If someone that I choose to invite into my house for the express purpose of an interview, later publishes an article that is critical of me, that is their right. To give preferential treatment to those who suck up to me is wrong.

And since there is no censorship going on, you have no point. Do you even know what censorship means?

It does mean you cannot censor what the reporters you choose to bring on your plane actually report.

There is no censoring of what they're reporting.

Which is why coverage has been uniformly positive? I'd be hard pressed to find anyone actually publish something good about Bush.

Restricting access doesn't guarantee positive coverage, so you miss the point. Has the media coverage of this Obama campaign plane flap been positive or negative? Hmmm.

But Bush DID enjoy a very long period in which the media was a lapdog. That's a big part of why we're now in Iraq, because reporters didn't do their jobs.

Actually no. If the media is liberally biased, then they will not see the need to 'balance' liberal speech which they consider to be moderate.

It's not up to the media outlets to determine it for themselves, it's up to the FCC to enforce. You REALLY don't have a clue.

Which is in effect censorship. Why should I be forced to pay for my opponents just to express my own point of view? I should be able to express myself without hindrance, and so should my opposition.

Censorship is the government telling you that you can't say something. Censorship is not telling you that, should you be using public airwaves to broadcast information that you're required to balance it with opposing viewpoints.

The SCOTUS has already ruled on this, BK, and they declared you so very, very wrong.

Even more so then FDR?

Um, yes.

No I haven't heard of it. Critical thinking requires me to read actual evidence in order to change my position. If I were to say it was wrong just on your say-so that would hardly be critical thinking.

No, Ben, critical thinking would require you to actually investigate it and find out the truth independently. It would not be just automatically assuming the opposite of what I say.

But since it's been proven now, quit dodging: Do you now think that McCain engaged in censorship in booting Klein from his plane, which his own campaign said was because of his reporting? Do you believe he now needs to grow a thicker skin?

Quit weaseling.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Want out of your bet Boris?

Obama is campaigning in Iowa.

It was on his way home to spend Halloween with his daughters. The state polling there is not close:



And McCain is campaigning in Arizona tomorrow. Where does that logic take you?

Oh and your post doesn't actually include the Zogby poll which puts mccain up one.

I wonder why that is.

Yes, it does. The problem is you have no idea how the Zogby poll works.

The 48 M - 47 O was a one-day sample, but part of a three day rolling tracking poll. Zogby doesn't officially report individual days, he reports a 3 day sample. If you hover over the Reuters/Zogby dot on the graph, that number is included in the 10/30 - 11/1 dot.

Notice that the overall result for 3 days is 50 O - 44 M. Do you know why that is, Ben? Because the 1 point McCain advantage was an outlier. The next day (yesterday), the poll swung dramatically back to Obama.



You'll notice Drudge isn't trumpeting that poll anymore.

In summary: you're clueless, and as this information proves, Zogby sucks.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

It actually does not exist. You were lied to again. You're referring to a one day sample of the poll. His latest one day sample, incidentally, puts Obama up by 10%. Because the number of respondents per day is small (~400), each day's results are not very meaningful and subject to wild swings. So the number that he puts out is the three day average, currently 6%.

[Guynemer]

For the record, I just saw my first Jeremiah Wright ad, apparently purchased by the GOP Trust PAC or some such thing.

Two days left in the election, and that's when they pull this out?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Guynemer
For the record, I just saw my first Jeremiah Wright ad, apparently purchased by the GOP Trust PAC or some such thing.

Two days left in the election, and that's when they pull this out?

It's actually smart timing; they've seen time and again how any manufactured controversy gets diffused by the media fact-checking inside 48-72 hours, so the best bet is to unleash a barrage at the last minute so it's on the voters' minds the second they pull the lever. Of course they'll save what they perceive to be the "big guns" for last.

The facts are known to the miniscule number of people who followed the Dem primary, but many uninformed undecideds or even some tentative Obama voters would see this as something new and there won't be time to debunk it. That, and the debunking will be much more difficult than for Ayers because here there was a much more extensive relationship, some inconsistent and/or downright unbelievable statements before his repudiation, the racial angle to it, etc. Evil? Yes. Ineffective? No. But probably not enough to close the EC spread.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Darius871
The facts are known to the miniscule number of people who followed the Dem primary, but many uninformed undecideds or even some tentative Obama voters would see this as something new and there won't be time to debunk it. That, and the debunking will be much more difficult than for Ayers because here there was a much more extensive relationship, some inconsistent and/or downright unbelievable statements before his repudiation, the racial angle to it, etc. Evil? Yes. Ineffective? No. But probably not enough to close the EC spread.

I don't think this is true. The Wright flap during the primaries was major national news that dominated the coverage for a good two weeks. The notion that a "miniscule" number of people are aware of it seems pretty preposterous.