White House Derby: Bush's mysterious lead

ITS NO MYSTERY; THE CORPORATE MEDIA POLLSTERS ARE BIASING THEIR "SCIENTIFIC" POLLS TO MAKE THE ELECTION APPEAR TO BE CLOSE.

THAT SHOULD BE THE REAL STORY.

KERRY IS WINNING. SOLIDLY. BUT THOSE WHO REPORT WHAT ROVE WANTS THEM TO REPORT DON'T WANT US TO KNOW THE TRUTH. THAT SHOULD BE CLEAR TO EVERYONE HERE AT DU, BUT MOST OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC BELIEVES WHATEVER THE MEDIA TELLS THEM.

IF ABC OR CNN OR FOX OR WSJ SAY THE ELECTION IS CLOSE, THEN IT MUST BE CLOSE, RIGHT?

WRONG.

TRUST ZOGBY. TRUST ARG. TRUST CBS.

DON'T BELIEVE THE MEDIA WHORES. YOU KNOW WHO THEY ARE. YOU KNOW THEY LIE OR MISREPRESENT OR SPIN AND HIDE THE TRUTH EVERY DAY. WHY WOULD THEY NOT LIE ABOUT SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS THE POLLS?

THEY MUST KEEP IT CLOSE. FOR BBV.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4917656

The 2004 campaign mystery deepened this week: George W. Bush faces as perilous a foreign policy impasse as any president in the past 25 years, and yet presumptive Democratic candidate John Kerry still lags behind him in opinion polls.

Noting the frustration in the party’s ranks, some Democrats say Kerry should be ahead by 10 points. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday, Kerry trailed Bush with 42 percent to the president’s 46 percent, with Ralph Nader at five percent.

This was despite the finding that 49 percent of those interviewed said that Bush does not deserve a second term as president and 60 percent said they think that the United States isn’t really in control of the situation in Iraq.

Just as telling, some polls in states, such as Pennsylvania, where Kerry ought to be well ahead, showed a tie.

A national Gallup poll released Thursday also showed a dead heat with Bush and Kerry each garnering 47 percent, while Nader received 3 percent.

more..

Most people in this country are fooled. Jebbie started purging voting rolls. Yup. 2000 again (Pssst: it wasn't close then either - 6 million votes nation wide were NOT counted)

because guess what, the closer it appears, the more motivated Democrats should be to turn out to the polls.

most of the media's lazy, not corrupt. They'll work when there's something in it for them, and it's starting. I'm seeing a lot more reporting about Shrub problems.

And, even with things all going to hell, incumbents always poll high. Nixon even won. It's a devil-you-know thing. The simple fact that people polled are saying they are paying more attention to this election than any in the past says something in itself.

Kerry's primary problem now is that people just don't know who he is, so people may be disappointed with Shrub, but not ready to make the leap to the new broom.

Polls now are meaningless-- Shrub gets the press, good or bad, because he's in office, and everyone else has to beg for scraps. Come convention time, all eyes will be on Kerry, and things will change real fast.

Some of what you say is true.

But answer this: does the media go all out to protect Bush?
If you agree, I have one more question. Where is the tinfoil?

but most are just stuck in the system.

Modern journalism says it's not their job to attack even a schmuck like Shrub-- just report stuff and let us make up our own minds. Besides, investigative reporting costs money, takes work, and gets them in trouble.

The slant is usually toward the incumbants simply because they are there, and it's easy. Attack, and you lose all sorts of privileges and invitations to great parties. When you get right down to it, every President in my memory has been given pretty much a free ride by the press. Most politicians get a free ride.

Until things reach a certain breaking point. When they smell blood, they get on the bandwagon.

Anyway, I get upset with the press on a regular basis, but don't worry too much about it. It's not like I can do much about it besides choosing where I get my news and doing my little bit to influence circulation or ratings.

"Modern journalism says it's not their job to attack even a schmuck like Shrub-- just report stuff and let us make up our own minds. Besides, investigative reporting costs money, takes work, and gets them in trouble."

It would be wonderful if "journalist" would just report facts & let us make up are own minds. Unfortunately most of them tell us over & over what we should think.

"The slant is usually toward the incumbants simply because they are there, and it's easy. Attack, and you lose all sorts of privileges and invitations to great parties. When you get right down to it, every President in my memory has been given pretty much a free ride by the press. Most politicians get a free ride."

Sure, Clinton so got a free ride from the press.

and I agree there are far too few reporters and far too many pundits out there.

Nobody seems to care about a byline any more-- you want to be the talking head with the ideas and answers now. And that "analysis" creates a fuzzy line between news and opinion.

Actually, Clinton did get a pretty good ride from the mainstream press. The rightwing slime machine was unrelenting, though, and wouldn't let stories just die a proper death. And Starr had his own PR machine that we paid millions for. The eternal Whitewater prosecution that turned up nothing but a fortuitous blowjob kinda had to make it in the news far more often than it should have.

Impeachments are pretty big news, too. Can't keep that quiet, even if it is embarassing.

Overall, though, my recollection is that mainstream media kind of took all that wingnut stuff with a grain of salt. At a certain point they had to recognize all that screaming about bullshit like Vince Foster, but reported it as rumors and bullshit. As far as his actually doing the job of President, most media were fairly positive about reporting what was actually going on.

Play with one or more of these questions and you can skew any poll.

The classic example was in the New Hampshire primary when Steve Forbes first ran for president. Forbes was third or forth with about 12-14% for some weeks. Out of nowhere, the Boston Herald (Murdock paper) had him leading with 29%, well ahead of Poppy Bush. Soon, other polls came up with similar numbers for Forbes.

Alas, three weeks went by and Forbes came in with about 12% in the primary, the same as he had before the Herald spike. So, had there really been a spike for Forbes?

Several academics investigated and found that the Herald polling outfit had changed the mix of who was polled. In their new mix, 40% of the pollees were independents, a group that went strongly for Forbes.

See, it's simple. You don't need a Ph.D. in statistics to rig a poll.

.. but could this 'misreporting' of the polls be a GOOD THING?

Could it be that some of the media are trying to help Kerry??

now, before you get out the tar and feathers...

If the polls show Kerry pulling way ahead.. a good portion of the Dem voters would get complacent, thinking 'we got it made..'

and come Nov 2... "it's in the bag, they don't need my vote".

and look what happens.

instead... no matter HOW BAD Shrubya keeps screwing up.. the polls keep showing it 'neck & neck', 'a statistical dead heat', 'Bush leads..'

it fires up ALL the Dem voters.

come Nov 2.... "my ghod, I HAVE TO GET OUT THERE AND VOTE, IT'S SO CLOSE I HAVE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE"....

meanwhile, the Repub arrogance "we're ahead, dems are lazy and won't vote, we got it in the bag..."

just a thought...

America is over populated with Brain Dead Hurdy Gurdy Monkey's that salivate to their Master Chimp!!! Ring the bell Quasi, and the masses will drool.