September 27, 2012
Did the fact that Mitt Romney was secretly taped saying something that we all know to be true about how people are going to vote change your mind about whether or not to vote for him?
More importantly, were you planning on voting for Romney and now you are definitely going to vote for President Barack Hussein Obama based on one statement?
The vast majority of the voters in this country would answer no to both of those questions and polls back up that assessment. But you would never know that by watching the news or reading what is being written in the mainstream media.
The mainstream media hate Romney because it looks like he has a good chance of beating their man, President Obama. The media is overwhelming liberal, and I don't mean moderate. They are liberal and see everything through liberal lenses.
Former Public Editor for The New York Times Arthur Brisbane agrees, even though he waited until his final column to agree. It would appear he didn't want to get fired before his term was up, and The Times claims to be unbiased. In fact, the executive editor took issue with Brisbane's column.
Brisbane wrote, "Across the paper's many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism – for lack of a better term – that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times."
On Tuesday, Sept. 25, long after everyone knew that no mob attacked the consulate in Benghazi – because the White House is still talking about it – The New York Times (a formerly respectable newspaper) used "mob violence" and "anti American protests" to describe the events on Sept. 11 in Libya and Cairo.
Obama knew that it was not "mob violence" in Benghazi, and it was not "an anti-American protest" – unless you consider a terrorist attack an anti-American protest. So are we now to speak of the events of Sept. 11, 2001 as an "anti-American protest." When soldiers are killed in Afghanistan by an IED is that an "anti-American protest?"
Obama should not have been allowed by the media to get away with those remarks on Sept. 12, the day after the consulate in Benghazi was attacked by well-organized terrorists. But he certainly should not be allowed to continue that boldfaced lie. And if The New York Times was not full of toadies that operate as an arm of the Obama reelection campaign, rather than as a newspaper, it would not repeat such lies as if they were true.
It is sad for those of us in journalism to see a once great newspaper fall so low that you can no longer trust the articles to be honest. But the current New York Times is far too partisan to be concerned with truth.
It is difficult to exaggerate just how partisan the mainstream media are right now. They see the election slipping away from Obama and they still believe in "Hope" and "Change." It appears that the majority of the country has had enough of Hope and Change and Forward, but the mainstream media is going to be doing its utmost to get Obama reelected.
A misstatement by Romney results in a week or more of articles, but Obama and, even more so, Vice President Joe Biden can say any stupid thing they want and it may or may be mentioned by the press. But that is all it rates is a mention.
Obama has said that Austrians speak Austrian. There are 57 states. Medics in the navy are corpse men. And Hawaii, where he grew up and attended an exclusive private school, is in Asia. He gets a pass on all of those. Oddly calling Navy and Marine medics corpse men really seems to be the worst. He is their commander-in-chief.
, , ,
Romney supporters seem discouraged lately, while Romney doesn't seem to be the least bit discouraged. He seems buoyant and is working hard on his transition team, which seems like an odd thing for a man so far down in the polls to be doing five weeks before the election.
The difference in the candidate and his supporters may be attributable to the polling data that each is receiving. The presidential campaigns traditionally have excellent pollsters. It is one reason they at times seem to be flying off to campaign in some state where the national polls say they don't have a chance. One reason the campaign polls are far more accurate is modeling. If the sample used doesn't reflect the same percentages of Democrats, Republicans and Independents that will actually vote, it can be weighted to send any message the pollsters want.
The campaign pollsters know what those percentages will be and model their polls to meet the correct criteria. Some of the national polls have an entirely different agenda, which is revealed when you look at the data behind the polling.
According to people who claim to know such things, the most well-known polls are making a couple of major mistakes. The New York Times/CBS Poll oversampled Democrats by 10.7 percent and under sampled Independents by 11.2 percent according to unskewedpolls.com, a website that takes apart the polls and analyzes them based on projected modeling figures.
The obvious reason for The New York Times/CBS poll to be so far off in the percentage of Democrats and Independents is that is what was needed to put Obama ahead. The theory is that people want to vote for a winner. The polls, like the mainstream media, are heavily weighted in favor of the Democrats.
The percentages of Democrats and Republicans who will vote is a projection, but the pollsters know pretty accurately what they will be.
According to unskewedpolls.com, when you take the bias out of the polls and use models that reflect what the most likely voter turnout will be, then polls like The New York Times/CBS Poll that show Obama leading 49 percent to 46 percent actually show Romney leading 54 percent to 44 percent.
Along those same lines, Dick Morris, in a recent column, made a similar point from a different angle. Morris said that undecided voters at this point in the campaign have decided that they are not going to vote for the incumbent but haven't committed to voting for the challenger. He said that on Election Day the undecideds will vote overwhelmingly for Romney, so his recommendation was that you simply take the undecideds and add that percentage to Romney's percentage.
Morris also writes about the modeling like unskewedpolls.com. Morris notes that some polls that are not way out of whack are using the 2008 election as a model. In 2008 the Democrats had remarkable turnout and that is not expected to be repeated in 2012. Morris says that one of the reasons Rasmussen shows the race much closer than some of the other polls is that Rasmussen is using a model based on 2004 and 2008, which they say is much closer to the turnout that is expected.
A completely unscientific but relevant observation points to the same conclusion. A college professor told me that four years ago it seemed like every student on campus was wearing an Obama T-shirt, and this year they are hard to find.
Students voted in vast numbers for Obama four years ago and they just aren't supporting him the way they were. A lot of college students hope to get jobs when they graduate and they don't see the Obama economy as providing those jobs....continued on page 2