McCain, Clinton Overtake Obama In Polls

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Damn, why can't there be a law stating that the press (as they are supposed to be respectable source of information ) can't abuse their free speech rights too much? If they abused the right to have free speech too much, spreading false information, misdirection and etc, maybe someone can step in and revoke their license as a news media company.

And finally get the media to be responsible for once!

Whenever I started to criticise any western media in other forums, from fox news to CNN, most of the people in other forums will keep yelling ' Free speech! Free speech! '

The media is one reason I'm starting to get more and more pissed with several rights like free speech for example recently.

You'd think being from Singapore and all would have made you realize just how pathetically syncophantic a media chained by laws is.

It apparently slipped his mind that the Singapore Government explicitly distrusts Muslims and Malays.

[Tsyroc]

This thread got me to thinking about the AOL weekly staw polls.

Every week Hillary has been ahead of Obama on the Democratic side, and more recently Ron Paul has actually been winning 3-5 states on the Republican side.

I'd been wondering about this for awhile since the Hillary advantage on the poll seemed odd given what everyone has been saying here. Then I started reading the posts/comments. Besides the usual garbage, and believe me on AOL it's about as bad as it can get, I saw someone post that it was clear that Hillary supporters were spamming the polls to inflate her numbers. Before that I just assumed that there were naturally more Hillary supporters proportionately on AOL than would be found in a wider poll.

This week, ajacent to the regular poll was a question from this talking head's blog about how badly the Democratic party would be hurt if Hillary got the nomination through Super Delegates. New Mexico and Hawaii are the only states where "Irreparably" leads in the voting. All others "Not at All" leads.

Currently the national poll results are this:

Irreparably 25%
A lot 22%
Somewhat 13%
Not at All 40%

That's with just under 34,000 votes.

Looking at that I suppose if you take the top two and consider them Obama numbers and the bottom two as Clinton numbers the split is fairly even but I can't help but think that bottom 40% has been padded or manufactured. People can't be that deluded about how pissed off people are going to be if a canidate they'd prefer gets picked by Super Delegate override instead of going with the popular vote. Can they?

I can see it not mattering to the hard corp Democrats who automatically vote their party so in that sense it won't hurt the party, but it absolutely has to hurt the party when it comes to Independent and other swing voters.

At this point I see Hillary almost as much of a same ol' same ol' as voting McCain so the deciding factor might come down to who am I least pissed at.

[ray245]

Damn, why can't there be a law stating that the press (as they are supposed to be respectable source of information ) can't abuse their free speech rights too much? If they abused the right to have free speech too much, spreading false information, misdirection and etc, maybe someone can step in and revoke their license as a news media company.

And finally get the media to be responsible for once!

Whenever I started to criticise any western media in other forums, from fox news to CNN, most of the people in other forums will keep yelling ' Free speech! Free speech! '

The media is one reason I'm starting to get more and more pissed with several rights like free speech for example recently.

You'd think being from Singapore and all would have made you realize just how pathetically syncophantic a media chained by laws is.

It apparently slipped his mind that the Singapore Government explicitly distrusts Muslims and Malays.

Well, I never said they need to follow singapore style of media. A media without any sort of control will simply serve in their own interest instead of their countries interest at times.



Perhaps following what taiwan's media is doing, where it is required to have speakers from both sides of the camp speaking on the political discussion shows?

[Resinence]

A media without any sort of control will simply serve in their own interest instead of their countries interest at times.

Thats kind of the entire point, the problem is that they should have government media to compete with, so that they keep each other honest. All-corporate media is a self-serving clusterfuck waiting to happen. I can't remember who said it, the media should report the news, not make it. It probably wouldn't work in the US anyway, since FOX is basically already the "government (republican)" media and has become a gigantic propaganda monstrosity.

[Tsyroc]

PBS has some good news programs, especially Frontline but I don't think they get the amount of viewership that the regular network new programs get.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

The media has been focusing on Obama because they realize that if they don't, he's going to walk away with the election. If the media were actually a neutral impartial observer, this wouldn't be a race, it would be Barack Obama on cruise control. But no, can't have that, that doesn't sell papers. If they American public is not stuck to the TV at all times, how are all the media personalities going to justify their ridiculously large paychecks?

I'm starting to hate the fuckers, I really am.

Just remember, the media would not be in business if hundreds of millions of Americans, each day, didn't make the voluntary choice to remain plastered on their couch, soaking in this bullshit. I hate the media for being a bunch of corrupt, greedy fucks, but I've got pretty much the same level of disdain for the hundreds of millions of apathetic, mob-led, brainless twits who keep them in power. The former is evil through design, the latter is evil through malleability.

[HemlockGrey]

Just remember, the media would not be in business if hundreds of millions of Americans, each day, didn't make the voluntary choice to remain plastered on their couch, soaking in this bullshit. I hate the media for being a bunch of corrupt, greedy fucks, but I've got pretty much the same level of disdain for the hundreds of millions of apathetic, mob-led, brainless twits who keep them in power. The former is evil through design, the latter is evil through malleability.

I think it's ironic that an Obama supporter has an opinion of the American people that runs so counter to the central theme of his campaign.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Just remember, the media would not be in business if hundreds of millions of Americans, each day, didn't make the voluntary choice to remain plastered on their couch, soaking in this bullshit. I hate the media for being a bunch of corrupt, greedy fucks, but I've got pretty much the same level of disdain for the hundreds of millions of apathetic, mob-led, brainless twits who keep them in power. The former is evil through design, the latter is evil through malleability.

I think it's ironic that an Obama supporter has an opinion of the American people that runs so counter to the central theme of his campaign.

I've made my stance pretty clear in previous threads: If Obama wins by even a moderate margin, I will eat my hat and entertain hope in the ability of the general US populace to not be a bunch of complete fucking morons.

[SirNitram]

I don't quite see how a message of hope and making Washington less corrupt is out of line with the idea that the average populace is not very smart. Perhaps it comes from the same non-logic that says running unopposed is identical to running with opposition.

[Darth Wong]

Just remember, the media would not be in business if hundreds of millions of Americans, each day, didn't make the voluntary choice to remain plastered on their couch, soaking in this bullshit. I hate the media for being a bunch of corrupt, greedy fucks, but I've got pretty much the same level of disdain for the hundreds of millions of apathetic, mob-led, brainless twits who keep them in power. The former is evil through design, the latter is evil through malleability.

I think it's ironic that an Obama supporter has an opinion of the American people that runs so counter to the central theme of his campaign.

Running for President in the United States is a joke. You have to convince them that you have superior qualifications to be President, without being an "elitist". You have to convince them that your opponent is not competent to take the job, without being "negative". You have to convince them that you can solve America's numerous serious problems, without appearing to think America has any serious problems.

This ridiculous laundry list of demands is something that agitates for either a fool or a liar.

[ray245]

A media without any sort of control will simply serve in their own interest instead of their countries interest at times.

Thats kind of the entire point, the problem is that they should have government media to compete with, so that they keep each other honest. All-corporate media is a self-serving clusterfuck waiting to happen. I can't remember who said it, the media should report the news, not make it. It probably wouldn't work in the US anyway, since FOX is basically already the "government (republican)" media and has become a gigantic propaganda monstrosity.

What makes it so hard to create a democrat network so to speak?

[Darth Wong]

What makes it so hard to create a democrat network so to speak?

Running a major TV network is a capital-intensive business, so you need a large corporation to do it. Large corporations generally support the Republicans, because the Republicans promise to make life better for large corporations (and they generally do). The fact that their great gains tend to come at the expense of the lower and middle class is not something these corporations would care about.

[SirNitram]

Added difficulty: The Democratic party encompasses everything from Looney Right to the Left. Dems have widely varying opnions on a number of issues, so trying to organize them is like trying to herd cats.

[Darth Wong]

That added wrinkle is not even necessary anyway; anyone who has had real working experience with government regulators knows how quickly and easily one can learn to despise them. However, those regulations are in place for the protection of the public, not for the benefit or working convenience of the corporations. I've been forced to deal with regulators that were absolutely infuriating, but it's no different than dealing with income taxes: that part of the system was not created to make you happy, so there's no point grousing when it fails at this task.

However, this does help us understand why business forces tend to be in league with the business deregulation Republicans.

[HemlockGrey]

I don't quite see how a message of hope and making Washington less corrupt is out of line with the idea that the average populace is not very smart. Perhaps it comes from the same non-logic that says running unopposed is identical to running with opposition.

Obama's whole campaign is structured around the idea the American people genuinely want a change and that united together the American people can come together and work for a brighter future. That's a bit incompatible with the idea that the American people are "apathetic" and "brainless twits". I don't have any particular faith in the American people myself; I'm pro-Obama because of his policy ideas, not his rhetoric, and I imagine that applies to many Obama supporters on this board. I still think the irony is worth noting.

As for non-logic, you're the guy who took "it's a possibility McCain will slip down to second place after the Democratic nomination is settled but I don't think we can make a definitive call" to "running unopposed is identical to running with opposition". But hey, it wouldn't be a SirNitram post without some ridiculous strawman.

[Darth Wong]

Obama's whole campaign is structured around the idea the American people genuinely want a change and that united together the American people can come together and work for a brighter future. That's a bit incompatible with the idea that the American people are "apathetic" and "brainless twits".

Well, it's not as if he's actually saying that. If anything, he seems to believe that Americans care a great deal, but they often direct their anger at the wrong targets. I suppose the latter part could be interpreted as saying that they're too stupid to realize that they're being led on a wild goose chase by ultra-nationalists and free-market libertarians.

However, as I said earlier, it's a fool's errand to try and solve America's problems without actually admitting that there are problems, which is part of the problem with politics in America. Americans aren't just proud of their country; they're proud of being proud of their country, and they want their candidates to spout all of the same platitudes. How the fuck is anyone ever supposed to solve the problems with the country without admitting that the country is anything less than a shining beacon of light to the rest of the world?

[HemlockGrey]

Well, it's not as if he's actually saying that. If anything, he seems to believe that Americans care a great deal, but they often direct their anger at the wrong targets. I suppose the latter part could be interpreted as saying that they're too stupid to realize that they're being led on a wild goose chase by ultra-nationalists and free-market libertarians.

Sorry, I'm having some trouble parsing the pronouns here. Are you referring to Oni or Obama? Either way, the way the glowing optimism of the Obama campaign stands in stark contrast to the idea that the American public is a brainless mass easily lied to and manipulated.

However, as I said earlier, it's a fool's errand to try and solve America's problems without actually admitting that there are problems, which is part of the problem with politics in America. Americans aren't just proud of their country; they're proud of being proud of their country, and they want their candidates to spout all of the same platitudes. How the fuck is anyone ever supposed to solve the problems with the country without admitting that the country is anything less than a shining beacon of light to the rest of the world?

The only way to do this is to mask it behind glowing rhetoric, hence Obama's "Yes We Can!" slogan, relentless optimism, and generally upbeat tone. Bill Clinton had to say "there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- in the last twenty years liberals have learned the only way to enact change on a national level is to play up all the awesome intangibles America has that don't have to be changed.

[Darth Wong]

Sorry, I'm having some trouble parsing the pronouns here. Are you referring to Oni or Obama? Either way, the way the glowing optimism of the Obama campaign stands in stark contrast to the idea that the American public is a brainless mass easily lied to and manipulated.

I was referring to Obama. And I don't think that optimism and a recognition of the general population's brainless nature are necessary mutually exclusive, although I'm sure the public would think otherwise if it was put in those terms. It's possible to effect positive change even in the face of an ignorant population, as long as you can inspire them to get on board despite their ignorance.

However, as I said earlier, it's a fool's errand to try and solve America's problems without actually admitting that there are problems, which is part of the problem with politics in America. Americans aren't just proud of their country; they're proud of being proud of their country, and they want their candidates to spout all of the same platitudes. How the fuck is anyone ever supposed to solve the problems with the country without admitting that the country is anything less than a shining beacon of light to the rest of the world?

The only way to do this is to mask it behind glowing rhetoric, hence Obama's "Yes We Can!" slogan, relentless optimism, and generally upbeat tone. Bill Clinton had to say "there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- in the last twenty years liberals have learned the only way to enact change on a national level is to play up all the awesome intangibles America has that don't have to be changed.

It's like trying to convince a stubborn child. After reasoning fails, you must use psychological manipulation. It doesn't mean you necessarily despise the child or that you have no optimism for the future. But it would be a lot easier if Americans didn't think that national pride is a praiseworthy attribute in its own right.

[SirNitram]

As for non-logic, you're the guy who took "it's a possibility McCain will slip down to second place after the Democratic nomination is settled but I don't think we can make a definitive call" to "running unopposed is identical to running with opposition". But hey, it wouldn't be a SirNitram post without some ridiculous strawman.

Hey look, you ignored my rebuttal and attacked instead with classic 'Rar, you're SirNitram, you suck'. Vintage Hemlock. Going to address the factors I listed, or just pretend you can't see them?

[cosmicalstorm]

At this point I would be suprised if Hillary or Obama managed to win the presidential election.

[ray245]

A media without any sort of control will simply serve in their own interest instead of their countries interest at times.

Thats kind of the entire point, the problem is that they should have government media to compete with, so that they keep each other honest. All-corporate media is a self-serving clusterfuck waiting to happen. I can't remember who said it, the media should report the news, not make it. It probably wouldn't work in the US anyway, since FOX is basically already the "government (republican)" media and has become a gigantic propaganda monstrosity.

Come to think of it again, a government media will not work because unlike some country where the government never change hands, the US government and leadership swing from left to right.

And think of the abuse that can be done by a government media.


The issue I am trying to solve is NOT about having a government media (we are luckly that the singapore government is not too religous in their public policies) , but having a media that can tell people what they NEEDS to hear and not what they wants to hear.

We need to find a balance between responsible journalism and government abuse so to speak.

[Ace Pace]

Come to think of it again, a government media will not work because unlike some country where the government never change hands, the US government and leadership swing from left to right.

And think of the abuse that can be done by a government media.

Uh...Goverment media defined as goverment funded media stations work perfectly fine. BBC is a classic example, NPR is (as far as I know) goverment funded radio station that manages to strike a moderate tone. Channel 1 in Israel is a publically funded goverment station that spends half it's time attacking the current goverment.

[Rye]

Come to think of it again, a government media will not work because unlike some country where the government never change hands, the US government and leadership swing from left to right.

You can publically fund a media outlet, you just have to make sure that it's independent from commercial and political influence as far as is reasonable to be, with a code of journalistic accuracy written into its mandate.

[Terralthra]

As for non-logic, you're the guy who took "it's a possibility McCain will slip down to second place after the Democratic nomination is settled but I don't think we can make a definitive call" to "running unopposed is identical to running with opposition". But hey, it wouldn't be a SirNitram post without some ridiculous strawman.

That's the Clinton campaign's argument for allowing the Florida and Michigan delegates, actually. It's not a strawman at all.

[Wanderer]

Come to think of it again, a government media will not work because unlike some country where the government never change hands, the US government and leadership swing from left to right.

And think of the abuse that can be done by a government media.

Uh...Goverment media defined as goverment funded media stations work perfectly fine. BBC is a classic example, NPR is (as far as I know) goverment funded radio station that manages to strike a moderate tone. Channel 1 in Israel is a publically funded goverment station that spends half it's time attacking the current goverment.

And the Government takes it. If only the U.S. Media would the same.