Quote:
Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind
supporting romney for president is one thing but denying all of the polls and making pronouncements based on your flawed reasoning, not the facts, is something else. you were claiming that all of the media was lying except for fox news. if you were a mature thinker you would have more confidence in the facts that were based on science. i posted a link with seven scientific studies that showed obama winning and you chose just one. i don't know how you can have any self respect and base your reasoning on such a flawed premise that everyone in the media is lying and only you and fox news knows the truth. i think the problems in your thinking is much deeper than "history and the u of col study".
|
I challenge you to produce a single time I said that all of the media was lying. It is a well known fact that the mainstream media and cable news with the exception of Fox is biased towards liberals.
Pew Research did a study on positive/negative coverage for the candidates:
Quote:
The study...reveals the degree to which the two cable channels that have built themselves around ideological programming, MSNBC and Fox, stand out from other mainstream media outlets. And MSNBC stands out the most. On that channel, 71% of the segments studied about Romney were negative in nature, compared with just 3% that were positive-a ratio of roughly 23-to-1. On Fox, 46% of the segments about Obama were negative, compared with 6% that were positive-a ratio of about 8-to-1 negative. These made them unusual among channels or outlets that identified themselves as news organizations.
CNN stood between MSNBC and Fox in its treatment of the two candidates but Obama fared markedly better than Romney and better than in the media generally. On CNN, 18% of the stories about Obama were positive compared to 21% negative, a mixed narrative. In Romney's case, negative stories (36%) outnumbered positive (11%) by more than 3-to-1.
For comparison, here's how the coverage broke down across the larger cross section of the major media outlets surveyed: For Obama, 19 percent of stories were clearly favorable, compared to 30 percent unfavorable and 51 percent mixed. For Romney, 15 percent of the coverage was favorable, compared to 38 percent unfavorable and 47 percent mixed.
|
So it's clear that with the exception of Fox, MSM and cable news outlets were biased toward Obama. It stands to reason why I was skeptical of the media reports.
I didn't believe the turnout for Obama would be like it was in 2008. I was right about that. In 2008 69,456,897 voted for Obama against John McCain. In 2012 he got 61,173,739 votes, more than 8 million less. However, what I didn't foresee was less enthusiasm for Romney too. In 2008 McCain received 59,934,814 votes. In 2012 Romney received 58,167,260 votes, about 1.8 million less votes.
In 2004 Bush/Cheney defeated Kerry/Edwards in the popular vote 62 million to 59 million. In 2000, Gore/Lieberman won the popular vote over Bush/Cheney 50.9 million to 50.4 million, yet lost the election due to the Electoral College.
When you look at the numbers, 2008 was an anomaly. When compared to previous elections it's reasonable to believe that 2008 would not repeat itself. And it didn't when you talk raw numbers. Add in the poor economy, unemployment, slow growth, jobless claims, etc and the history of presidents who were in office with bad economic numbers (Hoover, Carter, Bush Sr), it wasnt unreasonable to believe Obama couldn't survive.
When it comes to polls, Rasmussen and Gallup have had a really good track record. For the 2008 election in which Barack Obama defeated John McCain by a 52.9% to 45.6% margin Rasmussen predicted an Obama victory by 52% to 46% while Gallup predicted an Obama victory of 53% to 42%. An average of those polls would have predicted a result of Obama 52.5% (0.75% error to the low side) to McCain 44% (7.8% error to the low side).
Similarly in the 2004 election when George Bush defeated John Kerry by a margin of 50.7% to 48.3 %, these two polls were very accurate with the average of the two predicting a Bush victory by a margin of 49.6% to 47.8% once again missing the margin of victory by less than 1%. Both polls under estimated Bush’s total while Rasmussen over estimated Kerry’s total by a scant 0.2% of the actual tally.
This year? Rasmussen and Gallup didn't even make the top ten! They tied for 24th out of 27! The top three polls in accuracy were actually left-leaning pollsters of which the top was PPP (Public Policy Polling).
Then there was the University of Colorado study that had never been wrong about predicting presidential elections. They had Romney winning by a large margin. They were wrong.
So DM, you can milk this as long as you want, calling me a liar inaccurately, and you can dance and spike the football and dis me all you want. I was cock sure about my prediction, I went out on a limb and made brash statements about but whippins and such, so I deserve egg on my face.
But to say I wasn't basing my predictions on reasonable assumptions is a mischaracterization. There's a reason your thread got pulled. I am guessing it's because it was distasteful, venomous and ugly. Maybe your politics mean more to you than it should.
Linear Mode
