WaPo Still Trails Grey Lady in MSM Lie-Fest '06 Despite Cardin Ad-"Poll"
By gamecock Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Given the Washington Post's front page Sunday wake-up poll showing Democrat Ben Cardin surging to a double digit lead in the Maryland U.S. Senate race against Republican nominee Michael Steele, despite Cardin's cancellation of a debate following on the heels of a shellacking at Steele's hands in a debate the night before, one can only conclude that all Cardin needs do to bury Steele would be for Cardin to run naked at Annapolis shouting anti-Naval epithets.
The MSM mass insult to the intelligence continues. A host of Red State all stars, citing poll internals skewed to Democrats and away from Independents, have deconstructed the poll's credibility quite nicely in comments to the below blog entry last night:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gopcomeback/2006/oct/29/new_wash_post_poll...
This morning, Hugh Hewitt rips the poll to shreds with some interesting additional evidence that the poll is little more than a desperate October surprise ad for Cardin, with the Post acting like what The American Spectator's Jed Babbin calls, the 527-Media.
Link to Babbin's August 2006 column when he first coined the "527 Media" phrase and suggested that the RNC treat the MSM as such in ads.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/taking_on_the_527_medi...
Hewitt, in his Town hall blog, cites pollster Charlie Cook as declaring the race a toss-up as late as Friday. WaPo didn't deem Cook's move "fit to print". Hugh suggests the Post may have crossed a line with Maryland's Black voters with this bending over backwards grotesque advocacy for Cardin who beat former NAACP hear Kweisi Mfume in a bitter Democrat Party primary for the right to face Steele, also Black, in the general election.
Read the whole thing and Hugh's links:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/bcd095cd-b2f3-4147-9aea-1171a0fe3423
Thus continues the print MSM Prevaricating March to the Sea (read Chesapeake Bay) of eventual weekly legal organ status. Let's let the Doctor of Democracy review recent history as we close:
The media in this country lied about hurricane Katrina and the aftermath -- and they gave themselves Pulitzer Prizes for doing so. They lie constantly about the status of the Iraq war. They lied about Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame matter. They not only lied about Bush's National Guard records, they engaged in a conspiracy to create forged documents to further what they knew was a lie.
The Drive-By Media lies constantly about the economy. They lie about our judicial nominees. They lie about John Bolton. They lie about Donald Rumsfeld. They lie about Condoleezza Rice. They lie about Dick Cheney. They will lie about anybody who gets in their way. They lie about Halliburton. They lie about oil profits. They lie about tax cuts and how they are effective. They lie about practically everything. They carry the water for the Democrat Party. They carry the water for liberal elites, for anti-capitalists in the environmentalist movement and elsewhere. They carry the water for the appeasement crowd, the socialist elites in Western Europe. When someone stands up to them and questions them in their tactics, they try to intimidate and destroy.
Just think. Think about the last three days. There are literally hundreds of stories over the last three days about me. They're not focused on the phony science involving embryos. They're not focused on any aspect of the issue that the ad that Michael J. Fox produced attempts to persuade people about. They're not focusing on it. I wonder why? Because they know it's not a winning issue. The only way it's a winning issue is if nobody stands up to the ad. The only way it's a winning issue if nobody challenges the lie and the misrepresentation that they put forth in the ad. For three days, we've had news stories about me. No focus on the phony science involving the embryos." - Rush Limbaugh
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
elect anyone. They are all tools to advance an agenda or to serve as odds for gambling much as Vegas football spreads. I mean, who cares what the polls showed two weeks ago? Does anyone remember?
By the same token does anyone not remember who won the elections in 2002 and 2004?
Polls only lazy ways to fill up print space without doing much work. They have the added benefit of scaring elected GOPers to vote lib on some issues between elections and in suppressing turnout among emotional voters, mostly Dems.
Substance is what motivates most GOP voters. Polls are substance-less.
They tell you more about the lack of character of the ones that do the polling than they do about the races.
You see, it doesn't matter who one thinks would win elections on days other than actual Election days, and then it doesn't matter what one thinks.
Hell, just wait a few hours and add up the votes.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Why are YOU so heavily invested in GOP defeat and why are YOU working so hard to suppress Republican turnout?
You are doing a community service by giving us all a dose of reality?
Or just doing your best for your masters in the Dem party. By the way, what name do you go by over at Kos, I'd like to read what you have to say to them?!
See The World In HinzSight!
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I've volunteered on-and-off since helping Reagan in 84 (first time I was of voting age), and there seems to be two kinds of volunteers. One is very ideaslistic and thinks every candidate he/she backs has a shot to win. Polls don't matter and the only poll that matters is on election day, etc. They have endless supplies of optimism...until election night rolls around.
The other kind of person (myself included) takes a much more practical, realistic view of the race in question. We don't view polls as worthless, and we try to prepare ourselves if the outcome of the race is likely to be a loss. We also don't believe in wasting time and effort for lost causes (this really angers some people, I know).
I look at the political landscape out there and can't see any scenario more realistically optimistic than the Republicans losing 3 Senate seats (Chafee, Santorum and DeWine have no chance) and narrowly losing the house by 2 or 3 seats.
Does that make me a bad conservative? Does it make me a bad conservative to think that relying solely on GOTV is a terrible mistake? Does it make me a bad conservative to believe that in addition to being in an unfavorable political environment, the GOP is running a strangely lackluster campaign to save themselves?
- Does it make me a bad conservative to think that relying solely on GOTV is a terrible mistake? Does it make me a bad conservative to believe that in addition to being in an unfavorable political environment, the GOP is running a strangely lackluster campaign to save themselves?
No ... it does not.
I have been saying the exact same thing. I believe our GOTV operation is a veritable wonder of the political world but the way we've been relying on it strikes me as the equivalent of putting all our eggs in one basket.
That's why I've fulminating on the GOP launching a blistering ad campaign in the last few days to forcefully seize away swing voters from the Democrats.
That said, you're way too young here to be posting bizaarely negative stories and calling races hopeless, wastes of time or lost causes and then castigating everyone else as being unrealistic in not accepting that we're going to lose, without being challenged for being a Moby.
As it is, I personally think you are a Moby.
Idealism and naivete are not synonymous. We aren't talking about EVERY candidate. All of the races in states and house districts currently held by the GOP that the MSM deems vulnerable would obviously not fit into the category of lost causes given that within the past 2-6 years the voters therein have voted in majorities for GOP candidates.
My point is that media polls are not news. The news is where the candidates stand on issues they would vote on and their character and for an incumbent, his voting record in office.
Moreover, given that the source of most of these polls are MSM outlets whose credibility for reporting relevant facts and truthfulness is (Da-cn-nemy-video)Rather-gate lower that Der Schlick before grand juries , the track record of weeks and months out polls in predicting actual election day results, the recent track record of even election eve polls and exit polls, and the internals of same, they are mostly useless in deciding where to invest funds in the later days of campaigns.
Finally, you say:
"I look at the political landscape out there and can't see any scenario more realistically optimistic than the Republicans losing 3 Senate seats (Chafee, Santorum and DeWine have no chance) and narrowly losing the house by 2 or 3 seats. Does that make me a bad conservative?"
Your "look" has nothing to do with the quality of conservative you are. Your defeatism probably makes you a net negative in terms of the value of your efforts to achieve even your most optimistic scenario.
And to declare these currently held by the GOP races "lost causes" causes one to question your judgment or motives.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
...do you want the GOP candidates in the States mentioned above to win? Please answer yes or no for each one - just yes or no, by the way, and don't even think to try to get around me on this - and answer it before you post anything here again.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Talent-YES
DeWine-yes, but he deserves to lose, and will lose
Burns-YES
Steele-YES, but I think his chances are highly overrated (one thing about the Dems...they don't let Republicans come into solid Blue states and win anymore, as we're doing in Ohio)
Kean-eh
Corker-YES
Allen-YES
Santorum-YES, but anyone that thinks he CAN win is fooling themselves, imo
Chafee-eh
Just so you know, currently you're coming across as doing an excellent impression of somebody trying to depress GOP turnout a week before the election, and we're just a little sensitive to that right now. Helpful suggestions would be useful; "what are you thinking?" comments pretty much aren't.
Just saying, that's all.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Tennessee will be fine. Corker will beat Ford, Jr. by at least four (4) points.
www.smashleftwingscum.com and www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com
That's what I was talking about...why isn't the Republican pulling away as the base should come home this last week?
If either Kean or Steele really had a shot, they would be seeing results similar to this.
for 9 days. The election is a one day event, except for absentee voting. Nothing a poll says can prevent any GOP voter from voting on Election day. GC is more familiar with relevant Real World laws of nature than catch phrases like "base coming home" in the fake poll world. Coming home from where I always wondered? Do Dems remain in the basement of elementary schools that serve as polling places for 729 days between elections?
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
IMO, it's just Dems winning seats Dems should win. Their voters are coming home. What I don't understand is why Republicans aren't seeing the same thing happen in Montana, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia (not to mention Ohio).