http://www.thinkmoderate.com/2007/06/corporate-media-has-decided-2008.html Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So is the media electing the President? And making sure you vote for the candidate they want?
The news media has been telling people what to do and how to think and what to think about for decades. Why do you think this election, or any other issue, should be any different. And please don't hold yourself up to as a higher standard, Sam, you're influenced by the media more than most around here!! Propaganda sucks you in to a greater extent than most of us Americans. Baron Max
I agree. The media has done a horrible job with the election this year, just as it always does. They cover electoral politics like it's baseball, choosing to focus on the personality of the "stars" and the strategy of the competition rather than the issues.
That's because that's what the public wants. The media seeks profit, which they get by delivering what the public wants. The public isn't interested in the issues. Thompson will probably be the next prez. It's all sad but true. All we can do is watch the country implode.
No, I think you're talking about the entertainment side of "media", in which I would agree. But the news media is most DEFINITELY biased ...and their coverage is most assurdedly bias! People do want to know about the issues, but the news doesn't give us that ...it gives us THEIR biased view. And that sucks! Why do you say that? Do you have anything to substantiate that prediction, or did you just give us your own biased view without study or forethought? Baron Max
Are you sure you aren't in the minority? People here are the exception. Whoever has the most money most likely wins. Republicans always have more money, because they have no qualms about selling the country's future. Their official candidates are probably unwinnable, except for Thompson. And he's an actor, so he'll say and do whatever he's told and look presidential doing it, maybe better than even Reagan did. Therefore he'll have the most money & most likely be the next prez.
Yeah, Republicans suck, but they don't always win. But you were right about the one having the most money winning, because that candidate is the one who wins most of the time. And should the numbers stay relative for the remainder of the campaigns, then Barack Obama will be our next President, as he has raised the most money. The country isn't going to implode. The Presidency has always been a popularity contest, rather than being based on merit. If merit were the issue, Bush never would have gotten into office in the first place. Neither would Regan. And Obama wouldn't even be considered a real candidate. Neither would Hillary, actually (Being the First Lady doesn't mean you're qualified, it just means you're married to the President!). But I disagree about the current media system being "what the public wants". The media has this power over people because that's what the media wants. If they would focus on the issues, rather than the most popular candidates, then you would see candidates with less funds receiving more votes. It isn't about what the people want. It's just all we are offered.
I think Republicans have a lot of under-the-table money that makes their tally dwarf any Democrat nowadays. For example, wherever the battleground states will be in the election, you can predict with surety today that the urban precincts there will be way understaffed, throwing the election to the Republican (because a lot of people will give up when the see a five-hour long line—and notice these states never get a mail-in ballot). It takes tons of illegal money to throw a national election. This time the true money difference will be larger than ever because a lot of big corporations are flush with Iraq profits, and they have the incentive to contribute a $billion if that’s what it takes. Also Thompson won't get the big checks until he officially declares. I expect at some point he will have significantly more money than any of the Democrat candidates. I agree to all of this. But this time it’s different. The country is on the brink of financial ruin, for real this time, and when it falls over the edge, watch out. If we don’t have a depression it’ll be a miracle, and we could even lose our Constitution. With a Democrat prez, there’s a small chance the country can be brought back from the brink, or at least the consequences softened. But a Republican prez will accelerate the process, just like Bush is doing now, because their incentive is to grab as much money from the vault as they can before the game is over. The surest sign of the impending doom is the global flight from the US dollar.
Ahhh, politics and the media. The media and politics. What many here seem unaware of is even long before there was such a thing as television, there were newspapers and magazines (and still are, of course). And those forms of media even way back then were presenting heavily biased news reports. So it's nothing new at all - just perhaps new to some people who haven't been around long enough to experience any real history. And it will never, ever change.
OK, how do hour-long lines benefit the Republican candidate? Also, where is the evidence for all of this under-the-table money? According to the numbers, the candidate who has the most money documented wins the election most of the time. We'll see, but Barack is running away with the campaign financing right now. I believe he's first, then Hillary, then Romney. And regardless, there's nothing to say that Thompson will win the nomination, or recieve the most money. Everyone saw John McCain as this beloved character during the 2000 elections, and yet he fell far short of GW. Again, this has all been said before. We aren't going to have a depression. Stop buying into this hype.
The urban precincts, where the five-hour long lines are, are mostly Democrat. The rural precincts have short lines. It’s speculation. If nobody ever speculated about what goes on behind closed doors, we’d be in a lot worse shape now. There’s no good reason for the five-hour long lines in every election in the key states, except for Republican shenanigans. It’s too much of a coincidence that a major Republican-benefiting event just so happens to happen in the key states nowadays. In Ohio, the state that determined Bush’s 2004 win, the exit polls didn’t even match the actual polls within the margin of error. Some very fishy stuff is going on. That may have been true in the past, but the Republicans have been solidifying illegal control. I think Barack is the 2008 version of the 2004 Dean. I doubt he’ll get the nomination. Hillary has a gender problem, and Romney is a lying Mormon. Thompson is an actor, and a precious white male with no major downside. Thompson is such a perfect Republican candidate, that’s why I think the money will be behind him. A lot of Democrats will vote for him too, simply because he’s a white male, and Hillary (or Barack) is not. I’m well aware it’s all been said before. This time a perfect storm is brewing, and you can actually see all the big ships getting out of the way. And it has always been a question of when, not if. Nobody and no entity can borrow indefinitely.
Tell me, then, why haven't the Democrats fixed the problem, if it was truly a problem? I voted in Albany, New York, which is a city, and there were not long lines. And Kerry won New York.
I agree. There were some very funny numbers from both of Bush's elections. In 2000, they said Gore had won the popular vote, then a few weeks later they came back and said that he didn't. I have no idea what happened there. The money might very well be behind him, but Barack, Hillary, and Romney have all raised more money in a shorter period of time than any other election in history. They're getting one hell of a jump on Thompson. But I'm still not sold on Thompson. I have no idea where he stands on the issues, but that isn't the question right now. The question is whether or not he's a viable top candidate, and I really don't think so. I could be very wrong, but I'm thinking that since the word "cancer" was mentioned, it will scare people off. This wouldn't be the first time that an illness has damaged a candidates chances. You have to understand that people don't need to hear the facts, they just need to hear soundbites. They hear "cancer", and they either believe Thompson has cancer, or has had cancer. They don't look any further than that. Well, I hope it isn't true, but I could be wrong. I still don't see any freefall happening. But even if it does, it wouldn't be the first time the nation has been in serious trouble. We have been through a depression, and come out of it. So, if it happens, that's too bad, but it won't be the end of the United States.
By “key states” I mean battleground states. New York is a lost cause to the Republicans. Other states they have in the bag. The states they do their shenanigans in are the ones they can win if only they do their shenanigans. They (or the media) can predict those states in advance with good accuracy. In 2004, Ohio was one of them. Then again, Thompson is not officially in the race, yet a significant percentage of the population already considers him a frontrunner. I could be wrong too, but I think the cancer thing is a non-issue. He brought it up to control the timing of the information, and it is hardly mentioned now. He doesn’t have a current pressing problem with it. I hope it isn’t true too, but it will happen eventually unless federal fiscal policy does a u-turn, which is unlikely before we fall off the cliff. The freefall is happening now; take a look: euro vs. dollar over the last five years. The world’s financial markets are running, not walking, from the US dollar. That’s because they know that the game is nearing an end for the US. And the problem is very dire—if you include unfunded promises the US has made, like for social security, every person’s equal share of the US debt is over half a million dollars (that figure comes straight from the US government). That’s obviously an untenable situation; something will give, and big time. US fiscal policy is giant Ponzi scheme, and that’s a giant understatement. My point in this thread is that a Republican prez will accelerate the end date, just like Bush has been doing. We may hold on to our Constitution. One thing we have going for us is that it is still true that when the US gets a cold, the rest of the world gets pneumonia. I’ve paid scant attention to “the coming depression” books in the past, and the Y2K thing didn’t scare me, but this time I’m sparing no effort to avoid the calamity. People survived the last depression, but most weren’t the same. That will be a good thing in the long run, but I don’t want to experience the pain in the meantime. Another thing to consider is that you can make a lot of money in a depression if you position yourself beforehand.
They are overwhelmed; the Republicans have a lot more money than the Democrats to spend on these things. For example, say the Democrats work to increase an urban precinct’s Election Day staff from four to ten. The GOP may devote a whole group of people and hundreds of thousands of dollars to thwarting that move. They’ll fight it every step of the way. Look at the battle that happened in Texas when the Republicans sought to make the shape of voting districts looks like snakes, so they could win without winning the popular vote. The Democrats in the state legislature there left the state in protest. But the Republicans won, and today they can win seats in Texas without winning the popular vote. They gained eight seats in the national House with that move.
Thompson is not a front runner. No polls that I've seen put him ahead of Guilliani... Zanket, the US is a Republic, so droning on about the popular vote is somewhat misleading. Also, the restructuring of voting districts that you mention happens all the time, with both parties gerrymandering districts when they have control of the state legislature, because that is the way the Founder's set the system up. Efforts to change that, like the one Gov. Schwarznegger tried in California, usually fail (in California's case, it was the Democrats who torpedoed it). Saying things such as:"There’s no good reason for the five-hour long lines in every election in the key states, except for Republican shenanigans" is just ignorant and irresponsible. How about there are long lines simply because there are more people in many of those key states and many of the urban areas you seem to think are being fooled with? Plus, your argument is equally empty now that people can vote early and vote absentee...
One- the Democrats have out maneuvered the Republicans for the past two years and have outraised them when it comes to campaign contributions for the first time in decades. Two- the Democratic controlled Congress doesn't need campaign money to fix this problem, then need only get a law passed. They haven't even bothered proposing such a law, because contrary to your rosy oppionions, they don't want to. It has nothing to do with them being "overwhelmed" by the evil Republicans. ~String
He'll be the frontrunner after he officially declares. Few can even spell "Giuliani". Four syllables and hard to spell = little chance. Can you name a Democrat-controlled state where the districts look like snakes, like they do in Texas? I'll take a look. Doesn't fly. The number of people who will show up to vote is easily predicted and planned for. For some reason not in the battleground states yet. When they have it, it is little used, which can be due to it not being promoted.
