Tuesday, October 02, 2012

Don't Believe The Media of Mass Deception Hype!

It is always interesting to check my stats and see how new visitors get to this blog.  For instance, this morning, I was checking my stats from yesterday and noticed that someone found my blog via typing in obama's real birthday is oct. 29, 1959, show his natal chart into the Yahoo search engine. The title of that blog post was Obama Can't Remember When He Was Born.

Interestingly enough, I became re-acquainted with a website called Colony 14.net: The Obama Timeline. While browsing through the site, I found this nice tidbit of truth:

At WashingtonPost.com Jennifer Rubin comments on the latest WaPo/ABC poll: “You’ve got to get deep into the weeds to tell what is going on. The Washington Post-ABC pollsters tell us that ‘52 percent of likely voters across swing states side with Obama and 41 percent with Romney in the new national poll.’ But without the proper context, readers may jump to an incorrect conclusion when they see that figure, concluding that Obama is home-free in swing states. As I learned from Post pollster Jon Cohen, that finding is based on the responses of a total of 160 people, and it has a margin of error of 8 percentage points. So yes, there may be a difference between swing-state and national numbers, but the gap might be very small or it might be big.” The mainstream media happily reports that Obama leads by 11 points in the swing states—conveniently neglecting to report the details. The same poll shows Obama up by only two points nationally, 49­–47, over Mitt Romney. If one believes that Obama is up by 11 in the swing states, it makes no sense that he is up by only two points nationally. The “swing states” are the close states, like Florida and Ohio. Obama will most certainly win the big welfare states of California, New York, and Illinois. But for Obama to be doing worse nationally than he is doing in the swing states means those other states are bringing his lead down. Neither the Washington Post nor ABC have explained how that can be happening. (The likely answer is that Obama is not up by 11 points in the swing states, and that a survey of 160 voters is meaningless.) [37788, 37789]

Hat Tip: Colony 14.net

In a recent email from GOP-USA, we find more truth about the media of mass deception:

The Media - At An All Time Low


Never before has the media been so one-sided, so agenda-driven, and so focused on creating news rather than reporting it. What began as an institution established as a check against government has now evolved into an advocate for government and the left wing agenda. The question is, "What can be done to stop it?"
In a recent interview with Fox News, former Democratic pollster Patrick Caddell echoed sentiments he gave last week in a speech on today's media. Caddell said the media's efforts to promote the Obama agenda or ignore stories that could be damaging to the administration is "corruption of the first order."
"We're entering territory we have never entered before," said Caddell. "We've never had a situation where the press has purposefully decided to pick up a narrative from the White House to not tell people things that happened in order to support their overwhelming candidate for president, Barack Obama."

"This isn't about partisanship, this is about danger," said Caddell. He equated the media to "Pravda," a newspaper which was owned and operated by the state in the Soviet Union. Caddell went on to say that the problem of bias should be obvious citing how the story of the Libya attacks and subsequent mishandling of the response by the administration was not covered widely.

People....don't believe the hype!

I STILL think that Obama will lose in a landslide.

Also see: PJMedia.com: WE ARE THE 91%: Only 9% of Americans Cooperate with Pollsters


In any attempted poll or survey, only 9% of attempted contacts come back with an actual response.
That means 91% of sampled households are NOT having their opinions recorded by pollsters.
Breaking down the numbers a bit, we can see that this is due to two reasons: 38% of the households contacted were unreachable in the first place, leaving only a 62% “contact rate.” But among that 62%, only 14% “cooperated” with the pollsters; the remaining 86% of contactees presumably slammed down the phone or simply refused to answer. Since 86% of 62% of the population are non-cooperators, that leaves us with the astonishing conclusion that…

53% of Americans actively refuse to answer poll questions.

The real breakdown chart should look like this:
38% could not be reached
53% were contacted but actively refused to answer
9% cooperated and answered the polling questions
Or, put another way:

Out of every 7 people contacted by pollsters, only 1 will answer the polling question, while the remaining 6 refuse to answer.

Six to one, people; six to one. Think about that for a second.
What are those 53% thinking — and why would they purposely refuse to cooperate with pollsters?
Furthermore, where are those unreachable 38%? At work? On drugs? Curled up in a fetal position under the couch?
Pew goes on to claim that, despite the appallingly low cooperation rate in 2012, they think their estimates of public opinion are fairly accurate in any case.
That may have been true in past years, but we won’t know this year until after the election how accurate the polls were.
But now also consider these newly released stats showing that distrust of the media has hit an all-time high, and most importantly that Republicans and independents are twice as likely to distrust the media as Democrats:



steve said...

Hey little lady! Are you watchin' the debate tonight? It will be early in Ca. I'm gonna try to watch it if I can get outta here some time today.
I'd really love to share the same optimism with you ... time will tell.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Steve!

I will be watching the debate and will also record it on C-Span.

I saw your post about Romney possibly "throwing the election." Man...THAT was depressing!! So I went on the hunt to find out what I have always suspected...the media of mass deception (and the pollsters) are NOT telling us the truth about Obama's so-called "lead."

If Obama does manage to win (or should I say, if his handlers, cronies, evil billionaire puppet masters [Soros] manage to cheat enough to pull out a win for the worst pResident since Jimmy Carter), then we will know without question that a coup has occurred and our government has been taken over by the commie-Islamo-fascist "powers-that-be" criminals that Obummer mentioned when he was caught on hidden mic saying, "the powers-that-be want Romney."

Such a scenario must continue to be in the back of our minds or else we would be accused of having our heads in the sand.

My family and I hope for the best - but have also prepared for the worse.

Even if Romney gets in, I still think that the TEA Party must work even harder to get a TRUE, TEA Party Conservative (similar to Reagan) into office in the future. It will take several decades to undo the extreme harm that the radical left has caused in government, but it CAN be done and the next Reagan-like candidate will most likely emerge from the TEA Party movement.

GMpilot said...

I can understand your dislike of the polls. They can be wrong, and sometimes have been. Sometimes it's better to simply ignore them and press on.
But when one side begins to actively disparage them, that's a sign of desperation. That's a sign that the side with the lower numbers is losing.
Sure, I know that you disparage what the polls from CBS or NBC or The New York Times say. But when Faux News' own polls say the same thing—and they have—that's harder to ignore. Even they couldn't ignore it; they tried to put their own spin on it, of course.
Dick Morris was on Hannity's show last week, saying he believed Romney would win by four points, win Pennsylvania, and would “be competitive in Michigan.” In Michigan? And how would he disavow his “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” article from 2008? That's exactly why Michigan is now a swing state; the Dems won't let him escape that statement.

If I had your mindset, I might hope those numbers continue. Obama's supporters would think. “He's up by six points? We can relax, he's got it”, and not go to the polls. Romney's supporters read “Obama's got a six-point lead?! We've got to do something!!” and redouble their efforts to get the vote out. Trouble is, I don't think that will work here. Not many people like Rmoney enough to make the effort. Even you don't really like him; he's just the chosen lever being used to topple Obama.
Rmoney could still win. But if you think he'll win by a landslide, you're delusional. The only one who might have done that was Santorum...and he couldn't make the cut.

See you at C-SPAN tonight.

steve said...

Now I feel bad. The last thing I'd want to do is make you depressed. But man, I just can't get past thinking this contest should not even be close. Obama should be conceeding right now and packing a u-haul. I surely hope I'm wrong about all of this ... and I hope you're right. If you are, dinner for you and the whole family is on me!

Christinewjc said...

Well GM, if the stats collected about those who actually answer the poll questions is accurate, then that would explain why Fox News has similar results.

If I recall correctly, J. Carter had a substantial lead over Reagan, yet he lost by a landslide!

Santorum is still young enough to run again. Perhaps he will be our TEA Party Conservative President of the future!

I might try "live blogging" during the debate. No matter what - it should be REALLY interesting to see them spar back and forth!

Hey - what do you think of the video where Obama uses a fake black accent?

Christinewjc said...

I agree with you Steve! This contest should NOT even be close! But there are those who must LIKE all the hand-outs instead of the temporary hand-up that they are supposed to be!

It's all part of the commie plan, of course. Get enough people dependent upon the government and they will feel forced to trade liberty, freedom, justice, a job, and the PURSUIT of happiness indefinitely. Why? Because they are scared. Such a sad state of affairs.

I try to do all I can to help the needy by donating to the San Diego Food Bank regularly and donating household goods and clothing. But there is so much need out there it's like a bottomless pit! :-( Makes me really sad.

On Mother's Day last May, we visited a new church (where I was attending for BSF - Bible Study Fellowship - and the pastor made a good point that when we look at the entire picture of the needy, it's too overwhelming and we feel like we can't help them all. But when we help just some people (and if many more Christians do the same) then it will add up to a huge amount of people being given a hand up!

Back to the possibility that Romney is "throwing the election." A lot of people thought that McCain did that. But I think that the eligibility issues between both him and Obama caused him to back off with any criticism. Recall that the Dem-lead Congress "investigated" McCain's eligibility and then deemed that he was eligible, but didn't do the same for Obama? I'm sure that we have no idea of the corruption that goes on behind the scenes of every presidential election.

If Obama wins - it will be a sure sign that our government has been taken over by some very powerful, wealthy, nefarious individuals who are pulling the strings to "transform" America into a socialist/commie/Islamo-fascist, Christian hating, Israel hating nation.

God forbid!!!

GMpilot said...

You are partly correct. J. Carter had a substantial lead over Reagan, and lost it, but not by a landslide. It was Dukakis who suffered that disaster. I don't believe either candidate will lose that decisively this time, either.

Santorum probably will try again, assuming his daughter (ostensibly his reason for dropping out) improves. Then again, the mood of the country may be very different in 2016, and he'll still get nowhere.

”Hey - what do you think of the video where Obama uses a fake black accent?”

Hostess, a 'fake black accent' is what you hear on episodes of the old Amos 'n' Andy show. That was two white guys imitating dialect (Not “accent”: learn the difference). I heard it, and I think it was neither better nor worse than Rmoney's whining to his audience on how much easier this race would be for him if he'd been born a Mexican:

“My heritage, my dad as you probably know was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico, and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I’d have a better shot at winning this.
But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. He lived there for a number of years. And, uh, uh, I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be, uh … Latino.”

That's another highlight from his now-infamous “47%” speech. [sarcasm]My heart bleeds for his misfortune.[/sarcasm] Would Denzel Washington use that dialect in public? Maybe. Would Samuel L. Jackson? Almost certainly...but then, both of them are actors.
Both candidates played to a clearly receptive audience. They'll both have to do better tonight.

Christinewjc said...

Well...even the liberal left lunatics over at MSNBC thought that Obama failed miserably in the debate! They were absolutely livid!! LOL!!

Guess Mr. Zero needed his teleprompter?

Go Romney!!!