How Obama Got Elected Interviews

[RobInKuwait]

 

[planetfuzz]

I'm totally speechless...

 

[paint2100]

I am not surprised at all, but I think their are people like that for each candidate.

 

[Bionic]

Please. You could do this type of thing during any election and the results would be similar. Most people are dumb. Big deal.

 

[Fastone]

I think we could do the same type of sampling illustrated in the Howard Stern Harlem interview somewhere in Texas and get similar idiotic answers from the Republican side. The race is over, it's time for the losing side to go fix things instead of engaging in sour grapery.

:bruce3:

 

[Rugger]

I think we could do the same type of sampling illustrated in the Howard Stern Harlem interview somewhere in Texas and get similar idiotic answers from the Republican side. The race is over, it's time for the losing side to go fix things instead of engaging in sour grapery.

:bruce3:

You got to do it for 8 years. Welcome to the defensive.

 

[Fastone]

You got to do it for 8 years. Welcome to the defensive.

I suppose as a so called democrat you were happy over the last 8 years......... oh never mind I forgot :bruce3:you just became eligible to vote.

 

[Rugger]

I suppose as a so called democrat you were happy over the last 8 years......... oh never mind I forgot :bruce3:you just became eligible to vote.

Sorry old man, I voted in 2004!

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Of course! Not only did the non-partisan producers of this segment find the most intelligent voters they could find, they are also fully cognizant of the fact that twelve voters can and do represent millions of individuals! Hurray and what-for, Rob! Your unpartisan YouTube prowess has broken down yet another barrier of ignorant, bipartisan politics, and ushered in a new-age of information, tact, and intelligence. It is you sir, you who should be President.

 

[Bionic]

:lol:

 

[Fastone]

Sorry old man, I voted in 2004!

Alright whippersnapper, I stand corrected.:rofl: btw, I'm not old, I'm finely aged.

:bruce3:

 

[Rugger]

Alright whippersnapper, I stand corrected.:rofl: btw, I'm not old, I'm finely aged.

:bruce3:

Yeah like beef jerkey ;0)

 

[RobInKuwait]

Of course! Not only did the non-partisan producers of this segment find the most intelligent voters they could find, they are also fully cognizant of the fact that twelve voters can and do represent millions of individuals! Hurray and what-for, Rob! Your unpartisan YouTube prowess has broken down yet another barrier of ignorant, bipartisan politics, and ushered in a new-age of information, tact, and intelligence. It is you sir, you who should be President.

Great work Mullet. Apparently in your haste to critique the video, you ignored its message. This video is not to show how dumb these voters are, like the Howard Stern Harlem Interviews. Its purpose was to show how biased the mainstream information was this election.

These voters were informed, but did not receive all the information.

All of the voters knew all of Palin's gaffes and dirt.

None of the voters were aware of any of Obama's or Biden's gaffes and dirt.

This isn't about the interviewers bias, its about the bias of the mainstream media.

I thought it was interesting.

 

[RobInKuwait]

I think we could do the same type of sampling illustrated in the Howard Stern Harlem interview somewhere in Texas and get similar idiotic answers from the Republican side. The race is over, it's time for the losing side to go fix things instead of engaging in sour grapery.

:bruce3:

No grapery here. Just going to sit back and enjoy the ride.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Great work Mullet. Apparently in your haste to critique the video, you ignored its message. This video is not to show how dumb these voters are, like the Howard Stern Harlem Interviews. Its purpose was to show how biased the mainstream information was this election.

These voters were informed, but did not receive all the information.

All of the voters knew all of Palin's gaffes and dirt.

None of the voters were aware of any of Obama's or Biden's gaffes and dirt.

This isn't about the interviewers bias, its about the bias of the mainstream media.

I thought it was interesting.

No, there was no haste in criticizing the video, Rob, but rather to show your haste in posting (still) unfortunately partisan, unfortunately ignorant, unfortunately bias campaign fodder after the campaign has ceased. This entire video was a fallacy of Composition: Attributing to the whole (in your case) characteristics of its parts.

Where were the voters qualified as informed? How were they chosen? How were they qualified as informed? Where was an objective indexical statement to position their dominant news source? How are they different from McCain and Palin supporters? Do you honestly believe twelve people is enough to infer to millions of people? Shall I go on? There was no message in the video, and of course it has everything to do with the biases of the interviewers. I think you are a fairly intelligent individual, but honestly feel pity for you if you ingest this video - and videos of its ilk - chalk full of fallacious bullshit as anything but irrelevant. May whatever god there is forgive me for even commenting on something so irrelevant, and may god have mercy on your soul.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

No grapery here. Just going to sit back and enjoy the ride.

Then for which reasons did you post this video, attempting to delegitimize Obama's victory, and further devalue the contribution of his supporters for being an average uninformed voter?

 

[RobInKuwait]

No, there was no haste in criticizing the video, Rob, but rather to show your haste in posting (still) unfortunately partisan, unfortunately ignorant, unfortunately bias campaign fodder after the campaign has ceased. This entire video was a fallacy of Composition: Attributing to the whole (in your case) characteristics of its parts.

Where were the voters qualified as informed? How were they chosen? How were they qualified as informed? Where was an objective indexical statement to position their dominant news source? How are they different from McCain and Palin supporters? Do you honestly believe twelve people is enough to infer to millions of people? Shall I go on? There was no message in the video, and of course it has everything to do with the biases of the interviewers. I think you are a fairly intelligent individual, but honestly feel pity for you if you ingest this video - and videos of its ilk - chalk full of fallacious bullshit as anything but irrelevant. May whatever god there is forgive me for even commenting on something so irrelevant, and may god have mercy on your soul.

Obviously, this is not a statistically significant sample. I never argued that, nor would I. Its also only at one voting location at one time. However, the purpose of this video is to illustrate the media bias in real terms and how it actually effects real voters views on the candidates. This is not a survey, it is 12 case studies on the effect of the mainstream media on voters.

As far as interviewer bias, I heard none. The questions were all vetted by Reuters beforehand for objectivity.

I have had many conversations with Obama supporters and have noticed many of the same one sidedness of information. My dad (an Obama supporter), who is very well read, regularly watches CNN and network news, and reads Newsweek and the Economist did not hear complete information on Obama and would probably miss several of the questions about Obama and Biden.

Are McCain/Palin supporters different? Perhaps not. We would have had to conduct the same interview on them to know for sure. What is apparent, and virtually undeniable is that voters are not getting equal information both positive and negative about both sides.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Then for which reasons did you post this video, attempting to delegitimize Obama's victory, and further devalue the contribution of his supporters for being an average uninformed voter?

He won. Its over and done. I posted this because it was interesting. My point was not that his supporters were uninformed (they all knew their Palin dirt), but that they were only told half the story.

 

[nofx4110]

BUSH'S
RESIGNATION SPEECH


The following
'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac
[a resident of the People's Republic of Maine ]. While
satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in
fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a
person who does not write for a living.




The speech
George W. Bush might give:




Normally, I
start these things out by saying 'My Fellow
Americans.' Not doing it this time.
If the
polls are any indication, I don't know who more than
half of you are anymore. I do
know something terrible has happened, and that you're
really not fellow Americans any longer.



I'll cut right
to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all
in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or
to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you:
There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable
offenses in this office.





The reason I'm
quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people.
I'm
fed up because you have no understanding of what's
really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in
this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of
you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure
it out.


Let's start
local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians
and the news media.




Meanwhile, all
you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you
are too damn stupid to realize that
gas prices are
high because there's increased demand in other parts
of the world, and
because a small handful of noisy idiots are
more worried about polar bears and beachfront property
than your economic security .


We face real
threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for
oil' thing.
If I were
trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq
's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to
hell . And don't
give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If
I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've
easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they
could be 'discovered.' In stead, I owned up to the
fact that the intelligence was faulty.
< /I>





Let me remind
you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the
goods, same as me.
Let me also
remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US
policy before I came into office. Some guy named '
Clinton ' established that policy.
Bet you didn't
know that, did you?


Now some of
you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no
understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this
nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear
ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace
with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us.
While
he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda,
Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the
Palestinians, and
your money to
the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal
aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can
vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for
Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our
foreign aid to Israel . Did
you sleep through high school?


You idiots
need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back
during the cold war, there were two major competing
political and economic models squaring off. We won
that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the
Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were
simply able to out spend and out-tech them.





That's not the
case this time.
The soldiers
of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact,
they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they
weren't also committed to taking as many of you with
them as they can. But they are.
They want to kill you, and the bastards are
all over the globe .

You should be
grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here
in the United States since September 11. But you're
not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a
small number of intelligence, military, law
enforcement, and homeland security people have worked
to make sure of that. When this whole mess started,

I warned you
that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm
disappointed how many of you people think a long and
difficult fight amounts to a single season of
'Survivor.'




Instead,
you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing
things through the long lens of history, the way our
enemies do. You think that wars should last a few
months, a few years, tops.

Making matters
worse, you actively support those who help the enemy.
Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you
send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political
campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx
a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the
same thing.

In this day
and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all
over the Internet . It just
isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today,
or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be
any smarter.
Most of you
would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with
Stars.

I could say
more about your expectations that the government will
always be there to bail you out,
even if you're
too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and
has a hurricane approaching.




I could say
more about your insane belief that government, not
your own wallet, is where the money comes from.
But
I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it
would sail right over your heads.


So I quit. I'm
going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient
house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the
capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No
one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and
as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever
hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of
old age before the last pillars of America fall.





Oh, and by the
way, Cheney's quitting too.
That means
Pelosi is your new President.

You asked for
it. Watch
what she does carefully, because I still have a
glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you
remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing
around.


So that's it.
God bless what's left of America .


Some of you
know what I mean . The rest of
you, kiss
off.

 

[raginfcktard]

surprise surprise

 

[raginfcktard]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3_95F5e-Ac"]YouTube - Obama Win Causes Obsessed Backers To See How Empty Lives Are[/ame]

 

[Nabisco]

BUSH'S
RESIGNATION SPEECH


The following
'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac
[a resident of the People's Republic of Maine ]. While
satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in
fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a
person who does not write for a living.




The speech
George W. Bush might give:




Normally, I
start these things out by saying 'My Fellow
Americans.' Not doing it this time.
If the
polls are any indication, I don't know who more than
half of you are anymore. I do
know something terrible has happened, and that you're
really not fellow Americans any longer.



I'll cut right
to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all
in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or
to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you:
There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable
offenses in this office.





The reason I'm
quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people.
I'm
fed up because you have no understanding of what's
really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in
this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of
you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure
it out.


Let's start
local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians
and the news media.




Meanwhile, all
you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you
are too damn stupid to realize that
gas prices are
high because there's increased demand in other parts
of the world, and
because a small handful of noisy idiots are
more worried about polar bears and beachfront property
than your economic security .


We face real
threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for
oil' thing.
If I were
trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq
's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to
hell . And don't
give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If
I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've
easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they
could be 'discovered.' In stead, I owned up to the
fact that the intelligence was faulty.
< /I>





Let me remind
you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the
goods, same as me.
Let me also
remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US
policy before I came into office. Some guy named '
Clinton ' established that policy.
Bet you didn't
know that, did you?


Now some of
you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no
understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this
nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear
ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace
with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us.
While
he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda,
Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the
Palestinians, and
your money to
the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal
aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can
vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for
Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our
foreign aid to Israel . Did
you sleep through high school?


You idiots
need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back
during the cold war, there were two major competing
political and economic models squaring off. We won
that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the
Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were
simply able to out spend and out-tech them.





That's not the
case this time.
The soldiers
of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact,
they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they
weren't also committed to taking as many of you with
them as they can. But they are.
They want to kill you, and the bastards are
all over the globe .

You should be
grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here
in the United States since September 11. But you're
not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a
small number of intelligence, military, law
enforcement, and homeland security people have worked
to make sure of that. When this whole mess started,

I warned you
that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm
disappointed how many of you people think a long and
difficult fight amounts to a single season of
'Survivor.'




Instead,
you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing
things through the long lens of history, the way our
enemies do. You think that wars should last a few
months, a few years, tops.

Making matters
worse, you actively support those who help the enemy.
Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you
send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political
campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx
a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the
same thing.

In this day
and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all
over the Internet . It just
isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today,
or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be
any smarter.
Most of you
would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with
Stars.

I could say
more about your expectations that the government will
always be there to bail you out,
even if you're
too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and
has a hurricane approaching.




I could say
more about your insane belief that government, not
your own wallet, is where the money comes from.
But
I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it
would sail right over your heads.


So I quit. I'm
going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient
house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the
capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No
one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and
as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever
hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of
old age before the last pillars of America fall.





Oh, and by the
way, Cheney's quitting too.
That means
Pelosi is your new President.

You asked for
it. Watch
what she does carefully, because I still have a
glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you
remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing
around.


So that's it.
God bless what's left of America .


Some of you
know what I mean . The rest of
you, kiss
off.

ROFL, that's an awesome satirical speech. I wish he'd actually give it to the greater American public. Maybe it would open some eyes.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Obviously, this is not a statistically significant sample. I never argued that, nor would I. Its also only at one voting location at one time. However, the purpose of this video is to illustrate the media bias in real terms and how it actually effects real voters views on the candidates. This is not a survey, it is 12 case studies on the effect of the mainstream media on voters.

As far as interviewer bias, I heard none. The questions were all vetted by Reuters beforehand for objectivity.

I have had many conversations with Obama supporters and have noticed many of the same one sidedness of information. My dad (an Obama supporter), who is very well read, regularly watches CNN and network news, and reads Newsweek and the Economist did not hear complete information on Obama and would probably miss several of the questions about Obama and Biden.

Are McCain/Palin supporters different? Perhaps not. We would have had to conduct the same interview on them to know for sure. What is apparent, and virtually undeniable is that voters are not getting equal information both positive and negative about both sides.

It illustrated absolutely nothing, and was an irrelevant piece of campaign fodder. If you truly recognized this prior to posting it - as you are claiming now - you would have created your title in kind. Instead, you made an objective claim as towards Obama's victory: "How Obama Got Elected Interviews". If you were not extrapolating these few cases to the majority of voters, which your ostensible presentation of the video would lead us to believe, than your thread-title is misleading.

Neither are these interviews, 'case studies', as you chose to elaborate. A case study is an intensely personal datum piece conducted by an interviewer and an interviewee(s) intended to create a rich, detailed, and deep description of a phenomenon of interest to the interviewer. These were 12 individuals, chosen at completely random, whose answers serve to add absolutely nothing to an intelligent discourse on Politics.

As I said, it would seem you internalized this video too quickly prior to posting, possibly not realizing not everybody is so easily swayed by twelve random individuals. It would seem you do not realize that twelve is not an adequate representative sample population for tens-of-millions of individuals, and that their experience really represents very little. Is it possible that Obama supporters are this uninformed in the majority? It is. Is that entirely speculation on your part to extrapolate in such a manner? Even more so.

More individuals voted for Barack Obama and John McCain, respectively, than there are individuals in Canada. This ridiculous video is exactly the same as if I were to tape 12 of my friends, and claim them to be a representative sample of Canada. Simply ridiculous.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

He won. Its over and done. I posted this because it was interesting. My point was not that his supporters were uninformed (they all knew their Palin dirt), but that they were only told half the story.

So, which is it? This is, or is not, a representative sample?

Obviously, this is not a statistically significant sample.

My point was not that his supporters were uninformed (they all knew their Palin dirt), but that they were only told half the story.

In the interest of objective dialogue - a state of mind you were at the very precipice of reaching, but have unfortunately fallen from - I have altered your statement below.

My point was not that these twelve supporters, whose comments cannot be claimed to represent much, were uninformed (they all knew their Palin dirt), but that these twelve supporters whose comments cannot be claimed to represent much were only told half the story

 

[raginfcktard]

hey mullet...STFU!

 

[Mulletsoldier]

hey mullet...STFU!

Hey, whoever you are, thanks!

 

[Vtaper]

12 people in a survey mean nothing, and neither do these additional 500. Rob in Kuwait, I will not be happy until you have a survey of EVERY Obama voter saying the same thing, and if you provide that, me and Mulletsoldier will still tear it apart. These are the facts as we know them: Bush is a retard, Republicans screwed up the economy, Cheney and Haliburton are behind 9-11..........Change we can believe in and...uh........oh yeah.....YES WE CAN!!!!

Oh...who am I kidding, I cant be a lefty no matter how hard I try

The poll below suggests that the media had a clear agenda in getting Obama elected; if the people interviewed were guessing between 4 unkown people, the percentages would reflect random guessing of 50/50 or 25%.

The FACT that most of them believed the negatives had to be the GOP candidates tells me "score one for the media".

How many people need to be in the survey before we can acknowledge this?

So here is my challenge to the opposition: Obama raised around $600 million(4-1 to McCain), I'll bet some of that was spent polling Republican voters. Lets see if anyone can post results of Republican voters equally misinformed. And if you cant, that means they are not releasing the polls because nothing AS biased came out of them.(and if anyone finds one that shows EQUAL or greater misinformation on the GOP side, I will publically offer a gracious touché, and give some rep points to the provider)





Zogby Poll: Almost No Obama Voters Ace Election Test
Survey finds most Obama voters remembered negative coverage of McCain/Palin statements but struggled to correctly answer questions about coverage associated with Obama/Biden




Zogby Poll

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

 

[Mulletsoldier]

12 people in a survey mean nothing, and neither do these additional 500. Rob in Kuwait, I will not be happy until you have a survey of EVERY Obama voter saying the same thing, and if you provide that, me and Mulletsoldier will still tear it apart. These are the facts as we know them: Bush is a retard, Republicans screwed up the economy, Cheney and Haliburton are behind 9-11..........Change we can believe in and...uh........oh yeah.....YES WE CAN!!!!

Oh...who am I kidding, I cant be a lefty no matter how hard I try

The poll below suggests that the media had a clear agenda in getting Obama elected; if the people interviewed were guessing between 4 unkown people, the percentages would reflect random guessing of 50/50 or 25%.

The FACT that most of them believed the negatives had to be the GOP candidates tells me "score one for the media".

How many people need to be in the survey before we can acknowledge this?

So here is my challenge to the opposition: Obama raised around $600 million(4-1 to McCain), I'll bet some of that was spent polling Republican voters. Lets see if anyone can post results of Republican voters equally misinformed. And if you cant, that means they are not releasing the polls because nothing AS biased came out of them.(and if anyone finds one that shows EQUAL or greater misinformation on the GOP side, I will publically offer a gracious touché, and give some rep points to the provider)





Zogby Poll: Almost No Obama Voters Ace Election Test
Survey finds most Obama voters remembered negative coverage of McCain/Palin statements but struggled to correctly answer questions about coverage associated with Obama/Biden




Zogby Poll

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

It is very unfortunate you decided to precede a relevant contribution with such immature dribble. Do you feel 12 people is a representative sample of 46 million? Simple question.

 

[RobInKuwait]

It illustrated absolutely nothing, and was an irrelevant piece of campaign fodder. If you truly recognized this prior to posting it - as you are claiming now - you would have created your title in kind. Instead, you made an objective claim as towards Obama's victory: "How Obama Got Elected Interviews". If you were not extrapolating these few cases to the majority of voters, which your ostensible presentation of the video would lead us to believe, than your thread-title is misleading.

Neither are these interviews, 'case studies', as you chose to elaborate. A case study is an intensely personal datum piece conducted by an interviewer and an interviewee(s) intended to create a rich, detailed, and deep description of a phenomenon of interest to the interviewer. These were 12 individuals, chosen at completely random, whose answers serve to add absolutely nothing to an intelligent discourse on Politics.

As I said, it would seem you internalized this video too quickly prior to posting, possibly not realizing not everybody is so easily swayed by twelve random individuals. It would seem you do not realize that twelve is not an adequate representative sample population for tens-of-millions of individuals, and that their experience really represents very little. Is it possible that Obama supporters are this uninformed in the majority? It is. Is that entirely speculation on your part to extrapolate in such a manner? Even more so.

More individuals voted for Barack Obama and John McCain, respectively, than there are individuals in Canada. This ridiculous video is exactly the same as if I were to tape 12 of my friends, and claim them to be a representative sample of Canada. Simply ridiculous.

"How Obama Got Elected" was the name of the video, not something I came up with.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

"How Obama Got Elected" was the name of the video, not something I came up with.

If I made a YouTube video titled: 'How Rob Sucks', and then simply held up a sign that says, 'Rob sucks - Twelve people agree', would you think it valid? Really, that is all I am saying. Apologies for the sarcasm earlier. Uncalled for.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Do you feel 12 people is a representative sample of 46 million? Simple question.

Yes, this is not a representative sample of the rest of the United States. Nobody is arguing that point.

My question for you is how much different do you think a nationwide poll of all Obama voters would be?

How about all McCain voters?

Do you think information was presented to voters by the mainstream media in a fair an balanced manner?

If it was information was not presented equally, do you think that bias influenced the results of the election?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Yes, this is not a representative sample of the rest of the United States. Nobody is arguing that point.

My question for you is how much different do you think a nationwide poll of all Obama voters would be?

It could be similar, very well could. But, this was not that poll, and to make an objective claim as to how any candidate wins an election based on twelve people is silly.

How about all McCain voters?

See above.

Do you think information was presented to voters by the mainstream media in a fair an balanced manner?

No, but here is a better question for you: Is that the primary reason he was elected? Absolutely not. The state of a fledgling economy, whose existence was unfairly imparted onto the leaving administration, was most likely the primary reason he was elected. Couple that with a majority Democrat congress and some of the lowest approval ratings in history for President Bush, and you have a recipe for election.

If it was information was not presented equally, do you think that bias influenced the results of the election?

See above.

Here is your underlying assertion: Barack Obama was victorious in this election because of a lack of coverage of his mistakes, and an exaggerated coverage of John McCain's mistakes.

Here is, most likely, a more accurate assertion: Voters in each camp are equally uninformed, as the video you posted is indicative of the average American voter - biased, and uninformed. If one is to assume misinformation affects election outcomes, one must expand that to include both parties, and all media outlets. The voter-itself is a misinformed concept. John McCain lost because the environment was tailored for him to lose, and he greatly mishandled his campaign prior the Palin VP-choice.

 

[RobInKuwait]

It could be similar, very well could. But, this was not that poll, and to make an objective claim as to how any candidate wins an election based on twelve people is silly.

Agreed. Like I said before, I entitled the thread the name of the video. I was not trying to make that assertion.

No, but here is a better question for you: Is that the primary reason he was elected? Absolutely not. The state of a fledgling economy, whose existence was unfairly imparted onto the leaving administration, was most likely the primary reason he was elected. Couple that with a majority Democrat congress and some of the lowest approval ratings in history for President Bush, and you have a recipe for election.

Everything you said is a valid point and a reason that Obama should have won. However, keep in mind that the reality of this election is that it came down to six battleground states with between 1% and 6% margin differences between McCain and Obama. If only 1-3% of the voters made their decision based upon biased coverage, that was enough to decide the election.

Here is your underlying assertion: Barack Obama was victorious in this election because of a lack of coverage of his mistakes, and an exaggerated coverage of John McCain's mistakes.

Essentially. This subject is irrelevant for 2008 now, however, it does make an interesting conversation topic.

Here is, most likely, a more accurate assertion: Voters in each camp are equally uninformed, as the video you posted is indicative of the average American voter - biased, and uninformed. If one is to assume misinformation affects election outcomes, one must expand that to include both parties, and all media outlets. The voter-itself is a misinformed concept. John McCain lost because the environment was tailored for him to lose, and he greatly mishandled his campaign prior the Palin VP-choice.

Well, look at it this way. Many Americans strive to be normal, moderate, citizens. Alexis de Tocqueville observed this in the 1830s and I believe its still true. The average American will not seek to have an extreme viewpoint, but a moderate viewpoint similar to his or her fellow Americans.

Consequently, they listen to normal "mainstream" sources, utilize the facts they garnish off of those sources and use that to make a decision on who to vote for. When the mainstream source provides biased information, mainstream "normal" Americans receives biased information and then they have faulty premises to base their decisions on.

You're right, the environment was tailored against McCain, but not by Bush, by the mainstream media.

 

[raginfcktard]

OMFG....change is coming...baaaahahahaha!

 

[Vtaper]

It is very unfortunate you decided to precede a relevant contribution with such immature dribble. Do you feel 12 people is a representative sample of 46 million? Simple question.

Nope, And I provided a poll of 512. And that wont be either. How many would you need to be happy? 5000, 5 Million?

The point of this thread was to illustrate the role the media plays in presenting an image of the candidates.

I believe that the poll, despite its size, DOES represent a person who is more likely Left-Leaning. You dont. Fine. We have already beat to death the size of the poll, so why dont you give us some examples that contradict their findings, rather than pick apart the method in which they were reached? If the polling was inacurate, surely the outakes of the hundreds of Obama supporters nailing every question are bound to surface.

BTW, sorry about the sarcasm of my last post, which I am sure was the "immature dribble"(I think you meant "drivel") you were talking about. Isnt it funny how what you call "immature dribble" is what you here from the Left almost verbatim?

P.S. Do you CC your Poli Sci/Sociology Professor on these posts? Sorry man, My sarcasm is always well intended.:cheers:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Nope, And I provided a poll of 512. And that wont be either. How many would you need to be happy? 5000, 5 Million?

The point of this thread was to illustrate the role the media plays in presenting an image of the candidates.

I believe that the poll, despite its size, DOES represent a person who is more likely Left-Leaning. You dont. Fine. We have already beat to death the size of the poll, so why dont you give us some examples that contradict their findings, rather than pick apart the method in which they were reached? If the polling was inacurate, surely the outakes of the hundreds of Obama supporters nailing every question are bound to surface.

BTW, sorry about the sarcasm of my last post, which I am sure was the "immature dribble"(I think you meant "drivel") you were talking about. Isnt it funny how what you call "immature dribble" is what you here from the Left almost verbatim?

P.S. Do you CC your Poli Sci/Sociology Professor on these posts? Sorry man, My sarcasm is always well intended.:cheers:

Nope! Do not need to. You should CC your Statistics Professor, though. n=1000 is a representative sample.

Also, dribble and drivel are synonyms, champ! Both colloquially meant to imply inconsequential 'verbal drool' being emitted by the arguer.

 

[AE14]

It is so funny to me that we are still squabbling. Its over, give Obama a chance, and if he flops, vote him out. Sound good?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

You're right, the environment was tailored against McCain, but not by Bush, by the mainstream media.

Come now. The mainstream media created the sub-prime mortgage crisis? In which way? Did the mainstream media force Freddie and Fannie to grant massive mortgages to low-income families who would subsequently lend against them? Did the mainstream media force traders to package those same faulty mortgages? Enlighten me.

Also, I never claimed George Bush created the foundation. Fact is, though, a President from the same party has never been elected when approval ratings for the current President have been this low, ever. Now, Obama sold the American people on change - a change, albeit they may not get - and John McCain lost subsequently. To insinuate that the mainstream media played a primary role is beyond ridiculous, though. The problematics facing your nation far expand past the influence of the media. One merely needs to 'look around' to see the reasons why McCain lost.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

It is so funny to me that we are still squabbling. Its over, give Obama a chance, and if he flops, vote him out. Sound good?

But the mainstream media made McCain lose! Don't you know that: Battle-Cry of the Conservative.

 

[RobInKuwait]

One merely needs to 'look around' to see the reasons why McCain lost.

I agree with you. My previous statement about the media was overgeneralizing. However, one essential question is how many points mainstream media bias gave Obama in battleground states. If the answer is greater than 3%, the media may have decided the election for Obama, if the answer is less than 3%, they did not.

 

[RobInKuwait]

It is so funny to me that we are still squabbling. Its over, give Obama a chance, and if he flops, vote him out. Sound good?

Its not squabbling at this point, its analyzing history.

Obama has got a chance. He doesn't need my consent for that. Like I said before, I'm along for the ride. :thumbsup:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I agree with you. My previous statement about the media was overgeneralizing. However, one essential question is how many points mainstream media bias gave Obama in battleground states. If the answer is greater than 3%, the media may have decided the election for Obama, if the answer is less than 3%, they did not.

Rob, prior to the RNC John McCain was projected to lose by 10 points. The polls showed a massive divergence between Obama and himself, and a landslide was more than likely. Palin reinvigorated his campaign, rejuvenated his base, and gave him a chance. John McCain was not projected to make the race this close, and the fact he did is no minor victory. You are/were insinuating that it was a close race prior to media involvement, and that media-bias allotted Obama the necessary 3-5% to 'push him over the hump'; in fact, there was no 'hump' for Obama. He was leading substantially, media or not; he would have won, media or not, rightfully or wrongfully, due to the major election issues.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Rob, prior to the RNC John McCain was projected to lose by 10 points. The polls showed a massive divergence between Obama and himself, and a landslide was more than likely. Palin reinvigorated his campaign, rejuvenated his base, and gave him a chance. John McCain was not projected to make the race this close, and the fact he did is no minor victory. You are/were insinuating that it was a close race prior to media involvement, and that media-bias allotted Obama the necessary 3-5% to 'push him over the hump'; in fact, there was no 'hump' for Obama. He was leading substantially, media or not; he would have won, media or not, rightfully or wrongfully, due to the major election issues.

However, there was always a media bias towards Obama for at least the last year, if not the last 2 years. The Clinton camp complained about it in the primaries and the McCain camp complained about it in the general election. Its really impossible to say when or how much the bias affected voters, but I think its fair to say that it did effect voters in some capacity.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

However, there was always a media bias towards Obama for at least the last year, if not the last 2 years. The Clinton camp complained about it in the primaries and the McCain camp complained about it in the general election. Its really impossible to say when or how much the bias affected voters, but I think its fair to say that it did effect voters in some capacity.

Of course there was, and I have mentioned that several times. In other scenarios - ones in which such massive issues were not at the forefront - this media bias would be the primary reason; of this, I have little doubt.

However, my point is and always has been: In the current economic, military, and political state of your country, Obama was predestined to win, and likewise John McCain to lose. Even the title of this thread insinuates that, in fact, media was the primary reason - national exit polls show that is not the case! They show that the case for Obama was made based on his platform (whether he will remains to be seen) to deal with the most pressing issues of the day. For this he was elected.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Of course there was, and I have mentioned that several times. In other scenarios - ones in which such massive issues were not at the forefront - this media bias would be the primary reason; of this, I have little doubt.

However, my point is and always has been: In the current economic, military, and political state of your country, Obama was predestined to win, and likewise John McCain to lose. Even the title of this thread insinuates that, in fact, media was the primary reason - national exit polls show that is not the case! They show that the case for Obama was made based on his platform (whether he will remains to be seen) to deal with the most pressing issues of the day. For this he was elected.

:frustrate The thread title is the name of the video.

I agree, what I am saying does not match the name of the thread. Obviously media bias did not singlehandedly give Obama the election. I don't even think Rush Limbaugh would say that.

What you are saying is very true, Obama inspired millions of Americans to vote for him.

I just find myself wondering how many voters were sold by the daily 20 minute CNN montages of Obama speaking about the economy, with an image of the DOW going up in the corner, with and footage of gleeful traders in the corner.

That kind of image unconsciously makes viewers think that all this country needs to turn the economy around is Obama. The media may well have defined Obama as the economic choice for president.

Let me ask you this Mullet.....if in an alternate universe, there was a conservative bias in the mainstream media, and Fox News was the liberal alternative, do you think there would be any chance of Obama winning?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

:frustrate The thread title is the name of the video.

I agree, what I am saying does not match the name of the thread. Obviously media bias did not singlehandedly give Obama the election. I don't even think Rush Limbaugh would say that.

What you are saying is very true, Obama inspired millions of Americans to vote for him.

I just find myself wondering how many voters were sold by the daily 20 minute CNN montages of Obama speaking about the economy, with an image of the DOW going up in the corner, with and footage of gleeful traders in the corner.

That kind of image unconsciously makes viewers think that all this country needs to turn the economy around is Obama. The media may well have defined Obama as the economic choice for president.

Let me ask you this Mullet.....if in an alternate universe, there was a conservative bias in the mainstream media, and Fox News was the liberal alternative, do you think there would be any chance of Obama winning?

I recognize that is the title of the video; however, you obviously meant to imply the same thing or you would have changed it. Why would have: Interesting Obama Video, not have sufficed? You kept (keep) implying the video is not a representative sample, but is meant to represent a portion of the population, correct? Seems to me, if you were totally disconnected from the ostensible purpose of the video, you would have titled the thread differently.

Now, in this alternate universe does George W. Bush still have approval ratings in the Mid-30's? Do Freddie and Fannie still recklessly loan without regulation? Is there still an unpopular war, initiated by the leaving administration and their congress, being conducted? None of these questions are to assign blame - as some will surely label me with - but merely what I would consider to be the greater political climate of the times. If these things are still occurring, and are still at the forefront of voter psyche, then yes, Obama wins.

 

[RobInKuwait]

I recognize that is the title of the video; however, you obviously meant to imply the same thing or you would have changed it. Why would have: Interesting Obama Video, not have sufficed? You kept (keep) implying the video is not a representative sample, but is meant to represent a portion of the population, correct? Seems to me, if you were totally disconnected from the ostensible purpose of the video, you would have titled the thread differently.

Now, in this alternate universe does George W. Bush still have approval ratings in the Mid-30's? Do Freddie and Fannie still recklessly loan without regulation? Is there still an unpopular war, initiated by the leaving administration and their congress, being conducted? None of these questions are to assign blame - as some will surely label me with - but merely what I would consider to be the greater political climate of the times. If these things are still occurring, and are still at the forefront of voter psyche, then yes, Obama wins.

Next time I'm going to put more thought in my thread titles. I really didn't even give it any thought. :think:

I think our divergence comes in that I think the voter psyche on a large portion of the population comes from a perspective shown on TV and other news media, while if I'm understanding you correctly, you think it comes from actual objective events.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Next time I'm going to put more thought in my thread titles. I really didn't even give it any thought. :think:

I think our divergence comes in that I think the voter psyche on a large portion of the population comes from a perspective shown on TV and other news media, while if I'm understanding you correctly, you think it comes from actual objective events.

Objective? No. Issue-related, yes. Perception of social phenomena is always skewed; in part by media, but in the majority by the intuitive mechanisms of the agent themselves - receiving sense datum and de-compartmentalizing that at will to form a semi-cogent line of reasoning. Is the voter-as-a-whole uninformed? Of course. Data from both sides would show that. Was that misinformation on one side in particular enough to sway this election? No, not in my opinion.

Part of the media's job is to sensationalize events at every opportunity - there is no argument from myself there. However, some of these events transcend the ability of the media to vilify them further, as they have a certain basis in reality. Every President and/or Party receives the blame for economic and military crises in terms of 'who was in charge when it occurred' not, 'who caused it'. In this case, the W. administration did directly and deliberately cause some of the foremost campaign issues; others, they merely inherited; some further still, they inherited and failed to act. At any rate, it was these issues that spelled out L-O-S-S for McCain, not the media.

 

[nofx4110]

Nope! Do not need to. You should CC your Statistics Professor, though. n=1000 is a representative sample.

Also, dribble and drivel are synonyms, champ! Both colloquially meant to imply inconsequential 'verbal drool' being emitted by the arguer.

you could always do a regression analysis of the data if you have 512. However, I am not completley sure n=1000 is a representative sample for all of america.

 

[nofx4110]

I recognize that is the title of the video; however, you obviously meant to imply the same thing or you would have changed it. Why would have: Interesting Obama Video, not have sufficed? You kept (keep) implying the video is not a representative sample, but is meant to represent a portion of the population, correct? Seems to me, if you were totally disconnected from the ostensible purpose of the video, you would have titled the thread differently.

Now, in this alternate universe does George W. Bush still have approval ratings in the Mid-30's? Do Freddie and Fannie still recklessly loan without regulation? Is there still an unpopular war, initiated by the leaving administration and their congress, being conducted? None of these questions are to assign blame - as some will surely label me with - but merely what I would consider to be the greater political climate of the times. If these things are still occurring, and are still at the forefront of voter psyche, then yes, Obama wins.

freddie and fannie are close friends with obama.