The Lying Media Could Have Blood on Their Hands

Posted on October 30, 2008 by itooktheredpill

Take a look at the current results of the AOL Straw Poll:

Compare that to how things looked just a week earlier:

What has happened?

America finally understands that Bill Ayers is a violent, genocidal Communist Revolutionary, and they have answered the question, “What is Barack Hussein Obama?“

Barack Obama and Joe Biden are NOT ahead. The MSM has been lying to you for a long time. They want to create the mantra that Obama is the “inevitable” President.

But this isn’t just fun and games. By lying to the American public so grossly, and for so long, the MSM has created the (mis)perception that if Obama doesn’t win, the election was stolen from him.

What do you think will happen when Obama loses? (Assuming that ACORN doesn’t get away with stealing the election FOR OBAMA).

Erica Jong Tells Italians Obama Loss ‘Will Spark the Second American Civil War. Blood Will Run in the Streets‘

Who Wants to Incite Riots and Why?

If that happens, the lying “Mainstream” Media will have blood on their hands!

About these ads

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The Lying Media Could Have Blood on Their Hands

Lynn says:

October 30, 2008 at 11:55 pm

This is pure Republican fear AGAIN! When are you going to stop the Chicken Little mentality?Riots in the streets? Blood on their hands? Oh my God! Lets fix it with duc tape! Yes, Ron Reagan was almost right… we are in a new era of spiritual growth. Those of us who are waking up to tolerance, understanding, and a new way of thinking will leave all of you fear mongers to sink in paranoia. ENOUGH!!!
itooktheredpill says:

October 31, 2008 at 8:37 am

Lynn,

Erica Jong is a Democrat, not a Republican. Here’s a link to her contributions to The Huffington Post.

I repeat, Erica Jong, the one who is saying that an Obama Loss ‘Will Spark the Second American Civil War. Blood Will Run in the Streets’, is a Democrat, not a Republican.

Who is the fear monger?
Robert says:

October 31, 2008 at 8:43 am

80% of media is planted. Having been in advertising for 10 years, I have learned how to promote my little agenda through the press. Test everything and hold onto what is good!

Riots? Oh, yes. There will be plenty of action in Chicago. Daley expects 1 million in and around Grand Park. This area would maybe accomodate half that. All The gang bangers will be out in droves, knowing that the police force will be overwhelmed. Chicago is preparing for this as we speak.
YouShouldTakeAChillPill says:

October 31, 2008 at 12:10 pm

You’re putting your faith in an AOL Straw Poll? Good luck with that considering that “You must have an AOL or AIM screenname to take the new poll”…I mean does anyone even use AOL anymore? Apparently backwoods, inbred rednecks still do.

Take a look at RCP, Pollster of FiveThirtyEight.com for a better look at the polls. I’ll wager you that their electoral maps will be far more accurate than an AOL Straw Poll.
itooktheredpill says:

November 4, 2008 at 1:40 pm

FiveThirtyEight Is Propaganda Site Masquerading as a ‘Calculation’ Site

I was first made aware of FiveThirtyEight when, after explaining to a friend why the probability of Obama losing Pennslyvania is very high, he laughed and said McCain’s chances of winning the election was 5%. I went, “What!? Whoever told you that?” “This website…” I went to the website and, instantly, I could tell it was a hack. Political campaigns are a very uncertain business which can change overnight for one candidate or another. No political scientist would seriously say a candidate has 5% chance to win the election. Maybe if the candidate was a social conservative running in San Francisco or a communist running in Kansas, this might be true. But for a presidential election? No. Not even Mondale was given that percentage. The ‘interviews’ with Dan Rather are raised flags because after 2004, Dan Rather lost all ‘neutral’ status after the forged memo scenario (in 2004, the retiring Dan Rather put up memos from early seventies whose fonts count only have been done in a modern word processor, an obvious forgery). I’ve met Dan Rather personally as he was raised in my area. He is a nice guy. But no network will hire him for news now for the reason of partisanship.

Here are some of the (many) problems with FiveThirtyEight:

-Nate Silver’s ‘news stories’ carefully follow Obama Campaign’s strategy, used both in the primary and now in the general campaign, of inevitable Obama victory (which no political analyst, worth their salt, believes as no election is inevitable), showing pictures of a closed McCain Campaign office and declare “It is all falling apart”, etc. etc.

-Nate Silver says he is busy with real life job and life but when the Zogby poll, that had McCain +1, came out, he responded to it ASAP (and on Halloween night of all times!). Now, I don’t trust Zogby because he was off in 2004. I also know, for a fact, Zogby is contractually obligated to weight more Democrats in his polling (and weeks ago, when the AP showed a close poll, Zogby got ‘angry’ at them). However, Zogby also publicly declared Obama’s declaration of ‘inevitable victory’ ismore about strategy. Nate Silver doesn’t bother to tell his readers why Zogby became famous in the first place. It was because Zogby was the only pollster who picked up on the Gore surge in the 2000 election. This, alone, is why people are listening to Zogby closely now. (I still don’t trust him as he has been all over the place. However, that might had been intentional). The ‘rapidity’ to deconstruct a positive McCain poll obviously should be a flag raiser. Real political scientists never rush to deconstruct or denounce anything.

-There is absolutely no questioning as to why the candidates are going to solid blue areas. In fact, there is strangely no questioning to the polls at all.

-Nate Silver, on his FAQ page, says he incorporates 2000, 2004, and 2006 election returns. What about 2002? In 2002, in a historical upset (President’s party loses seats in the off year election), Republicans performed well and made gains in both the House and Senate. In fact, exit polls were seen as ‘unreliable’ and thrown out that year with only ‘votes’ counted (which is how it should be done anyway). Only after the election did we realize the exit polls were thrown out because the analysts/media couldn’t believe the results.

-Nate Silver bans all internal polling by the reason that internal polls are used to manipulate opinion while public polls are ’scientific’. He has it totally backwards. Public polls are made to manipulate opinion (i.e. the public is the product, not the poll’s data). Internal polls have to be ’scientific’ because the presidential candidates are interested in winning which cannot be done if the internal polls are not as accurate as possible. What a doofus.

-In assigning ‘undecided’ voters, he bizarrely puts them to third parties (what!?) and then breaks them 50-50 between the candidates. This isn’t how it works in presidential elections and even students know that. The undecideds proportionally break toward the establishment candidate. In 2000, it was Gore. In 2004, it was Bush. In 2008, it is McCain. 2008 is a referendum on Obama. The undecideds are ‘unsold’ on Obama. As the election comes, most of them will break for McCain. Any model would have whatever undecideds left to ‘break’ mostly toward the establishment candidate in the waning days of the election. Nate doesn’t seem interested in this. In fact, he doesn’t seem interested in any of the standard ways.

-When responding to the question about whether 50-50 for undecideds is the best approach, he bizarrely goes into alternatives on proportions of the vote in the state. He explains this won’t work because sometimes the undecides break for the not-in-the-lead candidate. He doesn’t mention or doesn’t answer the truth: undecideds break proportionally for the establishment candidate (and you wonder why incumbent legislators can be hard to knock off).
YouShouldTakeAChillPill says:

November 4, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Thanks for your long diatribe regarding 538′s methodology. And what are your problems with the other 2 sites I mentioned?

Since I know you love facts and the truth, let’s see how the 3 sites I mentioned stack up with your beloved AOL Straw Poll.

538: Obama-348.6, McCain-189.4
RCP: Obama-338, McCain-200
Pollster: Obama-291, McCain-142 , Tossup-105
YouShouldTakeAChillPill says:

November 4, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Update – I took the Tossup delegates on Pollster and allotted them to who was ahead in each state.

My polling sources:

538: Obama-348.6, McCain-189.4
RCP: Obama-338, McCain-200
Pollster: Obama-364, McCain-174

Your polling source:

AOL Straw Poll: McCain-535 ,Obama-3
itooktheredpill says:

November 4, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Projections are only as good as their inputs. With the high rate of people refusing to be polled (as admitted by pollsters), the high rate of people not willing to declare who they want to vote for (the undecideds), and the huge wave of junk Democrat registrations, you’re going to see the polls be way, way off.
Pingback: The MSM: See No PUMAs, Hear No PUMAs, Speak No PUMAs « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
YouShouldTakeAChillPill says:

November 5, 2008 at 12:02 pm

hmmm…looks like the polls were pretty accurate.

In your quest for truth might I suggest you start looking at what is right in front of you rather than searching the blogosphere for a “truth” that fits your beliefs.
YouShouldTakeAChillPill says:

November 5, 2008 at 4:52 pm

“FiveThirtyEight Is Propaganda Site Masquerading as a ‘Calculation’ Site”

Then its a fine masquerade!

538.com projection: Obama 52.3%, McCain 46.2%

Current totals: Obama 52.4%, McCain 46.3%.
YouShouldTakeAChillPill says:

November 6, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Which polls got it right>

First, we can look at Nate Silver, a new prognosticator to the political scene. The baseball statistician turned Electoral College map savant really was the belle of the election ball, living up to his website’s tag line: Electoral projections done right.

While Silver never did any of his own polling, he analyzed all the pollsters’ findings and spit out every voting model possible. Ultimately, he said Obama would win by 52 percent to 46 percent. In the end, Obama won 52 percent to 46 percent in the popular vote.

Silver’s Electoral College map wasn’t far off either. This graphic below, shows a comparison of what he projected vs. what actually happened. Unless I’m looking at this map wrong, the only thing they projected incorrectly was Indiana. (A note: Many news outlets have not called Missouri yet because it’s so close. The latest numbers have McCain ahead by about 6,000 votes. If that’s the ultimate outcome, Silver got that right too.)
itooktheredpill says:

November 7, 2008 at 4:06 pm

ChillPill,
You’ve made your point that Nate Silver’s predictions came very, very close to the reported vote totals.

Now, was the election itself an honest election, or did fraud (from Acorn, these people, and others) help steal the election?

A speaker at ACORN said, “THEY stole the election in 2000. THEY stole the election in 2004. WE are not going to let them steal it in 2008!” Acorn non-partisan? No way. They committed massive registration fraud, and an unknown amount of actual voter fraud.

Now, if there were detailed plans to steal states where ACORN operated, it would be to their benefit to have poll data supporting their planned outcome. That way, the stolen outcome is the outcome that people have been programmed to expect.

There was just so much dishonesty surrounding the Obama campaign that it makes it very difficult to trust the outcome. I hold out hope that the Supreme Court, Electors, and/or Senators will require Obama to prove that he is Natural Born Citizen of the United States.