"Obama poised to win 2012 election with 303 electoral votes"" (Current "featured" headline on Yahoo "News"--not clear whether Yahoo genterated the story, but Yahoo presented the story as a Yahoo story--making it hard to even see who originally generated the story, and I am GLOAD to give Yahoo "credti. BOYCOTT YAHOO as an EVIL organizatioin.)
Media official motto: "How do I lie to thee; let me count the ways." (apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning)
POISED? The 2012 election is not until NOVEMBER. The GOP nominee does not even yet exist. This is NOT "news". It is EVIL PROPAGANDA. Polls are NOT "news". Doubt me? NEVER do that. Was Newt Gingrich POSIED to wint the GOP nomination? Was Herman Cain POSSED to win the GOP nominationi? Is Rick Santorum now POSIED to win the GOP nomination (I hope so)? And what about Mitt Roney? Yep. This election season has already PROVEN that "polls' have a "life" of, maybe, TWO WEEKS. NO election has shown as clearly as this one that polls are MEANNINGLESS. Yet, the media keeps relying almost SOLELY on polls to "cover" elections. Is it possible to be more INCOMPETENT than that, and to LIE more than that. The media--not just Yahoo--LIES every time it "reports" a poll as if it MEANS something. The MOST a pll can do is give a FALLIBE ESTIMATGE of how the public "thinks' at the moment in time the poll is taken, based on a FALLIBE "sample" of a thousand people or less (standing in for servel hundred million). Polls mean NOTHING--especially as to what will happen two weeks from now; a month from now; two months from now; three months from now; or at ever more distant times.
The LIES in the manner polls are presented as MEANING something, and as having something to do with "covering" a campaign for a "journaournalist", are not even the true EVIL of polls. The EVIL--and I guarantee it is true of this Yahoo story--is that the media presents polls as PROPAGANDA: a basis for peole to ACT. You can argue a thousand years, and never makek this anything but an EVIL distortion of politics and government. Is the media REALLY saying that yoiu, or I, should VOTE for Barack Obama based on this "prediction"? Actually, I think that is exactly what they are TRYING to say. But it is an EVIL idea. You can't defend it. I don't think you can even defend the idea that you should vote fort he GOP nominee based on polls about how potential nominess "wil" perform against Barack Obama. Again, no one is even paying attention to the November electin yet. It is not until NOVEMBER. Things WILL happpen between now and then. Again, look at the polls in the GOP nomination fight. How can you even CITE a poll as to what ay happen in NVEMBER, whnn you KNOW (from this election) that poolls have NO meaning even two weeks out. You can only do this if you are BONE-DEEP STUPID (which applies to essentailly every "journalists" out thre, and too many conservatives pay way too much attention to poolls).
No, I am not done with the EVIL of polls. It is absurd, and evil, to suggest that peole should have their vote affected by POLLS. But what about candiates? The media almost routinely suggests thaat CANDIATES should "change" their views based on polls, or comment on POLLS--insted of addressing the MERITS of an issure. This is truly an EVIL thing. DEFEND, for me, the idea that cnadidates should TAILOR their views based on polls. No, I am not naive. I KNOW that candidates DO it more often than not. But it is an EVIL thing (andnot, in my view, really as effective as convincing peole that you have CORE PRINCIPLES that you don't change because of varying polls). It gets stil worse. Is the media saing that office holders shoiuld GOVERN based on (selective---the ones selected by the particlar media outlet) polls? The answer here is clearly "yes". The meida routinely says that office holders should GOVERN based on the SELECTED media oll that the particular media oulet is pushing.
Again what is the PURPOSE of a poll driven "prediction", IN FEBRARY, of how many electoral votes Obama will get in NOVEMBER? It has NO legitimate. It is PROPAGANDA, and LAZINESS, pure and simple. What the media SHOOULD be doing is setting out the "story" of how Obama would GOVERN in a secnd term, and how that differs from how a GOP candidate wouuld govern. Tihs is HARD work. "In the weeds" to quote the truly despicable "journalists" of the unfair and unbalanced network. It is EASY to put out PROPAGANDA based on polls (every poll usually having DIFFERENT assumptins and methods of choosing samples). .
This is ALL that worries me about ANY poll: that the pll again shows the EVIL of polls. Do I care whether Obama would win 50 states, if the electin were held today? Nope. That is because the election is NOT being held today. That is MEANINGLESS, even if it were true. Polls MAY mean something (not much) in October. Now, they mean NOTHING, except that our media is INCOMPETENT on a scale beyoond belief.
Yahoo "News' deserves nothing but CONTEMPT from you and me. From me, at least, that is what Yahoo gets. BOPYCOTT YAHOO AND AT&T (which provides Yahoo "News" as a default page). It goes further than that, of course. Today's "journalists" deserve noting but CONTEMPT from you and me. "Polls' (lol) would indicate that they GET nothing but contempt. That is meant as sarcastic irony. you don't need a poll to know that "journalists' generally GET the total contempt that they DESERVE. The way they continue to report polls the way they do, even as EVENTS totally discredit polls as having any real meaning or purpose, is PROOF that "jourrnalists'" deserve noting but contempt.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). BOYCOTT YAHOO. I beg you. If you dubt me on this, READ that headline I quote above over a few times. The more you read it, the LESS sense it should make to you It is a blatant LIE--wehter or not Obama would win 303 electoral votes if the electin were held today (which I actually doubt). The election is NOT being held today. It is a LIE to suggest that apoll can ignore that fact. And there remains NO legitimate purpose to this kind of poll, or this kind of story. Yahoo lost another potential merger partner this last week, as talkks "fell through". There are SOME smart people out there, as no one seems to want to "come to the rescue" of Yahoo. SMART. Maybe there are a FEW smart peole on Wall Street, even if most of the economic fascists are The Stupidest Peole on Earth. Have I missed offending anyone this article? If so, don't worry. I will get to you.