CNBC: Dishonest to the Core (A "Netgwork of NBC/Unibersal/Comcast)

Last week, CNBC "reported" a "Yahoo Finance" (could not make this up) poll which asked Americans whehter things were getting better, staying the same, or getting worse.  Now you know, or should, that I consider ALL polls to be evil things.  But the point is not the poll, but the CNBC reactin, as a DISHOENST "network of NBC/Universal/Comcast.


Poll results:  30%--things getting better; 34%--things getting worse; 37%--things staying the same (talking aobut the economy).


Okay.  Before I tell you, consider how this poll should be INTERPRETED?  Then consider how it was/would have been interpreted in--say--207, when Bush was President.  What just LEAPS out at you, unless you are as DISHOENST as the "networks of NBC/Universal/Comcast".  (Note that I added "Comcast" to the litany used in the NBC Olympic coverage, because you SHOULD hold Comcast resposible for NBC, CNBC and MSNBC--that unholy trio of DISHONSTE, PARTISAN networks)


First, yu have to realize that "saying the same' is BAD. Our economy is in BAD shape, and 'staynig the same" is a distaster. Even Pesident Obama, hard as it is to make the case, keeps saying that things are "improving', since even he knows that people rightlyl perceive the status quo as totallly unacceptable.  Did I just say that CNBC, and ALL of the "networks of NBC/Universal/Comcast" are MORE DISHOENST than Barack Obama?  Ype. I think I did.


What CNBC said was that the response was "even across the board"-obviusly the partisan spin chosen for this poll--maybe by the dsihonsetg peole of Yahoo. I know.  Why "report" the poll at all, if you are going to be this dishonest abut it (and not, as I do, dismiss all polls as evil, meaningless things)?  First, you will note that the result wsa NOT "even across the board".  Only 30% thought things were getting better, which was the LOWEST number.  But that is the least of the lies here.  he really important point is, if you believe tghe pll, that fully 70% of the American people believe that Obama is makng NO PROGRESS on the econmy.  "Staying the same" is NOT a desirable thing.  If Bush were still resident, that would have been EXACTLY the headline, and hammered home strongly hour after hour.  ItWAS the headlines in 2007, even before the recession of 2008, on BETTER economic news. 


What this means is that Mitt Romney has a POTENTIAL of getting 70% of the vote  If 70% of the American peole think things are in a bad way economically (staying the same or getting worse), then those people have to be open to being PERSUADED to vote for an alternative.  Okay.  It is possilbe that some minor percentage of the 70% either believe that "staying the same" is okay, or cannot be convinced, under any circumstances, that it is Obama's fault.  Even conseratively, however, Romney has a POTENTIAL of at least 60^ of the vote.  This is pretty close, by the way, to the percentage who disapprove of the way Obama is handling the econmy (in olls asking that question).  Is Romney a good enough campaigner to reach that potential?  Almost certainly not.  But the POTETIAL (not far fetched) is there, IF you believe the poll or IF you believe me. 


Wha tI have said, wihut resorting to polls, is that OBAMA LOSES the electin if the economy is not perceived as 'improving' (in more llthan a minor way) on election day.  I stand by that prediction The "magic' of Obama (always more of a reaction to th eECONOMY in 2008 than any spell cast by Obama) is long gone.  Unless Romney campaigns even worse than I expect (I don't expect much), Obama cannot survive an economy perceived as NOT IMPROVING on electin day.  If CNBC were honest, and was reporting this poll as "news" at all, then that is the significance: the OBVIUS significance of this poll.  It means that Obama is in deep truble, because the factor that gave Obama the electin in 2008 is the factor working HEAVILY against hi in 2012.


But, is not the Obama POTENTIAL almost as high?  NO.  That is the point.  That is the fundamental LIE of the way CNBC "reported" tghis poll. It might be true that Obama wuld hae just as much a chance of getting the votges of those saying the economy is 'staying the same" as Romney, IF that were a "neutral' positin.  It is NOT a "neutral" position. Even Obama recognizes that, which is why he takes such pains to ALWAYS say the economy is "improving', even if it is not as fast an improvement as he would like.  "Staying the same' is BAD for Obama.  70% of the poll respondents gave a BAD anser for Obama.  Sure, Obama can hope to convince SOME peole that he is not at fault.   But there have to be a large number in the group that says the economy is "staying the same' who CANNOTG BE CONVINCED that Obama is not at fault.  After all, what other hope do they have?  No, if you believe this poll is 'news", then it is VERy BAD "news" for President Obama.  And CNBC has o be dishoenst not to see tghe obvius.  Indeed, I can assure you they ARE DISHOENST. 


What "otential" does Obama actually have?  My own assessment--not based on any poll--is that Obama has a MAXIMUM potentil of 50% of tghe vote, IF tghe econmy is not perceived as getting any better on electin day (within reason, no matter how badly Romney and Ryan campaign).  That is why I say that OBAMA LOSES if he eocnmy is not perceived as getting (substantially) better on election day.  Yes, there may be some VERY SMALL chance thqat Obama can defect people from his failure on the economy enough to get 50% plus one.  Not bloody likely.  And Obama COULD be facing a landslide defeat--if Romney and Ryan get their act together. 


P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  Look at the media INCEST that is obvius here. You have CNBC quoting a Yahoo poll. Yahoo "News', meanwhile, is a "partner" with ABC "news".  These peole all think alike, and they only listen to each othe.  They only "quot" (favorably) each otehr, EXCEPT when a GOP person, or a conservative, criticizes anothe GOP person, or conserative, in which case that person (makng the criticixm" suddenty attains instant media "credibility".  These (our media) really are the most dishoenst, hypocritical people to ever walk the Earth.  As usual, I ackn owledge that there MUST be a FEW exceptins.  All I cna say is that, in tht past ten years, I have seen NONE.  My Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter, over ten years, shoewed that there are NO exceptins within the desicable AP.  And the desicable AP, almost by definition, is the slupposed basi "source" for "journalism" in this country, as the main wire service.