Debate: CNN, the Liar Network

CNN proved itself the liar network again last night, and I only watched for 20 seconds (specifically to see the reaction to the debate I did not watch, and which was not worth watching or paying any attention to).

 

CNN did one of those "instant, post-debate polls.  Then it tried to use the results as an advocacy tool to support Obama and oppose McCain (the really despicable part of this). 

 

As you should know, this blog does not approve of polls--any polls, showing anything (whether I "like" the result or not, which is where I differ from Limbaugh, Hannity, and all of the rest). So anyone who treats a poll as a reflection of reality is lying to you. They are intellectually lazy, an dishonest.  But you don't need to agree with me on that to realize that CNN lied to you last night.

 

CNN was citing a "poll" that purported to show that McCain "lost" the debate last night by 25 percentage points.  Not even happy with that, CNN people started analylzing "internals" of the poll "showing" that McCain was losing on important "issues" by 30% and more.  When you see people doing that, lyou know you are listening to lying scum bags you should not be listening to. 

 

Why is that?  It is because we know that this is about a 50-50 country.  Sure, it is possible Obama might win the election by a "landslide" of 6% or so.  It is possible McCain might win this election by the same 6% or so (maybe slightly more unlikely because of the unhappiness with President Bush and the economy).  But there is simply no way that either candidate is preferred by 25% more people than the other candidate. If you get that result, you know that you are seeing fiction.  A "poll" showing Obama ahead of McCain 25% on anything merely tells you your sample is invalid--no good.  IN other words, the poll is worthless.  Honest people would tell you that  The people at CNN are not hones.  They are dishonest liars.  See the multiple blog entries over the past month.  Nope.  It is not possible even McCain supporters thought he lost the debate.  That is not how people watch debates.   People almost always think debates support their own candidate, unless they truly are unsure who to vote for.  A 25% "win" for either candidate merely means that the people in the sample were not unsure who to vote for.  They had their mind made up before the debate started.

 

Fox News, for example had a "text message poll" that showed McCain won 86% to !4%.  This is a test.  What did I just tell you above?  The result of this "poll" tells you that the poll is worthless, without even knowing the other facts that prove the poll is worthless.  Text message polls are not real polls.  The people responding select themselves, and there is no shred of validity to the poll.  Unlike the liars at CNN, Fox does not try to tell you the unscientific poll means anything, but by merely reporting the results Foc is engaging in a lie of its own.  There is no purpose to that kind of poll, other than to mislead people into thinking they are having "input".  The infamous (to me), and equally unscientific, AOL polls are exactly the same type of poll as the Vox text message poll, with no shred of value to them.  Now CNN's poll, to be fair, does purport to be a "scientific" poll of sorts.  But that just makes it more dishonest, doesn't it?  we know the sample is invalid (in terms of being a representative sample) from the results of the poll.  Therefore, we know that CNN has selected the sample in a manner not much better than the Fox text meassage example.

 

So who wont the debate?  I don't know.  I don't care.  As I have told you, we are not electing a debater.  Plus (see last night's entry), debates these days are total frauds, and this one was more of a fraud than most. I did not watch the debate, and I don't know who won (the "spin" afterward is interesting for what it tells you about the media, but tells you nothing about who won).  But we know that the only way McCan can decisively "win" a debate is for Obama to make a major gaffe.  That is because Obama talks better than McCain--an asset in a President, but hardly one as important as--say--experience).  Since Obama talks better than McCain, and is younger (more attractive), there is no real chance fro McCain to "win" debates on points.  The best he can do is hold his own, while people gradually realize that they are scared to have Obama as President (as people should realize, with the only problem being that too many people are likely to also have my problem, which is that the thought of McCain as President is not a happy one either).

 

The media should get over the idea that debates mean much   People forget that Ford almost beat Carter, despite being the worst debater of all time; despite making gaffes;  and despite following the scandals of the Nixon Administration in times of economic turmoil.  In fact, Ford made major gaffes on top of all of that.  Ford stil almost won.

 

The media just has no other way of covering elections besides polls and debates (in that order).  This merely shows the intellectual and "journalistic" void that now exists in the media.  This is intellectual laziness and dishonesty. 

 

CNN, the liar network, is more dishonest than most.   But none of them (media) are saying anything worth hearing.