Charter Member of the Sub-Media

August 15, 2004

News Media Prediction Blunders « Media Distortions »

So Kerry leads by a few percentage points and the media says the race is Kerry's to lose, eh?

It seems to me that Al Gore was leading W by a large margin at one point before the RNC convention, but an admittedly cursory Google search revealed nothing. Is there anyone out there with more time on their hands who wants to look into this?

Premise: the mainstream news media is deliberately (although probably subconsciously) talking up Kerry's slim lead to discourage Bush supporters and encourage Kerry supporters. To do so, they have to ignore how even significant leads are largely immaterial at this point. That is why there are absolutely no comparisons to the race four years ago: it would not suit their subconscious agenda.

Posted by Nathan at 08:20 AM | Comments (13)

This late August poll may be of some help. It was taken after both conventions I believe.. Republicans had theirs first.Shows Gore taking the lead. I'll need to do a bit more googling to see just how big his lead got, but at this point it was just a point.. After being down double digits the month or so before.

Posted by: Arvin Wallace at August 15, 2004 01:11 PM

However these polls suggest that Bush enjoyed a decent lead in late October..

Back then, polls were swinging wildly all over the place in stark contrast to this year's polls. that could change though, closer we get, but i doubt it.


Posted by: Arvin Wallace at August 15, 2004 01:21 PM

a href="">This CNN poll taken just before the GOP convention shows Bush with a pretty comfortable lead..

Personally I felt the convention in 2000 was a bit too stiff, lifeless. Bush wasn't the speaker he is today (though that aint sayin a whole lot). I thought the convention hurt us frankly.

This year we have got to up the 'hipness' quotient, and show just how big our tent really has become.. I think we will..


Posted by: Arvin Wallace at August 15, 2004 01:32 PM

sorry I butchered the html on that one.. still learning..

a href="">here's tha poll

Posted by: Arvin at August 15, 2004 01:36 PM

The "media" doesn't want to be proven wrong. So, they write that foolish and implausible line, "the election is Kerry's to lose."

I complained to ABC's POLITICAL UNIT for use of that line and more in their column from last week, in which they also made ridiculously false statements and points that the average person would ASSUME to be "true" (it's ABC's POLITICAL UNIT, ABC News, for Heaven's sake, it's "reliable" most readers assume) column style that was and remains somewhat indistinguishable from reading WONKETTE'S coverage of "Six Feet Under."

It's this sort of vampish, gossipy, insulting abuse of journalism that is making it nearly impossible to distinguish "media" from "Live Journal."

With the amount of money that has been and is being "donated" to many media outlets, not to mention stocks owned and by whom, by that handful of Democrat funders -- Heinz-Kerry, Soros, Bill Gates and others -- we no longer have a "free press" in the U.S. but some network of chatty Public Relations bobble heads filling up newssites, making numerous and misleading categorizations about what public opinion IS.

And Democrats have the nerve to ridicule "drug companies" as they like to call them, and "insurance companies" for being pro-GOP, while there is hardly any media remaining that isn't some version of a kitchen mimeograph machine by wealthy Democrats.

Posted by: -S- at August 15, 2004 03:42 PM

I personally get most of my info from Rasmussen and Gallup, and indeed to me it looks as if the election is Kerry's to lose. HOWEVER, that does not mean he'll win, but rather, his/his campaign's own actions (or inaction) will be the factor that sinks him should he lose.

I was stunned by the turnout at the last Kerry rally of the road tour. Like nothing I have ever seen. He's got a lot of support; it's a matter of him keeping it.

Posted by: Jo at August 16, 2004 09:49 AM

Thanks for the information, Arvin, I guess I remembered it incorrectly.

Ummm, Jo, that was in Oregon, right? ...your state is not exactly known as a bastion of moderate thought...

Posted by: Nathan at August 16, 2004 10:40 AM

This was by far the largest crowd any candidate has ever had here. And we're considered a "battleground state", or so I have been told.

There's plenty of moderate thought, and cool enough heads that no one said anything negative to the Bush-supporting protesters or the weirdo with the anti-zionist pro-Nader bizarre collage sign.

Moment of the day...

"Would you sign this petition to get Nader on the ballot?"

"No, thank you."

"It's just to get him on the ballot, it's not saying you'll vote for him."

"No. I don't particularly like him and wouldn't want to support him in any way."


"I'm sorry, no."

"Seriously, I'm just doing this to get paid, will you please sign?"


Posted by: Jo at August 16, 2004 10:57 AM

You want a decent rundown of similarities between '00 and '04, polls and timelines?

Washington post magazine, early august/late july.


Posted by: ben at August 16, 2004 11:42 AM

Got a link to go with that...?

Posted by: Nathan at August 16, 2004 12:12 PM

Apparently, the preposterous non-speak of the "it's Kerry's (election) to lose" is lost on some who comment here (but not on me).

So, alright, byebyeKerry, byebyethen, byebye, Kerry, byebye...

The statement is one that's intended to prevent anyone using it from actually saying anything while suggesting everything. As in, redundant and self evident; as in, such a generality as to be impossible to either prove or disprove. As in, Kerry will lose and they won't have to be among those who can be later accused of calling it wrong. Or right. Or, having an opinion. Or, not having an opinion. As in, "it's Kerry's to lose," as in, of course it is. But it only means nothing. Not that the ELECTION BELONGS TO KERRY, as the statement suggests by ommission, just that he's running, it's an election he's running in, he can lose, he probably won't win...

Posted by: -S- at August 16, 2004 04:38 PM

Careful, please. There is no reason to make pointed comments directed at specific individuals, veiled or not.

Posted by: Nathan at August 16, 2004 05:26 PM

Washington Post Magazine link.

A pretty good read...

Posted by: Marty at August 17, 2004 05:47 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?