Author Topic: The Unwashed Masses and Media Manipulation... (Read 6904 times)

Bogie · « **on:** February 06, 2008, 09:06:05 AM »

It's an understood fact of political media strategy that if a candidate appears to be in the lead, they'll have people voting for them _because_ they are in the lead. Or if they have a perception of "gaining."

Republican race is pretty much over, unless McCain gets caught with an alter boy and a goat...

And the Democratic race is interesting, but what I'm seeing there is that NONE of the media is saying outright that Clinton has the lead. They're saying that Obama's challenging, etc., etc., but they're not saying that she's ahead. And she _has_ been ahead. She's got around 100 delegates on him right now... Granted, things are still kinda up in the air, but sheesh.

I'm guessing that the "vote for a winner" bit was enough to push him past her in some states, such as Missouri. You have to wonder just why we're seeing this - who'd she hack off? In a relatively close election, that sort of tactic can actually swing things.

Standing Wolf · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2008, 09:31:32 AM »

Quote

You have to wonder just why we're seeing this - who'd she hack off?

The national leftist extremist purported "news" media has succeeded in annointing McCain as the purported "Republican" candidate.

It hasn't settled on Mrs. Snopes Clinton for the obvious reason the "Democratic" (sic) party's nomination process needs to look like an actual contest.

Clinton versus McCain is a lot like Hitler versus Stalin.

Dntsycnt · « **Reply #2 on:** February 06, 2008, 09:44:40 AM »

Does anyone still have any hope at all for this election?

If there is one thing I've learned with this election, it's that you should take the money you'd contribute to your favorite presidential candidate....and invest it in canned goods.

K Frame · « **Reply #3 on:** February 06, 2008, 09:56:58 AM »

"I'm guessing that the "vote for a winner" bit was enough to push him past her in some states, such as Missouri. You have to wonder just why we're seeing this - who'd she hack off?"

I'm guessing that the HUGE number of black voters in East St. Louis actually pushed Obama past Clinton in Missouri.

Bogie · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2008, 10:14:43 AM »

You mean they crossed the border to vote? East St. Louis is in Illinois, and has a population of maybe 50,, at the most, and still hasn't realized that it's easier to overcharge tourists than it is to rob them...

K Frame · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2008, 10:35:04 AM »

The East SIDE St. Louis city proper, the part that is west of 70/55.

That's still in Missouri, and is largely black.

That's the area of Missouri that threw the entire state to Mel Carnahan's corpse in 2000.

Scout26 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 06, 2008, 11:18:20 AM »

Bogie, you described my M-I-L to a tee. She always voted for the guy who she thought would "win". Never for a candidate on principal or issues, but "I think Candidate "X" will win so that's who I'm voting for." Even though candidate "X" was against whatever she believed in.

I tried several times to explain that voting wasn't about picking a winner, but letting your voice be heard.

You know what the nice thing about beating your head against the wall is Huh?

It feels good when you stop. grin

Manedwolf · « **Reply #7 on:** February 06, 2008, 11:21:59 AM »

Quote from: scout26 on February 06, 2008, 10:18:20 AM

I tried several times to explain that voting wasn't about picking a winner, but letting your voice be heard.

Pick a winner!

Bogie · « **Reply #8 on:** February 06, 2008, 01:17:44 PM »

Mike, the border is not I-70/I-55... It's the Mississippi River. And East St. Louis is in Illinois. St. Louis City is in Missouri. It has a population of around 200,000ish. St. Louis County surrounds St. Louis City, and is a coupla million.

Remember - I lived in the geographic center of the metro area, just inside the St. Louis City border, for over 15 years.

thebaldguy · « **Reply #9 on:** February 06, 2008, 02:27:56 PM »

I have met a lot of people who question my support for certain candidates; they always say he can't win.

Then I remind them that they should be voting for the most qualifed person, not who can win. We are not at the race track placing a $2 win bet on a horse.

K Frame · « **Reply #10 on:** February 06, 2008, 07:13:03 PM »

Bogie,

Re-read my message.

Did I SAY the border between the states was I-70/55?

No, I said this: "The East SIDE St. Louis city proper, the part that is west of 70/55."

There isn't, however, a lot between I-70/55 and the banks of the Mississippi, especially not residential areas.

And yes, the city of East St. Louis is in Illinois.

However, as I stated, I was NOT talking about the city of East St. Louis, Illinois. You're the one who injected that into the discussion as if I were claiming that somehow, magically, Illinois became Missouri for the purposes of voting. I was talking about the East SIDE of St. Louis, Missouri.

I'll say that again, so perhaps this time you'll catch it.

I was talking about the East SIDE of St. Louis, Missouri.

The primarily African-American areas of St. Louis, you know, the MISSOURI St. Louis, are exactly where I said that they are, and in 2000 the voters in those areas did exactly what I said they did.

The precincts in that part of the city are traditionally some of the last to report.

John Ashcroft was leading the race for Senator in 2, narrowly, but leading, even after most of St. Louis' precincts started reporting in.

When the precincts on the East SIDE of St. Louis, Missouri (note that I didn't say Illinois) started reporting, the election shifted to Carnahan's corpse.

wooderson · « **Reply #11 on:** February 06, 2008, 07:20:51 PM »

Clinton has 100 more delegates (though the lead is composed of super-delegates, many of whom endorsed Clinton before there was a real challenger) - but that's a whopping 5% of delegates committed thus far. It is a close race.

As to voting for a winner - for the Democrats, that's all this primary should be about. There is no appreciable difference in Clinton and Obama - their Administrations would be largely identical. So the votes should go to whichever one people think matches up better in the general.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #12 on:** February 06, 2008, 07:27:12 PM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on February 06, 2008, 06:13:03 PM

And yes, the city of East St. Louis is in Illinois.

However, as I stated, I was NOT talking about the city of East St. Louis, Illinois. You're the one who injected that into the discussion as if I were claiming that somehow, magically, Illinois became Missouri for the purposes of voting. I was talking about the East SIDE of St. Louis, Missouri.

Mike, I'm tracking with you. But when you said "East St. Louis," you "injected" the town of East St. Louis, Illinois, into the discussion. We can't assume that you know which state that town is in, or that you meant the East Side of St. Louis. Bogie was right to think that you were talking about a town in Illinois. Because you were.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #13 on:** February 06, 2008, 07:41:43 PM »

Quote from: thebaldguy on February 06, 2008, 01:27:56 PM

I have met a lot of people who question my support for certain candidates; they always say he can't win.

Then I remind them that they should be voting for the most qualifed person, not who can win. We are not at the race track placing a $2 win bet on a horse.

There's nothing wrong with voting for someone who is behind in the polls. In fact if the guy you most support is behind it becomes even more important that you do vote for him.

But if your guy is so far behind that he has zero chance of winning, then voting for him is pointless. Don't waste your vote. This is especially true in primary elections where there are three or more viable candidates. Smarter to support a candidate who represents some of your values and has a fair chance of winning.

There's a balancing act in there.

Remember, the point of the game is to influence the political process. Better to support a candidate who could move things partway in the direction you want than to support a candidate who can't possibly move things at all.

Bogie · « **Reply #14 on:** February 06, 2008, 08:26:51 PM »

Uh yeah, Mike... NOBODY calls downtown that...

Let's see... The nomenclature...

Following a relatively narrow line going west...

Downtown
SLU
The Central West End
Forest Park

North of that line is "The North Side." Don't go there. Really. Not without friends. LOTS of friends.

South of that line is "South City, which has a buncha parts, including Dogtown, The Hill, the State Streets, The Brewery and Soulard, and more than a few "don't go there" areas itself. I used to live in Dogtown, a block from Forest Park.

Past Forest Park, you hit Clayton. People get arrested for DWB there. Past Clayton is Ladue. People figure if you're DWB there, you're the help. Past Ladue is West County, and if you're DWB there, you're really, really lost.

Past West County is St. Charles County, where people are trying to make it illegal to cuss in a bar. And at the other end of St. Charles County, that's where I am now, where the pizza joints close at 9:00 and you can't find a decent cheeseburger and a draft...

There is no "West St. Louis" and the natives will look at you funny if you use it as a destination. Likewise "East St. Louis" is a Very Large "Don't Go There" zone, except for the casino complex, where I'm guessing they may actually have a minefield and snipers - I know I would.

South of East St. Louis is Sauget (pop. 30), which is home to chemical and metal coatings plants, and a couple of Very Large strip clubs. You can go there. Just have money, try not to breathe a lot of the air, and don't smart off to the Sauget po-po, or you'll get buried in the industrial waste area for DWStupid.

K Frame · « **Reply #15 on:** February 06, 2008, 08:29:18 PM »

"Mike, I'm tracking with you. But when you said "East St. Louis," you "injected" the town of East St. Louis, Illinois, into the discussion. We can't assume that you know which state that town is in, or that you meant the East Side of St. Louis. Bogie was right to think that you were talking about a town in Illinois. Because you were."

That's why I clarified it, Fistful.

I didn't consider that I was "injecting" a town with a similar name but in another state. Anyone with even a miniscule knowledge of the electoral process in the United States knows that you don't cross state lines to vote.

But even when I made it perfectly clear what area of St. Louis, MISSOURI, I was talking about, I got some bullshit response about how I-70/55 isn't the state line... rolleyes

K Frame · « **Reply #16 on:** February 06, 2008, 08:49:28 PM »

Jesus Christ it's a point on a compass designating direction or a rough geographic location or zone.

Can you show me anywhere where I've claimed that it's a proper or customary name?

No.

But anyone with an IQ of over 6 will be able to look at a map of St. Louis, Missouri, and be able to say "That's North, that's South, that's West, and that's East."

What the residents call the different sections of the city is, in the context of this discussion, one HELL of a lot less useful/descriptive that referring to a general zone using one of the four true compass directions. I don't give a rat's ass if the people there call the exact geographic center of the city, and the 4 square blocks that surround it, Chester the Molestor Hill, or if what used to be referred to as "The 'Ville" is now called the Federated District of Obama.

But you know what?

Through all of this quibbling about whether I-70/55 is the state line (which I never claimed it to be), or whether I was talking about East St. Louis, Illinois, or the East Side of St. Louis, Missouri, I've not heard one word about the hows, whys, and whens of the voting/reporting patterns of the precincts in the GENERAL GEOGRAPHIC AREA of St. Louis that is to the EAST side of the Missouri City proper, and which is bounded ROUGHLY by I-70/55 or how they have influenced recent elections in the state of Missouri.

I wonder why that is?

I wonder why that is?

Finch · « **Reply #17 on:** February 06, 2008, 09:01:12 PM »

It's kind of funny that one of the more heated debates on these forums is in regards to regional boundaries.

SomeKid · « **Reply #18 on:** February 06, 2008, 11:36:06 PM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on February 06, 2008, 07:49:28 PM

Jesus Christ it's a point on a compass designating direction or a rough geographic location or zone.

*snip*

one HELL of a lot less useful/descriptive that referring to a general zone using one of the four true compass directions. I don't give a rat's ass...

Quoted for posterity. Just because.

And edited to remove my pottymouth language...

Tecumseh · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2008, 02:54:32 AM »

Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 06, 2008, 06:41:43 PM

Quote from: thebaldguy on February 06, 2008, 01:27:56 PM

I have met a lot of people who question my support for certain candidates; they always say he can't win.

Then I remind them that they should be voting for the most qualifed person, not who can win. We are not at the race track placing a $2 win bet on a horse.

There's nothing wrong with voting for someone who is behind in the polls. In fact if the guy you most support is behind it becomes even more important that you do vote for him.

But if your guy is so far behind that he has zero chance of winning, then voting for him is pointless. Don't waste your vote. This is especially true in primary elections where there are three or more viable candidates. Smarter to support a candidate who represents some of your values and has a fair chance of winning.

There's a balancing act in there.

Remember, the point of the game is to influence the political process. Better to support a candidate who could move things partway in the direction you want than to support a candidate who can't possibly move things at all.

So we should vote for someone we disagree with simply because they have no chance? What if everyone who agrees with this person voted for that person rather than for someone who is ahead in the polls?

Strings · « **Reply #20 on:** February 07, 2008, 07:08:16 AM »

>except for the casino complex, where I'm guessing they may actually have a minefield and snipers<

Umm, yeah... they do. They have at least a couple posted on the bridge...

Bogie · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2008, 09:16:54 AM »

St. Louis does not have a "west." There's the "Central West End," but that immediately gives way to Forest Park, and then you're in the county.

Here's how it works: The city elections folks wait until the rest of the state has turned in its votes, and then they see where they need to make up shortfalls. Then they fix it. If it's fixed, that means it works, right? And working is good, right?

Oh, and it was also fun at my polling spot out in Wentzville... They had one computerized voting gizmo on display... Said "Diebold" on the front... 'Hey, ya'll didn't buy any of those, didja?" "Why? Those are the greatest voting contraptions we've got - they're good for handicapped folks!" "Oh, no problem - I know a guy out in California who hacked one of 'em - who do you wanna have win?"

That was fun!

longrifleman · « **Reply #22 on:** February 07, 2008, 10:16:33 AM »

Bogie, us hicks in the sticks really, really wish you folks on the east side would clean up your mess. Sometime before I die, I'd like to have my vote count in a state wide election. laugh

Useful heads up on the local terrain. Are the local po-po still rousting people for CCW?

News:

Author Topic: The Unwashed Masses and Media Manipulation... (Read 6904 times)

Strings