Why republicans including McCain will lose in early November.

[P562045]

81% of Americans polled say that the country is going in the wrong direction.

I wonder how McCain is going to try to convince the people he is not going to be the same as BushCheney?

[P562045]

Where am I getting some of these ideas?

All I have to do is watch, listen, or read what the media is saying.

But the first five or so reasons I came up with are the ones that are really going to put McCain at a real disadvantage come November.

The two biggest reasons for me so far in this thread are his severe money disadvantage and he is not going to be able to convince the base enough to vote for him no matter what he tries or says.

I am going to have to find when I first went on my democrats are going to win in the fall tangent something tells me it is somewhere in Mrs. Clinton thread.

[tymy]

Originally Posted by P562045

All I have to do is watch, listen, or read what the media is saying.

And therein lies one of the biggest problems in our country......IMHO.

[hork]

Originally Posted by tymy

And therein lies one of the biggest problems in our country......IMHO.

i have to respectfully disagree. we always hear how the media is slanted (pick a side i don't care) but that's besides the point. the problem isn't that folks listen to the media (after all without them none of us would know anything going on period) it's that they're too lazy to be responsible listeners.

you know, i know, and everyone else knows that every leading media outlet, bar none, has an agenda. so it behooves the consumer to recognize this, and exert a little effort of their own to do some fact checking and research in order to become truly educated on a given issue.

if folks are too lazy (or even quite possibly don't know how) to do this then the blame falls squarely on their shoulders. it's a cop out to lay the blame squarely on the media. remember their a business and they have to sell their product to a sensationalism craving market.

now that said, i would love there to be a media source that was truly fair and balanced. but we all know that there doesn't exist one. although some aren't quite as brazen as others. thankfully they can't all be dobson's, robertson's, oreilly's, frankens, or huffingtons.

[tymy]

The fact of the matter is a vast majority of the media are of a Democratic bias. Throw in all of the "experts" in Hollywood who think because they know how to act in front of a camera qualifies them to tell the rest of us how to vote. Never have quite figured that one out.

Funny how the Governor of California who was a sworn Democrat when running for office has, after actually spending sometime in office, now leans toward the Republican side.

[tymy]

Originally Posted by hork

if folks are too lazy (or even quite possibly don't know how) to do this then the blame falls squarely on their shoulders. it's a cop out to lay the blame squarely on the media. remember their a business and they have to sell their product to a sensationalism craving market.

I cannot agree with this comment.

First off, I am old enough to remember a time when the media lived by a code of conduct. Something along the order of you would not say or print something that you could not verify.

Secondly, how do you propose the average American verify what the media tells us is happening abroad? More imporantly, how do I evaluate the obvious stance they take? Which is another huge bone of contention for me. Whatever happened to the notion of "just reporting the news"?

[tymy]

Ken,

I meant to include this in my last post but forgot. I look at this as a positive conversation and one that more folks should particpate in. I apologize if I have come across too stongly. Having said that, there will be no disclaimers in any of my future posts.

[hork]

Originally Posted by tymy

Funny how the Governor of California who was a sworn Democrat when running for office has, after actually spending sometime in office, now leans toward the Republican side.

not to knit-pick but said governor was the republican candidate in the California gubernatorial election. he ran against over 130 opponents but the main opposition came from the democratic candidate then Lt. Gov. Bustamante.

although, i still can't figure out how he was allowed to marry into the family he did given his political leanings.

[hork]

Originally Posted by tymy

Ken,

I meant to include this in my last post but forgot. I look at this as a positive conversation and one that more folks should particpate in. I apologize if I have come across too stongly. Having said that, there will be no disclaimers in any of my future posts.

no i took no offense at all. i will say though that in response to your question about how you go about finding out what's happening abroad, i would answer your question with one of my own. how do you participate in these forums?

the internet has given us more than ample opportunity to secure information on our own. i usually (unless i feel like being lazy) tend to read several interpretations of the same story before i come to any conclusion. of course some don't require that much effort as the facts bear out the truth relatively easily but most unfortunately aren't that way.

and for the record i would have no problem with a media that simply reported the facts but the days of Cronkite and his ilk are long gone. sadly our society craves sensationalism (look how turned on we get by celebrity scandals and slasher flicks) and given the media is a business that must survive it has to "sell" it's product. just one of the "benefits" of capitalism and our ever evolving society. the silver lining here is evolution never stops so hopefully we'll come full circle and once again learn to appreciate truthful representation of the facts without all the hype.

[tymy]

[quote=hork;21426]the internet has given us more than ample opportunity to secure information on our own.

Originally Posted by hork

I'm not sure that I would consider information on the internet to be any less skewed than what we are subjected to on air and in print. In fact, I have seen some pretty questionable things on the web.

[QOUTE=hork;21426]and for the record i would have no problem with a media that simply reported the facts but the days of Cronkite and his ilk are long gone.

His ilk?

[P562045]

Originally Posted by tymy

The fact of the matter is a vast majority of the media are of a Democratic bias.

And how do we know this is indeed happening right in front of us each and every day now?

What are the three major issues that the media loves to go on and on about right now?

Iraq- I think a majority of Americans want us out and they are not even given the consequences of leaving. There can be very long term implications that no one even really wants to discuss now. I know this is an election but we better start discussing this eventually and I hope this happens before early November of this year.

Economy- The economy has a bunch of stories written about it each and every day now on how much it sucks big time. I do find it rather fascinating heading into early 2007 there were stories to start to emerge about this but not to the degree there are now.

Health Care- I am really wondering if Mrs. Clinton Health Care II plan will really drive medical costs down so that we can use the money saved to make sure that every American has health care? What is good old Obama going to do about health care?

Part of the reason these are the topics of discussion in the first place is that the media thinks these three topics will help the democrats win in early November.

Another good example of this is. There are long stretches of no news out of Iraq but when there is any kind of violence in the country the media all of sudden finds it necessary to make it a topic of discussion once again. If Iraq is so important shouldn't we be getting some kinds of news out of the country each and every day? So why does the media only want to discuss the violence in Iraq?

Don't worry though this is not really a problem. The democrats will just fix anything that needs fixing and we will never have to worry about it again.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by P562045

Another good example of this is. There are long stretches of no news out of Iraq but when there is any kind of violence in the country the media all of sudden finds it necessary to make it a topic of discussion once again. If Iraq is so important shouldn't we be getting some kinds of news out of the country each and every day? So why does the media only want to discuss the violence in Iraq?

The violence in Iraq is just a variation of the "if it bleeds it leads" mentality.

And I HUGELY disagree that the media today is biased to the left. Hell CNN yesterday just announced they're bringing Tony Snow to the network. Yep its a vast left wing media conspiracy with moves like that.

[P562045]

There sure are a lot of photos of McCain hanging out with that Bush is evil character.

[P562045]

How exactly is McCain going to get democrats to vote for him?

I only ask because he will be losing a lot of people that should vote for him just because of his party for a lot of different reasons.

[P562045]

With regards to these particular issues McCain is going to have to explain eventually.

Immigration reform, campaign finance reform, tax cuts, and climate change.

I may think of some more issues latter.

These particular issues are going to piss off many more people than McCain will attract with his past positions on these issues alone.

And as we all know the democrats have positioned themselves in such a way that they are only concerned about the issues that really concern the people.