The eternal jihaders in the corp. media are gearing up for the dump
phase of the Obama campaign. (You could knock me over with a
feather!)

It's hard to say if it'll work or just blow up in their faces.

Such an approach will definitely work on politicians who don't vote by
secret ballot.

Obama will get elected or defeated by secret ballot, however.

On one hand most voters know the jihaders in the media just want
McCain to keep us in Iraq for another 4 years. This bodes well for
Obama.

On the other hand, up to 15%% of whites are telling pollsters that they
will vote for the black man when they are really going to vote for the
white guy.

The fact that the corp. media are "merely" omitting this fact is
another indication that they want the U. S. to stay in Iraq.

Bret Cahill

On Jul 4, 3:56 pm, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:

Duh - no one ever got anywhere by overestimating the American public.

Or by spoiled chads, and fillibustering.

Pretending racism doesn't exist in America, what the media are doing
this election cycle, is akin to the NY Times "merely" omitting the
Holocaust.

It's not just common; it's the norm.

NC Democrats ran a black against Jesse Helms twice. The black
candidate was clearly superior to the white demagogue. The black
polled ahead by several points only to lose by several points on
election day.

More recently Hillary polled 10 points behind Obama in NH. Hillary
won by 4 points. Few will call NH a racist state.

The media were furious at voters for lying to their pollsters.

In fact, the corp. media will justify punishing _all_ of the American
people with 4 more years of quagmire if 15%% of whites do something
similar in November.

Bret Cahill wrote:

Yes, you are right. It is a well-known market cycle. When will people
become wise to thta?

Does it ever? Anything negative will be turned into feed for rebutal.
Just like usenet.

Between Hillary and the republicans, I fear something very bad is going
to happen to Obama.

Why would they want that? They don't report anything significant from
the war.

This time it's really obvious.

There's one reason and one reason only for [social] "liberals" in the
media to support McCain and attack Obama.

They want 4 more years of Iraqi quagmire.

Just doin' my part.

What'll stop Obama is rightards no longer have a political party.
Their only political "activism" is that of the Tim McVeigh wing of the
NRA: violence.

On Jul 4, 4:46 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

There is shit loads of racism in the US. But there is a difference
between the existence of racism and to pointing to particular racist
incidents for which no evidence can exist.

By what means is it possible to determine how many whites will say
they are gonna vote a certain way but really vote another? And how
the fuck can you put a 15%% number to a thing beyond evidential reason?

And since it's not considered politically correct, especially at the
national media level, people lie about it, especially to pollsters.

. . .

Just compare the polls to the results.

. . .

This is particularly true when one candidate is black.

I'ld go even further:

If McCain wins, Obama will be polling 10 points ahead as late as 2010.

I'll recap:

On the other hand, up to 15%% of whites are telling pollsters that they

There can be absolutely no evidential basis for this claim.

You just don't get it do you?
What is happening is that you are coming to the argument with the
assumption of Racism and then applying it to an anomaly between pools
and votes.
It is clearly not possible...

Don't take my word for it.

Do a study of past black v. white candidates for US congress and
senate elections.

The black will almost always poll higher than the results from the
Nov. secret ballot.

The effect is less noticiable at the state legislative level but it
will be much more pronounced at the presidential level, as high as
15%%.

That's why Obama did so well in caucuses which aren't secret ballot.

. . .

In America the Big Issue has always been race.

On Jul 5, 11:41 am, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:

Hmm...I'm pretty sure you were busily denying that just a few weeks
ago.

Actually, you're a reactionary - as are all socialists and their
totally discredited politics - but this is just one more example of
your inability to distinguish your hallucinations/delusions from
reality.

You mean among those precious people - "the people" - to whom you want
to give ultimate power over the economy?

"Even the northeast"? I'm pretty sure you were busily babbling that it
was only a problem in the "red states" whereas those pure minded n'or
easterners were always shocked, shocked at the lynching of blacks in
the South.