This kind of stuff really does make people wonder. Does the Media already have the Election 'Results?'
Communication has a dark side, paulitician. And controlled communication is the worst. For example, a director of communication may order a shot of someone he wants to paint as a bad guy kicking a small dog or cat in the first scene of an advertisement or movie so that his character seems more evil than the person portraying the character is. That's why watching a movie makes you really angry at the bad guy--he may slap a pretty girl, tump over a wheelchair friend (of the good guy, of course) who comes to the rescue, at a cost to himself (black eye, cracked wrist, blow to the jaw, etc.) and earns the audience approbation on the spot.
In this election, we've seen the hollyweird influence the election by making the dog abuse case out of a Romney vacation (that really wasn't abuse, it was inclusion of the family pet into a fun vacation all truth be said).
If the leftist press is jerking people's feelings around by pointing out evil that their opponent did (that is only make-believe evil) and obfuscating real wrongdoing (a candidate with a history of telling people he was born in Kenya evidenced by tapes of him saying it, his wife saying he's a Kenyan, and an advertising brochure inviting to hear a native Kenyan give a public political speech about change, for example, along with an elusive birth certificate), it can make people downright mad that anyone would question the foreigner about his birth, and anyone pointing to the evidence as "f'd up" - all by using communication devices that reach people in both subliminal ways and head on.
In fact, if something makes me mad about something I've heard a speech about, I check communication devices I know about to determine the origin of the schmooze or the angst I am feeling. Am I thinking something because of the grisly fact of the matter, or did someone provide a little schmooze to the ooze or throw in a little tricky play on the emotions?
When America learns body language, the schmooze is not always so easy to swallow. There are ways to tell someone is really mad in spite of the kindly words he just said. Just watch what the body's talking about. Trust me, some speakers are so good at covering body language signals, they practice parapetting in front of a mirror to reduce the evidence. Even so, it's there. Bill O'Reilly used to bring in a young woman who specialized in the artifices of speech on a regular basis, which truly pissed off the DNC handlers to produce regular hits on Bill O'Reilly's character to ensure their members do not watch. The Democrat Party does not want their pwned aparatchiks knowing the truth, and that's why they throw in negative crap on a constant basis to Fox News, where people might see the flip side of the nicey-nicey picture they have just painted of something that doesn't really exist, but people swear it does who are not wise to subliminal communication techniques.
The early announcement that Obama has won when he's down, the hits on Gallup as ******* up, the "abused" vacation dog--the DNC hope is that the climax of their cheerful lying will be a winning outcome, Hollyweird style.
If we let the schmooze influence us, and the hypnotic trance Obama puts his believers in when he, too employs schmooze of speech, well, it's a long fall down to the down and dirty truth of the $16 Trillion debt that has even been attributed in the last two weeks to the do-nothing Republicans. It's not true. It's the last-ditch effort of Marxists trying to communize our free Republic through very Rasputin-style hocus-pocus. Isn't it funny how the two of those work together in large societies.
So all I can say is, thanks for starting this thread, and also: be chary of statements that do not fit the parameter of the facts of accepted certified accounting procedure.
.... weeks before the actual election. 
