When does Political Information become partisan?

[KevinWestern]

How many stories where the on the trevor matrin saga that turned out to be media fabrications?
These are all very serious events that we as a public deserve better

Eight outrageous media falsehoods in the Trayvon Martin shooting - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com
CBS Lies. Will Dan Rather Get Away With It This Time?
The poll you can google. The issue with the poll was the # of undecided

I think the Treyvon shooting coverage highlighted just how ridiculous and irresponsible our "news" sources have become.

Anchors wearing hoodies? When Zimmerman hasn't even been tried yet, when the police have not even conducted a full investigation yet, it's totally inappropriate (on so many levels) for a news programs to show "solidarity" with Trayvon against Zimmerman. How does anyone have the right to conclude that Zimmerman is guilty (with a case like this) in such a public and damaging way before the man has been tried in a court of law? Are they all-knowing or telepathic, and can read Zimmerman's true thoughts?

Just makes me cringe that they set off a witchhunt on this guy before he's even been convicted and all of the facts have come out.

This isn't the Jared Laughner case; nobody knows for sure at this point what happened that night (except for Zimmerman and any eye witnesses) and it's only right that we take Zimmerman's word until he is proven guilty by our judicial system.

Total garbage news, but par for the course lately.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you want “country to come first”, then you will have to put your hardlined partisan beliefs aside and start to embrace the idea of “working together” - something our country used to do, but no longer does very well.

The current President hasn’t been the best President by any means, but to simply say that “he has failed” I think is a very one-sided, “my way or the highway” approach; the very kind that produces and perpetuates the proliferation of Zombie partisan Robots that dominate and destroy American politics.

If you were actually sincere with your call to “country first”, you would be trying to encourage an environment where we put our differences aside and acknowledge that there are good ideas coming from both Liberals and Conservatives - which there are.

It's sad to see how many have willingly traded statemanship and good government for hyper-partisanship.

Thank you for posting - after reading so much hyper-partisan hyperbole on these boards, it is truly refreshing to read your post.

Now this is my opinion, But I think GWB was a middle of the road conservative

Many people have forgot no child left behind
Mediicare refom
Sarbanes Oaxly
Tarp

These were all Bi partisan legeslation, Tarp saved the day (at least the 1/2 GWB used)
And excpet for national defense post 9-11, GWB rarley used the bully pulpit

Again my opinion, but BHO is the most partisan President ever
Could you imagine GWB getting involved in the Trevor martin case?
Talking about the GOP budget harming the poor and old?

But Obama i

This is how hyper-partisanship works:
Bush who interjected him self OFFICIALLY into the Terry Shiavo case gets a pass
Obama makes mention of the Martin case gets hauled to the carpet

Bush rarly using the bully pulpit? Ask the international community about that and ask them about Obama bullying them - you will get a perspective that is completely different from your own.

But that's what hyper-partisanship does. Gives your guy a pass - vilifies the other guy for the same stuff.

In spite of hyper-partisan rhetoric - Obama has not been very far from GWB. The individual mandate was a GOP proposal. The stimulus packages that Obama supported were initiated by Bush and Bush said when he passed his - that it wouldn't be enough.

 

[JRK]

Equally as dislikable are those who link to media spin and call that 'fact' too.

It is a fact that there is extreme media bias
It maybe that there is a 1/4 truth in the head-line, but CBS tried to sway the election in 04 with the story on GWB time in the NG

ABC/Post just came out with a poll showing BHO up 51-44
Gallup had one yesterday that was allmost an exact oppisite

How many stories where the on the trevor matrin saga that turned out to be media fabrications?
These are all very serious events that we as a public deserve better

Eight outrageous media falsehoods in the Trayvon Martin shooting - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com
CBS Lies. Will Dan Rather Get Away With It This Time?
The poll you can google. The issue with the poll was the # of undecided

There have been lots of media errors skewing information to the left and to the right. So what? What has that got to do with your confusing facts with opinions? Perhaps part of the problem is that when someone states an opinion that you agree with, you label it as a fact.
Does it bother you when a Fox reporter is caught in an open mike gaffe overestimating a Tea Party crowd? Does it bother you when a Rassmussen poll is way out of kilter with other polls?

I hate this, but you cannot give a better example of media bias
You have been told rasmussen is, well It was the most accurate poll in the 2008 election (with pew)
The List: Which presidential polls were most accurate? | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog
there 2010 performance was not as good, but was very close

As far as the tea party gaff, well lets hope that is the worse that fox does
No elections are going to be influenced by that, the CBS event in 04 was horrific

 

[nodoginnafight]

It is a fact that there is extreme media bias
It maybe that there is a 1/4 truth in the head-line, but CBS tried to sway the election in 04 with the story on GWB time in the NG

ABC/Post just came out with a poll showing BHO up 51-44
Gallup had one yesterday that was allmost an exact oppisite

How many stories where the on the trevor matrin saga that turned out to be media fabrications?
These are all very serious events that we as a public deserve better

Eight outrageous media falsehoods in the Trayvon Martin shooting - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com
CBS Lies. Will Dan Rather Get Away With It This Time?
The poll you can google. The issue with the poll was the # of undecided

There have been lots of media errors skewing information to the left and to the right. So what? What has that got to do with your confusing facts with opinions? Perhaps part of the problem is that when someone states an opinion that you agree with, you label it as a fact.
Does it bother you when a Fox reporter is caught in an open mike gaffe overestimating a Tea Party crowd? Does it bother you when a Rassmussen poll is way out of kilter with other polls?

I hate this, but you cannot give a better example of media bias
You have been told rasmussen is, well It was the most accurate poll in the 2008 election (with pew)
The List: Which presidential polls were most accurate? | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog
there 2010 performance was not as good, but was very close

As far as the tea party gaff, well lets hope that is the worse that fox does
No elections are going to be influenced by that, the CBS event in 04 was horrific

Rassmussen polls were found to be among the most biased:
Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
Again, it reflects that you accept "news" that reflects your bias.
As for Fox - their bias and slant - well if you want to repeat an illuminating experiment I conducted do this
Count how many stories they present giving the opinion of someone from the right without any balancing opinion from the left. Then count how many stories they do giving the opinion of someone on the left without any balancing opinion from the right.

Poor crime coverage doesn't affect elections. Skewing polls, slanting "news" stories, lying about support levels and rally attendance can effect elections.

Your bias is on the right and that's perfectly fine - but when you confuse opinion with fact, when you refuse to even consider an opinion that differs from your own (aided by a "news" source that will cater to your bias) then you have no hope of learning, growing, or casting a truly informed vote.

 

[JRK]

It's sad to see how many have willingly traded statemanship and good government for hyper-partisanship.

Thank you for posting - after reading so much hyper-partisan hyperbole on these boards, it is truly refreshing to read your post.

Now this is my opinion, But I think GWB was a middle of the road conservative

Many people have forgot no child left behind
Mediicare refom
Sarbanes Oaxly
Tarp

These were all Bi partisan legeslation, Tarp saved the day (at least the 1/2 GWB used)
And excpet for national defense post 9-11, GWB rarley used the bully pulpit

Again my opinion, but BHO is the most partisan President ever
Could you imagine GWB getting involved in the Trevor martin case?
Talking about the GOP budget harming the poor and old?

But Obama i

This is how hyper-partisanship works:
Bush who interjected him self OFFICIALLY into the Terry Shiavo case gets a pass
Obama makes mention of the Martin case gets hauled to the carpet

Bush rarly using the bully pulpit? Ask the international community about that and ask them about Obama bullying them - you will get a perspective that is completely different from your own.

But that's what hyper-partisanship does. Gives your guy a pass - vilifies the other guy for the same stuff.

In spite of hyper-partisan rhetoric - Obama has not been very far from GWB. The individual mandate was a GOP proposal. The stimulus packages that Obama supported were initiated by Bush and Bush said when he passed his - that it wouldn't be enough.

The Terry S deal is a far different event than a mans day in court
Obama new nothing of the facts, GWB made a choice in a very Hi profile case that did not involve the guilt or innocence of a man in a shooting
I stated that GWB used the bully pulpit in national defense, post 9-11 if you may

Your not the first person who has told me that the failed stimulus was a GWB idea
I have no idea where you got that from
Tarp was a completley different event than The failed stimulus

GWB only used 1/2 of tarp, which we got most of that back

 

[nodoginnafight]

This is exactly how hyper-partisanship works
Rationalize and make excuses when YOUR guy does it
Raise holy hell when the other guy does it.

"When does political information become partisan?"
Apparently when you get a hold of it.

Everyone has biases and I certainly don't begrudge you yours. But don't kid yourself into believeing that your opinions are "facts" or even unbiased opinions.

 

[JRK]

There have been lots of media errors skewing information to the left and to the right. So what? What has that got to do with your confusing facts with opinions? Perhaps part of the problem is that when someone states an opinion that you agree with, you label it as a fact.
Does it bother you when a Fox reporter is caught in an open mike gaffe overestimating a Tea Party crowd? Does it bother you when a Rassmussen poll is way out of kilter with other polls?

I hate this, but you cannot give a better example of media bias
You have been told rasmussen is, well It was the most accurate poll in the 2008 election (with pew)
The List: Which presidential polls were most accurate? | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog
there 2010 performance was not as good, but was very close

As far as the tea party gaff, well lets hope that is the worse that fox does
No elections are going to be influenced by that, the CBS event in 04 was horrific

Rassmussen polls were found to be among the most biased:
Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
Again, it reflects that you accept "news" that reflects your bias.
As for Fox - their bias and slant - well if you want to repeat an illuminating experiment I conducted do this
Count how many stories they present giving the opinion of someone from the right without any balancing opinion from the left. Then count how many stories they do giving the opinion of someone on the left without any balancing opinion from the right.

Poor crime coverage doesn't affect elections. Skewing polls, slanting "news" stories, lying about support levels and rally attendance can effect elections.

Your bias is on the right and that's perfectly fine - but when you confuse opinion with fact, when you refuse to even consider an opinion that differs from your own (aided by a "news" source that will cater to your bias) then you have no hope of learning, growing, or casting a truly informed vote.

I just provided a link that showed Rasmussen as the most accurate in the 08 election
When was the last presidental election
How can the NY times claim other-wise?
I will read your link, but my god people facts are facts

Can yu explain to me what that article was trying to say?
And as far as BHO approval rating, no-one does it like rasmussen
How many did Rasmussen get wrong in 2010?
This 5.6 Bias rating?
I will be back

 

[nodoginnafight]

I hate this, but you cannot give a better example of media bias
You have been told rasmussen is, well It was the most accurate poll in the 2008 election (with pew)
The List: Which presidential polls were most accurate? | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog
there 2010 performance was not as good, but was very close

As far as the tea party gaff, well lets hope that is the worse that fox does
No elections are going to be influenced by that, the CBS event in 04 was horrific

Rassmussen polls were found to be among the most biased:
Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
Again, it reflects that you accept "news" that reflects your bias.
As for Fox - their bias and slant - well if you want to repeat an illuminating experiment I conducted do this
Count how many stories they present giving the opinion of someone from the right without any balancing opinion from the left. Then count how many stories they do giving the opinion of someone on the left without any balancing opinion from the right.

Poor crime coverage doesn't affect elections. Skewing polls, slanting "news" stories, lying about support levels and rally attendance can effect elections.

Your bias is on the right and that's perfectly fine - but when you confuse opinion with fact, when you refuse to even consider an opinion that differs from your own (aided by a "news" source that will cater to your bias) then you have no hope of learning, growing, or casting a truly informed vote.

I just provided a link that showed Rasmussen as the most accurate in the 08 election
When was the last presidental election
How can the NY times claim other-wise?
I will read your link, but my gos people facts are facts

Oh you posted a link ?!?!? Then it certainly must be fact.

Ok - sorry for the sarcasm - I couldn't resist but I agree it is harmful to meaning exchanges.

But this is exactly what my point is about hyper-partisanship and the "Dis-Information Age." Here's how it works - you post a link defending your position and claim it as fact. I have no problem producing a link that refutes it. You CHOOSE to believe your link is "better" because it supports YOUR bias. I claim MY link is better because it supports mine. Both links are opinions. They are based on data but it is based on data that was selected by someone. Appears someone had an agenda in selecting their data...

Consider this - Rassmussen's last poll underestimated Obama's actual vote talley by 1.3 % IBD/TIPP missed by 0.7 % Fox missed by 0.3 % NBC missed by 0.8 % Ipsos/McClatchy missed by 0.3 % CNN missed by 0.3 % Gallup (traditional) missed by 0.7 % Marist missed by 0.3 %

And yet you found someone who called Rassumussen "the most accurate" ?????

And that doesn't even take into consideration the battleground state polls that Rassmussen missed badly - all in favor of Mccain.

But someone found some data somewhere that supported their position that Rassmussen was "the most accurate." The study you linked was conducted by a Fordham political science teacher who based his accuracy numbers on an ESTIMATE of Obama's final margin - but his estimate was way off. The final tally was about 1.5 points more in favor of Obama than HIS estimate.

Just like you search for reasons why Bush interjecting himself into the Shiavo case is not as bad as Obama mentioning the Martin case. People find ways to support their preconcieved notions.

We're taliking in circles, so it is moot. Continue to hold your opinions as facts if you want to. Continue to cocoon yourself in media outlets that reinforce your bias if you want to.
and have a terrific afternoon.

 

[nodoginnafight]

.

 

[JRK]

Rassmussen polls were found to be among the most biased:
Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
Again, it reflects that you accept "news" that reflects your bias.
As for Fox - their bias and slant - well if you want to repeat an illuminating experiment I conducted do this
Count how many stories they present giving the opinion of someone from the right without any balancing opinion from the left. Then count how many stories they do giving the opinion of someone on the left without any balancing opinion from the right.

Poor crime coverage doesn't affect elections. Skewing polls, slanting "news" stories, lying about support levels and rally attendance can effect elections.

Your bias is on the right and that's perfectly fine - but when you confuse opinion with fact, when you refuse to even consider an opinion that differs from your own (aided by a "news" source that will cater to your bias) then you have no hope of learning, growing, or casting a truly informed vote.

I just provided a link that showed Rasmussen as the most accurate in the 08 election
When was the last presidental election
How can the NY times claim other-wise?
I will read your link, but my gos people facts are facts

Oh you posted a link ?!?!? Then it certainly must be fact.

Ok - sorry for the sarcasm - I couldn't resist but I agree it is harmful to meaning exchanges.

But this is exactly what my point is about hyper-partisanship and the "Dis-Information Age." Here's how it works - you post a link defending your position and claim it as fact. I have no problem producing a link that refutes it. You CHOOSE to believe your link is "better" because it supports YOUR bias. I claim MY link is better because it supports mine. You link is an opinion. It is based on data but it is based on data that was selected by someone. Appears someone had an agenda in selecting their data...

Kinda like you can squirm around Bush interjecting himself into the Shiavo case but Obama mentioning the Martin case is "much worse."

We're taliking in circles so it is moot. Continue to hold your opinions as facts if you want to. Continue to cocoon yourself in media outlets that reinforce your bias if you want to.
and have a terrific afternoon.

Again I read the NY times "book" that had nothing to do with who got it right and who got it wrong
The List: Which presidential polls were most accurate? | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog
Thats pure spin
lets ck and see how Rasmussen really did in 2010, we know how they did on 2008
see this why I hate the times, there are so full of crap

from 2010
Gov all but 2 right
1 dem won when they had GOP winning
Had 1 Dem winning and GOP won out of 31
Final Rasmussen Poll Results - 2010 Governor Elections - Rasmussen Reports™

lets view the sentae
out of about 30, they got 1 wrong
Reid in Nevada

close to 60 elections right
3 wrong
2 GOP
1 DEM

now how can that be biased?
The NY times is the only bias I see here
Look, its just info, do your DD espicially when its the times, Post
CBS, NBC, ABC
they will make you look bad 99% of the time
Final Rasmussen Poll Results - 2010 Senate Elections - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[JRK]

JRK - I invite you to look more closely at the information you receive. View it critically and consider what agenda might be prompting those who are providing it to you. Look for opposing opinions and critique them as well.

In this "Dis-Information Age" the right and the left are doing their best to manipulate the information you receive. If you don't take a hard look at your sources, you are just going to wind up being someone's pawn. Have a great day.

If you do that and wind up on the other side of an issue or two from me - I'll disagree with you, but I'll certainly respect your opinion.

same here
I looked into Rasmussen 2010
see the links above in another thread
Out of 60+ elections they got all but 3 right
1 Dem
2 GOP

how can that biased?

Election 2010: How Did We Do? - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[BlindBoo]

Whenever you post about it is a good clue.

 

[JRK]

Whenever you post about it is a good clue.

Boo we can allways depend on you to add, well, nothing to the discussion
The NY times claimed Rasmussen was the most biased
I read the article, It had nothing to do with who got what right

So as I allways do looked into it

Election 2010: How Did We Do? - Rasmussen Reports™

Check it out for your-self

Like I said in the post,when does it become partisian

 

[BlindBoo]

Whenever you post about it is a good clue.

Boo we can allways depend on you to add, well, nothing to the discussion
The NY times claimed Rasmussen was the most biased
I read the article, It had nothing to do with who got what right

So as I allways do looked into it

Election 2010: How Did We Do? - Rasmussen Reports™

Check it out for your-self

Like I said in the post,when does it become partisian

Who is we? Do you hagve a frog in your pocket?

You asked a simple question: When does Political Information become partisan? You had no links.

I gave you a simple answer: When a completely partisan person, you, post about it.

 

[JRK]

Whenever you post about it is a good clue.

Boo we can allways depend on you to add, well, nothing to the discussion
The NY times claimed Rasmussen was the most biased
I read the article, It had nothing to do with who got what right

So as I allways do looked into it

Election 2010: How Did We Do? - Rasmussen Reports™

Check it out for your-self

Like I said in the post,when does it become partisian

Who is we? Do you hagve a frog in your pocket?

You asked a simple question: When does Political Information become partisan? You had no links.

I gave you a simple answer: When a completely partisan person, you, post about it.

Boo If I tell you that BHO has added 700 billion dollars to the bottom line as what the federal govt spends from the last GOP budget in 2007, is that Partisan?
And as far as we goes, your right
I had no right to make that claim

Simpe question BOO
The NY times comes up with some formula that makes 0 sense to me that claims Rasmussen is biased
Why is it they did not mention there accuracy rate?
Is that biased?

Is the "available" work force number at record low numbers have a biased tone to it? should it matter Boo?

When do we get back to electing our next president on his record?
When is it I can bring to your attention that Obama care will add to our debt? unlike what he said?
And when is it we can ask him why he lied to us about the "fine" in Obama-care not being a tax Boo

is all of this partisan hacking or just information

 

[BlindBoo]

Boo we can allways depend on you to add, well, nothing to the discussion
The NY times claimed Rasmussen was the most biased
I read the article, It had nothing to do with who got what right

So as I allways do looked into it

Election 2010: How Did We Do? - Rasmussen Reports™

Check it out for your-self

Like I said in the post,when does it become partisian

Who is we? Do you hagve a frog in your pocket?

You asked a simple question: When does Political Information become partisan? You had no links.

I gave you a simple answer: When a completely partisan person, you, post about it.

Boo If I tell you that BHO has added 700 billion dollars to the bottom line as what the federal govt spends from the last GOP budget in 2007, is that Partisan?
And as far as we goes, your right
I had no right to make that claim

Simpe question BOO
The NY times comes up with some formula that makes 0 sense to me that claims Rasmussen is biased
Why is it they did not mention there accuracy rate?
Is that biased?

Is the "available" work force number at record low numbers have a biased tone to it? should it matter Boo?

When do we get back to electing our next president on his record?
When is it I can bring to your attention that Obama care will add to our debt? unlike what he said?
And when is it we can ask him why he lied to us about the "fine" in Obama-care not being a tax Boo

is all of this partisan hacking or just information

First point is just cherry picked information completely ignoring the fact that both parties played a significant role in the economic disater as well as the massive increase in spending over that period of time and tries to push all the blame on the current administration.

 

[JRK]

Who is we? Do you hagve a frog in your pocket?

You asked a simple question: When does Political Information become partisan? You had no links.

I gave you a simple answer: When a completely partisan person, you, post about it.

Boo If I tell you that BHO has added 700 billion dollars to the bottom line as what the federal govt spends from the last GOP budget in 2007, is that Partisan?
And as far as we goes, your right
I had no right to make that claim

Simpe question BOO
The NY times comes up with some formula that makes 0 sense to me that claims Rasmussen is biased
Why is it they did not mention there accuracy rate?
Is that biased?

Is the "available" work force number at record low numbers have a biased tone to it? should it matter Boo?

When do we get back to electing our next president on his record?
When is it I can bring to your attention that Obama care will add to our debt? unlike what he said?
And when is it we can ask him why he lied to us about the "fine" in Obama-care not being a tax Boo

is all of this partisan hacking or just information

First point is just cherry picked information completely ignoring the fact that both parties played a significant role in the economic disater as well as the massive increase in spending over that period of time and tries to push all the blame on the current administration.

Boo the Dems took over congress in 07
The Stimulus is the only reason we have added 700 billion to our bottom line
The GOP had nothing to do with that

No political party could have prevented the housing bubble Boo, it was s free market event that greed caused. Let me put it this way, if the value of real estate remained at the levels they were in late 06, there would have never been the crash that we have went thru

I have never blamed that event on any-one, even though the repeal of Gramm leach as well as record low interest rates post 9-11 fueled the event

If I had the ideals that the democratic party believe in I would be pissed. The power they had in 2009 opened the door to remaining in power and for ever changing the way this country was governed, they blew it

Not GWB
Not the GOP
Obama, Reid and Pelosi

It was not the right time for a total health care over haul
It was not the time for a so called "stimulus" that it sole intent was to change for ever the base line
The Libs had the power and blew it

Whats crazy is we were so close to having a really good system in place. GWB was at best a center right conservative
Tarp stopped the bleeding'
Stimulus was needed to support the millions who had lost there jobs.
We had other avenues (and still do today) for job creation


Could you stop and imagine the additional support with cobra payments, UE as well as tax reform that 1 trillion dollars could have done for us?
(the stimulus also had 1/2 of tarp BHO grabbed)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But when I link accurate info about the defict, Hans Bix speech in 03, The real reson the UE rate is dropping, I quickly becomes to some personal

Why is that?

Likely the same reason as when I link accurate information that illegal aliens are entitled to due process, that Obama is a natural born citizen, or the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate public accommodations of private businesses.

When will the liberal just admit that BHO has failed…

He won’t, and shouldn’t; such a determination can’t be made before the end of the president’s first term, to do so is idiocy. For instance, historians are just now making an accurate assessment of the Reagan years. There must also be consensus as to what criteria will be used to evaluate a given administration’s success or failure, or even if such a determination is relevant.

Partisan politics is the way it is suppose to be. My beliefs are not the same Pelosis are, I have no reason to hide that.

Opposition to Obama, therefore, is indeed partisan politics, devoid of fact or reason.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Partisan" doesn't mean untrue.

Using cherry-picked "facts" that support your partisan argument isn't any less "partisan".

 

[MarcATL]

There have been lots of media errors skewing information to the left and to the right. So what? What has that got to do with your confusing facts with opinions? Perhaps part of the problem is that when someone states an opinion that you agree with, you label it as a fact.
Does it bother you when a Fox reporter is caught in an open mike gaffe overestimating a Tea Party crowd? Does it bother you when a Rassmussen poll is way out of kilter with other polls?

I hate this, but you cannot give a better example of media bias
You have been told rasmussen is, well It was the most accurate poll in the 2008 election (with pew)
The List: Which presidential polls were most accurate? | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog
there 2010 performance was not as good, but was very close

As far as the tea party gaff, well lets hope that is the worse that fox does
No elections are going to be influenced by that, the CBS event in 04 was horrific

Rassmussen polls were found to be among the most biased:
Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
Again, it reflects that you accept "news" that reflects your bias.
As for Fox - their bias and slant - well if you want to repeat an illuminating experiment I conducted do this
Count how many stories they present giving the opinion of someone from the right without any balancing opinion from the left. Then count how many stories they do giving the opinion of someone on the left without any balancing opinion from the right.

Poor crime coverage doesn't affect elections. Skewing polls, slanting "news" stories, lying about support levels and rally attendance can effect elections.

Your bias is on the right and that's perfectly fine - but when you confuse opinion with fact, when you refuse to even consider an opinion that differs from your own (aided by a "news" source that will cater to your bias) then you have no hope of learning, growing, or casting a truly informed vote.

The summabatch posted a damn BLOG as a source of fact.

This thread was a joke from the start, started by one of the biggest jokes on the board.

*SMH*