I am tremendously amused by the seemingly widespread perception (at least among YA users) that "the media" is a single, giant entity bent on wreaking chaos and undermining truth and goodness.
Impromptu, unofficial polls (like the ones on the nightly news) are not scientific and are not representative of the voting public. Their results are easily skewed and their populations are tiny; their margins for error are enormous.
According to most reliable polls with reasonable margins for error, Kucinich is not leading the pack. Not by a long shot.
2007-12-26 18:04:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Lanani 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Well, what are these polls? As a former member of the media, I can tell you that newspapers and networks don't want to waste time on someone who isn't as popular as Hillary Clinton and who isn't scoring high on the polls that are being reported on.
However, this is unfair. I have always believed in the ideals of journalism, which are to be fair and objective and report both or more sides of a story and allow the reader/viewer to decide. But sadly, that hasn't been the case for a very long time.
2007-12-26 17:55:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by David B 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
Most of the polls Kucinich are winning aren't scientifically conducted - that is, they aren't a random sampling of the population. I'm not on Kucinich's mailing list but I am for another candidate, and have seen several of the "quick, go to this internet site and vote for our candidate" mailings. Even a basic level statistics class will tell you that won't give you valid results.
2007-12-26 18:59:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by JerH1 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Because the media is controlled by corporate interests, not the people. Regular people, of course want universal health care and to end the war ASAP. Corporate interests do not. Guess who will win in this case? Too bad, if we didn't have so many sheep who simply go along with what the media puts out at the forefront, the people might have a chance.
2007-12-26 17:58:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Which polls? Zogby? Nope. Rasmussen? Uh-uh. CNN, USA Today, ABC, etc., etc.? Heck, no. I think the fact that he gets mentioned in the same breath as any real contender for the office is more inclusion than his longest of long shot bid for the presidency is worth. There are NO reputable polls placing him anywhere close to the top amongst the Democratic hopefuls.
2007-12-26 17:54:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by Sean H 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
There is no need to exclude Dennis Kucinich. He can do this very capably by virtue of his off the chart opinions and lack of a proven track record. Don't you want any candidate to have at least some history of accomplishments? Being failed mayor of Cleveland hardly qualifies him for the job.
2007-12-26 18:17:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Dietmar S 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Pretty simple answer why he is being excluded. Silly question really. It's because of greed latent business & political laden organizations. For example of bad U.S. leadership choices: Thanks to most of our top U.S. leaders our overflowing landfills are full of throwaway products leaching into the ground instead of making repairable products & putting good people back to work here.
Most U.S. citizens do not know the true value of something. It isn't measured in currency. It's measured in true usable worth. What's really left worthwhile in the land of the big macdoodle & the wopperish society? There are no more "smalls." It's been replaced with big, bigger & biggest. Morals & common sense are replaced by greed here.
Because of a lousy economy brought on by greedy top officials (Government & business combining.): It usually takes a two income family to barely make ends meet in this country of "Gottahaves." Leaving our young to almost fend for themselves. -Usually lacking moral skills among other important family taught skills because of nobody home to teach them right from wrong.
After all of that, do you think a half way honest & moral person has a chance of being a leader here? - Not a chance in Hades! Our government is not really set up to let the "commoners" be anything other than slaves in a coalmine.
"Keep them stupid, tired & poor - they won't know what's going on." -It will backfire on those "monarchs" in power. IE: Roman History. Take care.
2007-12-26 18:36:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by RJ 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
Because the media has chosen the canidates they want, and will anything they can to make sure hey get thier party's nomination. the same thing accures with third party canidates. The media doesn't give them any airtime, and excludes them from debates, because they would take away votes from the media's canidates.
2007-12-26 18:15:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
well it is clear all you have to do is look at where the money is coming from, clinton is paid and bought by special interests and media outlets, so she gets the attention if she is good for the country or not doesnt matter
2007-12-26 18:08:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by taylor_michael85 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
you need to show the links to said polls that are not being shown by the "medium' lol (its media). so we can judge for ourselves the validity of those sources.
here you had a chance to strike a blow against 'the man' and 'the mainstream medium (lol)' and you choked. you are no better than the mediums you condem!
2007-12-26 17:54:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by froggy_logic 6
·
0⤊
1⤋