Posted by
Chip Monk on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 8:51:56 PM
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6nyt.htmBack in 1992 when I was a junior in high school, I watched the media coverage of the Presidential Election. I kept getting the vibe that the a major reason the sitting president (G.H.W. Bush) was trailing after having had astronomically high approval numbers just a year before was in part a created result of the media coverage. No doubt the "Read My Lips" gaff didn't help his cause, and his relative lack of personal appeal complicated the re-election efforts, but I felt (and have always felt) that Clinton was elected, at least in part because the media told people how the election was going and what the result would be. Whether it suppressed the vote of Bush-41 who lost on a plurality when Perot bled off many of his votes is debateable, but there is a segment of society that wants to be on the "winning team" and votes for the projected winner in each election. Thus, in every election cycle since, I have watched the media attempt to influence the outcome with carefully timed polls and commentary. What are the odds that while most current trends seem to be benefitting the GOP the New York Times is reporting that things are actually getting better for the Dems and that *GASP* they might just take the Senate too?
Hmmm... I smell a ploy afoot, but as in 2002 and 2004 I'm starting to think people are smarter than that.
Any chance this is an attempt at a manufactured October-surprise?