Republican vote suppression - dem tactic moves into full gear

[almost ready]

We're coming up to the finish line. Time for the keystone of Raul Emmanuel's plan to give the dems a win: Republican vote suppression

How is it done? Discourage discourage discourage

and promote the idea that Obama's win is inevitable, ordained by gods/history/whatever

and

false poll results.

On main, in the gun thread, Martin has posted an article that shows the Dems ahead of Rep in PA by 13%. This is known to be false by internal polling. They are within winning distance there, and several pollsters are now counting this as a probable McCain win. That's why McCain Palin have been canvassing the state.

I don't see the internal poll numbers, but know that in State college, PA, they had to turn folks away at the door when Palin was there (seats 7,000), but Bill Clinton, pushing Obama got 1,500. Not great numbers for the dems when you consider neither side had the main man present. Less than 1/4 of the voters - and in the biggest college town in Pennsylvania.

This thread is open to record examples of this clever but malicious form of mind control at work. As examples arise, and they will - here they'll go.

Another sign of the McCain surge is the doubling of viewers on O'Reilly and Hannity, while CBS, who used Palin's viewer surge to defame her, has over a 10 billion dollar loss, due to loss of advertising revenue.

 

[almost ready]

ANdrea mitchell discusses O's cabinet as fait accompli

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans...ver-may-backfire-and-aid-mccain-comeback.html

bama, Media's Attempt To Say It's All Over May Backfire and Aid McCain Comeback

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

The other day I was feeling a bit depressed and you know the old saying, "misery loves company," so I decide to turn on MSNBC for a bit more abuse to my psyche.

I happened to catch Andrea Mitchell's show. Well, I don't know if she has her own show, but there she was, obviously, moonlighting from her flagship NBC network. Mitchell was explaining how an Obama cabinet would be constructed and why certain individuals would hold key positions in his administration. I didn't learn very much from Mitchell's dissertation because, quite honestly, I didn't care what she had to say. In fact, what struck me most was that an established journalist, like Mitchell, was putting her professional reputation on the line. Mitchell was essentially telling the hundreds or thousands of people who watch MSNBC the election between Barack Obama and John McCain was over before election Day, Tuesday, November 4th. It was a sad demonstration of just how much journalists have sacrificed regarding their careers and professionalism when it comes to the coverage of Obama.

There is no doubt any longer. Independent study after study indicates the dominant media is deeply submerged in the tank for Obama. What surprises me is the fact many in the journalistic profession simply don't care about hiding their bias any longer.

In past years, there was a thinly veiled attempt to cover their tracks when it came to favoritism for Bill Clinton and other Democrats by the mainstream media. However, the mantra this year apparently is "cast your fate to the wind" and that's what many of those covering this political season have done.

If it were a matter of simple media bias, it would be wrong, but not so insidious as what we see happening in 2008. Mitchell was trying to create the illusion that Obama was a shoe-in to be elected the next President for a reason. For the last month, the dominant press has spent a great deal of time in the attempt to dampen the spirits of McCain/Palin supporters. The message is: Stay home because it's over any way. But, in recent days, a McCain comeback seems imminent and what appeared to be a very sound strategy by Obama and the media may backfire. It is entirely possible the dominant press may have convinced Obama supporters that the race with McCain was a fait accompli. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were Obama's supporters who stayed home rather than the intended victims.

But such a development certainly would be poetic justice. If Obama lost because voter turn-out did not meet expectations, due to the fact there was a perception the election was over and he had already won, it would be the quintessential demonstration of cosmic justice. If this scenario unfolds, I will pay an extra month of cable fees to watch Joe Scarborough's morning show (Morning Joe--MSNBC) simply to see the hand-ringing and emotional tumult that would truly equal a Hollywood melodrama. Would Chris Matthews be in tears? Will David Shuster be looking through the want ads? And there would be Pat Buchanan telling them all "I told you so" when he really didn't. Wouldn't it be grand?

 

[almost ready]

great article, small excerpt

In 2008 there is no silent majority: there is the silenced majority. The unpolled majority. The media is so pro-Obama that the views and the concerns of McCain supporters are for the most part ignored or, at best, mocked. The goal is to foster disillusionment among them, a sense of isolation. To trick the Republicans into all staying home on election day because "there's no hope of winning." Maybe the Democrats can't avoid a showdown on November 4, but if they can convince enough McCain supporters to individually "fold" and not vote at all, then Obama can carry the day.

One of the sources of our current dilemma is that it's no longer possible to tailor different messages to different audiences. In days gone by, leaders could say one thing to one group, and then something else entirely to another group or to the public at large, in order to serve their political purposes. Yasser Arafat, for example, famously would say something conciliatory about the Israel-Palestinian conflict while speaking English to the international press, and after the reporters had all left to file their stories about what a peace-loving moderate he was, would turn around and give a fiery speech in Arabic to his supporters, calling for the extermination of Israelis. Thus, he pleased both sides, well enough to earn him a Nobel Peace Prize from his naive Western audience while simultaneously being hailed as the leader of the jihad against the Jews by his Arab audience. This trick worked quite well for many years until the advent of the Internet, when for the first time the Western audience could finally hear what he was saying when they weren't supposed to be listening.

****

This guy goes into the 1950's Solomon Asch's experiments on social conformity as the basis of this strategy, and why it may backfire. He says that if Obama wins, it will be despite, not because of using this strategy during the internet age.



http://www.zombietime.com/lefts_big_blunder/