Dean's RIse, and Demise. Lying With Statistics

[liberalmike27]

While Dean was ahead, the media often flashed up electability statistics. First they'd put them all up, Bush vs. anyone. Of course, before the recent development and sharpening of probable lies by Bush, they all lagged behind. Roughly, they all ran about 40% to Bush's 55%, none of them doing well. As the campaign heated up, and just before Iowa as the Torecelli, Gephardt, Kerry financed commercials morphing Osama to Dean ran in essence back-stabbing Dean, the other candidates ratings against seemed to rarely surface, showing only Dean's, which of course was bad along with everyone else's, that weren't shown. As the effect of the media attacks, the DLC back-stabbing, and some Karl Rove tactics by Kerry in Iowa started taking effect, and Dean's numbers correspondingly fell, a strategic shift happened with what stats were shown.

The media who'd not liked Dean's earlier comments about breaking them up, and were now actively campaigning and contributing to Kerry's campaign, simultaneously needed to finish Dean off, who was still campaigning strong in New Hampshire, where he'd been expending great effort back to early 2002, and of course had a good reputation being just next to Vermont. Then the "scream" speech came. Truly Rupert Murdoch and his cohorts realized it was simply an enthusiastic speech toward hard-working supporters. They probably even realized the microphone was a television microphone, which shut out most surrounding noise, and didn't show the actual incredibly loud noise in the room. The rest is history, play it a couple of thousand times, and have your highly paid pundit-minions trash it, taking it all the way to "do you want this man on the nuclear button." All the while, just an innocent speech of encouragement, it was the device needed to attack and finish off Dean, destroy the silly poor folks' hope, and demonstrate who really had the power over American minds.

Predictably, Dean's numbers dropped substantially, though some backlash was felt from an obvious media purposeful overplaying. Now, Kerry who'd loaned his campaign 7 million from mortgaging one of his homes in his estate worth over a half-billion dollars. Now in the lead, a different strategy of statistical manipulation started occurring.
Bush, simultaneously was suffering tremendous damage due to various missteps, mostly from lying to enter Iraq, and inept statements by his underlings about how great it was for jobs to be leaving the U.S., which is foolish to say the least.

Kerry now with two media-assisted primaries was aided by his lone numbers of electability surging ahead. Missing in the media were the numbers of all others in the race, assuredly increasing against Bush also, even without the tremendous bump the multi-millionaire had over the rest of the field by the media manipulation. But no numbers surfaced on Edwards' or Deans' electability after Iowa. No, this would not serve to push the media-darling Kerry, the botox-boy further ahead. Showing all of their percentages surging ahead against a lagging Bush, would only serve to make voters realize that any candidate could beat Bush at this point, so why not go ahead and vote your mind, not for who the media was pushing as more electable.

Now, finally Dean has stopped active campaigning, though you can still vote for him in states where he's still on the ballot. Duly destroyed, and sitting back in gloating satisfaction at how they showed all involved who really had the power over American minds, they have finally in the last couple of days started putting up Edwards' numbers against Bush, and surprise, he's right in the ballpark of Kerry.

This is how they do it, a thousand little cuts, constant small comments about Dean to the negative, a huge mischaracterization of the speech in Iowa, commercials from other candidates that were highly negative and ignored, while Dean was lambasted and negatively characterized by any small pointing-out of the truth against one of his opponents. At the same time prop up a few statistics of Kerry, add some embellishing lathering about Vietnam, at best a dichotomous situation for Kerry, keep whacking Dean until he withdraws, and viola' the American mind is manipulated, and we have a guy ahead now that is nothing like America as a whole. Now, they have the guy they want, Americans who voted Kerry claim the smug-satisfaction of thinking they came to it on their own, and Dean and his faithful were on the receiving end of the biggest royal screwing in the history of the media.

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. I agree with you 100% on everything you said.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

18. same here

that's exactly how the corporate media works.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. That's how I remember it.

It seems like it's only been a month or two.....

[ProfessorPlum]

3. As much as I think the powers-that-be were afraid

of a Dean presidency (and as much of a Dean supporter as I am), I don't ascribe too much power to the media to do the deciding for people as you seem to.

Dean got enough press, both good and bad, that if he had what the majority of voters were really looking for, they would have chosen him, regardless of his press in the last days leading up to Iowa, or in the days after Iowa.

I spoke to a lot of voters about Dean between IA and NH, and only one person even mentioned his "behavior" as a problem. There were lots of people who watched TV or whatever who were not turned off to him as a candidate, but they apparently had other candidates they liked better.

As hard as it is for me to believe, Dean just didn't have exactly what the voters were looking for - or didn't project it in a way that enough of them perceived.

The media certainly has an agenda - but man, rank-and-file Democrats have not been voting for Dean in droves, and I think the media has only a small amount to do with that. (And I disagree with my fellow Democrats on their judgement about him)

[liberalmike27]

6. Maybe

Perhaps you weren't influenced by the media. I know I didn't choose who I liked from them in the first place. I saw a show on C-Span, and a guy who was honest, a guy who didn't just say what I wanted to hear. He talked about balancing budgets, raising the minimum wage, health care for Americans, and the Iraq War being a farce. In a world of wimpy, go-along Democratic politicians we'd seen, this guy was standing up. It's no secret that all of the other popular candidates have adopted all, or part, of Deans platform. Since it is just an adoption, we don't know whether they really mean it.

Many people just don't have the ability to think and decide for themselves. I guess we each have our criterion, and sadly many, I'd say even most, factor in media-coverage. Most even think our press is free, and gives all opinions. I doubt an initial Kerry supporter would see this all, neither did the Clark people until their guys got a taste. But clearly the media influenced Gore's try in 2000 negatively, and this was perhaps even worse. To say the media doesn't effect anyones vote is, in my view, absurd. The stats clearly followed the events on the media, Dean's ratings dropped as the DLC commercials reigned, as they showed only his electability ratings ignoring others, and then tremendously during the anti-Dean scream campaign.

You could superimpose the important media attacks on his percentages, and they would identically correspond. So it is patently absurd to think that most people aren't following the media, and effected by it, since everything they were doing worked on Dean.

I'm sure Kucinich and Sharpton supporters feel the same way, but instead of dissing Dean, they simply ignore these two. Now they are talking about excluding them from the debates, yet another form of manipulation, and another way to keep the opinions of the left out.

Finally, do you think it's any coincidence that the highly conservative media has eliminated the most left of all the major candidates? I don't.

[ProfessorPlum]

9. Yeah, I picked Dean around last February or so

for exactly the same reasons you mention.

And he certainly has had his up and downs with the media - getting pretty negative coverage at first, then getting a lot of mostly positive coverage, and then getting lots of negative coverage.

In the end, though, he got lots of coverage, and that can only have helped his chances of being selected by voters.

You and I both saw something in him that the vast majority of our fellow Democrats didn't see, or didn't trust, or were uncomfortable with, for whatever reason, and I just don't think the lens of the media has as much power to distort that perception as perhaps some people think it has.

If the media were so powerful, then Gore would not only have not won the election in 2000, he would have probably been run out of the country by the members of his own party for being such a pathological liar.

The ups and downs of Dean's media coverage may have been unfair (both in a positive and a negative way - certainly from the way people have been voting his appeal during the days when he was getting very positive coverage was not very widespread, just very deep and committed from the people he had reached) - but I think quite a lot of it is reflective of the mood of the voters, and therefore reactionary, and not causitive, of voters' opinions.

But anyway, it is a very sad day for me. I am rather deeply surprised, dismayed, and saddened that more of the people in my party didn't perceive what is so appealing about the guy.

[jansu]

13. Why do they advertise if it does not make a difference?

Why would they spend so much money on their advertising budgets? Why all the television and radio ads for a candidate, if it does not change peoples minds? Why is an hour of television filled with so many breaks from the program for ads, if it does not influence people? To the thinking people, it does not, but to those who have not studied the issues, it does work! And, sad to say, most people have not studied the issues!

But, no matter how many advertisements you do, if the "NEWS" is saying negative things about you.....that counts for more. Most people believe that the media is "fair and balanced" and has to tell the truth.

There are two court cases, one out of NY and one out of Florida which states, that there is no law, rule or regulation which says they have to tell the truth.....they CAN LEGALLY LIE!

[ProfessorPlum]

15. News coverage certainly has an effect

But I for one didn't see glowing report after glowing report about Kerry in the news prior to the primaries. Though Dean did get a lot of coverage, both negative and positive, I fail to see how Kerry is just about the only recipient of the benefit based on your theory.

[jansu]

16. Might it be that they looked at all candidates

and decided who would not upset the way things are? Also, if you remember, the White House said, "We would love to run against Dean and would hate to run againt Kerry"! Have they lied about anything else? And, why would you believe them about this?

[ProfessorPlum]

19. I think that is exactly what is appealing about Kerry

to voters. He does not (and will not, as far as I can see) upset the apple cart. See my post "John Kerry, non-squirrel" on this board for more on that.

[AmyStrange]

36. Here's how the media lies...

and still lies. They said Kerry was the frontrunner after Iowa and Dean still had more delegates than Kerry. He still had more delegates than Kerry after NH and was still ahead after SC. In my opinion - that is a lie.

Dean still has more delegates than Edwards, even right now, but the media still says it's a two man race. That is another lie in my opinion.

Very rarely (I think maybe I've heard it twice) did the media say that Dean has more delegates than anyone else other than Kerry. This is a lie by ommission in my opinion. This is how the media gave Kerry the "perceived" look of electability.

In my opinion, a vote for Kerry as the nominee is a vote for Bush in November... you'll see I'm right in November,



Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/




Serious Serial Killer discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[seaglass]

14. Whether other candidates have supported balanced

budgets, raising the minimum wage or health care for Americans is not unknowable. All you have to do is use those thinking and deciding skills you say that you've been using while others haven't and go find out.

And by the way since when has raising the minimum wage, health care and more recently balanced budgets not been part of the D platform?

If you are talking about Dean - he was not the most left. And the voters were the ones who eliminated him.

[jansu]

24. "Manufacturing Consent"

Noam Chomsky researched and wrote a very powerful book:"Manufacturing Consent". I suggest that all read this to help us answer this question.

[no name no slogan]

29. Best book on the subject

Reading this book about ten years ago opened my eyes to what was TRULY wrong with the media in this country. I've gone back and reread it several times, just to keep the ideas fresh in my mind.

What the media giveth, it can also taketh away, sadly.

[liberalmike27]

33. I have.

I've read manufacturing consent, as well as "What Liberal Media" by Eric Alterman, and I agree that would clear up the minds of many on this subject.

It's hard to believe anyone would think the media isn't trying to influence people, particualrly after Clinton, then the Gore 'attack dogs' of 2000. Some outside reading would help clear up these folks minds. The Chomsky book, is a dry-read, but the first couple of chapters in a book-store would give you most of the insight needed to understand the motivations behind their trashing of Dean.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

4. 100% agreement

And what truly amazes me. All the foot stomping and fit throwing for Dean to drop out, well it worked, they got what they wanted. But now what I am seeing is the realization of what has happened is setting in and the public finally decided, after the fact, to see what the effects might be. Now the media is all sappy on how Dean got beat up and pounded, Poor Howard Dean. The Edwards support is just now realizing he is in a bad money situation because of the matching funds cap , Kerry is in debt up to his eyeballs and can't raise money as quickly as Dean could and now all republican eyes, and 200mill in unlimited money can be focused on shredding only 2 well actually 1.5 Let the blood fest begin. And it has started, the ads are already being aired. But now there is all this scurrying and talk about "Can Dean bail Edwards out financially if he runs him as his VP"? Kerry is in debt up to his eyeballs and now a sitting duck against the Bush mean machine. Calls for Dean to endorse endorse(because we need your base and fund raising ability). No one stopped for one second and actually thought about the repercussions of narrowing it down to a small margin this soon. My opinion, for what it's worth, if ALL had stayed in until convention the repubs would not have had as easy a target as they do now but no one thought of this until after the fact. My worst fear has come true. The repubs got just what they wanted, a glaring target and 8 solid months and whole shit pile of unlimited money (775,000.00 a day, every day from now to November) to rip that target to shreds. Congratulations America, job well done.

[ProfessorPlum]

5. According to Kerry supporters

he will "fight back", so there's nothing we have to worry about.

Besides, (all sarcasm aside), Bush is screwing himself so badly at this point that I truly do think it is going to be a mercy killing in November.

[liberalmike27]

7. In a way

Professor Plum, you make my point. Anyone could beat Bush now, electability is a non-issue, so people should just vote for who they want, not who the media is telling them to.

Also, your opinion is formed by the fact they have chosen to tell you that not only does Kerry beat Bush, but Edwards can too. I'd imagine Dean's percentages have improved as well.

The most manipulative things are the ones that will be noticed the least, like these percentages posted, Dean's negative against Bush before, Kerry's positives afterward.

[ProfessorPlum]

10. I think that this is true

and an excellent point. Dean's numbers versus Bush are certain to have risen as well. The fact that the media are not reporting this may arise from their rush to want to appoint a winner (they have no patience), or from an anti-Dean bias. I certainly couldn't say why at this point.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. What a surprise.

You believe "Dean's numbers versus Bush are certain to have risen as well"

Probably as accurate as your predictions were for the Iowa caucus, New Hampshire primary, etc....

[GodHelpUsAll2]

8. I hope you are right

However, there seems to be a huge underestimation of the Republicans going on. W has been screwing up his entire time in the White House. Hell he screwed Texas before he got to Washington and that didn't even put a wrinkle in his plans. If people are honestly believeing that his screw ups will kill him because gee it's plain and simple, black and white then I think they will be mistaken and caught off guard. And by then, it's too late.

[ProfessorPlum]

11. I think if it comes down to votes

(as it ought to in a supposed democracy), Bush is done (at least until the next incarnation of the Bush Family Evil Empire tries to seize power). I can't tell you how many "I'm an 81-year old Republican who has never voted for a Democrat in his life, but I will vote against Bush come November" letters to the editor I have seen in my local paper.

If by "their plans" you mean some kind of selection of Bush that doesn't include counting of votes (or mis-counting, via Diebold), then I agree with you.

[jansu]

12. And don't forget that he was getting ONLY 49% favorable reporting.....

compared to 78% favorable reporting on all the other candidates through 2003 and he was over 20 points ahead, even with that!

The powers that be were going to bring him down if they could, but the minute he stated that he was going to change the media ownership rules, they HAD to take him out! They do not want a free press which serves the people or the Republic.

We've been robbed!

Great posting and let's follow what Dean has written to us to do! We will change this country, but it will take a little longer. Start at the local levels, counties, States and then National!

VOTE FOR DEAN IN YOUR PRIMARIES....THE DELEGATES STILL COUNT FOR THE PARTY PLATFORM!

A popular government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. James Madison

[CWebster]

17. and as the final insult

they insist that if we don't line up and vote for who wrought what you just described then we are aiders and abettors of the anti-christ.

[Anwen]

20. You're absolutely right.

I've been saying this all along. The media effectively killed Dean's campaign. It was the most negative coverage of someone so undeserving that I have ever seen in my lifetime. It's truly frightening what happened.

[ProfessorPlum]

21. Yes, but,

many people decided long before the media "turned" on Dean, and they didn't decide to vote for him. Why? (I am a diehard Dean supporter).

[Anwen]

22. I think it started pre-Iowa

Pre-Iowa, I think it began with a combination of things.

First, Gephardt & Dean's negative commercial war -- people in Iowa decidedly wanted a positive message and quickly tired of the negative ads. Add to the equation Kerry, who instantly became a war hero when a guy he rescued just happened to show up in Iowa right before the election. Also, the Governor of Iowa's wife came out last minute and threw her support behind Kerry, while Edwards got some major newspaper endorsement. The media also began their sublte attacks during this time, repeating Dean's slipping poll numbers and questioning if he had peacked too soon.

That is my basic theory. I think Dean could have recovered in New Hampshire, but after Iowa came the infamous speech...and the rest is history.

[ProfessorPlum]

23. Yeah, I don't know though

I don't know any Dean supporters who decided not to vote for him because of the speech. I think that if people had made up their minds to vote for him by that point, they would have anyway.

And the commercial wars in IA should only have effected people in IA.

I don't know what the real answer is, but people didn't feel sure enough about Dean to vote for him. A shame, really.

[Anwen]

25. I wouldn't underestimate

the Scream.

I think they counted that the networks played that 700+ times in the week leading up to New Hampshire. Not only that, the commentary surrounding that speech was nothing but negative. I lost track of how many times I heard "too angry" and "not presidential" and instantly became the butt of numerous jokes on every late night talk show.

Then, they whipped out the poll showing Kerry ahead of Bush, and repeated the mantra that Kerry was electable. And repeated the mantra that Kerry had the momentum. And repeated that he was more presidential.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people saw that stark contrast and changed their votes at the last minute, thinking Dean had no chance. The polls coming out of New Hampshire showed that MORE voters liked Dean, but they voted Kerry simply because they thought he could beat Bush.

But I agree, whatever the real answer is, it truly is a shame.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

28. Don't forget

The very public cry from Kerry and Gephardt that Dean was trying to pad the caucus with out of state people to pose as Iowans and try to vote. And the deal between Edwards and Kucinich the very day of the caucus. I was in Iowa campaigning for the week of caucus (I saw the speech and was appauled when I got home to see how it was being portrayed on TV) and let me tell you the things that went on in that week that lead up to caucus was sickening. Push polling, The attack ads, the preaching to Iowans that Dean was bringing in thousands of out of state people to throw the caucus etc etc etc. It was truely ugly. And the beginning of nothing but negative press from there on out.

[Anwen]

31. That's right.

I forgot about that. Damn. It's even worse than I remember.

[retyred]

26. And you have proof Kerry financed the Osama ad how?

While the accusation floated here at DU, I've seen no proof it was Kerry, then again guilt by accusation around here seems to be enough for most to whine/cry to others.



retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[GodHelpUsAll2]

27. It's out there

All YOU have to do is look.

[burned]

30. this is exactly why

Im having such a seriously bad time even giving a shit anymore.
My own party let it happen...though it wasn't news to me that it could be done. This was the first time I watched it and felt it and screamed at it. I'm deflated.
I hope it passes

[kiahzero]

32. I'm sorry

I was watching the results of the Iowa caucus. I saw the scream live. I laughed out loud. I found it funny. Should I flog myself until I fall in line?

[robcon]

34. I don't think Dean's demise was predictable

liberalmike27 wrote "Predictably, Dean's numbers dropped substantially, though some backlash was felt from an obvious media purposeful overplaying."

If Dean's collapse was so predictable, can anyone find ANYONE, ANYWHERE, IN ANY PUBLICATION who actually predicted it more than a month before Iowa?

I didn't think so.