debate/media bias

Someone counted Candy Crawley's (if that's how you spell her name) interruptions of Romney and Obama. She interrupted Mitt 28 times and Barrack 9. Barrack also had 3 more minutes than Romney. Bidden/Ryan wasn't any better. Some guy said the only time a Republican had more time in a debate was in Lincoln's time. Crawley also defended Obama on the terrorist act in Libya. Do any of you have any idea why this is allowed?



In spite of that Fox is reporting that Gallup's poll has Romney ahead 51% to 45%. The liberal media must be beside themselves trying to find a way to waylay Romney in the next debate.

That Gallup was released the day after the debate, so wouldn't those numbers NOT include thes econd debate?



i hope you didn't watch any of the ABC coverage following the debate. it was 15 minutes of Pro-Obama highlights and worship. There was a 2 minute fact check moment that was incorrect and had technical difficulties and it ended with a 2 minute GOP perspective that everyone laughed at and went back tot heir obama worship.



if it wasn't so terribly sad, I might laugh.

Through three debates, Romney/Ryan have been interrupted by the moderator something like 74 times and Obama/Biden about 28 times. Also, Obama/Biden have spoken an additional 8-12 minutes or so too.

Gallup's tracking through 16 OCT, which had Romney +6 (51-45) wouldn't have post-debate reflected. But Gallup through 17 OCT now has Romney +7 (52-45) which would begin to show post-debate opinions.

CougarClaw wrote:

That Gallup was released the day after the debate, so wouldn't those numbers NOT include thes econd debate?

The Gallup poll that has Romney up by 7% is a 7 day rolling average poll. So, most of the days of polling were done before the debate, at least one day after the debate. It has a margin of error of 2%.



Gallup polled 2,700 "likely" voters. More accurate than "registered" voters.



Gallup does not play with their polling - their have too much prestige and an honorable reputation. The fraudulent Obama re-election effort is beginning to collapse. Bueno!

I told a conservative talk show host about something that was bothering me about the second debate. I heard Rush bring it up a day later (not that I'm saying he got it from me). After the debate I watched the part about Libya again. Something seemed to bother me. It took me a few minutes because I was thinking to myself, "what an interesting coincidence that Candy just happened to have a copy of the transcript of Obama's Rose Garden speech. Then it dawned on me that before she started to correct Romney, Obama pointed towards her and started to rise and said "get the transcript". How did he know she had a copy of it? And now a week or so later as I digest the whole thing I find it interesting that Obama went first, quoted the "Rose Garden" script, Romeny then took issue, then was soundly put down by Candy, who then gave time back to Obama only to suggest they change the subject. It just looked too practiced to be that coincidental.

I hope the debate commission can be pressured to look into this and at the very least ban Candy from ever moderating any political debate in the future.

Imuakahuku, that is interesting. Why aren't the people of the U S given more neutral moderators? I've heard things like that's about all we can expect. Why? It seems like a few years ago they discovered that something like 80% of the people in the media voted democrat. How are we going to get an unbiased debate when they aggrandize these people by putting them in the moderator's chair?

nuk13 wrote:


It seems like a few years ago they discovered that something like 80% of the people in the media voted democrat. How are we going to get an unbiased debate when they aggrandize these people by putting them in the moderator's chair?

It's actually worse than what you posted. Several post election polls have been conducted to assess how Washington, "inside the beltway" reporters - voted (Democrat or Republican). Over 90% report voting Democrat. Un-biased? Not a chance.



I read another study that evaluated the voting patterns of reporters over the last 60 years. (I don't know how they collected their data) But, if only reporters had be allowed to vote, in every single election since WWII, not one single Republican President would have been elected in the past 60+ years. The media is stunningly biased. Not even close.