From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: The media will choose the next president
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:37:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.053549.10010@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.045808.13034@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.191236.2498@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep1.170051.29045@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>>>>What poll was this? The only poll you could get these numbers is a 
>>>>>poll of Republican delegates. And that poll means very little. 
>>>> 
>>>>  These were the responses from the groups they interviewed that night.
>>>>You would have expected their responses to be 20% more in favor of Clinton,
>>>>but instead they ran 75% Bush and 25% undecided.
>>> 
>>>    I've read several of your laughable articles arguing with laughable
>>>facts and reasoning.  Look, that Nightline show you have been referring to
>>>only had 10 or so people interviewed, a group of three or four fire fighters
>>>from Houston and another group of a few people from NJ. From there you have
>>>been drawing conclusion that "MAJORITY" will vote for BUSH, "MAJORITY" think
>>>they are better off than 4 years ago.  "MAJORITY" of what, "MAJORITY" of that
>>>10 or so people ?   Come on.  Show us you have a little more intelligence 
>>>than Dan Quyalee. 
>>
>>    I agree that the 'sample' was small, but don't you think that it was
>>awfully strange that not one person said that they would vote for Clinton,
>>especially one of the gung-ho Perot supporters from NJ when Perot
>>supporters in general were leaning 3 to 1 towards Clinton in the polls.  I
>>think people who are going to be on national television will put a lot more
>>thought into answering questions than people being polled over the phone.
>>    My main point was that the media's view of the state of the country
>>will be the deciding factor come November.  Like other posters have stated,
>>the media tends to focus on the negative whether it involves the President
>>or Congress.  Even though the economic numbers show that relative to other
>>times a LOT of people are hurting, it is a FACT that the majority of people
>>in this country are employed and living in a time of low interest rates and
>>low inflation.  If the media is able to convince enough of that majority
>>that tough economic times are ahead for them too, then Clinton will win.
> 
>      Open your eyes, we are in tough economic times !   It's understandable
>if you don't believe other people, but listen to Mr. Bush, who also agrees
>that "these are tough times". 

   Notice how long Bush took to say "these are tough times", and then only
for political purposes due to pressure from the media.

>>If they are not able to do that, then Bush will be re-elected.  Another
>>sad truth is that a smaller percentage of those who are hurting will
>>actually vote in November compared to those who are economically secure,
>>giving even more power to the majority.
>>   Now I don't think it takes a genius to understand this line of reasoning,
> 
>     No, even a genius will not understand that (un)reasoning.
>
>>but if you find it laughable - good for you.  If you don't believe that a
>>MAJORITY of people in this country are well employed (8% national
>^^^^^^^^^                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>      Really ?   A Ph.D in linqustics doing car sales ?  A worker who 
>used to make $14/hr. making $5 at the state fair ?  Freeze on inflation
>pay raise and cut in take home pay at OSU ?  (by the way, OSU is one 
>major employer in Columbus), an assistant music professor playing nights
>in the Flats ?  

   I think your views are a little skewed because you assume that life
centered around a university is a microcosm for the rest of the country.
There are people out there who ENJOY doing car sales.  A LOT of people
throughout the rest of the country are very satisfied with their jobs which
don't necessarily require a PhD.
   This brings up another point I have on the media.  ABC ran an hour
special a few months ago in which they interviewed people in their twenties
and thirties on how life was treating them.  They had one unemployed girl
who majored in english literature who was supposed to typify the unemployed
college graduate.  She complained on how something should be done so she
could get a job.  When are people going to learn that you are not entitled
to a job in the field of your choice just because you get the degree.  I
wanted to go into astronomy when I got out of high school, but several
college professors advised me against it because they said I would have a 1
in 100 shot at getting a job AFTER I got my PhD.  Now I could have gone
ahead, worked for a PhD, and then bitched and moaned because the government
was not doing enough to employ astronomers.  Instead I was realistic and
tried to go into a field which was not my primary choice, but was thought
to be in demand by society in the future.  Now a person has a right to
pursue a career in any field they wish, but they have to accept the fact
that they are taking a risk and live with that decision.
    It is well known that nursing is going to be a field in big demand over
the next few decades.  Graduating nurses are going to be getting great
starting salaries with tremendous benefits.  There are going to be more
slots available than people to fill them.  Why aren't more students
switching their major to nursing (or similiarly needed profession) instead
of pursuing a degree in a field which they know right now does not offer a
good chance of employment in the future?  Students are going to have to be
more realistic.

>>unemployment rate), then you need to go back to math 101.  {:^)
> 
>   Math 101 will be too complicated for someone whose analytical ability 
>is limited to that 92% is majority over 8%.  
>   And it is definitely too much for someone who determines 75% the MAJORITY
>support Bush and 25% uncommitted, from a Nightline interview of two particular
>groups of 10 or so people.  

   If you are suggesting that 51% of the people in this country are unhappy
with their jobs, then you are wrong.  There have been a number of recent
polls which indicate that about 75% of those who are employed are happy and
satisfied with their jobs.  The rest had various reasons for not liking
some aspect of their job (their boss was an idiot, the hours were bad, the
pay was lousy, etc.).

>   May I suggest some first grade critical reading ?  They may not use the
>term "critical reading " or "critical thinking" in first grade, but teachers
>always tell the pupils to think, didn't yours teach you so ?  

   I don't want to turn this into a flame war, but there is a big world out
there with a vast number of people in it who don't relate at all to life
around a university.  There are people out there who are hurting and need
to be helped, but it is not being callous to state that they are in the
minority.
-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, if (Bill Clinton and Al Gore) are moderates, I'm | These pontifications
a world champion speller." - Vice-President Dan Quayle  |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory