From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: The media will choose the next president
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 05:35:49 GMT

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". 
 

>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 ?  

>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.  

   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 ?  

>
>-- 
>Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
>NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
>of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    

 
Joe