When it comes to the public information about the upcoming election, readers have opinions. First up:
After the revelations about the bias of the press, the polls have less meaning. I really hope Trump wins by a landslide to again prove how biased these polls are.
I’m not sure which press my reader is reading. My impression is that, until recently, the mainstream press, not just Fox News, has been groveling at Trump’s feet. (Actually, even Fox News has started barking, to their minor credit.) During the GOP primary it was widely known that the Trump campaign was spending relatively little money. From the far-right The Blaze (or possibly InsideGov.com, from a note on The Blaze story):
Total Spending: $71,087,144
June Spending: $7,800,248
Total Vote Count: 13,706,642Donald Trump’s campaign, half of which he financed himself, got a lot of bang for its buck. His financial efficiency may be attributed to the media, which gave him substantially more coverage than any other candidate.
(For those who are curious, he spent $5.19 per vote received during the primary, while John Kasich spent $4.57/vote to attain the (empty) title of most efficient GOP contender. Jeb Bush? $126.70. Poor old Lindsey? Oh, go look for yourself.)
The point being, if there was any bias during the early campaign, it was towards Trump. Now that we’ve transitioned into the general election and have watched the lies spew forth from Trump, I (like many others) argue that the general mainstream press is not biased towards either candidate, but is rather doing its job finally – calling out the candidates when they lie. If they have a bias, then the best bias they can have is to the truth. Facts on the ground. If Trump says he was never for the Iraq war, and the news organizations produce tapes of news shows where he’s for the war, then they should say as much, right to his face. Ditto with Clinton. According to the fact-checkers, she’s harder to catch on a lie – apparently she’s less likely to lie than Trump.
Another reader responds to the first:
What “revelations” about the bias of the press? You mean like the bias of Fox TV and virtually every talk radio show out there? Or maybe the bias of the entire Murdoch media empire?
And on the topic of polls another reader responds:
Why do the polls have less meaning?
And what recent election has proven that the polls are biased? 4 years ago the right was saying the polls were biased and Romney lost by what the polls said he was going to lose by. Get a grip man.
Insofar as the polls track the final results fairly closely, and especially the results of aggregators like FiveThirtyEight, I don’t think we’ll be seeing a landslide absent a black swan event. I expect Clinton is too professional to let that occur.
And one more comment in reaction to getting a grip …
On himself, not on the nearest female.
Hah!
