More Liberal-Controlled Media BS

So, does that mean that Michigan loses its vote in the Democratic nomination? I don't get how this works.

For all my understanding of current events, the whole Caucus vs. Primary and selecting delegates business totally (a) bores me and (b) eludes me.

Yes, a Dem vote in the Michigan primary is a worthless vote. That's why the kids over at the DailyKos were telling Dems to vote Romney.
But the obvious liberal-biased media LOVES liberal news and hates conservative news unless it's bad. They bash W. They ignored Romney. Ugh...
Do not worry; Romney has the money to buy out the news media if he decides he needs more publicity.:p kidding
Because he's a kook, he stands no chance to win and because the "liberal media" has already crowned their prince: Obama.


Well no, he's not a "kook". If the media let him take part in the Democratic process, perhaps more people would vote for him. The mythical liberal media has NOT crowned Obama, I'm not sure why you would say that.
there is no liberal media or should i say the media as a whole is not biased in favor of liberals
string said:
Because he's a kook, he stands no chance to win and because the "liberal media" has already crowned their prince: Obama
On issues, the "kook" is usually more in agreement with the majority of Americans than any other Dem - or Rep, except for Paul.

Most Americans are more - significantly more - left libertarian than their elected representatives (see stats from Political Compass and other surveys). Kucinich is more left (and a little libertarian), Paul more libertarian (and a little left), than the other candidates, which puts them both closer to the US middle ground on most issues.

That's neither of their images. But we all know where image comes from, these days, and how much reality is involved in it.

If media bias is on the table, the following interesting poll results are making surprisingly little noise in the media:

I think there's ammo in there, especially in a media that emphasizes the horse race and skims the issue conflicts as a matter of course.
Lessee: if we rank the Dems Left/Right, we get

Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards, Clinton, Obama.

Ranking Libertarian/Authoritarian, Kucinich might move up a notch, and Clinton trad places with Obama, but otherwise little change.

The exact reverse of their media favoritism, with Clinton and Obama essentially tied.

The Reps are jammed Right, it's Paul and everyone else (Huckabee might join Thompson in a category) but we can begin to separate them on a Libertarian/Authoritarian scale somewhat, getting

Paul, Giuliani, Thompson?, threeway tie so far, unless Romney gets stuck with his record as Governor.

Again, the reverse of the media favors as far as can be made out.

The media solidly favors the Right, and tends to favor the Authoritarian.
Whoops, I meant we aren't dependent on the media to tell us how to think, but if there is no media, how do we formulate an opinion on a candidate?
Kind of funny, that Sandy is bitching about Foxnews as being liberal. But he does have a point:

If you compare CNN and Foxnews websites about the Rep candidates, on CNN Romney is a clear leader having more delegates than the rest of the cream. On Fow he is only second to McCain expressed by some kind of strange poll.

Looks like Fox doesn't like the idea of Romney winning the nomination. Of course there is nothing liberal about it, and there is no such a thing as liberal media. The reason why Fox is pushing the news about Hillary because they are scared shitless that she would win the nomination and thus the election...

For String:

On the Rep's side the 5 states that brought their primaries forward, as a punishment they got their delegation numbers cut in half. On the Dem side they got completely cancelled, so they don't count at all.
It's OK to have a strategy for your vote. I voted in a Republican primary once, just to help screw up their race.