Majority of Americans see through press bias

You’ve got to hand it to American voters.  They REALLY don’t trust the press.  They also know that our mainstream media is totally in the tank for Obama.  From Rasmussen:

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Not only that, but very few seem to think the press is trying to promote a McCain candidacy.  And only about a quarter of voters think there is no bias at all:

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

 These numbers only get worse for Obama when you break them down along party lines.  As might be expected an overwhelming number of Republicans see biased media coverage.  They’ve been singing that tune for years.  What is bad for Obama is that large numbers of Independents also feel like the media is in the tank for Obama.  Even Democrats who think the press coverage of Obama is biased outnumber those who think they are biased towards McCain.

Twenty-seven percent (27%) (of Democrats) believe most reporters are trying to help Obama and 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help McCain. …As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain. (emphasis mine)

Slightly less than half (45%) believe that reporters would actually lie to protect a candidate they support, and 50% say that they are trying to make the economy seem worse than it really is (which woud presumably help an Obama candidacy). 

There are other disturbing trends for the Obamaphiles (although you wouldn’t know it from the glowing press coverage–guess the people surveyed above aren’t as “low information” as the elitist OFB would have us beleive).  Obama continues to slip in the daily presidential tracking poll.  In fact he is at his lowest since Hillary dropped out.  I guess without her to kick around anymore, people are actually forced to take a closer look at him.  Obots have been telling us that Obama’s latest slide to the right is just his way of pandering to a broader electorate–he’s just a politician after all–but the polls indicate that’s not working out so well for him. 

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Barack Obama attracting 42% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. That’s the lowest level of support measured for Obama since he clinched the Democratic Presidential nomination on June 3.

Obama has never polled above 50%.  Not only that, people find Obama less likeable the more they get to know him.  His favorables have been dropping steadily, while McCains remain about the same.  Even more troubling is his favorable rating among Democrats:

McCain is currently supported by 86% of Republicans and holds a modest–four percentage point—lead among unaffiliated voters. Obama earns the vote from 77% of Democrats

Could that 23% be disaffected PUMAs?  It tends to match earlier polling suggesting about that number of Democrats will not support the presumptuous nominee.  That Obama is behind among independent voters should be a wake up call to SD’s that actually want to win the white house.  Not gonna happen without them.  It also shows that what Riverdaughter has said before, that “Republicans fall in line”, is essentially true.   Even though they are not completely satisfied with McCain, and given the alternative to vote for Bob Barr, close to 90% have fallen into place behind their candidate. Obama also trails McCain on just about every issue, including the economy, Iraq and national security.

The strategy of turning red states blue is also looking like a high risk gamble.  I think it would have been safer to try to win big prize states like Ohio and Florida, which Obama has essentially written off.  He thinks he’ll replace them with VA, NC, NM, and NV.  In all of these  states he is either behind or virtually tied—and given their historical tendencies I would certainly give the tie to McCain at this point in the race.

Finally, Obama would have us red-staters believe that he’s as American as apple pie, born, raised, er, um his grandparents were from Kansas.  I guess Kansans don’t take much stock in that, and I don’t think that even Sebelius can change his dismal poll numbers there:

:Republican presidential candidate John McCain leads Obama 52% to 32% in the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Kansas voters.

But Obama won the Kansas caucuses, didn’t he?  I’m so glad that they had such an influential role in our primary….

Oh and superdelegates, if you want proof that Clinton would be the better candidate, look no further than right here:

McCain fares better against Obama than he does against two other prominent Democrats. New York Senator Hillary Clinton leads McCain by eight points, 50% to 42%. Former Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, leads McCain 50% to 43%.

Electorally she has a much better outlook than Obama as well.   She would easily take Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  And even as he touts his “50 state strategy” I recall that in the last NC poll that included Hillary, she actually came closer to beating McCain than he did.  So c’mon Super D’s, stop listening to the media (they’re liars) and start listening to the American people–we’re the ones who’s votes you need.

***UPDATE*** The New York Times proves Americans are right about media bias: from Fox News:

The New York Times last week blocked an opinion piece submitted by John McCain to the newspaper shortly after it printed a piece by his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, McCain campaign officials confirmed to FOX News on Monday.

Obama’s piece detailed his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan. While McCain’s proposed piece also discussed Iraq, The Times told McCain’s advisers that it would not accept the op-ed in its current form because it did not offer new information. Obama’s speech previewed a series of speeches leading up to a highly publicized trip to war zones in the Middle East.

What a pathetic joke our press is.  First they were complicit in taking this country to war with Iraq, now they think they’re going to decide this election for us.  FAT CHANCE!!!!  I say Boycott the NYTimes!!!