Voters dragged to vote Obama

I just found this study on media bias in this campaign – from October 2007

here’s the graph on the tone of the stories:

Some findings:

  • Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.
  • Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.

some numbers

Obama: 47% positive, 16% negative.
Clinton: 27% positive, 38% negative.
McCain: 12% positive, 48% negative
Giuliani: 28% positive, 37% negative
JEDNE

Net numbers

Obama +31
Giuliani -9
Clinton -11
McCain -36

And how did that affect the race?

The findings about who got the most favorable coverage and the focus on horse race in many ways reinforce each other. Obama, the first candidate of color to be a major White House contender, performed better in polling and fundraising than expected in these early months. McCain, in contrast, was a former presumed front runner who fared far worse in the polls and in fundraising than anticipated.

It seems to me in retrospect, some unseen hands areΒ  pushing Obama on us by hook or by crook.

The bright side – in spite of this, more voters voted for Hillary (not that it mattered to DNC) and McCain got the nomination anyway.

Can we count on a voter rebellion in November?