Rasmussen's Odd Gary Johnson Coverage

A few months ago I noticed that the Rasmussen polling firm, which seems to represent the Republican establishment, is covering the presidential race in a peculiar way.  It asks prospective voters whether they will support Romney, Obama, or some other candidate.  The firm thereby marginalizes Gary Johnson, who is on the ballot in all 50 states  and threatens Romney, who is running neck and neck with Obama.  

Today, Rasmussen released special poll data that finds that, while 16% of voters like Gary Johnson, 20% don't; two percent consider him very favorably, but eight percent consider him very unfavorably.  Rasmussen links to the actual questions asked about Johnson, which are as follows:
 

1) If the Presidential Election were held today, would you vote for Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barack Obama or Libertarian Gary Johnson?

2) Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of Gary Johnson?

What's odd is that in their analysis of their findings the Rasmussen people don't reveal what the percentage answers were to question one.  Elsewhere, they continue to reveal that four percent would vote for "some other candidate," but they don't say what percent answered "Gary Johnson" to question one.  Here is what they write:


>Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states but is largely unknown to the nation’s voters. 

>A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 16% of Likely U.S. Voters have a favorable opinion of Johnson while 20% offer an unfavorable view. Only one-out-of-10 have a strong opinion of him: Two percent (2%) have a Very Favorable view of Johnson while eight percent (8%) have a Very Unfavorable one. (To see survey question wording, click here.) 

The important questions concern Johnson's percentage and the extent to which he diminishes Romney's chance.  For some reason Rasmussen sidesteps giving the answer.   Given that  today (August 25) Obama is beating Romney by one or two points and has been since Ryan's nomination, that would seem to be an important question for the Republicans.  

Since the Republicans are the second of two big-government parties, and Americans, a nation of squealing rats on a sinking ship, are happy with their choices--squealers-in-chief Romney and Obama--I am getting my life boat in order.  Besides voting for Johnson, I am looking into buying real estate in Chile or Uruguay and am going down there for a first look this winter.  I have been told that the Bush family already owns a huge parcel in Uruguay.

Ron Paul and Barack Obama Neck and Neck

Despite the  legacy media's pro-Barack Obama and -Mitt Romney bias, and its exclusion of Ron Paul, Rasmussen reports that if an election were held today Paul would poll 37% to Obama's 41% (h/t Mike Marnell).  Several other Republicans also poll close to Obama, but the only one who currently beats him is Romney (43% Romney versus 42% Obama).  Chris Christie does almost as well as Paul (37% Christie to 44% Obama).  Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is not included in the Rasmussen poll.

It is not surprising that the legacy media excludes a viable candidate like Paul from coverage because (a) announcers like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are ignorant knuckleheads who do not know why Paul opposes the Fed and (b) Paul's opposition to the Fed's existence would harm O'Reilly's, Hannity's, Chris Matthew's employers, who benefit from the Fed at public expense. 

In addition, Rasmussen notes in its daily presidential tracking poll that Obama's numbers are weaker than ever despite the legacy media's incessant advocacy in his favor. Rasmussen writes:

For the first time since March, Strong Disapproval of the president has been at 40% or above for seven straight days. On Saturday, consumer confidence fell again, reaching another new two-year low. Investor confidence also fell to the lowest level since December 2009.  Most voters fear that any deal on the debt ceiling debate will raise taxes too much and cut spending too little.  As the negotiations continue, most also are unhappy with both the Republicans and the Democrats in Washington.

Astonishingly, Romney does and Paul does not defeat Obama in a hypothetical race. It remains a puzzle to me why the American public, which has, for the past 40 years, seen the worst economic performance in the nation's history, continues to vote for Republicrat Progressives like Obama and Romney, who have been sucking them dry financially.  Americans are voting for their own economic demise. Paul would shake things up and make life miserable for crony socialists who have been extracting wealth from the public for decades in the name of helping the little guy, starting with George Soros and his fellow thieves on Wall and Broad.

Obama's Waning Popularity Suggests Legacy Media's Waning Influence

Rasmussen's daily presidential tracking poll indicates that President Obama is vulnerable to a Republican bid. According to Friday's poll, 46% of the public at least somewhat approve of Obama's performance while 53% at least somewhat disapprove.  A minority has consistently strongly opposed him.  The difference been those who strongly disapprove of Obama and those who strongly approve has been negative for some time and the difference is currently a whopping 19% (40% strongly disapprove and just over half, 21%, strongly approve).  But independent voters are the question.  If 51%  at least somewhat approve then Obama will likely win against a Republican.  In my own case, I am not certain that I would vote for a generic Republican like Mitt Romney or Michele Bachmann; rather, I would vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Obama's weak to modest poll results fly in the face of incredible residual pro-Obama bias in the legacy media. Obama's policies have completely failed. His money printing, the stimulus, and his preposterous health reform act have failed to restore economic growth and have failed to capture the public's support. A majority of the public continues to disapprove of the ill-conceived health reform act. Nevertheless, the legacy media continues to put a positive spin on his performance and continues to distort economic events surrounding the bailout, the activities of the Federal Reserve Bank, the refusal of Congress to expose the Fed to an audit, and the massive mal-investment that has characterized the American eoconomy for decades and that is slowly leading to an economic and political collapse.

Obama's mess is much bigger than Bush's, but the legacy media says otherwise. Common sense and the bare unemployment statistic expose the legacy media's lies to simple falsification.  Obama's numbers, then, suggest the legacy media's continuing but waning influence.  If Obama's policies, which have failed worse than Bush's, were exposed to the same media spin that Bush's were, Obama's strong approval rating would like be at 4%. That they are at 21% suggests that a good portion of the public is committed to the legacy media's pro-Wall Street and pro-big government ideology. That an additional 25% somewhat approves of Obama shows that, though waning, the pro-Wall Street media still influences many Americans.  But their numbers are getting thinner. In the 1940s, the  pro-Wall Street media was able to manipulate 60.8% to support Roosevelt's failed New Deal; today, the number taking the legacy media's side is significantly less, about 46%.