THIS TODAY: Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight: Media “cherry picks” polls to make Clinton look bad. (HRC)

[DeepModem Mom]

Look at the news headlines and you’ll see nothing but gloom and doom when it comes to Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers. But look directly at the poll numbers yourself and you’ll see that she’s still the frontrunner by a comfortable margin. I’ve come to the conclusion that the media cherry picks the outlier polls which make it appear Clinton is doing worse than she really is, because a closer race is better for ratings. Turns out I’m not imagining the discrepancy. Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, perhaps the most authoritative polling analyst in the nation, agrees with me.

The media has placed most of its polling focus on New Hampshire, with the excuse being that it’s an early primary state. But the real reason appears to be that it’s the one state out of fifty where Hillary Clinton is actually behind. Nevermind that Bernie Sanders is only winning in that state because he’s from neighboring Vermont and has long been extremely popular in the region; the press uses the New Hampshire numbers to paint a picture that Hillary is no longer the frontrunner.

And while the majority of state polls say that Hillary is winning in Iowa, the media has a habit of only reporting the poll which says Bernie is winning. Meanwhile there’s been no reporting on South Carolina polls at all, despite that state also being a key early-primary battleground, because Hillary is winning there by twenty-plus points.

But the bigger misdirection is the fact that the media keeps harping on single-state polls at all. Every national poll shows that Hillary Clinton is leading the democratic party primary by a comfortable margin nationwide. And while the media only focuses on polls which include a hypothetical Joe Biden candidacy that looks less likely by the day, the polling without Biden go unreported because they give Hillary a bigger lead.

So I was relieved to see Nate Silver, who has a knack for interpreting aggregated polling data and using it to predict results in remarkably accurate fashion, say this today: “it seems clear that the press cherry-picks bad polls for Clinton.” In other words, I’m not just imagining it. The media really is reporting on a different election than the one that’s actually taking place. More of Silver’s comments here....

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/nate-silver-of-fivethirtyeight-the-media-cherry-picks-polls-to-make-hillary-clinton-look-bad/22660/ via DailyNewsBin

[still_one]

1. it has been blatantly obvious especially since Biden is being included

even when he hasn't announced, and frankly at this stage he probably won't run. It is already October, and I wish Biden would stop picking up the attention he is craving and make a decision. In fact this indecisiveness reflects very poorly on him. Similar to his view that we shouldn't do the bin Laden raid without the Pakistan authority, also the way Anita Hill was treated during the Thomas hearings only as more reason he should step aside

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. It's been obvious since she officially announced. The attacks have been non-stop. Now the M$M seem

to be having a lovefest with Joe Biden, but as soon as he officially announces, they'll turn on him as well. I just keep remembering that despite the M$M's best efforts, she's still the frontrunner, and likely nominee.

[still_one]

5. That is correct

[riversedge]

3. 1+

[sufrommich]

4. The media election coverage is a ratings game and nothing more.nt

[DeepModem Mom]

6. You're right, and it's shameful! Trump gets practically non-stop coverage because he's a clown...

and coverage of Hillary is aimed at drawing in Hillary haters.