DU this! CNN runs slanted poll and pimps Bush over Kerry

[SoCalDemocrat]

DU members. Help write letters to CNN complaining about their slanted polling and obvious bias in their reporting. Try to get your editorials published somewhere people can read them.

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form6.html?1

Here is the slant piece:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.poll/index.html

"In this poll, 36 percent of those interviewed after the debate said they were Republican and 32 percent each said they were Democrats or independents."

There's our first problem. Statistically in the past two elections, we have more Democrats than Republicans. Even today by conservative estimates, there are at least 4% more Democrats than Republicans. Also at this late stage the number of undecided voters remaining is far less than 10%, yet CNN managed to cobble together an audience with 32% Independent and 32% Democrat vs 36% Republican.

So we have an 8% or more bias towards Republican, and a large bias towards uninformed independent voters. Now to the spin.


SPIN: Bush is more believable

"Of those polled, 50 percent said Bush was more believable and 45 percent said they were more likely to believe Kerry."

Take away an 8% built in Republican polling bias and this would of been a Kerry win, even with all the independents.



SPIN: Bush would handle Iraq better than Kerry

"On Iraq, 54 percent of debate watchers polled before Thursday's night's matchup said Bush would handle Iraq better than Kerry.
Did the debate change many minds? Not according to the poll.
After the debate, the same percentage of those interviewed -- 54 -- said Bush would be better on Iraq than Kerry."

Same faulty polling premise, which by the way is a Gallup trademark. Oversample Republicans by at least 8%. Put these numbers where they belong and you'll end up with Kerry ahead of Bush.


SPIN: Bush has a double digit lead on Kerry

"By contrast, the last CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, taken September 24-26, had 53 percent of all registered voters choosing Bush, 42 percent preferring Kerry and 3 percent favoring Nader."

Inexplicably, CNN decides to pimp their slanted and already discredited (by me in another thread) poll from Sept 24-26. No one else has Bush ahead in double digits except the biased Gallup poll. They had Bush beating Gore in 2000 by a double digit margin as well at the same point in time before those elections.


SPIN: Bush will win because Gallup predicits it.

"Four years ago, a plurality of debate watchers thought Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had done a better job than Bush in the first debate.
But when the dust settled Bush was the one who picked up a few points in the horse race.
Gallup has asked the question about who did a better job in the debate in five previous elections, and in four of them the candidate who "won" the first debate did not win the election in November."

The CNN conclusion is by far the most sickening. Due to their spinning, they biased the results against Gore in 2000. Now they brag they will do it again in 2004, and imply Kerry will lose even though he won this debate because Gallup says so 4 out of 5 times.

[SoCalDemocrat]

1. My letter to the editor

"In this poll, 36 percent of those interviewed after the debate said they were Republican and 32 percent each said they were Democrats or independents."

Here is our first problem. Statistically in the past two elections, we have more Democrats than Republicans. Even today by conservative estimates, there are at least 4% more Democrats than Republicans. Also at this late stage the number of undecided voters remaining is far less than 10%, yet CNN managed to cobble together an audience with 32% Independent and 32% Democrat vs 36% Republican.

You have an 8% or more bias towards Republicans, and a large bias towards uninformed independent voters. Now to the spin.


SPIN: Bush is more believable

"Of those polled, 50 percent said Bush was more believable and 45 percent said they were more likely to believe Kerry."

Take away an 8% built in Republican polling bias and this would of been a Kerry win, even with all the independents.



SPIN: Bush would handle Iraq better than Kerry

"On Iraq, 54 percent of debate watchers polled before Thursday's night's matchup said Bush would handle Iraq better than Kerry.
Did the debate change many minds? Not according to the poll.
After the debate, the same percentage of those interviewed -- 54 -- said Bush would be better on Iraq than Kerry."

Same faulty polling premise, which by the way is a Gallup trademark. Oversample Republicans by at least 8%. Put these numbers where they belong and you'll end up with Kerry ahead of Bush.


SPIN: Bush has a double digit lead on Kerry

"By contrast, the last CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, taken September 24-26, had 53 percent of all registered voters choosing Bush, 42 percent preferring Kerry and 3 percent favoring Nader."

Inexplicably, CNN decides to pimp their slanted and already discredited (by me in another thread) poll from Sept 24-26. No one else has Bush ahead in double digits except the biased Gallup poll. They had Bush beating Gore in 2000 by a double digit margin as well at the same point in time before those elections.


SPIN: Bush will win because Gallup predicits it.

"Four years ago, a plurality of debate watchers thought Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had done a better job than Bush in the first debate.
But when the dust settled Bush was the one who picked up a few points in the horse race.
Gallup has asked the question about who did a better job in the debate in five previous elections, and in four of them the candidate who "won" the first debate did not win the election in November."

Your conclusion is by far the most disturbing. Due to the spinning in 2000, Gore subsequently dropped in the polls even though he won the initial debate. Now you brag this will happen again in 2004, and imply Kerry will lose even though he won this debate because Gallup has predicted this 4 out of 5 times before. You should be ashamed to call yourself a news agency.

[SoCalDemocrat]

2. Question their margin of error

Even using their own margin of error, they cannot difinitively make statements about Bush over Kerry when their candiate only polled at 54%. That is true even if we accept their faulty polling techniques.

I hope other DU members will bring this to CNN's attention, as well as other points I may have missed.

[SoCalDemocrat]

6. I sent a copy to MoveOn.org

MoveOn recently ran a full page ad in the NY Times that tore into Gallup over their bogus polling methodology. I sent them a copy. Hopefully they can do an editorial update, or maybe add an addendum to their ad's.

[KharmaTrain]

3. CNN Got Almost None Of My Viewing Time

And that's incredible since I still have my copy of the CNN debate where they inserted John Anderson between Carter & Raygun in '80. Until 2001 CNN played on my TV virtually 24/7, but now it's just passing glances, like Faux...and usually ends when I hear another GOOP talking point coming out. They lost a 20 plus year viewer and I don't miss them one bit...there's so much more I use to fill the void these days.

That said, Aaron Brown seemed stressed to say good things about Bunnypants, but did nonetheless...attempting to maintain this false impression that fewer and fewer people have that this boy is a leader and in command of the issues. Spin it all you want, CNNservative, but it was very obvious tonight that Bunnypants is a little boy in a big boy's game.

Speaking of CNN...I've noticed I haven't seen Rushbo's beard, Daryn Kagan lately...usually she's on in the morning, but I haven't seen her in a couple weeks.

[Frances]

4. I wrote and said

that I'd registered 10 new voters today (in a 2 hour period). All said they planned to vote and 9 registered as Dems.

Any polling weighting should take into account all of the new Dem registrations plus the fact that everyone thinks we will have a huge turnout on election day which favors the Dems.

This is not your typical election.

[SoCalDemocrat]

9. Thanks! DU needs more like you

We need to DU this poll and its slanted results! I'm tired, I'm going to bed...

[SoCalDemocrat]

5. Attack the believability claim

Poll: Kerry tops Bush in debate
But Bush gets nod for believability, toughness

"Of those polled, 50 percent said Bush was more believable and 45 percent said they were more likely to believe Kerry."

Attack their claim. Their own margin of error states it is 5%. They oversample Republicans by 8%, load up on independents, and then have the audacity to claim Bush is more believable!

Don't let them get away with this lie. Their own data indicates it's statistically even. Their shitty report should say Bush an Kerry were judged to be equally believable. That is not a "nod" for Bush.

I wish we had laws governing how polling was conducted. Gallup/USA Today/CNN needs to be taken out back into the woodshed and beaten.

[izzie]

7. Bush's base will go any place with this man. They have faith.

You can not turn on the TV or radio and not hear these people. We may have been a country that came out of the people who believed in the Enlightenment but it does not mean all the people think like that. This blind faith for this man is not an easy mountain to climb.

[shockingelk]

8. here's a chart

Polls in general just aren't accurate sometimes. But they do show a trend towards Kerry, and can describe trends - trends aren't predictions, but observations.

I think the reasons many polls are getting wacky numbers is because of the ABB phenomenon. Someone who decided to vote against Bush three years ago and doesn't have the stomach to "follow the campaign" may get eliminated from LV. Also ABB voters who say their support for Kerry is "weak". They'll still vote.

I think FOX and Zogby are the closest to right.

More of my hypothesis my theory: http://fearofclowns.com/2004/09/likely-voters-flawed-methodologies-and.html

[SoCalDemocrat]

10. Nice chart, but how about an editorial

How about sending an editorial to the editor? You know this polling approach is biased.

[shockingelk]

11. Thanks

I just accept that polls can be quite off.

And on the whole, most all will be in Kerry territory if the general trend of the last two weeks.

I don't like it when right-wingers complain about polls, so I try to not complain.

[SoCalDemocrat]

12. Blitzer/CNN at it again this morning

They are pimping for Bush again.

Blitzer claims that the win for Kerry in the debate doesn't mean anything. They cite their biased poll and say he's likely to slip after the debate anyway.

Even worse, CNN reporters painted "one candidate was Presidential last night, the other was off message" or something to that effect. Then they said "we're not going to tell you which was which, you'll have to watch the debate and decide for yourself!"

Whoa there! So for the vast majority who didn't see it, they can just infer what they want about the debates.

Another CNN reporter concluded her airtime coverage by saying, "CNN wants to remind you that these results don't mean anything and are likely to change over the next two days!" Can CNN be any more partisan? They're worse than Fox today!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

14. "They're worse than Fox today!"

That's the idea at CNN these days, isn't it? There's little mystery about the fact that CNN wants to cultivate a new niche for itself, farther to the right than Fox.

[genius]

13. Didn't Kerry get 70 or 80% on the CNN poll last night?

Shows their normal polls are full of it.

[SoCalDemocrat]

15. This is their CNN/USA Today/Gallup phone polling

Not the online vote. They barely if ever mention those. This morning in fact CNN slammed their own online poll and made clear they were not referring to those results.

It's important that we ATTACK THIS POLL.

All the CNN news anchors are now running with this story, using this slanted piece as the basis of their attacks on John Kerry and last nights debates. Most are not even trying to hide their partisanship.

[SoCalDemocrat]

16. DUers don't grow complacent

We need to push hard and fire salvo's at the media for the next 24 to 48 hours.