October 04, 2004

Bullshit Inc.Newsweek nonsense

When I heard that Kerry had surged ahead in the latest Newsweek poll, I called bullshit immeditately, even before I checked out the underlying numbers. This was due, in part, to the polling of registered voters instead of likely voters. Any pollster with an ounce of honesty(this would apparently preclude most modern day Democrats, with Pat Caddell as the major exception) knows that likely voters are a far more reliable sample population to use. Also, this isn't the first time that the magazine had tried similar shenanigans. Remember right after the Democrat convention in 2000 when Gore surged ahead of Bush? Newsweek put Gore on the cover the very next week with the following headline: Gore by 10! Not surprisingly, the Newsweek pollsters had sampled registered voters. Why? Let's not put a happy face on that one: the magazine was trying to create an aura of inevitability around Gore's campaign. It might have worked, too, except that Gore showed everyone how much of an asshole he really was during the debates.

Anyway, enough with the history lesson. Powerline has the goods on Newsweek's latest attempt to put a happy face on the Kerry campaign. Excerpt:

UPDATE: Reader Meg Kreikemeier points out that according to RealClearPolitics, Newsweek's most recent poll included 345 Republicans, 364 Democrats and 278 independents. This compares to Newsweek's published data for their most recent prior poll, which showed President Bush with a comfortable lead: 391 Republicans,
300 Democrats and 270 independents. Yes, if you drop 46 Republicans and add 64 Democrats, you will get considerably better results for the Democratic nominee. This is a good reminder of why poll data always need to be taken with a grain of salt, especially until you see the underlying data.

We all knew that the MSM would be trumpeting "The Kerry Surge!™" in the event that the junior senator from Massachusetts managed to close the gap at all. I'm almost glad that I'll be back at work from maternity leave so that I won't have to watch Katie Couric and Matt Lauer ask questions such as this one:

"Is there any way that President Bush can climb up out of this hole, or is Kerry simply too far ahead now?"

Count on it.

Update: For the record, the first debate was a "must have" for Kerry. If he had tanked, the election would have been over. Democrats, as a party, head for the hills when their candidate looks like he's losing. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and landslides ensue. All Kerry's performance did was to crystalize his base. Any Bush voters that are despairing out there should get smacked across the face. Hard. Ace has more. Excerpt:

Before anyone goes all to pieces, though, bear in mind that Bush's lead was just as ephemeral and soft as Kerry's momentum is at the moment. I think Kerry did himself some real good -- good that won't dissipate, and increased support that will remain permanent -- but that's only a fraction of the current shift of support.

Bush was up, then Kerry, then Bush, now Kerry (sort of). Voter sentiment does seem to be pretty volatile, and votes seem to swing according to whoever's getting the best press of the week. The winner might just be the man who has the last good news before the election.

Or the man who makes the next-to-last-mistake.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 01:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 568 words, total size 4 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
18kb generated in CPU 0.0152, elapsed 0.0878 seconds.
89 queries taking 0.0779 seconds, 231 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.