On the Newsweek Poll

[Annie]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12951_Newsweek_Poll-_Stacked

Links active at site:

Look at the makeup of Republicans vs. Democrats in Newsweek’s poll from September 11, 2004: NEWSWEEK POLL: Campaign 2004.

391 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
300 Democrats (plus or minus 7)
270 Independents (plus or minus 7)


Compare against the same data from the new poll, which Newsweek is using to claim that Bush’s poll lead has “evaporated:” NEWSWEEK POLL: First Presidential Debate.

345 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
364 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
278 Independents (plus or minus 7)


Did Newsweek choose a lower percentage of Republicans for the first debate to set up Kerry’s “comeback,” or did they stack the deck with more Democrats in the second poll?

(Hat tips to all who emailed about this.)

UPDATE at 10/2/04 6:54:49 pm:

The loons at Daily “Screw Them” Kos are watching this topic: LGFers moan about Newsweek poll.

by Charles at 05:52 PM PST

 

[Adam's Apple]

When you read a Newsweek poll, you know it's going to be liberal slanted to the extent possible. These statistics only prove it.

The only offense against the liberal-leaning media is for people to put in the time and effort to educate themselves on the issues. Watching the news for 30 minutes a day on NBC, CBS, or ABC is not going to do it, but sadly too many people think it will. If you don't think NCB, CBS and ABC are a liberal-leaning news cabal, why are Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw defending--instead of denouncing--Dan Rather on his Bush/National Guard story. The story is so full of holes only the moronic in good conscience would try to defend it.

 

[onedomino]

This is interesting information, thank you Kathianne.

It is deceitful for Newsweek to change the composition of the polls and then compare the results. Does such intentionally misleading behavior have a political or commercial agenda? If Newsweek supports Kerry, then the new poll result will encourage his supporters. Moreover, a “horserace” is more interesting and may sell more magazines than a poll result where one of the candidates is clearly ahead.

 

[eric]

Welcome Pat !

 

[Avatar4321]

What i think is interesting is there is an LA Times poll saying nothing has changed. Knowing the LA times and how they will try to make Bush look in the worst light possible, i am willing to think that if they had any way to show Bush wasnt ahead and the race tightened they would have. regardless im not terribly concerned.

 

[nakedemperor]

I don't understand HOW in the WORLD you're able to spin having more republicans in a poll, showing a huge lead for Bush/Cheney, is a liberal slant. "Setting up the comeback"? Hwa!?

 

[Annie]

I don't understand HOW in the WORLD you're able to spin having more republicans in a poll, showing a huge lead for Bush/Cheney, is a liberal slant. "Setting up the comeback"? Hwa!?

Either you are stupid or disingenuous.

 

[nakedemperor]

In the two polls you've given, there were 90 more Republicans in one, and 19 more Democrats in the 2nd. Two questions: do they actually know the political persuasion of the people being polled before they were chosen? If so, where is this documented? And second, why would the liberal slanters choose to use 90 more Republicans in the first poll? Were they trying to slant only the second poll? Why not both?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In the two polls you've given, there were 90 more Republicans in one, and 19 more Democrats in the 2nd. Two questions: do they actually know the political persuasion of the people being polled before they were chosen? If so, where is this documented? And second, why would the liberal slanters choose to use 90 more Republicans in the first poll? Were they trying to slant only the second poll? Why not both?

methodology aside, do you understand the logic of skewing in favor of bush initially so it appears to be a comeback? That's what you said you didn't get. Is that still confusing you?

 

[Annie]

In the two polls you've given, there were 90 more Republicans in one, and 19 more Democrats in the 2nd. Two questions: do they actually know the political persuasion of the people being polled before they were chosen? If so, where is this documented? And second, why would the liberal slanters choose to use 90 more Republicans in the first poll? Were they trying to slant only the second poll? Why not both?

If you cannot discern, don't you have a problem with?

 

[nakedemperor]

If you cannot discern, don't you have a problem with?

No, if you can't discern any wrongdoing, there's nothing to have a problem with. It seems like a pretty big reach to assign any intentional slanting to the methodology as presented.

 

[NATO AIR]

face it, no matter the polling, the media wants a close race. even fox :scratch:

 

[vision1]

The polls in general don't mean anything because when it is that close it can be 4 points in either direction and each of them is biased in one direction or the other. However, Kerry's debate victory had to have some impact on the polling. The appeal of the debates is to the undecided voters anyways since they are the ones that get to choose the president. Polling of undecided voters showed a clear swing to Kerry. So, in that context, the direction of the swing is probably accurate.

 

[Annie]

Have to go with the ease of tools. Kerry rules! Bush Sucks! How's that NE?

 

[nakedemperor]

Have to go with the ease of tools. Kerry rules! Bush Sucks! How's that NE?

I don't know what this means.