I'm always "amused" how the MSM cover poll results:

[PCIntern]

Republican lead by 6 pts or more: seemingly insurmountable lead

Republican lead by 2-6 pts: comfortably ahead

Republican lead by 1pt: ahead in the polls

Democratic lead by 6 or more points: ahead but tenuous, possibility of collapsing at any time

Democratic lead by 2-6 pts: tied because of margin of error

Democratic lead by 1pt: Losing.

Democratic/Republican Tie: Republican’s to lose

Every frigging cycle.

Oh…and btw, are you aware that if a Democrat is in the White House, Democrats are doomed to lose every election, including that for dog catcher in Manhattan, barring some miracle, but if Republicans are in the White House every election is a sign of the likelihood of them strengthening their electoral grip and a repudiation and rebuke of Democrats and liberalism.

[Coexist]

1. You are so right

I mean, right on the head, here

[Gaytano70]

2. Truth

[pwb]

3. Watching the same thing over and over again

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2024, 05:48 PM - Edit history (1)

and expecting a different result?

[JohnSJ]

4. Yup. The bias of most of the MSM should embarrass them, but it doesn't.

[Quanto Magnus]

59. Because all of the talking heads are rich also....

they are going to push a narrative that helps them and 'keeps viewers coming back'
and.....
they are more worried about VonShitsinpants than telling the truth

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Measures of Democratic support are more volatile

because the margins, those late or last to commit, are more emotional.

Begs the question, have Republicans ever been behind and won an election by a last minute emotional surge? I suppose there's 1980, but Reagan was playing to wavering Independents and Democrats.

[Johnny2X2X]

6. Hell, you get that here on DU

Just as soon as a poll is posted showing Harris +4 or +5, the same few posters get the bat signal to let everyone know that this is a "statisitical tie" because the results are within the margin of error.

[PCIntern]

7. And we know who they are!

[returnee]

48. Nothing wrong with considering the margin of error.

What we need are better conducted polls that have a smaller margin of error. I don’t trust polls at all. They are at best a snapshot of one moment in time by sometimes poor photographers in dim light.

[CaptainTruth]

51. And when Trump is +5 in FL for some reason they don't say that.

They're ready to give up everything in the state, including a close race against a Republican Senator who won by just 0.14%.

[Johnny2X2X]

53. Yup

And when Biden was down 3 or 4 to Trump, I didn't hear much about margin of error in the media.

These polls by themselves are just snapshots and are fallable, but I think looking at a group of polls together is useful as is examining trends. But to have people come running and yelling "statisitical tie, margin of error!!!" everytime seems odd and trollish.

Harris is probably up 3 or 4 nationally right now, enough to win the electoral college. She's up in WI, MI, and NV clearly. Up in PA, but it's closer. Barely up in AZ and probably tied in GA. Right now, she would win if the election were today, but we have a long way to go, keep working.

[MoonchildCA]

56. And no matter how many times the same poll shows the same lead,

…it’s still considered a “statiscal tie.” If it were really a statistical tie, wouldn’t it make sense that the results would reverse the other direction on occasion?

[Tesha]

8. How much, do you suppose...

Comes from management directly?
or comes from the slant of the people hired by management?

Is it fear of retaliation by the soldiers of the right?
or lawsuits by tfg?

Or is it huge corporations with their advertising budgets?

[unblock]

9. Media biased? Say it ain't so. Ever notice about scandals?

Scandals involving democrats are daily top stories, with media speculation about whether the can survive this scandals, questioning how they can be effective with this cloud over their head, which group of voters is no longer supporting them, etc.

Denials by the politician are scoffed at, ignored, or shouted over.

Sharks sensing blood in the water.

Scandals involving republicans are, with rare exceptions, reported on blithely, dismissed with a no one really cares attitude, ok it's newsworthy so we have to report it but hey found a poll saying republicans don't care so moving on, let's talk about the issues the republican cares about instead.

Just compare their treatment of Hillary and Donnie on handling classified information, it is staggering.

If there aren't dozens of articles a day about Donnie's 34 convictions and many more indictments and other legal issues, including his theft and poor storage and disclosures of blatantly marked classified information, how the hell can they justify their relentless trashing of Hillary over a zero-indictment, zero-conviction, non-crime involving using a private server for email just as the entire bush administration did?

Oh, he's also a rapist, fraudster, lousy businessman, and the most thoroughly documented liar in all of history, but hey let's talk about how confusing it is that Kamala is both black and Indian and how that's oh so confusing.


For a brief moment these last couple of weeks, the media has been almost reasonable. Maybe they're sensing Donnie has lost the plot to a point they can't cover for him anymore. Then again, it's a long time before November....

[Hugin]

18. Regarding your last point...

About how the MSM has seemed almost reasonable the last couple of weeks.

Keep in mind that these newsish sources see the results of the raw polls before they are “massaged” for consumption. ( a vision of wagyu beef just flashed through my mind )

Anyway, maybe they’re seeing something there?

[Kid Berwyn]

10. By Jove, I think Doc's got it!

“Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.”

Every damn time.

[IronLionZion]

11. "liberal" media

[iemanja]

12. That's not how they are covering Kamala

What they do is take results within the margin of error and declare them determinative. They do that on both sides.
I’m talking about print media here. I don’t watch the TV trash that so many live and breathe by. For those that do, I have to wonder why they so eagerly subsidize that which they hate. All throughout the Olympics, we saw endless posts about cable news. I think it’s sad.

[Zoomie1986]

45. Several of the print media are as biased and dishonest

As Fox.

You do know that, don't you?

[iemanja]

49. The right wing ones, sure

But enter Kamala poll in a search engine and you won’t see what the OP is describing, not by the majority of entries.

[Self Esteem]

13. This is funny considering the latest USA Today Florida poll is being covered as Harris within striking distance...

Despite being down five points in the poll.

In fact, I think the media has covered Harris' polling like a candidate who is up 5-8 points and not 1-2 like she is on average.

[PCIntern]

15. Yes...

Because the concept of her making a real race out of this sells clicks/papers. Particularly in Florida wherein Al Gore “lost” (yeah, right) by 500 and some votes. Florida, Florida, Florida.

[Self Esteem]

16. So your op is wrong.

[PCIntern]

19. No.

You can't pull one example of a trending movement and tell me that thirty years of observations are wrong. Actually, you can do that, but you'd be dead wrong to posit it as an argument.

[Self Esteem]

31. I mean, you haven't pulled one example lol

There is literally no example given in your post. It's all your assumptions of the media narrative every cycle.

[PCIntern]

34. Oh...I'm so sorry that I have not documented my post for your academically discerning eyes...

MY failing. I'm so very sorry that I have so deeply disappointed you so terribly and hope that you are able to get over it the best you can. After all, nearly every post on DU is footnoted and checked for accuracy by a team of experts, such as you in order to keep the veracity 100% here.

And do enjoy your stay here.

[Self Esteem]

37. lol

You're the one who dismissed my reply citing an example because it was only one example. I'm just pointing out that it's one more example than you provided.

Here's another:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/08/13/trump-vs-harris-2024-polls-harris-expands-lead-in-latest-survey/

The narrative is that Harris expands her lead over Trump (up three nationally).

Remember, this is what you said about polls where Democrats were up 2-6:

Democratic lead by 2-6 pts: tied because of margin of error

Harris leads by three, and the headline isn't that the race is tied but that Harris has expanded her lead.

[PCIntern]

62. Uh-huh...

Ok. I’m the only one on DU who’s heard this media bs, judging by the very few REC’S I’ve gotten here.

Who u kidding?

[Self Esteem]

64. DU is an echo chamber.

I'm not surprised you have a lot of support for your narrative. But recs isn't evidence lol

I've posted now two major sources that contradict your narrative.

Here's another:

Exclusive: Harris leads Trump 44% to 42% in US presidential race, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds

Two-point lead and framed as Harris leads - not that it's tied. Harris leads.

[Zoomie1986]

46. Fallacy of division

X has property P.
Ergo, all parts of X have this property P.

Or a more colloquial explanation:

All water is wet
Ergo, all of the elements of water are wet, too.

Except hydrogen and oxygen aren't wet...or not often. Same thing with the worthless American media. Overall, they are biased, dishonest and awful. Just because some journalists are not, or not always that way, doesn't change how awful the institution is in general.

[spooky3]

25. They quoted the poll RESEARCHER as saying it is "within striking distance" and also

within the margin of error (it was a small sample). That's not the same as the media's "covering" it in a biased way.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/08/13/kamala-harris-trump-florida-polls/74770114007/

The story also contrasted these results with DeSantis' 19 point margin not so long ago.

A lot of the coverage I've seen has emphasized improvement in poll results since Pres. Biden was the candidate. Maybe that's what you're reacting to, if not only to this one outlet's story.

[Self Esteem]

30. I think it's easy to find evidence to back up the claim by the OP.

After all, it happens so frequently.

[spooky3]

33. If that's true, why argue with him? Nt

[Zoomie1986]

47. Why are you arguing it?

I mean...if you want to go there.

[Emile]

14. That's our main stream media!

[Beartracks]

17. "Polls have a Dem ahead... FOR NOW."

I've seen that take a few times.

============

[spooky3]

26. Some have asked whether it's a "sugar high."

Gotta keep us on the edge of our seats...

[displacedvermoter]

20. Joe Biden poll numbers were always bad

Him trailing by a couple points in traditional blue states, these were always points he "can't make up'" because at "this point the numbers aren't moving"!

Regularly saw it repeated here, not just by Tapper, Tur, etc.

[PCIntern]

21. Ex-actly.

[Polly Hennessey]

22. When Dems are ahead it is always within the margin of error.

Always a qualifier when Dems are leading.

[AlexSFCA]

23. not a bad thing to keep dem voters motivated to vote

better than in 2016 when MSM convinced millions that Hillary would easily win so many dems did bother to vote while repubs were extremely motivated.

[Mme. Defarge]

24. You rest your case. . .

Opinion | It’s not just vibes. Harris is polling really well.
Her better-than-expected numbers are creating optimism, but Trump can still win. https://wapo.st/3M4kDZp

[Wednesdays]

27. Also, whenever a Repug wins, it's a "mandate"

No matter the margin of victory.

[PCIntern]

29. Yep...and a GROUNDSWELL OF SUPPORT

[crud]

36. when R's pass a bill in congress with one dem vote...

makes it a bipartisan bill. Dems in disarray...

[Cosmocat]

38. And when dems win

Time to bring the country together! Can Dems work with Republicans?

[robbob]

50. You beat me to it! Even if they win in a landslide

it’s time to “reach across the aisle” to “heal the country and bring us together”. Let me also add; when Republicans win, by the slimmest of margins, or even while losing the popular vote, they now have a “strong mandate” to push ahead with their draconian policies.

[tavernier]

28. And, no doubt, they think this hurts us psychologically

Where as we respond “No Way… Way!”

Sorry… I had to get Rump’s fantasy Putin conversation in there somehow.

[duncang]

32. Or the republicans should just get back to running on the economy.

When every time they’ve had control they ran it to the ground.

[Cosmocat]

35. True story

nm

[JustAnotherGen]

39. You are the biggest hammer

hitting the nail on the head!

[AZLD4Candidate]

40. Headlines that appear also give it away

If Republican wins, we get one of the following three, even if it's close election:

"Republican sweeps into office."
"What will the Republicans do first?"
"Republicans win and set standard for prolonged dominance."

If Democrat wins, we get one of the follow five, even if it's a blow:

"Democrat squeaks into office by razor thin margin."
"How will the Democrats work with Republicans?"
"Will Democrats be bipartisan?"
"Democrats win, but agenda achievements seem like a stretch."
"How will Republicans rebound to win next election cycle?

It's as though a Republican winning is the norm and the expected outcome while a Democrat winning is an aberration and a mistake.

[NCDem47]

43. beat me to it...

Republican win no matter the margin = Voters are sending a mandate they want Republican policies

Democratic win no matter the margin = Voters want bipartisanship/Dems better not overreach

[displacedvermoter]

52. Unfortunately Dems often go along with this need for "bipartisanship"

[ToxMarz]

41. I hate their little game of when a Democrat is ahead they IMMEDIALTELY say, "but that is within the margin of error".

When a Republican is ahead, they do the whole segement touting the numbers, then at the end, in a calm matter of fact style say "the margin of error for the poll was such and such" like the disclaimer at the end of pharmecutical commercials.

[FHRRK]

42. Years ago, Barbara Boxers last Senate run

And a story was teased in CBS I believe, that there are many close Senate races.

When they return from break the spent the entire segment reporting that Boxer was in trouble, this was a week prior to the election.

She had a 7 to 8 point lead in the polls, ended up winning by 10! WTF

[DownriverDem]

44. I just wish the voters

understood how our government works. If they put Harris in the White House with a MAGA House and Senate, how will that get anything done? The damage that the MAGAs are and will inflict on us will destroy us this time.

[Mad_Machine76]

54. In some ways

acting (or thinking) like we are behind is probably better for us than ahead so that we keep the energy and activity moving strongly until the end. The more Republicans think that they're losing, the more desperate and dirty they're going to get.

Not that I don't agree with the point of the article.

[PCIntern]

55. True. Complacency is our enemy.

[TheKentuckian]

57. While I hate the horse race maintenance techniques

There is some underlying truth here.

The Republicans have a baked in structural advantage in the Electoral College of on average 2.5 points, depending on how the votes are distributed it can be a little less or a bit more but we pretty much need to be up by at least 3 points to be even a tiny bit ahead in the EC.

Add in the margin of error and it isn't clear we are up until the lead is like 6 or 7 points with no thought about cheating and/or disenfranchisement.

It sucks but we exist somewhat behind the eight ball.

[PCIntern]

58. I'm talking about the State polls.

Not the national ones.

[czarjak]

60. More Americans have voted D since forever.

Cheating pays. Ask an R.

[Ligyron]

69. So very true.

When they add up the number of democrat votes vs Republican in total in House and Senate races there are always more democratic votes overall, and yet…

[H2O Man]

61. Perfectly said!

Recommended.

[Bev54]

63. Knowing that the dems have to win by a minimum of 5% just to eek out a win

is part of the problem. When they are winning by over 7% then they will consider it a lean left. The country has to find a way to get rid of the electoral college and make the senate representations according to population and stop the bloody gerrymandering and voter suppression then perhaps the elections will become fair.

[pansypoo53219]

65. still kissing raygun's dead as + trump is their rating god.

[Aussie105]

66. Not amusing at all. . .

It sets up a mental image of . . . Republican party is the norm, Democratic party is a temporary aberration.

Setting up such an expectation of what is 'normal' and what is not, does a lot of damage.

MSM is mostly a propaganda tool . . . go away and die!

MSM has reduced politics down to tribalism independent of party policy.

Republican = tough, American, hard working, predator breed, etc.
Democrat = soft centred, bleeding heart, sheep, prey breed.

And a lot don't want to go past that and do a serious comparison of policies, and judge which party is best for them and the country.

[liberal N proud]

67. But republicans are victimized by the media according to them

[Dem4life1970]

68. You are absolutely right! So frustrating...

...but it does help produce Republican overconfidence, so it does work to our advantage.