Let's compare the narrative between two different polls from two different elections.

[Drunken Irishman]

NBC just released its new poll that has Obama leading Romney 47-43. It's not a huge margin, but it's comfortable enough and shows that Romney is struggling to get out of the low-40s (his total in their last poll was also exactly 43%). But the way NBC has decided to frame this poll is pretty much illustrated in their headline:

NBC/WSJ poll: Obama, Romney locked in tight contest

Now, a headline like that, in my view, wants to set the tone early - it's a tight contest and we're not going to tell you who's leading! Obama's up four nationally but you wouldn't know it from the headline. In fact, just reading that headline, you would think the race was tied - or at least essentially tied.

It isn't, of course. 47-43 is not a tie. It's not a statistical tie. It's not even within the MOE anymore - which is +/- 3.1 for this poll. But, on the headline alone, it's already suggesting to you that it is tied. So, when you delve into the article, you're already under the assumption the race is tight with no clear leader. Then when you read the actual figure, 47-43 for Obama, your brain starts thinking that MUST be tight because, well gosh, the pollster told me so!

Now compare this to a headline from a poll done by NBC in Septemner, 2004:

NBC poll: Bush holds narrow lead

The headline directly tells you who's leading, though not by how much. So, going into the article, you're already under the impression Bush leads. In this poll, his lead was 3 points, so, one point less than Obama's currently. Not a dramatic difference, yet the headline doesn't say Bush, Kerry locked in tight contest, instead, it emphatically says Bush leads - even if narrowly. But the headline already is telling the reader that it doesn't matter the margin, overall Bush does hold a lead!

Now to even go further, instead of focusing on the fact Obama leads, the article starts out like this:

Despite a volatile and eventful past few weeks in the early presidential contest, President Barack Obama continues to hold a small – and slightly narrowing – lead over Mitt Romney, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

But given the public’s pessimism about the economy and the direction of the country, Romney finds himself well within striking distance in an election that has the potential to be as close as the 2004 race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry.

Hell, NBC, the public has been pessimistic about the economy for eight years now and it hasn't changed Obama's poll numbers all that much. In fact, in their last poll, he held a 49-43 lead, which was two-points better than his total now. That change, which all came from his supporters, suggesting Romney gained absolutely nothing in this poll, could have been statistical noise since, unlike the overall result, the change would prove to be within the MOE. It's entirely possible, though not reported, that Obama's narrowing lead was just noise brought on by that MOE and nothing more.

But the main paragraph of this article, which then goes on to quote a Democratic pollster who says Obama's chance at reelection is no better than 50-50% and that this is a dead even race (uh, no it's not - dead even is dead even), completely dismisses Obama's lead and props up Romney, even though, as I said, his numbers actually did not improve in this poll.

Let's compare that to the '04 poll between Bush & Kerry:

Less than six weeks before Election Day, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows President Bush with a lead over Democratic challenger John Kerry — but it's within the margin of error, and it's much smaller than some other recent post-GOP convention polls indicate.

Still, the survey has some troubling numbers for Kerry as he tries to close Bush's narrow lead: Female voters aren't flocking to the Massachusetts senator as they have to past Democratic candidates, and a solid majority of overall voters believes he doesn't have a message, or doesn't know what he would do if elected.

Okay, I'll give them credit, they mention the lead is narrow and smaller than other post-convention polls. They also say it's within the margin of error, so kudos there.

But the very next paragraph doesn't paint this as a dire picture for Bush, no, instead, the focus quickly turns to how Kerry is in trouble.

Not that there's anything wrong with that assessment, after all, he does trail in the poll. Any time a candidate trails, even if it's by just one point, there has to be some concern. So, pointing out why Kerry is trailing wasn't such a bad thing to do since that's what their polls show.

The remainder of the article goes on to point to why Kerry is trailing in the poll and why it could spell trouble. I won't rehash that and you can read it if you want, but at the very end you're given this little treat:

Troubling signs for Bush, too

There is one paragraph at the very end of the article on President Bush's troubles.

My problem is that we're looking at essentially the same basic polls and the entire article for both candidates are dramatically different. The focus of this year's article is on Obama's concerns - even though he leads. The focus of that '04 article was on Kerry's concerns - even though he trailed in their poll.

Instead of asking, after everything has happened, after locking up the Republican nomination, after two so-so jobs reports, WHY Romney can't seem to take control of this race, the focus is on why Obama should be in trouble.

Forget that he continues to hold a huge advantage among blacks (88-2), women (53-38) and slight leads among independents (44-36) and seniors (46-44), all numbers that point to a November election win, the narrative set in this poll is that Romney still can pull this one out.

If you're Romney's camp, you're not looking at this poll and resigning yourself to defeat. I understand that. But if you're looking at this poll, and NBC should have done this instead of focusing on Obama's troubles, there are some major, major concerns that could kill your reelection bid.

1) Obama's lead among women voters is strong. 53-38 is two-points better than the margin he won among women in '04.
2) Obama leads among seniors. McCain won the senior vote four years ago.
3) Obama leads among independents by an eight-point margin. Romney ain't gonna win without winning the independent vote. Obama won the independent vote in '08 by an eight-point margin.
4) Romney is on the low-end of 40% and he ain't rising. He needs to be at 45% or better to even have a chance in November.

That's what this article should have focused on...like it did in '04. They can point to what ifs and suggest the country might turn on Obama at any moment because of the economy (of course, they fail to mention that most economists now predict an upswing starting in May, which could considerably boost his numbers), but in the end, the facts are the facts - he leads Romney. It's not a huge lead, but it's also not as tight as they're saying.

So, it's interesting to see how NBC spins two similar poll numbers. Eight years ago, Bush held a narrow lead and there was trouble for Kerry. Today, the article suggests its tight and Obama is in trouble.

What a farce.