The way the NYT released results for 7 state polls is a perfect example of pro-Warren media bias

[highplainsdem]

Last edited Fri Nov 8, 2019, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

Siena/NYT polled in 7 battleground states late last month, both for the Democratic primary and for the GE, and the findings for all 7 states overwhelmingly favored Joe Biden.

But the NYT chose to release the Iowa primary poll results first, and that got overwhelming media coverage, because it showed Warren in first place, followed by Sanders, Buttigieg, and Biden clear back in 4th.

OMG. Cue all the Biden haters in the media and online! His campaign was doooooooomed!!!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287330698

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/iowa-poll-warren-biden.html

They did release results of the GE matchups a few days later and those were much more favorable for Biden, with him doing better than Warren against Trump.


But then they waited until today to release the primary results for the other 6 states.

Which showed Warren narrowly ahead in only 1 state -- Wisconsin, where she leads Biden by 2 points -- while Biden was ahead in the other 5 states by much wider margins:


https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287339562

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/democrats-poll-moderates-battleground.html


The headline for the story about those 6 polls was, understandably, Democrats in Battleground States Prefer Moderate Nominee, Poll Shows.

That would also have been an accurate headline if they'd released all 7 state polls at the same time.

But that wouldn't have given the NYT their "OMG look at Warren surging and Biden failing!" narrative last week that the media seem so fond of.


Maybe -- MAYBE -- the media will give this poll showing Biden's advantage in the other states equal attention.

But I'm skeptical that they will, because it doesn't fit their pro-Warren narrative.


_________


Editing to link to a thread a month ago about Nate Silver tweeting that polls showing Biden doing well get less media attention:

Nate Silver: Count on media ignoring Fox News WI/SC polls since they don't match media narrative
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287301251


And another thread about this, also from last month:

538 staff discussion of media coverage being biased for Warren, esp coverage of polls
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287306100

[tblue37]

1. Their bias is for a horserace, so they need it to be close. nt

[blm]

2. Charles Pierce disagrees with your assessment.

He sees Warren being targeted with smears against her character. You know, like the ones some even post here in their daily quest to discredit her.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29727262/elizabeth-warren-angry-antagonistic-harvard-elitism/

[beastie boy]

3. I doubt very much NYT cares for Warren.

Bashing Biden is just a headline grabber, for now. If Warren ever becomes an established front-runner, all the NYT dirt will be on her.

[UncleNoel]

4. Good point, nice summary!!

[BeyondGeography]

5. Awesome "analysis"

Tell Mike Bloomberg he has nothing to worry about. The moderate lane is in safe hands.

Now I will return to the endless stream of pro-Warren media spin on her MFA plan.

Note: Iowa numbers matter more at this point because that’s where the campaign is and voter attention is highest.

[highplainsdem]

12. See the edited OP linked to what Nate Silver has said about the bias.

[BeyondGeography]

14. Nate Silver has had his knickers in a twist ever since Warren rose in the polls

He specializes in talking up Biden and talking down her chances.

[Demsrule86]

21. He doesn't like polls that have favorites and ignore or tamper with the sample size and massage data

in order to make it look like Warren is the front runner...I doubt she is the front runner...

[zaj]

6. Hmmm... I get it, but...

1) There is hardly a pro-Warren narrative in the media. In fact, there is a "why is Biden struggling" narrative. Which isn't baseless.

2) Iowa is the first state and will impact the overall narrative. Remember Obama wasn't a real contender until he won Iowa.

3) The national polls don't predict the national winner without a huge margin of victory, because of electoral college and gerrymandering

So, that's my "but".

[Demsrule86]

22. But there is a pro-Warren narrative...why do you suppose the Wisconsin poll was put out first and

the other mid western polls were withheld? The only poll that shows her in the lead was shared first...and the Biden is struggling is IMHO bullshit...the media is finding it rough going to destroy Biden which is what they and some pollsters are attempting.

[still_one]

7. I don't think it is pro-Warren bias, but rather the media's attempt

to stir things up, to generate a horse race and hopefully readership

What The NY Times did to Hillary was a disgrace

I have no doubt they were will stir similar things toward Warren or any of our candidates when the opportunity presents itself

[blm]

10. It has, many times. Charles Pierce just wrote about it.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29727262/elizabeth-warren-angry-antagonistic-harvard-elitism/

[still_one]

18. Appreciate that blm. and I am not surprised

[Bradshaw3]

8. Getting into tin foil hat territory now

It's not enough to bash Warren everyday, now the suppsedly biased media is part of the big conspiracy against Joe. Up to 15 posts in less than threee weeks taking shots at anyone who doesn't fawn over Joe.

[highplainsdem]

13. See the edited OP for links to what Nate Silver has said about the bias.

[Bradshaw3]

41. Nate Silver has been showing his bias

[Demsrule86]

23. There are 4 to 5 OP bashing Biden everyday as you must know...

[mopinko]

9. your beefs seems to rest on a shaky assumption.

your beef seems to be that the polls were released in a staggered fashion, instead of all at once.

do you have any evidence that this was a conscious act?
anything but releasing them the minute they are available would be an aberration in the news business as i understand it. i have a vague recollection that releases are part of the contracting for these sort of thing.
i have no inside knowledge. but if you do, please share.

your desired scenario requires them to hold the single poll for a day, so either way, you need to explain how you know this is even possible.

[Demsrule86]

16. No of course just a happy accident. They are in the tank for warren but cant really

hide the truth.

[thesquanderer]

19. Mopinko is right. These were different polls, done over different time periods.

The Iowa poll was not done at the same time as the 6-state poll. OP wrongly seems to be assuming they were all part of the same poll.

[Demsrule86]

28. You miss the point...one of the six state polls was released early...shows Warren winning by two

points well within the margin of error...the five other polls showing Biden leading in some cases by double digits were released later...now why was this the case? Some pollsters favor Warren and poll accordingly IMHO...in this case releasing a partial result favoring Warren. In the same group of polls respondents said they preferred a moderate as well and has any media talked about this? I haven't heard anyone do so. I would argue the polls favoring Biden (five) by double digits in many cases bolsters my belief that Warren will not win the EC in the states we need. I don't disagree that she wins the popular vote but what does that matter? As always, I wish to make it clear, I will work hard to elect Warren and of course vote for her should she win the primary.

[thesquanderer]

40. No, that's incorrect. As I said, Iowa was one poll. The 6-state poll was done at a DIFFERENT time...

...and included Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. NOT Iowa.

The info from all 6 states of the 6-state poll was released simultaneously. The Iowa poll was a different poll done at a different time, which explains why it was not released at the same time.

Folks, read the links, check the facts, and put the tin-foil hats back in the closet. It wasn't a conspiracy.

[Demsrule86]

24. It was done...the others were released later so...

[demmiblue]

11. Pro-Warren narrative... lol!

[highplainsdem]

15. Nate Silver and the 538 staff see it, too. See the edited OP.

[jcgoldie]

17. "pro-Warren narrative"

nonsense.

[Demsrule86]

25. Sorry completely accurate but it is still not working which shows Biden's strength...what does it

say about Warren? Not sure...I would think with all this help she would be the clear front runner by now...

[jcgoldie]

26. No clue your the expert on this...

Maybe it has something to do with the Midwest?!? I wouldn't know I'm from Illinois.

[Demsrule86]

29. Illinois is unlike WI, MI and PA...I also lived in Illinois. In fact, I was born at Great Lakes.

Both parents were in the military. My Dad grew up in Chicago and the burbs...lived in Oak Park and when I was really little Maywood...My Mom worked as a nurse at Elmhurst Hospital for a time.

I am merely a humble DUer expressing an opinion...unlike some who feel the need to insult posters they disagree with rather than discussing an issue (not you I am sure).

I am a veteran in terms of working Midwestern elections in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio...but of course will bow to your expertise on this as you live in Illinois and all. Thanks for the reply!

[jcgoldie]

31. ....

"what does it say about Warren? Not sure...I would think with all this help she would be the clear front runner by now.."

Sorry to interrupt your clearly sincere and "humble" discussion of the issue.

[Demsrule86]

35. That is perfectly fine...I await with anticipation your learned opinion on this matter...it helps

so much. Thanks in advance!

[Scurrilous]

20. K&R

[Hoyt]

27. I'm not much on media bias -- except with FOX and similar -- but people would have griped had the

results been released in another fashion/order favoring another candidate.

[Demsrule86]

30. How about they get released at the same time...no reason why six of the six polls were not released

at the same time...and not just the one showing Warren ahead by two (within the margin of error). I suppose it is meaningless that all other polls showed a substantial lead for Biden.

[Hoyt]

33. I just don't think there is always a nefarious reason for way things happen. Iowa and NH occur the

soonest, and have generally been of interest over the years.

Besides, Warren will fizzle in time.

[Demsrule86]

36. I would add that all of this favors Warren wouldn't you think a result based on chance would show

some variation?

[Demsrule86]

37. I think the fizzle may have begun...I don't consider Iowa essential to any candidate...I say this

even if Biden should win Iowa which could happen.

[erpowers]

32. Horserace Reporting

Putting out the polls at different times is likely more about horserace reporting than a bias for Elizabeth Warren. Pointing out that Warren is leading in Iowa gives the news media more to talk about than if they pointed out that Joe Biden was leading in six of seven states. Saying that Joe Biden is leading in six of seven states makes it seem that Joe Biden is still the frontrunner. Saying Elizabeth Warren is leading in Iowa makes it seem like there is a new frontrunner. That allows the news media to present stories on what Joe Biden has to do in order to actually win the nomination. Those stories might not work as well if Joe Biden is seen as being the frontrunner.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. It's funny how when Bernie says this stuff he's "just like trump" and people jabber about...

... CONSPIRACIES!1! OMERGOD!1!

[Demsrule86]

38. I have never said that...I believe Bernie is firmly in second place...and the media has their finger

on the scale here too.