Charles Pierce: The WSJ/NBC deliberately excluded #2 Warren from poll match-ups

[pnwmom]

FOR NO GOOD REASON.

Lawrence O'Donnell at MSNBC was the only one who came off well in this debacle, because he refused to report on the poll with Warren not included.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a31001210/elizabeth-warren-nbc-news-poll-left-out/

On Tuesday night, Senator Professor Warren was the victim of one of the the most egregious offenses ever committed by a major news organization. In conjunction with the Wall Street Journal, the fine hand of which I suspect was involved in what follows, NBC News released its latest polling data. The general overall numbers were pretty much as expected, except Bernie Sanders’s lead had grown. Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, and SPW were in a virtual dead-heat for second. National polling in a primary campaign can be dismissed as largely irrelevant, but the railbirds among political journalists make a big deal out of them, so we talk about them like they really mean something. However, it was elsewhere in the polling where the real malignant mischief was done.

The poll also asked respondents for their preferences in head-to-head matches with the president*, and head-to-head matches with each other. (This latter seemed hinky in a multi-player field but, what the hell, For Amusement Purposes Only, as the parlay cards used to say.) Mark Murray, NBC’s political majordomo, tweeted out the results on Wednesday afternoon. I read them, up and down, about four times before I had convinced myself of the astonishing fact that SPW, ranked in a statistical tie for second in NBC’s own national poll, did not even appear in these one-on-one surveys. Joe Biden, who has finished out of the money everywhere he’s run, and who is in the middle of his third consecutive landfill of a presidential campaign, was included. Amy Klobuchar was included. SPW was nowhere to be found.

SNIP

The poll, from NBC and the Wall Street Journal, found Warren was effectively tied for second place nationally, with 14% of the vote. But pollsters excluded her from a series of match-ups between Trump and top candidates. The poll include Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and Mike Bloomberg, who all polled within a point of Warren, and Amy Klobuchar, who trailed significantly behind them. Peter Hart, whose firm conducted the poll, told BuzzFeed News that the poll had “space and time” for just five candidate match-ups.

In other words, they didn’t include SPW because they didn’t want to. In other words, this poll and its subsequent publication make up a staggering act of deliberate journalistic malpractice, and anyone who continues to cite it needs to be demoted to night rewrite for a spell. And it is interesting to note that neither of the two news organizations behind the poll chose to comment on the BuzzFeed story. Sometimes, my business really sucks pondwater. (Lawrence O’Donnell refused to use the poll on his MSNBC show Tuesday night specifically because of SPW’s exclusion. Fair play to him for that.) Of course, SPW has dedicated her entire public career to fighting against the distortions in our lives and our politics by the people for whom the WSJ serves the same function as The Daily Racing Form, So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

[Kitchari]

1. This is an outrage

There is no excuse for this

[FiveGoodMen]

14. No, but there's an explanation

[MoonlitKnight]

2. And O'Donnell's show has the Amy's picture

Instead of Warren.

[DemocracyMouse]

18. And the Amy doesn't even do well in a head to head with the Conman.

Warren is too smart, too genuine, too caring for the United States. But she's a fighter and maybe this polling omission will get her in the spotlight (in a positive light)

[mcar]

3. They had "space and time" for just 5 matchups

Sure, they did.

[still_one]

6. That sounds like Judy Miller's excuse why they didn't print the entire facts about the alleged WMDs

when she was interviewed by Jon Stewart

[still_one]

4. Shame on them. There was a poll released today from ChangeResearch for SC, which included Bloomberg

1. Bloomberg isn't on the ballot
2. write-ins are not counted

This was reported in The Hill

This kind of crap has got to stop

Yes, Bloomberg needs to be vetted tonight by the other candidates, but I would argue that so does Sanders. For the most part the other candidates and media have given him a free ride. That sure won't happen if he gets the nomination in the general election

[DemocracyMouse]

20. Sanders is for the people, not the monopolies... make sure they vet that!

[still_one]

34. A stump speech isn't enough, and his interview with the NY Daily News is not impressive at all

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306%3foutputType=amp

Regardless, this thread is about excluding Warren from a poll, which is outrageous

Interesting your response is similar to the response Sanders gives to most questions, his stump speech

For his 35 plus years in Congress, he has very little to show for it

[2naSalit]

5. Unacceptable....nt

[Faux pas]

7. Kickin' with disgust!

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Sometimes we have to be reminded that TV networks are owned by giant profit making corporations

We know how that manifests at FOX News but slightly more subtle "editing decisions" and "editorial guidance" can be a factor anywhere where concentrated wealth might be threatened.

[Cal Carpenter]

9. That's fucked up

[MerryBlooms]

10. Have any of the hosts mentioned this deliberate malfunction today?

[eleny]

11. memo to wsj/nbc...

she has my primary vote come super tuesday.

[Volaris]

21. I actually think shes going to do better on Super Tuesday than many expect.

[grantcart]

22. I hope so

[xxqqqzme]

26. I mailed

my primary vote for her yesterday.

[redqueen]

12. K&R nt

[Mike 03]

13. Kick for visibility.

[yardwork]

15. This is outrageous

[Hekate]

16. KICK THE MFERS Thanks , Chaz Pierce

[renate]

17. the Des Moines Register poll wasn't released, even with a caveat, because Buttigieg wasn't included

And that gave the newspaper and Mediacom a serious black eye, and messed up CNN's programming, but they did the right thing despite the consequences.

This was just... stupid? Brazen?

Good for Lawrence! And shame on NBC and the WSJ.

[meow2u3]

19. K&R for exposure of outrageous journalistic malpractice

[rickyhall]

24. Senator Warren scares the Wall St. rich bastards to death. Good.

[burrowowl]

25. The Nation had an

article on the erasure of Elizabeth Warren, it’s blatant the M$M is ignoring her!

[whathehell]

27. She.threatens corporate interests

like Bernie.

[Ninga]

28. I look to Sen Warren to fight for the mic tonight. She knows Bloomberg will draw curiosity

seekers tonight and it’s her chance to wow them.

[BigOleDummy]

29. Ms. Warren...

...is nothing if not a fighter. Maybe this will be the goad she needs to really start swinging and jabbing again. I've often wondered why you hear about EVERYONE but her to be entirely honest. Maybe we just found out.

[dchill]

30. Unbelievable!

[ahlnord]

31. Why erase Elizabeth Warren?

Corporate America would obviously like to diminish her support, but I am suspicious that Bloomberg paid off the WSJ to eliminate Warren. The same way he got on a recent poll for South Carolina when he isn't even on that ballot? And the way he is paying folks $2500 a month to tweet and post favorable comments on social media. His money opens doors and he uses it ruthlessly.

[pnwmom]

35. Same reason they erased Hillary last time. Remember the TONS of free publicity

they gave Trump?

Now they're preferring the male candidates over both of the women still in the race -- Warren and Klobuchar.

[eissa]

32. Of course those corporate fascists hate Warren

She's the only candidate who makes them cry -- not even joking here, just google "Warren billionaire cries."

And thanks to their shitty blacking out of EW, I just donated to her campaign again. Fuckers

[blm]

36. 👍🏼

[Hermit-The-Prog]

33. Low-life, scheming, scum-sucking trumper parasites.

[liberalla]

37. This really pisses me off.

It feels like they've been undermining her for a while and I'm disgusted.
She's in my top 3 and after this I hope they treat her fairly!

[robbedvoter]

38. To help Burnie, who feels entitled to her voters

They want to force her out. Think of this question

Link to tweet