CBS News / NY Times Poll: Bush Opens Lead Over Kerry 50% - 41%

[Almost_there]

I am sorry to post this, I saw what happened in the last thread with the Gallup poll, the poster was murdered for the message. Let this poll die, let the thread disappear, I am just posting the news. I KNOW this gap can be overcome, stay on MESSAGE, VOLUNTEER! Get the phones ringing! Hand out leaflets, register people to vote, there is still PLENTY of time.

~Almost

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/17/opinion/polls/main644205.shtml

[demoman123]

1. This is a wake up call.

People didn't want to hear the first one--the Gallup poll. Maybe they'll pay attention now instead of staying in denial. To solve a problem, you have to first admit that there is one.

Congrats on your willingness to post this bad news, despite the flame potential.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demoman123]

5. Go pick on someone else.

[Almost_there]

13. I don't get it...

I don't understand why someone with bad news is automatically declared a freeper. Seriously. I am NOT going to bury my head in the sand. I want to know WHY these polls are happening, and WHAT TO DO about it!

Damnit, don't you understand?? The COUNTRY sees these! Not just Freepers, Drudgies, whatever. Get a grip! We MUST GET OUT AND GET HEARD!!!! Shunning a poll because you don't like it, or embracing one because you love it is absolutely ridiculous.

But, you MUST know that there is an issue with this race. 50-41 is beyond the MOE, and we must get people out there on message.

~Almost

[LisaL]

16. Maybe you should ask a question

why these polls that give Bush leads continue to sample more democrats than republicans?
"PARTY IDENTIFICATION
In most CBS News Polls, Democrats outnumber Republicans among registered voters. Personal identification with a party can change (temporarily or permanently) with events and voting preferences. In many states voters do not register with a party, and individual identification is a matter of choice. In this poll, where the Republicans hold a significant lead in voter preference and more voters hold negative views about Democratic nominee John Kerry, when voters are asked about their partisan identification at the end of the questionnaire, more identify themselves as Republicans. 36 percent say they are Republican, 32 percent Democrats. The percentage that identifies themselves as Democrats in this poll is lower than it has been in CBS News Polls conducted earlier in the year."
Aren't there more democrats than republicans, and aren't democrats register more new voters than republicans? Then why in the world do these polls have more republicans than democrats? Of course Bush would get a lead that way, if they asked only republicans, he would have even bigger lead.

[lancdem]

38. I just recalibrated this poll to match 2000 turnout

Guess what? Bush's lead is less than 2 points.

[americanstranger]

80. Bogus. Bogus, bogus, bogus.

Repubs haven't been above 35% in the past three elections, and there have always been more Dems. Read this:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002806.html

According to John Zogby himself:

If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.

So the Democrats have been 39% of the voting populace in both 1996 and 2000, and the GOP has not been higher than 35% in either of those elections. Yet Gallup trumpets a poll that used a sample that shows a GOP bias of 40% amongst likely voters and 38% amongst registered voters, with a Democratic portion of the sample down to levels they haven’t been at since a strong three-way race in 1992?

Folks, unless Karl Rove can discourage the Democratic base into staying home in droves and gets the GOP to come out of the woodwork, there is no way in hell that these or any other Gallup Poll is to be taken seriously.

How likely is it that the Democrats will suffer a seven-point difference against the GOP this November or that the GOP will ever hit 40%?

Not very likely.

Now read this:

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/ny-nybres163973220sep16,0,3539138.column?coll=ny-ny-columnists

Any editors of newspapers or television news shows who use poll results as a story are beyond gullible. On behalf of the public they profess to serve, they are indolent salesmen of falsehoods.

This is because these political polls are done by telephone. Land-line telephones, as your house phone is called.

The telephone polls do not include cellular phones. There are almost 169 million cell phones being used in America today - 168,900,019 as of Sept. 15, according to the cell phone institute in Washington.

There is no way to poll cell phone users, so it isn't done.

Not one cell phone user has received a call on their cell phone asking them how they plan to vote as of today.

I ain't buying this one. They're gaming the poll to give Bush an aura of inevitability. I suggest you take a deep breath and start ignoring obviously biased polls.

-as

PS: The CEO of Gallup is a Bush donor.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/16/212615/645

I suggest you keep a grain of salt handy when reading Gallup's stuff.

[glitch]

111. "..unless Karl Rove can discourage the Democratic base into staying home

in droves" this is his big campaign plan - hopefully he'll rely on it and not resort to another l/mihop.

[Just Me]

132. Observation: polls are galvanizing rather than discouraging,...

,...people,...right now.

I have never, ever seen the level of energy and enthusiasm and determination by people who are totally new to the political process.

They view "polls" as just another propaganda tool,...a healthy perspective!!! Moreover, they are on a mission to prove that polls fail to reflect reality.

It's quite inspiring!

The new motto is "Polls Are Propaganda!!! Fight for Freedom from Polls!!!"

[schultzee]

89. I don't trust American Pravada's polls anymore than I trust Bush.

[question everything]

115. Read Al Hunt's analysis of why there are more Republicans in the poll

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x74047

[EthanAllenVt]

14. I like smoke and lightning

Heavy metal thunder. I, like you, think that CBS is jacking up the poll.

[lancdem]

4. Gallup oversampled Repubs

[sonicx]

7. see post 6. nt

[LisaL]

10. Again, this thing samples more republicans

PARTY IDENTIFICATION
In most CBS News Polls, Democrats outnumber Republicans among registered voters. Personal identification with a party can change (temporarily or permanently) with events and voting preferences. In many states voters do not register with a party, and individual identification is a matter of choice. In this poll, where the Republicans hold a significant lead in voter preference and more voters hold negative views about Democratic nominee John Kerry, when voters are asked about their partisan identification at the end of the questionnaire, more identify themselves as Republicans. 36 percent say they are Republican, 32 percent Democrats. The percentage that identifies themselves as Democrats in this poll is lower than it has been in CBS News Polls conducted earlier in the year.

[dandy22]

42. Polls don't sample Democrats or Republicans

There's a fundamental misconception here (as well as freeper boards) that polls or surveysr "sample" by party, with each side claiming that when there are favorable poll results it's because the other side was "oversampled." This is simply not true. First of all, there is not data base from which to sample people based on their political affiliation. I work as as a project directory for a survey research company (and a proud liberal). Samples for studies that require fair national or local representation use a method called Random Digit Dial which basically takes an area code and exchange (first six numbers) and randomly generates the last four. Samples are drawn into porportion to the population of a state, so, for example, IL (my proudly blue as a smurf state) has more sample records than Iowa or Maryland. It's just a simple telephone number, there are no demograhpics, no personal information attached to it. Nada. The party affiliation question is asked in the survey. When there are larger representations of either party it is a fluke. You draw another RDD sample and the opposite may result.

[maryallen]

54. Not necessarily so ...

About a year ago, Zogby was looking for volunteers for polling. A lot of us here signed up -- I did, in fact. Initially, you had to fill out demographic information -- party affiliation, name, sex, race, etc. -- and you were advised that you would be e-mailed with an invitation to participate in various polls.

In the last month, I've been invited to participate -- and did -- in two polls. Both of the polls queried selections for president and both followed with the same demographic infomation -- party affiliation, etc.

I don't know how Zogby uses this information, but it is conceivable that he uses it for sampling purposes. I do know that Zogby was the most credible polllster in the last election -- the only one who caught Gore's momentum on the final day preceding the vote.

I have taken several statistics courses and I do know that a polls' results are only as reliable as its sample. As an aside: None of my professors thought much of political polling, particular those done for media sensationalism and propaganda purposes.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

63. You must work for a fair and balanced research group...

...but we're not talking about that in this thread.

[dandy22]

72. Hmm, I disagree, I must work for Fox.

Let's not brush along the side of Ad Hominem debating, OK? And yes, my department (I can't speak for the company), is fair and balanced because it's the right thing to do. We do a substantial amount of work for government agencies filled with liberal wonks. The Consumer Product Safety Commision, the FDA, USDA, and CDC. We've conducted studies about fire safety, infant feeding and nutrition, pregnant women's awareness of the need for folic acid, food safety, health and diet awareness, dietary supplemants, food allergies, precription drug advertising's effects on physicians and consumers. We do RDD work for all of these studies. And, RDD is the required methodology for these studies because the feds are beholden to all of the U.S., not just the "haves and the have mores," at least for now, before the anti-christ takes over.

My understanding about Zogby's political polling is that it is internet-based. Only about 55% of U.S. households can access the internet, so nearly half are left out of polling. This biases sample toward a more educated group, informed group, which is, more often than not, Democrats.

[dandy22]

74. Another note about Zogby

Eeek! There most recent Zogby poll on 9/8 has the anti-christ over Kerry by a few points.

[maryallen]

84. And what percentage of Americans use cell phones?

No pollsters call cell phones because there are no directories.
Most young people have cell phones and nothing else. Some families -- usually in the lower socio-economic strata -- have only cell phones because they're cheaper. And many Americans have no phones at all -- particularly poorer Democratic ones.

Additionally, how many homes have answering machines? How many screen their phone calls in other ways?

Bottom line:
Most serious researchers know that phone polls are not terribly scientific because control -- balancing the sample -- is fleeting due to the many variables that influence elections.

[Almost_there]

94. How do cell phones affect a polls outcome?

I've seen the "cell phone" debate tossed around a bit, and I am still baffled by it. Much as most people work from roughly 9 to 5, and don't answer their home phones, so what if people don't have a landline? I currently have 3 landlines and a cell phone, and not one of them has ever rung with a pollster. (Unless they chatted with the fax machine... I hope they used protection, dirty bastards!)

I would guess that the questions of "are you employed?", "are you a Democrat?" "are you a republican"? etc are rotated (as is indicated on complete polling data, the computer screen in front of them rotates the questions to try and beat down any deviance by asking "are you voting for X" before "are you voting for Y", it switches them up, giving equal time as the first asked etc)

So, back to the cell phone thing. I would guess it would only matter that cell phone owners aren't called if and only if a disproportionate number of "cell phone only" people are Dems instead of Repubs or vice versa, right? If there are say 1,000,000 Dems with ONLY cell phones, and only 20,000 Repubs with ONLY cell phones, it would make a difference, but, I doubt that is the case.

This is totally my opinion, but, I just don't see how the cell phone only thing is really relevant to a polls outcome, unless again it is statistically significant. I think we can all agree that a RELATIVELY accurate poll can be gathered by polling about 1,000 people, to get an MOE of roughly 3.5%. So, considering there are what? 209,000,000 people of voting age, and they can get to within 4% by sampling 1,000 of those 209 million, or about .000047846% (I may have screwed the decimal, sorry) of the population, I just can't see the number of cell phone only users having an impact.

~Almost

[Andromeda]

130. Most 18-24 yr. olds use cell phones.

Kerry has a large following in this age group. Cell phones are not called by pollsters -- only land line phones are.

Land line phones do not include this group of voters so the sample is tainted.

The only way to get accurate polling is to use various methods and average them out. That is not done in most of these polls.

Cell phones, I believe, are not called possibly because they are illegal, so there is a huge, huge group of people out there not being contacted for these polls we are hearing about. That makes the polling process faulty and fraudulent.

Only 50% of Americans voted in the last election so there is a sleeping giant in this country highly motivated to getting rid of George W. Bush. People who are being polled now and people who have NEVER been polled, myself included, will show up at precincts all over the country ready to cast their vote for John Kerry.

[Norquist Nemesis]

76. A question about the RDD

I understand what you're saying about the randomness.

I, too, live in Illinois in DuPage County. If your RDD is 630-355-#### that is an area heavily populated by Republicans. So picking an area code and exchange does, in fact, have a demographic attached to it does it not?

[dandy22]

83. Question about RDD

Technically (theoretically), anything goes depending on where you live. Your location would be chosen on the basis of population density for the county. That means that it's proportionate sampling, which means that when sample is pulled for DuPage Cty., it's likely to be Republican because repubs are more prevalent. When sample is pulled for Cook County it's not likely to be Republican. If it's Chicago's shore, north of the loop up to Evanston, the sample will be more tilted to Democrats because it's who lives there. The idea behind RDD is that no area regardless of it's financial or political persuasions is left behind. The randomness of the sample insures that it represents. Even "private" or "anonymous" numbers are not exempt. A random alogrithm is just as likely to create their last 4 digits within an exchange as anyone else's.

[Norquist Nemesis]

87. So, since it's likely R or D,

how is that factored in? If an area is known to be more R when a sample is pulled, is another sample pulled that is known to be more D?

I guess I'm having trouble understanding the method in which samples are pulled in order to ensure balance.

[daleo]

85. True, the sample may be random

But it may be re-weighted to one's heart's content. For example, in SPSS it is a simple procedure to re-weight a dataset, so that certain records are given more importance than others, in this case records that have an "R" in the political party affiliation field.

I suspect that if there is monkeying around in the polls, it is by re-weighting the sample in this matter, until the desired result is achieved - i.e. a Bush lead in the poll. Then, a little obfuscatory paragraph when the poll is released, to downplay the re-weighting, and bingo, Bush is good to go.

[Nicholas_J]

88. If you check the polls

And they got responses from 400 REpublicans and 300 Democrats, that is oversampling the REpublicans. In fact all they are doing with the data to get the percentages is a simply percentage, with no adjustment for the greater number of Republicans polled. When you look at the complete information, you will see that they polled about ten percent more Republican than Democrats, and the resulting percentage is simply figured by taking a percentage of the total number of people they polled. In that case you are simply going to get a larger margin for Bush because about 90 percent of the Republicans are going for Bush, which skews the percentages in the REpublican favor. IN thois poll they actually polled more independents than Democract but since only about 60 percent of the Independents lean towards Kerry, this does not make up for the fact that if equal numbers of Democrats were polled you would get about 88 percent of then voting for Kerry,so the polls would reflect a closer balamce. When you look ar the ARG or Harris polls you see and almost equal number of Democrats and Republican and these are the polls that are reflecting a one or two point differnce witheither Kerry or Bush leading. Check the methodology of these polls and then look at the numbers of people polled by party.There are several post here that show the actual numbers of the respondants by party, and in all ogf the Gallop polls a considerable number more Repubicans were polled than Democrats. When you do the math, you notice that no adjustments were made for this difference whatsoever.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

62. I am constantly amazed by the willingness of some folks on DU to....

...trust polls conducted by the captive mainstream media.

This is the SAME media that absolutely blasted Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton during Clinton's two terms in office, as well as Al Gore prior to the 2000 election. They have continued to blast Democrats and prop up the failed FratBoy dictatorship since the Coup of December 2000.

Congrats to you on your willingness, and the willingness of others, to be constantly duped by the press.

Amazing.

[glitch]

112. Indeed - I nominate this post for the front page. nt

[Greyhawk]

116. Carville

Look, it's fine to distrust Gallup. Their polls are consistently wide swinging and prone to all kinds of subtle wordplay to change the results...

However, Carville and Begala aren't saying Kerry is ahead. In the press they've got him behind.. That's not a bad strategy to get people mobilized to vote and double the effort the last days...

It's also possible they think we ARE behind and are trying to not appear like the hacks from the right: "my guy's gonna win... the polls are wrong..." like the nut jobs that thought Dole was closing the gap with Clinton in '96...

Either way, we need to remind people about the job losses, the pessimistic view of the country (going the wrong way is higher than the right way). That helps us.

[Lerkfish]

97. it DOES get posted, in the LBN forum by others...

the difference is in the tone of your postings...when we post it, its because we're reporting the news, and balancing it against other poll results...something someone with a rational balanced interest would do
However...when you two guys post it, it smacks of a reverse agenda, because you don't balance it with other polls, because you act as if its gospel-accurate (no polls are), and because you keep demanding we "do something" about the polls, which of course, we can't.
Further, you attempt to use it as a bludgeon against us (You're in denial, you can't handle bad news...etc.) If you are truly concerned, please post a more balanced view instead of flamebait, stop acting like a victim when people disagree with you or offer balancing information, or outline what you suggest we do, instead of hauling a sack of woe and dumping at our feet and then ordering us to pick it up.

What is your intention here in doing so? We're adults and can handle balanced debate. What you have been doing is neither balanced nor debate. It's a proclamation of doom and an indictment. You have pitted yourself in the "me versus all of you" category, not us.

and IMHO, of course.

mods: please allow this stand as I'm explaining WHY there is negative responses to their posts, thank you.

[Almost_there]

104. We're adults and can handle debate? That's debateable

I will try and be succint in addressing the points of your post.

1) The "tone" of my postings - I was unaware that providing a link to a poll with the caveat of "I KNOW this gap can be overcome, stay on MESSAGE, VOLUNTEER! Get the phones ringing! Hand out leaflets, register people to vote, there is still PLENTY of time." seemed to me to be solid enough evidence that I "KNOW" (as I stated earlier) that this is not over until Nov 3rd. You're "pooh poohing" of this as "negative" is simply absurd (imho). How can I put a positive spin on this? How can I spin it to be sunny and bright? I am simply stating a FACT that a poll (albeit possibly biased) was released. I did everything I could aside from scream (as many here have) that EVERY poll is fake, and they should all be ignored.

2)We can't do anything about these polls? Oh. OK. I was going to be at the Feast of San Gennaro today and tomorrow, handing out stickers etc, but, why bother. Nothing can be done. May as well turn in my voter registration too. I understand you idea, not your solution.

3)Acting like a victim. Hm. Interesting. Why would someone like me begin a post asking not to be flamed unless I had seen it done within the past 24 hours? Perhaps you would have preferred me NOT to post this, leave it to someone else, or, better yet, use the magic rose colored glasses and it will go away. POLLS CHANGE CONSTANTLY. Do we all need reminders that polls have MOE's? That they are not an exact science? That they can be biased? You say we are all adults and know all these things. Then act like it.

4)This board is NOT for balanced debate. I am here for discussion, if I wanted to deal with freepers, I'd go over there. This board is for furthering a progressive (democratic?) idealogy. It is an exchange of differing views with a central message. That's why I am so amazed when someone brings news that isn't really open for debate (News Flash: It's raining heavily at the rate of .5 inches per hour in NY) and then the TONE of the news is scrutized (He was biased! He say "point five instead of half an inch!") I can take whatever you dish out, I can give it back quite frankly a lot better than most can dish, but, I really need a reason in order to have sensible discourse. Otherwise, it is just an argument for arguments sake.

I've seen people scream how biased the media whores are, and how these shouldn't be posted. FINE. Make that a rule, and we'll only post polls in the GD section. It won't clutter up the bandwidth that can be used for such On Target things as Kitty Kelly's book. I simply won't stoop to that.

5)You're comment on "hauling a sack of woe and dumping at our feet and then ordering us to pick it up." is quite poetic, vulgar, but, poetic. I've told you to say nothing. I've not told you how to feel. I've not come here to disrupt or hijack any threads. If this is a "sack of woe", I will certainly share in the burden of looking at the "flaming sack of woe" and figuring out "why it is woe", "does the woe stink", and "what to do with woe". Or, perhaps, we can just ignore woe, and keep on discussing, volunteering, demostrating, and in general being active.

~Almost

[Lerkfish]

108. well, that a good example of the "tone" problem.

I doubt you'll recognize it for yourself, but you come across as pugnacious and with a huge chip on your shoulder. I tried to help you see the problem, but you don't, sorry.

I'll not try to help you out again.

[Kierkegaard]

3. For God's sake

Just say NO to polls...

[sonicx]

6. look at the end of the poll...

it has 36% repubs and 32% dems.

[TahitiNut]

105. Poll-busting

How many of the "32% dems" were right-wingers who engage in poll-busting by answering "democrat" to the demographic questions?

[silverlib]

8. Conducted right after the RNC

It's in the details. Be careful, you are too new for these kind of mistakes - makes you freeper suspect.

[demoman123]

15. What a comment to make to a new member!

"Freeper suspect" indeed! As if we were some quasi-police state.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

64. Do you deny that we've been overrun by freepers since the end...

...of the Democratic Party Convention, or are you really that naive?

[demoman123]

95. Overrun? Nope. "Overrun" means "trampled."

Which we are not!

[EthanAllenVt]

17. How does quoting a respected source like CBS make one suspect?

Does quoting al-jezeera make one a terrorist bomber too?

[Almost_there]

20. What???

I've been posting VERY cautiously here for almost a year I would guess, maybe more. I post once or twice to certain subjects, and I post ONE news article, and BAM! Yup, I'm a freeper.

Sorry, if you want to kick me off for being the bearer of a poll, on a day when another poll came out, holy crap! Go join the jackboots and leave me the hell alone! Check my ident, when did I sign up? I have NEVER posted in the lounge, I have CONSTANTLY cautioned against polls, and now I am accused of being a freeper? Sorry I'm not cool enough for your club, you friggin HYPOCRITE! Damnit, that pisses me off.

And where is your proof of when this poll was conducted? If you're going to accuse me of something at least have something called "facts". Try it occasionally, it might enlighted you. Damn, you've really pissed me off. Sorry.

~Almost

[EST]

33. Hiding one's profile does not add to credibility.

______________

[Almost_there]

43. I never even knew... lol

I don't remember hiding it. Its unhidden.

[EST]

44. Good idea!

-----------

[demoman123]

50. Just checking up on people, huh, Rev? Making sure they aren't Freepers?

Have you considered a career in the security industry? You might have talent. :)

[Lerkfish]

99. please read post # 97

eom

[demoman123]

125. Post #97 isn't that great.

Almost_there refutes it in post #104.

[paulk]

37. it says right in the poll you linked to when it was conducted

Sept 12 - 16

[RobinA]

60. If You've Been Here a Year

you should already know that anyone not posting the party line is considered a freeper by a certain element. The current party line is that all polls not favoring Kerry are fixed. Many people don't like to hear information that they don't like.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

66. Considering the source of the polls and the media outfits funding them...

...why shouldn't we consider them to be flawed?

Some people on DU just don't want to hear that the mainstream media is nothing but a mouthpiece for the NeoCon Junta.

[demoman123]

128. That is certainly true.

[Lerkfish]

98. please read post # 97

eom

[Greyhawk]

114. If you step out of line you're toast...

Look, there is no way to avoid pissing off a fair number of any group no matter what you say. If you bemoan a loss on Nov 3rd and postulate what has to be done better next time, you're going be viewed as "piling on" instead of thinking constructively. If we win on Nov 2, on the 3rd we'll still be left with an unworkable government run by R's. Politics is a contact sport, not for wishful thinkers...<br><br>My premise from months ago is that if you want to enact a progressive agenda that looks after the needs of those who can't look after themselves, you do that thru Congress and the courts, not via the Presidency... After all, one of the reasons Clinton was so disliked (even here) was his political need to be "centrist" on some issues so he could accomplish some other more progressive goals. <br><br>We should be focused on setting the agenda via Congress: that pulls the President or he gets nothing for 4 years.<br><br>Ignoring polls, picking issues we can't win on, pretending that things are fine is just plain dumb. Let's figure out how to win with what we've got...

[DemNoir]

9. Amazing how people cant wait to post this stuff

Go take a look at what the majority of polls said before the 2000 election.

[karlrschneider]

11. Isn't "killing the messenger" something we all abhor?

jeezus...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

68. Do you really believe that's happening now? This is a message....

...board filled with extremely opinionated people. Therefore, anyone posting on this board should be tough enough to withstand hard questions.

All of this whining about posters being flamed is a bunch of bull...defend your point of view, or get the hell out of the way.

[Almost_there]

23. I KNEW I'd gat flamed to hell...

Before I created this thread, I was worried since it was crappy news on my first news post. So, I posted in the Gallup poll thread that I was concerned to post this. So, here ya go. Sorry, I guess I'm a wing nut freeper.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x833168#835460

[EST]

31. Haven't seen any flames, yet.

What's the hurry? Why the outrage? A bit of healthy skepticism seems a measured, mature response, rather than any type of accusation.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

65. You're much too sensitive. If you consider any of the responses....

...to your posts as flames, you may just break down and cry when you really DO get flamed.

[Almost_there]

96. I can certainly take the heat. It's the reasoning that escapes me.

I am more than willing to accept flames for specific reasons, for bad posts, bad opinions, ad hominum attacks, whatever. But, let's dispense with the BS of attacking someone based upon a link to a nationally recognized (at least in MY universe it is accepted) news source (specifically, CBS which for the past week has been thought as the only "solid" source of the three major networks, with Dan Rather bringing up the guard memos and sticking to his guns). I would NEVER post a link to drudge or something as ridiculous as that, but, to simply denounce this poll as "more media lies" because you don't like it is truly akin to burying your head in the sand.

YES! The poll did announce that 36% of the respondants were repubs and only 32% were Democrats, but, that question is asked in the course of the polling, they aren't taking a "republican" member directory and calling 550 people, and taking the "democrat" handbook and calling only 450 to get a skewed number.

So, as far as your cute little "you may just break down and cry" crap, let me be the first to say if you wish to debate something with intelligence, please do so. Otherwise, don't shoot the messenger. It reminds me too much of Germany, ca. 1938. I'm actually disgusted at some of the posts on this board, it no longer makes me wonder why people can have thousands of posts so quickly.

Hypothetical Post: "Don't believe this crap! n/t" Things like that are not helpful, they don't encourage debate, discussion, or progressive thought. If anything, it is like the friggin' neo-cons, trying to silence opposition. I have to say that a vast majority (I cannot in good conscience say all) of my posts have been lengthy, well thought out, and ask for a reply of some sort, or, at least provide a salient point of view.

So, flame away. But, flame away with reason. I can take the heat, a hell of a lot better than most. What I dispise is stupid personal attacks for no reason. I'm here to learn, meet friends, and encourage discourse and debate.

~Almost

[Lerkfish]

101. sigh...please read post #97

and please stop acting like a victim here, thanks. There ARE people attempting to debate the issue. YOU are not the issue.

[Lerkfish]

100. please see post #97

it explains why you're having the problems you're having/causing.

[demoman123]

129. You sure like that post #97, don't you?

Well, it's way over-advertised, in my opinion.

[Zorra]

57. I'm not intimating that anyone is a troll, of course, but freepers often

do post negative polls, because it is one of the few ways they can post something at DU without getting tombstoned.

Since freepers do not have the luxury of having the facts on their side, they have few options for posting at DU. Sometimes they can get away with posting some trashy propaganda pieces on the economy, the swiftboat liars, or Killian memos in LBN or General Diss, but otherwise, they have to either post these skewed RW media polls, an "I just got this email and can you help me debunk it" post, or they can try to "cleverly" present some stupid RW talking point - which usually gets them immediately tombstoned.

[demoman123]

119. Why don't you just deal with the issues?

Instead of questioning someone's loyalty.

[shockingelk]

12. This is all you need to know

HOW ARE THINGS IN IRAQ GOING FOR U.S.?
Well 46%

46% of America struggles to believe unreality.

Kerry needs to do something to show America they're silly for trying to believe things coming from the Bush camp ... and I hope Kerry's proof comes out of Bush's mouth during the debates.

[lancdem]

25. Part of that is the media's fault

[Protected]

29. It's amazing how the truth is such a partisan issue in this election

39% still say Saddam was involved with 9/11.

And if I'm reading this poll correctly, 88% of those who say that Bush has increased jobs in the US (??) are voting for Bush. :crazy:

[RobinA]

61. Look On The Bright Side

That Saddam/9-11 number is lower than it used to be. 'nother couple years it'll be where it belongs. Maybe.

[Greyhawk]

122. Remember....

The average IQ is 100... That means if the average here on DU is quite a bit above that, there are an equal number below...

And they get to vote...

Kinda scary, isn't it?

[lancdem]

18. I just read the internals at the bottom

Kerry has 83 percent of Dems, Bush 87 percent of Repubs. Kerry loses 11 percent of Dems to Bush, Bush loses 7 percent of Repubs to Kerry. Those numbers are not bad at all and are actually better than most other post-RNC polls. But this poll has Bush with an 8-point lead among independents, which is a concern.

[sonicx]

19. yes and...

Bush is getting 20% liberal vote. :wtf:

[lancdem]

24. I thought that was eye-dropping, too

Why any liberal would vote for Bush is beyond me.

[dennis4868]

56. Bush is the most anti liberal....

prez ever in the history of our country....he is against everything liberals stand for and fought for for so long....so someone explain to me why a liberal would vote for CAPTAIN AWOL?

[jbm]

110. "Zell Miller" democrats maybe..

I always get a little gleeful when I stumble across diehard conservative types who are sooo confused that they vote for the democrats. It always frustrates me to no end when I find good liberals who for whatever reason consider themselves republicans. I bet the Bush voting democrats in this poll aren't really liberals.

[susanna]

59. To paraphrase Schneider(?) on one of the news programs tonight...

Normally I wouldn't listen to a word the man says, but tonight he got me thinking a bit because of something that happened to me today.

Schneider mentioned that the poll results ("who would you vote for?") were asked BEFORE the pollster asked about issues. Once the pollsters got into the issues, the lines became blurrier.

Forgive me if I'm wrong here - I THINK he was talking about the Gallup poll. He summed it up by saying (and I paraphrase here) "once voters were asked about actual issues, Kerry begins to be a more attractive choice." But that's not what they are actually reporting!

It's seems insane on its face, but it goes to the why liberals would at first say they'd vote for Bush. If the cable news propaganda is all they're seeing, I'm not surprised at all. Once they thought about it and looked at the issues themselves, the numbers got murkier.

Why this started me thinking: I just had a run-in with a centrist friend at lunch who began spouting the GOP talking points ad nauseum. Once I articulated the issues that directly affect him (unemployment, overtime law, outsourcing, etc.) he started to waver and mention that a Kerry vote for him is still possible. So what Schneider was saying makes some sense to me.

[DemNoir]

21. Yes but!

The "highly respected" gallup poll has Kerry with a lead among indies...
So which poll do we panic too? huh? which one?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

67. And that lead among independents is highly suspect, IMHO.

[Zynx]

103. An eight point lead among indies doesn't produce these numbers.

That would produce a few point lead at most.

[PermanentRevolution]

22. I said this yesterday in my article...

Take this and USE it. Don't believe it's true, because it's not, but FIGHT LIKE IT IS! This election won't be decided by likely voters. It's going to be decided by the largest groundswell in history. Get out there and fight like we're ten points down. Walk the streets. Blanket your neighborhood with messages. Stick signs on the highway. Don't just sit here online and read about this. Get out there and get more voters!

NOTE:

I know I'm new here, and therefore suspect. But I AM the same person who wrote yesterday's main page article "Smashing the Filter." And I'm certainly not trying to accuse anyone of not doing enough. I don't even know any of you. All I'm posting is a general rallying cry, so please don't think I'm attacking anyone by it.

I've wanted to be a part of DU for a while now, but I haven't been able to join with just a hotmail and yahoo e-mail. But since the admins published my article, I figured they'd be nice enough to set me up with a DU identity. Which they did. So thanks, Admins, and it's good to finally be here.

[Ms. Clio]

69. Welcome to DU! Great to have you here!

:toast:

[PermanentRevolution]

75. Thanks! n/t

[EST]

26. Wouldn't it be a bit more appopriate

for the poster to, personally, go out and do something concrete to combat these results, then come back and report on what he did? Preferrable, perhaps, to jumping up and trying to beat the faithful, who, I'm sure, do something more than just prattle on the DU boards, over the figurative head with obviously flawed single poll results. Most of the folks here have seen lots of panicy poll reporting, and are not quite so prone to do a chicken little impression as may have been the case.

[demoman123]

47. No, it wouldn't be "more appropriate."

It is perfectly appropriate to post news from reliable news sources even if it is bad news for the campaign. People need to know about such news if they are to diagnose and solve the problem, if any.

[Lerkfish]

102. ok...so what is your diagnosis and solution?

....hmmm?

its a poll....there is no way to affect a poll, because the methodology is up to the pollster to configure and implement.
Now, if you said voter registration needs to be increased, then by golly, there is a diagnosis and solution to that: more people need to be registered, so let's register more people.

IF you said people's perception of Kerry is x or z, then the diagnosis would be not enough people realize kerry is a and b, but not z or x. The solution would be to get the word out more, keep hitting the media contacts, keep bloggin and talking it up to coworkers, etc.

But there is no diagnosis or solution to a poll. got it?

[demoman123]

121. Read post #34.

[GR]

27. This Poll Is Also Bogus...Ignore It And Keep Working...And Donating..

nfm

[UCLA Dem]

28. I think these polls are crap.

They are all over the place! How can we tell anything if they don't even know if their random sampling methods are working (e.g., not reaching cell phone users etc). The pollsters really need to get their act together and figure out how to accurately survey the electorate. I think these polls are irresponsible and dangerous.

Further, I think Kerry has done a much better job this weeks and for Bush to be opening up an even bigger lead in an electorate that is so closely divided doesn't make sense. I smell a rat!!!

[demoman123]

126. You can say that all the way to the Bush inauguration, or ...

you can wake up and smell the coffee. Kerry isn't doing that well, and more work has to be done to elect him.

[2Design]

32. bs

[demoman123]

34. This is the problem: Bush = authority figure in time of national crisis.

Rove and the RNC have humped the crisis, and hyped Bush's image as a father figure. This is how many voters see him. This image has to be undermined, and Kerry needs to project an image of strength, as a viable alternative.

The CBS National Guard documents fiasco did not help.

The Kitty Kelley book will help.

Kerry's new team is already helping by forging a stronger, clearer set of positions on the war and on domestic policy.

Kerry himself is supposed to outdo himself when his back is up against a wall. Well, this is the time.

Everything possible has to be done to further this effort and to encourage it.

[lancdem]

35. I agree with you about the authority figure part

that is something Kerry is working to undercut.

[saracat]

36. The reason that you don't post something like this

is a person like me who was feeling a bit better after an MSNBC analyst stated that the polls weren't right ,including this one, which he left unnamed, and now you have brought me down. I was in a fairly good mood and I have to go to dinner with two Republican friends that I haven't seen for a while.I wasn't exactly comfortable to begin with, but I thought I could deal with it.I probably am too suggestible, but there it is. My evening is shot.Thanks a lot. Some news we don't need to hear.

[mconvente]

40. Polls arent the end all to be all

If they were, we'd all be voting for Howard Dean for president instead of John Kerry. Let's just stay calm and continue to get the message out that we need John Kerry in the White House and we need Democratic Senators and Reps and everything will be fine.

[demoman123]

52. Is because your "evening is shot"?

Sorry about that.

[jsw_81]

92. What do you mean?

Would you rather just bury your head in the sand and pretend like everything is peachy while the Bush juggernaut rolls over us? Sorry, but I'd rather win. And we can't win by ignoring news that we don't like.

[insidious]

39. Same old bullshit coming from the media

So they pick out 1200 people from who knows the fuck where and all of a sudden numbnuts is leading in the polls? The only poll that is going to count is on Nov 2 and we will all be participating in that one. I have a feeling nobody who frequents this site was asked to participate, I know I wasn't. They can bring out all the polls they want, all the fake grass-roots groups they want but it still won't change the fact that the stuttering ape is going down.

[UCLA Dem]

41. amen to that. There are still 6 long weeks to go. I think Kerry

is going to show the fighter he is and that its already began.

[nagbacalan]

49. But what, simply stated, is his message on Iraq? That unclarified

statement with the Grand Canyon as a backdrop will come to haunt us. Howard Dean last night on Zahn couldn't provide a satisfactory explanation. Just fightin is not enough. What you're fighting about is the important thing, and there are few things more important now than the rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq.

[demoman123]

53. I think Kerry has decided not to make the election a referendum on the war

Because it's too risky. The RNC and its surrogates would immediately attack his patriotism. And public opposition to the war is not strong enough yet to carry an anti-war candidate. So Kerry equivocates and sits on the fence.

I think he should dump this strategy, and propose a plan for phased withdrawal. Take the risk. He could perhaps educate the public to support this plan, and generate enough votes to win on the basis of it.

But Kerry and his advisors seem unwilling to take the chance.

[americanstranger]

82. What's BUSH'S message on Iraq?

Whay fall into the trap of asking one candidate (ours) for a concrete plan? Does Bush have one, besides 'staying the course?'

-as

[LanternWaste]

136. Here are some answers..

Here are some answers that appear clear (and simply stated) to me.

We have to de-Americanize this war, we have to take the target off of American troops as fast as possible, we have to cede some authority for the humanitarian and the governance components of this, even as we take control of the security piece. That's the only way to be successful. And no, we do not need or want more American troops to do that
Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate Sep 9, 2003


John Kerry will launch a massive training effort to build a professional Iraqi security force, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.
http://www.democrats.org/milvet/iraq_contrast.html

1. Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq. NATO participation will in turn open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.

2. Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq, to share the costs and burdens, end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation, and help coordinate reconstruction efforts, draft the constitution and organize elections.

3. Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.

4. Plan for Iraq’s Future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts and by supporting the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. We will also convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html

[leesa]

45. Too funny. Like any poll conducted by Bush's media has any value.

[jsw_81]

91. It won't be all that funny if Bush wins a landslide

And unless we move quickly to get this campaign turned around, that's exactly what we're going to see happen.

[wsswss]

46. The reason

There are several reasons why Kerry is behind in the polls. But there is one obvious one, perhaps the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of this political season:

John Kerry is a horrible candidate. I can't think of a worse candidate in my lifetime.

Before I am flamed to death, banned, or this comment is deleted, I am not saying that Kerry wouldn't make a good president. But I am saying that with all of the problems in the Bush presidency, a decent Democratic candidate would be way ahead by now.


(Edited for grammar)

[Zeusmeister]

58. The Reason

I couldn't agree more. I read a column a couple of days ago, about NY (my state) Democrats discussing the possibility of dumping Kerry (Ill health, whatever), in favor of Hillary. It would be a win-win for Hillary. Even if she lost, everyone would blame Kerry, and she would be all set for 2008.

[AndyTiedye]

90. We Have a Very Good Candidate Who is Getting Reamed by the Media

When the media goes after a candidate, he usually doesn't last long.
Remember what they did to Howard Dean once he hinted he might break up the media oligopolies.
Kerry has survived the onslaught, but it is taking a very heavy toll.
He HAS been fighting back, but you won't see any of that on the national networks,
they'll cut away or have "technical difficulties" a few minutes in -- just the amount
of time it would take for KKKarl to call the network CEO, and the network CEO to
get through to the news desk yelling "CUT!!! CUT!!!".

[Carolab]

48. Horsepucky

The real problem here is that Gallup is spreading a false impression of this race. Through its 1992 partnership with two international media outlets (CNN and USA Today), Gallup is telling voters and other media by using badly-sampled polls that the GOP and its candidates are more popular than they really are. Given that Gallup’s CEO is a GOP donor, this should not be a surprise. But it does require us to remind the media, like Susan Page of USA Today, who wrote the lead story on the poll in the morning paper, and other members of the media who cite this poll today, that it is based on a faulty sample composition of 40% GOP and 33% Democratic.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002806.html

*************************

Given that party identification does shift some over time, my instinct has generally been to avoid party-weighting if possible and promote a full-disclosure approach. This is how I recently put it in Public Opinion Watch:

Because the distribution of party identification does shift some over time . . . polls should be able to capture this. What I do favor is release and prominent display of sample compositions by party identification, as well as basic demographics, whenever a poll comes out. Consumers of poll data should not have to ferret out this information from obscure places—it should be given out-front by the polling organizations or sponsors themselves. Then people can use this information to make judgements about whether and to what extent they find the results of the poll plausible.

But this approach increasingly seems unrealistic to me. The polling organizations and sponsors do not routinely release the data I call for and certainly do not prominently display them. And even if they did, the typical consumer of polling data lacks the time and skills to use these data to re-weight or adjust reported results. The fact of the matter is that people pay attention to reported results period; therefore they are at the mercy of whichever results are reported and emphasized (an issue that also looms large in the LVs vs. RVs issue, discussed below).

This suggests that weighting poll results by a reasonable distribution of party identification may be necessary to avoid giving the public distorted impressions of the state of the race.

<snip>

Here are Bush’s leads in a number of recent polls, ordered by size of his lead, once the horse race question is weighted by the 2000 exit poll distribution (note: not all recent polls can be included because you need the horse race figures among Democrats, Republicans, and independents separately to do this procedure and not all polls release these figures; in addition Zogby and Rasmussen results are party-weighted to begin with and therefore do not have to be re-weighted; RV results used unless only LV results available):

CBS News, September 6–8 RVs: +5

Zogby, September 8–9 LVs: +2

Rasmussen: September 10–12 LVs: +1

Fox News: September 7–8 LVs: +1

Washington Post, September 6–8 RVs: +1

Newsweek, September 9–10 RVs, –2

Gallup, September 3–5 RVs: –4

These data present a clear picture of a tight race, with Bush likely running a small lead, but not the solid—and even large—advantage that has been conveyed to the public.

<snip>

When Gallup told the world on September 6 that Bush was leading Kerry by seven points among LVs, the world listened and absorbed that figure as a trustworthy indicator of where the race was. Completely lost, except to those who bother to look at such things, was the Gallup finding that Bush only led by single point among Rvs—in other words, that the race was about tied. Gallup and its sponsoring organizations implicitly and explicitly encouraged people to treat the LV finding as the real story and the RV finding as an unreliable afterthought (after all, those voters aren't “likely”!). The incredible irony, of course, is that the real situation was exactly the reverse: as the Erikson et al. findings suggest, it was the RV data that provided the best gauge of voter sentiment and the LV data that should have been an unreliable afterthought.

Or take the Gallup data gathered in Ohio in the last two months, perhaps the key state in this election and the subject of endless media stories about “the battle for Ohio.” On September 8, Gallup released data showing Bush ahead of Kerry by eight points among LVs in Ohio, a fourteen-point swing from late July when Kerry led by six points. Again, completely lost in the Gallup, newspaper, and television reports on the poll was the poll’s finding that Bush had just a one-point lead among RVs in the state, representing a much more modest swing of six points since late July.

Guess which figures are still with us as coverage of the battle for Ohio continues? That’s right: Bush’s eight-point lead among LVs and fourteen-point swing. In fact, just this Sunday, the New York Times practically built their Ohio campaign story around these figures which allegedly showed just how well Bush is doing! and just how much the situation has changed!.

In short, these LV figures, especially from Gallup, are contributing mightily to the impression that Bush has built a substantial lead and is even surging ahead in some of the key swing states. But, as we have seen, these LV data are fundamentally inappropriate for measuring the state of the race, and how it is changing, this far ahead of election day. For that, you need the RV data and they suggest something far different: the race is damn close and Bush’s substantial lead is a myth.


http://www.emergingdemocraticmajority.com/pow/powseptember_15_2004.cfm

[mconvente]

51. excellent point

All media formats are biased - that's just the way it is. It takes true dedication to find the real info. And I feel confident on Nov 2nd when the real poll counts that John Kerry will be our president-elect.

[demoman123]

123. Why "likely voters" (as opposed to registered voters) = unreliable pool

More from your link:

As political scientists Robert Erikson, Costas Panagopoulos, and Christopher Wlezien put it in their important forthcoming paper, “Likely (and Unlikely) Voters and the Assessment of Campaign Dynamics” in Public Opinion Quarterly:

stimates of who may be likely voters in the weeks and months prior to Election Day in large part reflect transient political interest on the day of the poll, which might have little bearing on voter interests on the day of the election. Likely voters early in the campaign do not necessarily represent likely voters on Election Day. Early likely voter samples might well represent the pool of potential voters sufficiently excited to vote if a snap election were to be called on the day of the poll. But these are not necessarily the same people motivated to vote on Election Day.

And of course, since the group of people “sufficiently excited to vote if a snap election were to be called on the day of the poll” changes from poll to poll, it raises the uncomfortable possibility that observed changes in the sentiments of “likely voters” represent not actual changes in voter sentiment, but rather changes in the composition of likely voter samples as political enthusiasm waxes and wanes among the different parties’ supporters. Or, as Erikson et al. put it:

At one time, Democratic voters may be excited and therefore appear more likely to vote than usual. The next period the Republicans may appear more excited and eager to vote. As Gallup’s likely voter screen absorbs these signals of partisan energy, the party with the surging interest gains in the likely voter vote. As compensation, the party with sagging interest must decline in the likely voter totals.

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajority.com/pow/powseptember_15_2004.cfm

[demoman123]

124. But unlike the Gallup Poll, CBS/NYT Polled (50%-41%) registered voters

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/17/opinion/polls/main644205.shtml

[EndElectoral]

55. I just don't get it....people want 4 more years of this!!!!

[demoman123]

131. A lot of our fellow Americans make good citizens of an empire.

Some of them kind of like the idea of dominating the world. Look at the SUV's they drive. Look at the movies they watch.

[The_Casual_Observer]

70. Suddenly a barrage of shitty polls as the heat is turned up on chimp!!!!

Chimp has never looked worse, and they pull out these shitty polls, is anybody surprised????

[Judi Lynn]

137. Interesting! The heat IS on, isn't it?

I hadn't noticed a connection, but it surely looks plausible.

[Swamp Rat]

71. www.fair.org has information on polling and the media

Here are two of many I came across after a quick search. I am still searching for the report that indicated that more white, middle-age, male republicans are polled than any other group.

Oct. 17, 2002

Polls: When Measuring is Manipulating
By Norman Solomon

Before decisions get made in Washington -- and even before most politicians open their mouths about key issues -- there are polls. Lots of them. Whether splashed across front pages or commissioned by candidates for private analysis, the statistical sampling of public opinion is a constant in political life.

We may believe that polls tell us what Americans are thinking. But polls also gauge the effectiveness of media spin -- and contribute to it. Opinion polls don't just measure; they also manipulate, helping to shape thoughts and tilting our perceptions of how most people think.

Polls routinely invite the respondents to choose from choices that have already been prepared for them. Results hinge on the exact phrasing of questions and the array of multiple-choice answers, as candid players in the polling biz readily acknowledge.

"Slight differences in question wording, or in the placement of the questions in the interview, can have profound consequences," Gallup executive David Moore wrote a few years ago in his book "The Superpollsters." He observed that poll outcomes "are very much influenced by the polling process itself." And in turn, whatever their quality, polling numbers "influence perceptions, attitudes and decisions at every level of our society."

(snip)

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/021017.html

*****

April 2003


When "Doves" Lie

The New York Times plays down anti-war opinion

by Jim Naureckas

In a breakdown of major U.S. newspapers' positions on the Iraq issue before the invasion began, the trade magazine Editor and Publisher (3/14/03) labeled the New York Times "strongly dovish," based on its stance in a March 9 editorial: "If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no."

But in its news coverage in the period before the invasion began on March 19, the New York Times played down opposition to war and exaggerated support for George W. Bush's Iraq policy--in ways that ranged from questionable to dishonest. (For earlier examples of the Times' minimization of peace activism, see Extra!, 11-12/01, 7-8/02; FAIR Action Alerts, 10/2/01, 5/30/02, 9/30/02, 10/28/02.)

Take, for example, the March 14 article by Kate Zernike, headlined "Liberals for War: Some of Intellectual Left's Longtime Doves Taking on Role of Hawks." The article argues that "as the nation stands on the brink of war, reluctant hawks are declining to join their usual soulmates in marching against war." It cites seven people by name as "somewhat hesitant backers of military might"--every one of whom was actually on the record as having supported the 1991 Gulf War.

One of those said to have "joined the ranks of the reluctant hawks" was New York Times Magazine contributor Michael Ignatieff. Shortly before the Gulf War, Ignatieff wrote in the London Observer (12/9/90) that the U.S. secretary of state should show Saddam Hussein "a video demonstration of the shortest way to turn Baghdad into a car park. The dictator is a military man: The West must speak his language." Another of the Times' "longtime doves" was Paul Berman, who wrote an op-ed for the Times during the Gulf War (1/31/91) criticizing protesters for "mobilizing against the war in Vietnam" when Iraq represented "a dynamic, expanding Fascism, 1930's-style.

(snip)

http://www.fair.org/extra/0304/nyt-doves.html

*****

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Media Vs. Democracy

November 16, 2000

(snip)

In fact, most public opinion polls suggest that citizens are taking a much more reasonable approach to the situation than some of the elite media, supporting a process that emphasizes fairness rather than speed. A Newsweek poll found that 75 percent of respondents "preferred removing 'all reasonable doubt' about the Florida voting rather than 'getting matters resolved as soon as possible.'" An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (11/13/00) found that 55 percent of respondents favored the idea of recounting ballots, even if the process takes several weeks.

CNN's Larry King, though, seemed to have trouble reading these results. "The public, though, polls show they want it finished," he commented to a guest (11/13/00). "The public at least thus far does want it finished. Does that surprise you?" In a November 13 editorial, the New York Times insisted that there is "mounting public impatience with the delay in determining the outcome of the presidential election."

(snip)

Nightline's November 9 broadcast was one of the worst examples in this category, as Ted Koppel chose to only interview three senior Bush aides about ballot irregularities. Not surprisingly, they were not impressed with the complaints from citizens that their ballots were unclear or confusing; Koppel did not subject his guests to tough questioning.

Conservative media even charged Al Gore with trying to steal the election: Columnist George Will (Washington Post, 11/12/00) wrote that "all that remains to complete the squalor of Gore's attempted coup d'etat is some improvisation by Janet Reno, whose last Florida intervention involved a lawless SWAT team seizing a 6-year-old. She says there is no federal role, but watch for a 'civil rights' claim on behalf of some protected minority or some other conjured pretext."

(snip)

http://www.fair.org/articles/media-vs-democracy.html

[IndianaGreen]

73. I don't believe in any of the polls

I think that some of the people being polled are deliberately skewing their responses to throw the pollster off. This may be an organized effort!

[Swamp Rat]

77. I was intimating the same thing in my post above yours.

www.fair.org has some good articles on polling. I'm still trying to locate an article that discussed population samples - approx. 73% of those polled are white, middle-age, male republicans. I hope to find this soon and post it here.

[Mr_Spock]

78. Same poll, posted three times today "hide thread" for me

n/m

[PermanentRevolution]

79. At least MSNBC is reporting the inconsistencies

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6025962/

"Polls Vary wildly in view of race for White House"

It still leads with the 13-point lead and it closes with a stat that respondents expect Bush to win 3 to 1, but it's better than just hearing about Gallup. It mentions Pew and Harris.

There's also a live vote that has Bush winning 56% to 43%. Maybe we can change those numbers around.

[Swamp Rat]

81. More on polling and polls

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/

http://www.pollingreport.com/index.html

http://www.positiveuniverse.com/WhatthePollsareSaying.html

http://www.ncpp.org/qajsa.htm

[Sperk]

86. In a word........BULLSHIT! just cover for stolen election.

America died on December 10, 2000.

[Behind the Aegis]

93. thought

I have seen quite a few "negative" posts the past two weeks. I understand reporting what is in the news. However, what I have been seeing is people taking joy in the negative headline. The poster tries to disguise it as "I am just posting the news!," "I hate this but,....," and I think that Du'ers are just sick of it. I wish I could offer a solution, but I don't know there is one. The DU is under attack, some are true freepers, some are just "sad-sacks." I think it is important to keep posting the news, then we know what we are up against, but we need to understand we are all on edge.

The right wing is powerful, but they deal in lies...lies can be unveiled! The DU has already shown we can fillet a liar...see the multiple posts on the "toddler with the torn sign" threads.

We are dealing with a mostly corrupted media, we should stay strong, and stay the course....remember...HOPE IS ON THE WAY!

[jbm]

113. I love your enthusiasm..but..

I'm beginning to think that revealing the lies isn't enough to make a difference. I shake my head in wonder at the ability the Bush supporters have to absolutely deny the existence of facts. The people who can still be swayed are not really paying attention and aren't sure who to believe, so they're voting on impressions and perceptions. The right wing are experts at 'impressions and perceptions' cause they just do to Kerry what they did to Clinton..toss so much bullshit out there that people assume SOME of it must be true! We can do that too. I never thought the day would come when I would advocate such a thing, but between now and the November election I am going to lie like a dog everytime the opportunity presents itself..and the sad and sorry thing is I am absolutely certain the people I'm lying to will never know the difference. Hopefully I'll be able to plant a negative impression of Bush in their minds, and when we win, I'll go with another time honored repub tradition and worry about forgiveness later.

[glitch]

134. there's really no need to lie - just telling the truth gives them hell nt

[dand]

106. Don't be sorry you posted this poll,

whoever thinks we are winning is delusional, the fascists are kicking our ass's and we seem powerless to stop them.

The public does not have faith in Kerry's ability to fight terrorism, since he seems unable to confront the Republican war-criminals.

[argonne]

107. It's OVER.

Bush won.

We spent the last several weeks debating Vietnam and who did what in 1968.

Rove is a genius.

This election is OVER!

[Maeve]

109. It ain't over til the votes are counted

And that's not til November. Plus, there are other polls that say this one is wrong--ignore the polls and work the people.

[NoBorders]

117. Gallup: "we are our own wost enemy" -amen

Polls mean jack at this point, especially when the numbers are this varied. Bush* probably has a 3-5 point lead--not insurmountable at all.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/18/MNGN78R6Q31.DTL
snip-
It's an embarrassing moment for pollsters, who must explain to a skeptical public how scientific surveys taken at roughly the same time and from similar groups of people about the 2004 presidential campaign can come up with such very different results.

"We pollsters are our own worst enemies,'' said David W. Moore, senior editor of the Gallup Poll, because the numbers they report suggest a certainty that pollsters know doesn't exist.
snip

[Greyhawk]

120. Polls are just that...

Polls can catch people at emotional moments, and the phrasing of them skews the results... When people hit the voting booth, we'll see how far off polls are...

That being said, we can't lambast them one day and crow about them the next... Let's forget about the polls and elect Senators and Congresspeople... The Presidency is vastly overrated as a genuine instrument of change.

[glitch]

135. The hell it is - the Presidency chooses the executive branch bureaucracy

heads. Dept of Interior, Dept of Defense, EPA. They interpret the laws we enact.
Not even to mention Supreme Court nominations coming up.

The executive branch wields enormous power, and this one has been accumulating more power than previous ones.

We have to win it, and bring the Congress on it's coattails while we're at it.

[West Coast Democrat]

118. Final CBS/NY Times Poll Bush 47 Gore 42 (11/1-11/4/2000)

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2gen1.htm

When CBS teams with NY Times to conduct their polling, the results are rather inaccurate.

On the other hand, the final CBS (w/o NY Times) poll showed Gore ahead by 1 pt 46-45 over Bush.

[pstokely]

127. most of the final polls showed * ahead

nt

[bogey18]

133. The answer to all of this is simple

We have got to round up all of the UNLIKELY voters and get their asses to the polls by election day!