Liberal Media Cognitive Dissonance: The NewsWeak "Poll"

Political Vice Squad ^ | October 2, 2004 | Jayson Javitz

[Merry]

Liberal Media Cognitive Dissonance: The NewsWeak "Poll"

On September 11th (good time for a political poll, huh?), NewsWeak belched out a set of data that was based on the following partisan breakdown:

R = 39 percent D = 30 percent I = 27 percent Not stated = 4 percent

Earlier today, however, NewsWeak predictably began the last-ditch media push to try and take down President Bush and to replace him with John Kerry. Part of that process, of course, is and will be a psy-ops campaign to encourage liberal college students actually to vote and to suppress turnout amongst nervous, fickle conservatives. "Polling data" allegedly showing Kerry "closing the gap" or "catching Bush" will be part and parcel of that campaign.

Here's the partisan breakdown for today's "poll" by NewsWeak:

R = 34 percent D = 36 percent I = 27 percent Not stated = 3 percent

In other words, they decreased Republican sampling by 5 percentage points and increased Democratic sampling by 6 full percentage points. Furthermore, this "poll" strictly was limited to the "Pacific and Mountain time zones," and was taken immediately after Thursday's debate. In other words, registered voters from the following states were excluded: Texas, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and the entire old south.

"Stupid is as stupid does"

-- Forrest Gump

P.S. - Please click on "comments" for a more detailed analysis by Oak Leaf, who is one of this blog's and Polipundit.com's most esteemed commentators. He tears this "poll" apart the way a demo crew might tear down a condemned building . . .

[Merry]

A lot of people have been predicting that the MSM was playing games with the poll numbers so they could make it seem like a Kerry surge. Leave it to the bloggers to catch them at their games.

[etradervic]

Don't be so fast to discount this poll. Word has it that Eleanor Clift worked for 40 hours straight putting this poll data together ;-)

[litany_of_lies]

Glad to see this is gaining currency.

LGF has a post on this too:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12951_Newsweek_Poll-_Stacked

But here's the biggest point:

In other words, they decreased Republican sampling by 5 percentage points and increased Democratic sampling by 6 full percentage points. Furthermore, this "poll" strictly was limited to the "Pacific and Mountain time zones," and was taken immediately after Thursday's debate. In other words, registered voters from the following states were excluded: Texas, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and the entire old south.

So what they TRIED to do is get a poll based PURELY on post-debate reaction (they couldn't do this in the east, Midwest and south because it was too late to call). They were hoping that the reaction to Kerry's debating "skills" would cause a Kerry bounce.

When you correct for the flawed sample, it's clear they were WRONG.

Bush led by 6 in their September 11 poll. With an 11-point swing in sample of Dems and GOP, you would have expected Kerry to come out with a 5-point lead (same 11-point swing) if in essence no one had changed their minds--BUT IT'S ONLY 2. KERRY LOST GROUND!

A sample weighted the same as September 11 would have shown Bush lengthening his lead from +6 to +8 or +9. I happen to think both samples didn't represent the true DEM-GOP makeup of the country, which IMHO is roughly 37% GOP, 33% DEM, and 30% INDY. With that weighting laid over Newsweek's results, Bush's lead would be about +5.

Conclusion: BUSH came out of the debate with the momentum, which will only grow when the "global test" commercials and the next round of Swift ads hit the air.

[Merry]

ty litany_of_lies. Some people, even Republicans, are being fooled by the MSM. thank you for your analysis

[Tom_Busch]

bump

[nickcarraway]

wow

[litany_of_lies]

Thanks, would like to see the undeniable "Bush momentum" conclusion get around.

I've e-mailed Sullivan, PowerLine, Malkin, and Rush about this. I posted to LGF too. It's a start.

What the bleep would we have been able to do about crap like this 12 years ago? Nothing, which largely explains why Clinton beat Bush 41.

Oh to have had the chance to blog Gen Flowers, draft-dodging, and Whitewater BEFORE the 1992 election. Clinton might not even have gotten the Dem nomination.

[Mike Fieschko]

bump