Posted on 01/08/2006 11:28:33 AM PST by the Real fifi
It is increasingly clear that IPSOS, a French polling company with close ties to the French leadership is producing polls for AP designed solely to allow them to run editorials in the guise of news stories. The samplings are widely out of line; the questions off the mark, and the results not surprisingly advance a Democrat point of view obviously shared by AP.
But the last two IPSOS polls seem to have broken even their usual records for untrustworthiness. Big lizards notes the likelihood of fraud:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
IPSOS isn't far from foreign influence tampering with American elections. They are a trash poll that is just a propaganda arm of the RATOMATIC dnc machine.
Been going on for the last 50 years, but they still think they can pull off the same ruse, despite the new media. Hubris personified.
I new it was a fraud when I heard ABC News quoting it.
And Thus....Useless !!
I smell a rat: Ellen Ratner works for the AP. This "poll" is just typical "agitprop". Same type quoted by the likes of Molly Ivens (ughhh).
manufactured polls begatting manufactured news reports
we've sunk a long way, huh AP?
ABC radio news is the worst. WithOutAdoubt.
'AP' stands for 'Applied Propaganda'.
About That Wiretapping Poll...
The Associated Press is touting its own AP-Ipsos poll purporting to show a significant majority of Americans opposes the Bush administration on warrantless tapping of al-Qaeda phone calls originated abroad to their terrorist agents in the United States. But as typical these days, there is much less here than meets the eye.
The poll in today's story is very similar to the "generic congressional poll" results announced yesterday purporting to show a massive shift in Americans' support for Democratic control of Congress, a seismic shift that would signal that the Democrats are poised to seize back the House; that poll found that if the mid-term election were held today, 49% of Americans would want to see the Democrats win, while only 36% would want to see the Republicans win. Besides both polls showing a big surge towards Democrats, they have other similarities:
- They have exactly the same age breakdown;
- They have exactly the same employment breakdown;
- Same educational breakdown;
- Same marriage breakdown;
- In fact, every, single demographic question is identical on the "two" surveys.
- And oddly enough, they were even conducted over the same days, by the same pollsters, with the exact same number of respondents.
One might almost conclude that this was really the very same poll -- just mendaciously reported twice, in two different contexts, to make it appear as though there were a trend moving in the Democratic direction, a rising crescendo of criticism of George W. Bush. But of course, it would be dishonest for AP to do that without noting the fact, so it can't be true. It must simply be an eerie coincidence.
Another point the "two" polls share: they both wildly overpolled Democrats -- 52% of the respondents were Democrats, 40% were Republicans, and 8% were independents; that is, they polled almost a third more Democrats than Republicans.
How can this affect results? Well, it's hardly surprising that there would be a very significant difference between the responses of Democrats and Republicans to a question put so clearly in the context of partisan politics as this:
Should the Bush administration be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?In the first place, why mention the name of the current president if you really want to know what the respondent thinks of presidential power in general? The answer is fairly clear: to make it a party issue. Democrats will immediately understand the context is Bush's Fascist depredations against civil liberties and answer accordingly.
For example, if the respondents took their cue from the reference to Bush, and if 75% of Democrats answered that Bush should have to get a warrant, while 66% of Republicans said he should not, and the paltry few independents they polled split 50-50, you would get a result strikingly similar to what they got. This doesn't prove that is how it fell out; but it's certainly not an unreasonable guess.
Second, notice the tendentious phrasing of the fact situation: the administration has repeatedly noted that the monitoring is done on al-Qaeda phone calls coming from outside the United States to persons typically not American citizens or even American persons. Occasionally, the recipient of the phone call (or e-mail) might be an American person; but the communication still originates abroad... and it is that foreign communication that is intercepted without need for a warrant. In order to monitor communications between two phone numbers both in America, a warrant is still needed... which may explain why the Bush administration has requested more than 5,600 warrants from the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court since 9/11.
As John Hinderaker put it some days ago, "if al-Qaeda is calling you, we want to know why."
That makes the NSA program not a "domestic wiretapping" case, as the Democrats and the mainstream media have repeatly and falsely claimed, but a foreign intelligence operation, for which very different legal and constitutional rules apply. Yet in this same question, respondents are asked about warrantless surveillance of electronic communications between "American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists," which implies a completely different fact situation: tapping the phones, without warrant, of American citizens making calls that originate and terminate in the United States. Heck, even I would probably say No to that suggestion.
- So the question is tendentious, in that its purpose is to elicit a negative response rather than probe the actual beliefs of Americans; in fact, it is very close to being a "push-poll," a sleazy campaign activity in which one party conducts a false poll whose purpose is to insinuate certain erroneous facts with the goal of changing people's opinions, rather than measuring them.
- It is partisan, in that is clearly signals that this is a "party vote" question.
- And it is argumentative, in that it subtlely alters the fact situation from what is actually happening to a different circumstance that is much less justifiable, legally and morally.
Against that backdrop, it matters very much indeed that it also significantly overpolled Democrats -- and that the respondents comprised "adults," rather than "registered voters" or "likely voters." That last is especially relevant to the other component of the same poll, the generic congressional vote. Whoops, I mean that "other" poll that has no relation to this one, despite being taken at the same time by the same pollsters of the exact same pool of respondents, of course. My bad.
This is just a longwinded way of echoing John Hinderaker's point yesterday in a post discussing the Minnesota Republican delegation to Congress joining the bandwagon calling for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) to step down as Majority Leader; at the end of the brief post, John added:
By the way, the AP/Ipsos poll referred to in this article, which gives the Democrats a 13-point lead on the generic Congressional preference question, is worthless. The poll included 52 percent Democrats and only 40 percent Republicans, so it's hardly a shock that respondents favored Democrats by the same margin.
Hang the executives of any MSM company for treason that uses these frauds.
Well, that seems extreme to me. Why not just write a letter to the editors of whichever paper you read these polls in and pass the info on.
The letters haven't worked and I know numerous people that have written them so it appears the Executives, Editors, Publishers, Shareholders only respond to extreme measures for their treasonous acts.
It was the same Poll, check the demographics. Watch out there may be other questions from the same respondents waiting to be released.
You said, "You younger people are a great deal more fortunate than us SC (seasoned citizens). There used to be absolutely no...repeat, no...check ...."
HaHA! How do you know I'm not an SC, also?! I remember when just about the only check on the scoundrels was Bill Buckley & his National Review.
But on the whole, you are right- not very much of a "check" compared to today!!!!!!!! But then, you used to be able to pick up the Christian Science Monitor or the Washington Star and feel at least that they were not tooooo biased, not toooo politically invested; howlers in the wilderness ... Not so today, TG.
That's what the cited work says, the author indicating how improper that is not to have disclosed it.
"Well, that seems extreme to me. Why not just write a letter ..."
Isn't it extreme, in time of war, to libel and slander the POTUS??? Wasn't it totally unacceptable- even treasonous- for that jerk, Murtha, to state publically, that he's "afraid" that a slow wind-down from our military presence in Iraq would make it look like our "victory"???
IMPEACH THE DEM PINHEADS, at the verrrry least.
I share you anger, but I'm afraid I don't agree this comes under the definition of treason. Bad reporting. Yes.Mendacious even.Partisanship disguised as a scientific survey.Absolutely.
Lok at the bright side. Would you prefer to be like the Dems always winning in the polls and losing in the election? Or like the Reps, losing the polls and winning the election?
They're not getting away with it - why do you think the Kerryites answered in overwhelming numbers in the exit polls?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.