inaccurate reporting

[panzwami 0]

The LA Times came out with a poll a few days ago that showed Kerry leading Bush 48% to 42% with Nader in the race, 51% to 44% with Nader out of the race. Major news organizations immediately jumped on the story with headlines such as "Kerry Increases Lead over Bush."

The only problem is that the poll, which was purported to be an accurate representation of the will of the public, was actually anything but accurate:

Quote

TWISTED: LA Times Poll Had Sample With 38% Democrats, 25% Republicans
Tue Jun 15 2004 10:13:47 ET

Sen. John Kerry "has taken big lead," according "to an L.A. Times poll."

But the Times poll that showed Kerry "beating Bush by 7 points" has created a controversy over whether the poll's sample accurately reflects the population as whole, ROLL CALL reports on Tuesday.

"Not counting independents, the Times' results were calculated on a sample made up of 38 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans -- a huge and unheard-of margin," ROLL CALL claims.

Developing...

It's plainly obvious that this poll doesn't show anything, except that Democrats like Kerry, but it was still being taken entirely at face value and proclaimed the voice of the people. Once again, the media feels a need not to let facts stand in the way of a good story.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

The LA Times came out with a poll a few days ago that showed Kerry leading Bush 48% to 42% with Nader in the race, 51% to 44% with Nader out of the race. Major news organizations immediately jumped on the story with headlines such as "Kerry Increases Lead over Bush."

The only problem is that the poll, which was purported to be an accurate representation of the will of the public, was actually anything but accurate:

Quote

TWISTED: LA Times Poll Had Sample With 38% Democrats, 25% Republicans
Tue Jun 15 2004 10:13:47 ET

Sen. John Kerry "has taken big lead," according "to an L.A. Times poll."

But the Times poll that showed Kerry "beating Bush by 7 points" has created a controversy over whether the poll's sample accurately reflects the population as whole, ROLL CALL reports on Tuesday.

"Not counting independents, the Times' results were calculated on a sample made up of 38 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans -- a huge and unheard-of margin," ROLL CALL claims.

Developing...

It's plainly obvious that this poll doesn't show anything, except that Democrats like Kerry, but it was still being taken entirely at face value and proclaimed the voice of the people. Once again, the media feels a need not to let facts stand in the way of a good story.

What a travesty. Good job the president isn't elected by newspaper opinion polls, but rather by the will of the country as as whole.

Of course, in the 2000 election the people preferred Gore by 500,000+ votes, but Bush got elected anyway.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[panzwami 0]

Quote

Of course, in the 2000 election the people preferred Gore by 500,000+ votes, but Bush got elected anyway.

You have the Electoral College to thank for that one. Personally, I think the entire institution is outdated and should be removed completely, but that's another thread.

[TheAnvil 0]

The LA TIMES manipulate #'s in favor of the democrats? Say it isn't so.....

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

The LA TIMES manipulate #'s in favor of the democrats? Say it isn't so.....

What's absurd is that they didn't need to manipulate the numbers. With nearly 60% of the american population claiming to be "dissatisfied" with his presidency, GWB is tanking his own numbers, he doesn't need the LATimes's help.

Do check out this site: www.pollingreport.com. It collects statistics from a variety of sources, and concisely reports them.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Gee.. I wonder why?

http://www.mediatenor.com/US-Election_040611.htm

Quote

New York - June 14, 2004. Coverage of the state of the economy, education, healthcare and domestic security have been declining in the U.S. TV evening news since January. The latest report from Media Tenor, an independent media analysis institute, shows that the big three networks have neglected topics that are crucial influences on voters' decisions in national elections.

Quote

ABC focused heavily on the state of the economy in its news coverage at the beginning of the year, and in January, issues such as domestic security, healthcare and education still played a role on World News Tonight, albeit a small one. Since April, however, these four issues have practically vanished from news coverage. The same trend also occurred at the other two networks, and all four issues have ceased to be consistently presented since April. As a consequence, the public does not have a clear picture of either of the candidates' stances on these issues.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Of course, in the 2000 election the people preferred Gore by 500,000+ votes, but Bush got elected anyway.

You have the Electoral College to thank for that one. Personally, I think the entire institution is outdated and should be removed completely, but that's another thread.

I don't. The electoral college forces a healthy respect for the country as a whole, and not only the votes of the population centers. I think the electoral college is a GREAT tool for ensuring that the whole country gets counted.

Let's see other examples of this:
1) A boxer lands 50 more punches on his opponent, but loses 7 rounds. If boxing was scored on punches landed, that would be a victory, but it isn't, so no bitching.

2) A baseball team in a seven game World Series wins 3 games via 10-0 shutout (all three perfect games) The opponent wins four games, each one 1-0. Total runs are 30-4, which proves that the team scoring 40 runs should have won, right? Well, the rules don't work like that. Maybe they should.

Quit whining. The rules are known going in. And most of us view the complaints of an unfair system the way I would view the boxing mach or a baseball team - you lost.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Gee.. I wonder why?

http://www.mediatenor.com/US-Election_040611.htm

Because the media are biased to the right, apparently:

"For the first time in more than five weeks, George W. Bush received more positive (8.4%) than negative (7.6%) news coverage*. John Kerry, by contrast, has faced a dearth of positive news coverage since the second week of June. Kerry's campaign paused in the week following Reagan's death, and in that time the evening news didn't feature a single direct quote from him. When he was mentioned 13.3% of Kerry's coverage was negative."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Gee.. I wonder why?

http://www.mediatenor.com/US-Election_040611.htm

Because the media are biased to the right, apparently:

"For the first time in more than five weeks, George W. Bush received more positive (8.4%) than negative (7.6%) news coverage*. John Kerry, by contrast, has faced a dearth of positive news coverage since the second week of June. Kerry's campaign paused in the week following Reagan's death, and in that time the evening news didn't feature a single direct quote from him. When he was mentioned 13.3% of Kerry's coverage was negative."

Probably because America was reminded of what real leadership is during the week of mourning for Reagan. So when Kerry's name was mentioned, it was in a negative light. This is different from past polling which indicated that when Kerry kept his mouth shut, his poll numbers went up. If you look at the graphics, you will also notice a slight upswing in the satisfied catagory and a downturn in the dissatisfied one. I guess we will revisit this topic in a few weeks and see where the numbers are then.

I believe giving any credibility to polls this far from an election is dumb. So much can happen to swing them one way or another.

[panzwami 0]

Quote

I don't. The electoral college forces a healthy respect for the country as a whole, and not only the votes of the population centers. I think the electoral college is a GREAT tool for ensuring that the whole country gets counted.

Let's see other examples of this:
1) A boxer lands 50 more punches on his opponent, but loses 7 rounds. If boxing was scored on punches landed, that would be a victory, but it isn't, so no bitching.

2) A baseball team in a seven game World Series wins 3 games via 10-0 shutout (all three perfect games) The opponent wins four games, each one 1-0. Total runs are 30-4, which proves that the team scoring 40 runs should have won, right? Well, the rules don't work like that. Maybe they should.

Quit whining. The rules are known going in. And most of us view the complaints of an unfair system the way I would view the boxing mach or a baseball team - you lost.

First of all, don't get me wrong, I'm glad the Electoral College was there in 2000. Even so, I still think it should go away.

Second, neither of those is an accurate example of the way the Electoral College works. The Presidential election is a one-shot, winner-take-all race. It's not a seven-game series played out over two weeks. If you want to liken it to a sporting event, try the Super Bowl. One shot, most points wins. You don't win best-of-four-quarters.

The difference is that the Presidency is a national office. Senators, Representatives, Governors - these are all limited to certain states or districts. Someone living in the Texas 5th District doesn't get to vote for a Congressman in the California 14th. But, they both have the option of voting for the same Presidential candidate. The fact that a nationally-elected office could be filled in a manor other than that which reflects the will of the people is wrong IMHO.

According to the State Department's website, the Framers shied away from a direct election because communication was poor and they were afraid people would only vote for people they knew locally:

The framers of the U.S. constitution pondered several options for how to elect a president, including a direct popular vote. They rejected this procedure on the grounds that, given the poor state of communications and the large physical distances that separated the states, voters were likely to be familiar only with candidates from their state, and victories for a number of "favorite sons" might prevent the emergence of a single candidate. Either that, or the largest states would always dominate the process.

Obviously, given today's technology and instant communications, that's no longer a very big concern. In addition, simply because the majority of the people in a state vote for a certain candidate, there's no guarantee that the electors chosen by that state will actually vote that way. It has happened in the past where electors have voted for someone other than the person for whom they were supposed to vote. I know it's rare and may seem trivial, but it's a realistic possibility and just adds one more way that the will of the people might not be done.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Either that, or the largest states would always dominate the process.

Yep. That's the point here. Look at the distribution of the states. In fact, the largest states dominate the process, just not to the extent they would if there was a popular vote.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Either that, or the largest states would always dominate the process.

Yep. That's the point here. Look at the distribution of the states. In fact, the largest states dominate the process, just not to the extent they would if there was a popular vote.

Analysis of who dominates turns out to be a very complex math problem. Much more complex than just looking at the numbers of voters and electoral votes might lead you to believe.

See, for example:
www.warwick.ac.uk/~ecaae/

Using the Banzhaf index it seems that the electoral college actually concentrates more power in the large states than would proportional representation. This is contrary to intuition, but advanced math often is.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[newsstand 0]

New Hampshire made the difference in the 2000 election because Nader stopped Gore from getting the electoral votes. Not a big population center at all.

No electoral college in 2000 would also have meant a Gore win. If it was the population centers that controlled it then he should still have lost.

Drop the college let the people vote. Landslides will still be landslides but close votes will still reflect the will of the entire country. Also electoral landslides can happen even in a close popular vote. It would be harder for a president to claim a mandate when he/she only won by a few percentage points in the popular vote.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yep. That's the point here. Look at the distribution of the states. In fact, the largest states dominate the process, just not to the extent they would if there was a popular vote.

California is 20% of the EVs one needs to win and when was it last relevent?

In 2000 Bush ignored the state, crapped on it since, and will repeat this year. He'll happily yield it to Kerry. Same is true for Texas, New York, Mass, Illinois. Only Ohio and Florida get the benefits these days.

An upshot of popular vote dictating (I don't favor it in general) is that he would have actually campaigned here. The vote delta in CA was pretty close to the overall one. But on the other side, Bush won 31 states to Gore's 19. That should be worth something.

As for polling, it's always done with a political bent at this time of year. Bear in mind that Dukakis had a healthy lead too in the pre convention days. Kerry will likely get another bump during the convention, and then will lose some when Bush does his.

[airdweller 0]

gore lost because he lost his own state

------------------------------------------------------
"From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant,
who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

The LA TIMES manipulate #'s in favor of the democrats? Say it isn't so.....

That is shocking! Next thing we'll hear is the NY Times and the Boston Globe are doing the same thing. [sarcasm intended]

_________________________________________
Chris

[lawrocket 3]

Yeah, kelp, I hear you. But, Bush looked at the data and figured there was no way he could win Cali. Since popular vite didn't matter, he focused on the places where it would help him.

It's playing it smart and knowing the rules. I don't think Gore even bothered to drop by cali very often, since it was wrapped up.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[newsstand 0]

Quote

gore lost because he lost his own state

My point was that only a few electoral votes seperated him from victory. Tennesse is not exactly swimming in electoral votes either. It is being argued that ONLY the large population centers matter and I say that is not true.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes