Includes an explanation for the spurious double-digit lead reported in the Time/Newsweek results and subject of an active Pit thread.
Actually, I’ve seen results ranging from slight Kerry lead to 11 point Bush lead and suspect the truth is hovering around the 6 point Bush lead area, as reported by CNN.
I know no movie worth its salt foregoes a little extra drama in the 3rd reel before the good guys start to come out on top for keeps, but I could do without a Bush lead, frankly.
How 'bout them additional missing Nat’l Guard records, hmm? How 'bout them 'purple heart Band-Aids? C’mon, media, let’s have some focus.
PS — I have reasons to think the Kerry campaign is gonna embrace, not run from, Kerry’s history as a war protestor. Watch for a documentary piece.
Well, the national polls are nice, but it’s the state polls that you should really be paying attention to. This site is invaluable; it’s updated every day that there’s a new state poll somewhere. For those who get off on this stuff, an animation of the trends. Neat.
As to the Bush lead, I’d wait until about next Monday or so before I start to take these polls seriously again. If two weeks from now we’re still talking about a Bush lead, it’s time to get concerned. Or not.
After the Democratic convention, the media focuses obsessively on the one poll showing that Kerry didn’t get a bounce, while ignoring two polls which clearly show that he did. After the Republican convention, they give the most attention to a]the poll showing the best results for Bush. Funny, that.
I would like to know precisely what France did wrong. They didn’t buy the WMD crap that Bush was peddling and it turned out they were right. If we had listened to them, we wouldn’t be heading up toward 1,000 body bags and we wouldn’t be in this quagmire that makes Vietnam look like a picnic. But it’s alright, Iraq has a soccer team!
I don’t know why I’m even bothering with a response, but it’s hot as hell out here in CA right now, and I’m not ready for bed yet…
Yes, yes, yes there are media outlets that are biased. Let’s take newspapers, for instance:
Many of the large city newspapers (NYT, LA Times, SF Chronicle, Washington Post) have a decidely liberal editorial section. They may strive for more balance on their Op Ed pages, but if you read the Editorials and look at the candidates they support, it’s pertty clear that they are liberal. And some newspapers show an editorial bias towards the conservative. Do these biases slip into the news stories? Probably. The NYT’s public editor recently wrote a piece about in the Sunday Week in Review section.
But when you (and I mean you, rjung, not the general you) make broad claims about an overwhelmingly conservative bias in “the media”, well that’s simply laughable. I’d say the same to anyone who claimed a liberal bias.
But in your world, there are the only the extremes. You either hate Bush or you hate Kerry. You don’t seem to understand that most people don’t fall into either category.
On that note, I’ll leave you in peace and you can make all the wild claims you want about how conservative “the media” is. Your arguments along those lines are almost always hopelessly tangential to the main topic of debate anyway.
I also note, however, that you consistently fail to bring up any evidence that the mainstream media does not have a conservative bias – especially given the contrast between the media’s savaging of Clinton’s eight years in office with their milquetoast treatment of Bush’s four.
You consistently fail to realize that one cannot prove a negative.
Could it be that it wasn’t so much the press that savaged Clinton as it was the Republicans? That the press was reporting that savaging? The Democrats haven’t gone after Bush to any degree in the same way. If they did, the press would jump all over it quicker than you could say “blowjob”. Could it also be that sex sells and dry policy debates don’t? Could it be that having a “Lady Macbeth” in the WH sells and having a tea-serving hostess with a sweet southern drawl doesn’t? Could it be that the press is often lazy, and easily lap up dirt that the other side feeds them? Surely you think the Pubs are better at that than the Dems.
I don’t even know which of those theories, if any, are correct. Saying that it **must **be bias is simply you seeing what you want to see. If the Dems lose or the Pubs win, it’s not because one side had better ideas or even just better tactics. It’s because the press is against the Dems. Can’t possibly be any other reason. :rolleyes:
Sorry, pages move while the links remain the same.
Here is the Rasmussen analysis of why the Time/Newsweek poll showed a double-digit Bush lead.
Here is the daily poll record Rasmussen keeps, a rolling 3-day total. Today’s Rasmussen score shows the candidates exactly tied at 47.3%.
Much as I, a strongly partisan Kerry supporter, would like to believe that, Rasmussen themselves do not believe that figure. On one of the three days which get averaged to produce that score, they had what they regard as an outlyer, and if they discount that they get a 6% lead for Bush. (Their discussion of this is on the same page as their discussion of the Time/Newsweek “double-digit Bush lead” misfinding).
I also suspect, on the basis of incantations and shrunken head analysis* that the Bush lead is closer to a half-dozen percentage points. There’s not much question he got some convention “bounce”, seeing that several major polls encompassing Time, Newsweek, Gallup, CNN and USA Today all agree on that score. So the media conspiracy theorists will just need to accept that for now and hope for better days to come.
Interestingly, Zogby has Bush leading by just 2 points, which is probably within the margin of poll error.
A few more days of Iraq news headlines like this morning’s, and we could be right back in a statistical dead heat in most of the polls.
I’m against the war in Iraq and was so from the beginning, but it’s silly to compare its entangling nature to Vietnam. Vietnam was so much incredibly worse it shouldn’t even been necessary to mention.
For starters, unlike the Vietcong, the Iraqi insurgents do not have financial and military equipment support from two communist superpowers!
)