Real Clear Politics again shows its bias toward Romney

Real Clear Politics ^ | 12/18/2011 | staff

[Future Useless Eater]

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

Polling Data on December 18, 2011
Poll			Date		Sample	Gingr. 	Romney 	Paul 	Bachmn.	Perry 	Santm. 	Hunts. 	Spread
RCP Average		12/07 - 12/17	--	 30.5	 22.5	9.8	8.0	7.0	3.5	3.0	Gingrich +8.0
Gallup Tracking		12/12 - 12/17	1000 RV	 28	 24	10	7	6	4	2	Gingrich +4
Reuters/Ipsos		12/08 - 12/12	443 RV	 28	 18	12	10	12	4	5	Gingrich +10
Associated Press/GfK	12/08 - 12/12	460 A	 33	 27	9	9	6	3	2	Gingrich +6
Pew Research		12/07 - 12/11	504 RV	 33	 21	8	6	4	3	3	Gingrich +12

[Future Useless Eater]

but notice the DATES of one they deliberately EXCLUDED...
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl	12/07 - 12/11	271 RV	  40	 23	9	8	6	3	5	Gingrich +17

Karl Rove's favorite polling-analyst organization: Real Clear Politics (of Chicago) has again demonstrated its bias in favor of Mitt Romney.

In the last few months, there have been several times when RCP has kept including some poll results within their "RCP Averages" even though the poll was older than 23 days in its entirety. Those polls always caused Romney to have a relatively better score in their RCP average, especially in comparison to whichever anti-Romney was leading at the time.

There have also been several times when RCP has retired some poll results from their "RCP Averages" when the poll was less than 14 days old. Sometimes MUCH less than 14 days old. Those removals always helped Romney have a better relative standing in their RCP average.

Today's example is glaringly repulsive. TWO POLLS taken on identical days (12/7 thru 12/11), but one showed Gingrich with a +17 point spread over Romney. And RCP chose to ELIMINATE that poll. A second poll taken on the SAME DATES, shows Gingrich with only a +12 point advantage over Romney. RCP chose to KEEP that poll.

By doing this RCP 'sleight of math', they can now report an average, and a trend chart that more closely agrees with the MSM and Karl Rove talking points, that Gingrich is falling fast and Romney is on course to take the lead.

But isn't the point of 'averaging' polls to flatten out differences between polling companies? Apparently NOT so, to the folks at RCP.

By RCP's own method of counting, both of these polls (Pew and NBC) are only 7 days old because they have previously used the end-date of a poll to determine its date of removal.

RCP's 'standard' used to be that they would only include polls if some of that polling data was within the last 14 days. If all of it was older than 14 days, it was too old, and did not qualify for the RCP average. But standards do not apparently matter if you are from Chicago, and you favor Mitt Romney.

From now thru the Iowa caucus, we are likely to experience a great amount of dishonesty in polling firms and those analysts (like Real Clear Politics) who try to spin numbers to push an outcome.

It seems 'Real Clear' that Karl Rove's and Obama's MSM have decided that Mitt Romney should be the GOP nominee.

[Future Useless Eater]

The MSM's slime machine is currently targeting Newt Gingrich, because Obama is afraid of him,
(and they want Romney to win the GOP nomination).

And Obama's method of attack is to now, finally, to use the S.E.C. to 'destroy' the leaders of Freddie/Fannie (in the press)
but primarily use THAT to destroy Gingrich in the 'court of public opinion' for his connection to them.

It has been YEARS that Freddie/Fannie have been known to be corrupt.
And Gingrich was pointing out HOW CORRUPT they were, even in 2008.

Here is a transcript of Newt saying on CSPAN, how horrible Freddie and Fannie were managed
and they should be dismantled...

"Governing & Political Change" held in St. Paul Minnesota, September 3, 2008

Bachmann: The question is on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the outrage and will it go private?
or where are Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac going to go?

Gingrich: Well, I think this is one of the great tests of reform- 
of a populist reform conservatism. 

There is ZERO reasons to bail out these two institutions.

They have violated the fundamental principle of why they were created.

And I did a fair amount of-...  Let me be right up front... 
I did a fair amount of work with Freddie Mac, looking at it, consulting it,
but not at a fiduciary level, but at a general public policy level.

I am appalled at the degree of management irresponsibility 
that both places have had, and I think they should be treated 
precisely like a private sector institution, 

And the stockholders, and the senior management should fundamentally 
have to bear the brunt...
I don't think you want to let them go broke, because they're enormous, 
and that has a BIG second and third order consequence on the system. 

But I think what you want to say, is as a consequence of their survival, 
they should be broken up, they should go thru the equivalent of a receivership, 
and everybody who was profiting from them should pay the cost of having failed. 

And the general taxpayer should NOT bear that burden. 
and I think that could be handled totally different.

But there is ZERO reason, now that they've failed... 
I was perfectly happy to to not PUSH the issue, as long as they weren't failing, 
but NOW that they've clearly failed their fiduciary responsibility, 
there is zero reason for the average taxpayer to bail out these institutions.

And their senior managements have been DISGRACEFUL in the mismanagement, 
particularly I think,  of Fannie Mae which had huge, huge, internal problems 
in terms of accounting, in a way you can't quite understand,,, 

How could people run an institution THAT badly? 

thanks to Royal Wulff for the pointer to that historical video clip

[RC one]

The country clubbers have closed ranks around Mittens. No surprise there.

[Berlin_Freeper]

If I were Gingrich I would make a pledge that if elected I will never play golf.

[deport]

Don't know about a 14 day average or if they get dropped and only use the most current four polls. But look down the page and there are polls going back to Nov. 2010. Tue they only used one of the three polls with a beginning date of 12/7.

Here's a few:

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	Gingrich	Romney	Paul	Bachmann	Perry	Santorum	Huntsman	Cain	Spread
RCP Average	12/7 - 12/17	--	30.5	22.5	9.8	8.0	7.0	3.5	3.0	--	Gingrich +8.0
Gallup Tracking	12/12 - 12/17	1000 RV	28	24	10	7	6	4	2	--	Gingrich +4
Reuters/Ipsos	12/8 - 12/12	443 RV	28	18	12	10	12	4	5	--	Gingrich +10
Associated Press/GfK	12/8 - 12/12	460 A	33	27	9	9	6	3	2	--	Gingrich +6
Pew Research	12/7 - 12/11	504 RV	33	21	8	6	4	3	3	--	Gingrich +12
Gallup	12/7 - 12/11	1000 LV	33	23	8	6	6	3	2	--	Gingrich +10
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl	12/7 - 12/11	271 RV	40	23	9	8	6	3	5	--	Gingrich +17
FOX News	12/5 - 12/7	356 RV	36	23	12	5	8	4	2	--	Gingrich +13
Rasmussen Reports	11/30 - 11/30	1000 LV	38	17	8	4	4	4	3	8	Gingrich +21
CNN/Opinion Research	11/18 - 11/20	402 A	24	20	9	5	11	4	3	17	Gingrich +4
Quinnipiac	11/14 - 11/20	1039 RV	26	22	6	4	6	2	2	14	Gingrich +4
USA Today/Gallup	11/13 - 11/17	946 RV	22	21	9	4	8	1	1	16	Gingrich +1

[ez]

But, but, but Michele Bachmann said Newt supported Freddie and Fannie.

[sodpoodle]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. That’s what I’m talkin’ about. Absolute absolution.

Your post needs a thread of its own.

[babble-on]

maybe the ridiculously small sample size made it suspect.

[Lady on the Lake]

Good! Romney’s the man!

[Future Useless Eater]

To Michele Bachmann:

I like you. I like you a lot.

But you have been a U.S. Representative in Congress, representing a small portion of Minnesota, for less than five years, since January 2007.

That's still a little light on experience for running for President. But you're still young and you could be a stronger candidate in the future. Please keep up your good work!!

In 2008, you were apparently friends with Newt Gingrich, and you apparently invited him onto that same stage with you in Saint Paul. And you appeared to beam, and smile in approval as Newt blasted Fannie and Freddie.

So PLEASE tone down your current rhetoric against Newt, and please do not forget Romney is an abortionist, and an ObamneyCare and Gay Marriage advocate.

"We" who support Tea Party principles MIGHT want you on Newt's ticket for VP. And then, after eight years in Newt's administration, you could be ready to take over the reins, and continue after Newt demolishes and reverses this incredible Obama nightmare.

[RockinRight]

Newt’s consistency looks a lot better now.

[BfloGuy]

Please tell me this post is a joke.

If you hit the scroll button, say, 2 or 3 times, the entire list is displayed under the graph. The poll you claim has been excluded is shown right where it should be. The averages for Gingrich and Romney in the headline are exactly the same as their averages in the second listing.

RCP did not eliminate -- repeat: did not eliminate -- the poll you mentioned. RCP clearly shows an 8 point lead for Gingrich. Tell me, what possible reason would they have to exclude a poll showing a lead for Gingrich, but still show the average of all the polls as a, um, lead for Gingrich?

You are descending into the fever swamps that almost devoured the Palin supporters before she withdrew. To paraphrase an old favorite: You're lookin' for hate in all the wrong places.

[katiedidit1]

Bachmann KNEW this and still went rabid on Newt? she is even lower in my eyes than before...

[Ann Archy]

Amen.....come back Michele after you have been a Governor.

[Future Useless Eater]

If you hit the scroll button, say, 2 or 3 times, the entire list is displayed under the graph. The poll you claim has been excluded is shown right where it should be.

I am well aware of how that works. I don't have to scroll down like you suggest, because that shows me all the OLDER polls that the are NOT including in the current "RCP Average" RCP is fudging their math to make Romney look better in the current "average". I never said they are putting him in the lead.

By the way, I see from your profile you would like to change your FR name someday. Just ask Jim Robinson to do so and he can do it, and you won't lose your continuity to all your existing posts. ...other than that, your posting history looks like you do a lot of heckling on Gingrich threads, so please do not address or reply to me again.

[CainConservative]

Put down the crack pipe.

[exit82]

Great find—even more so, when you realize this was almost two weeks before the US financial house starting collapsing in Sept. 2008.

[Future Useless Eater]

Great find—even more so, when you realize this was almost two weeks before the US financial house starting collapsing in Sept. 2008.

Excellent point, I missed that.
Gingrich was slamming Fannie and Freddie, weeks BEFORE the 2008 meltdown. Gingrich had a better handle on the economic mess in this country than either Senator Obama, or Senator McCain!!!

[Prokopton]

It has been YEARS that Freddie/Fannie have been known to be corrupt. And Gingrich was pointing out HOW CORRUPT they were, even in 2008.

In 2007, when he was still working for Fannie and Freddie, Gingrich talked up their virtues.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/02/380699/gingrich-fannie-freddie-important/

In 2008, when his contracts with Fannie and Freddie ran out, Gingrich bad mouthed them.

And you are using this as something to admire Gingrich for?

[xzins]

Gingrich was a contracted consultant for Fannie/Freddie.

He did not work for them ever. He was never on their payroll. The contract was similar to every contract that Gingrich Group had. The amount was similar, 200 grand, and the product purchased was the same.

For a speaking engagement, the Gingrich Group charged in the neighborhood of 60 grand.

[Prokopton]

Gingrich was a contracted consultant for Fannie/Freddie. He did not work for them ever.

Contracted consultants work for their clients. Freddie and Fannie were Gingrich's clients and he worked for them, that's why they paid him over $1 million.

I'm getting dizzy from the Gingrich supporters spin.

Since 1999 through 2007, Gingrich was talking up the value of Freddie and Fannie, a time when anyone with a brain could see that they were destructive to our economy. During this entire time Gingrich was also receiving money from Fannie and Freddie.

In 2008, Gingrich bad mouthed Fannie and Freddie. In 2008, Gingrich's 8 years of getting paid by Fannie and Freddie had ended and he no longer received money from them.

These are the facts, interpret them as you will.

[xzins]

Wrong. Employees of companies receive benefits, have the company pay half their Social Security, etc.

He was a contracted expert.

And you honestly think that a contract with a company would permit that contractor to voice criticism of a client?

Even baseball players’ contracts don’t permit that.

[TChad]

Please tell me this post is a joke.

Exactly my response. I don't know why the two polls were excluded from the RCP average, but there are plenty of possible reasons besides pro-Romney bias. Even if you include those polls they just change Gingrich's current margin over Romney from 8.0 to 9.8. Big deal.

[Prokopton]

Wrong. Employees of companies receive benefits, have the company pay half their Social Security, etc.

He was a contracted expert.

And you honestly think that a contract with a company would permit that contractor to voice criticism of a client?

Even baseball players’ contracts don’t permit that.

You destroy your argument with your own words. No one said Gingrich was an employee of Freddie/Fannie, he worked for them on contract. Get it? Worked for them.

The whole point is that Gingrich did not say anything about the damage Freddie/Fannie was doing to our economy, even though he must have known, unless you think he was stupid. On the contrary, he was praising them. Why? As you pointed out, because he was getting paid by them. Nothing illegal about that, he could have been working on contract for Planned Parenthood, another enterprise that damages our Country, and it would still be legal. However don't be surprised when someone asks why didn't he warn us about Fannie and Freddie, why did he try to make us think they were valuable organizations, and his answer is "because I was getting paid by them and and do you honestly think that a contract with a company would permit that contractor to voice criticism of a client?"

[newzjunkey]

That’s excellent and enlightening considering the “influence peddling” attack from Bachmann in the last debate.

[Cronos]

ever notice that they ignored Gingrich when he wasn’t the front-runner? They first slimed Palin, then went after Cain and now Gingrich?

[Lancey Howard]

RealClearPolitics is a GOP establishment organ.
Naturally that thing is going to cover for and push Romney.

[Lancey Howard]

And Obama's method of attack is to now, finally, to use the S.E.C. to 'destroy' the leaders of Freddie/Fannie (in the press) but primarily use THAT to destroy Gingrich in the 'court of public opinion' for his connection to them.

Get a grip.
Ubama and the rats want no mention of Fannie/Freddie. They can't believe the Republicans haven't done a more effective job of tying that disaster around the rats' necks. Sure, Dodd and Frank were told to take a hike because of their insidious collaboration with Fannie/Freddie, but the rats don't want to lose any more. Additionally, the specter of Franklin Delano Raines (one of Holder's people) still looms large. The rats definitely don't want anybody reviving that guy's story.

[xzins]

Do you understand the difference between an employee and a contractor?

Is it reasonable that your lawyer would turn against you in public while working on a case for you?

I’m surprised at those who cannot understand the obligation to support your client, when they understand it so easily when the conversation is of lawyers.

[Prokopton]

I’m surprised at those who cannot understand the obligation to support your client, when they understand it so easily when the conversation is of lawyers.

Lawyers have no obligation to "support" their clients. They have a responsibility to represent their clients legal position within the bounds of the law. Lawyers who make public appearances claiming their clients innocence are acting as a "mouthpiece". There's a big difference.

Gingrich publicly proclaimed the value of Fannie and Freddie in 2007, a time when he had to have known it's precarious position. He didn't do this as a "historian" (did he really believe people would buy this?), he did this as a hired gun. The money was more important to him then telling the truth to the American people. If he did, much of the tragedy of the collapse of our economy might have been avoided.

Yep, this is a great record to run on.

[xzins]

Actually, I’ve seen lawyers on TV doing public relations for their clients, trying to paint the most favorable image of them possible. That is a fairly standard expectation, I think.

That does not mean that behind the scenes the lawyer isn’t disagreeing with some things and agreeing with others.

I’m surprised that people are upset that Newt made money off of F&F, but that other businessman who do virtually the same thing (advertising agencies, for example) can make millions doing the same thing, and that’s just fine.

If you learned that some ad agency had a 200 grand per year contract with F&F, would it bother you? It wouldn’t me.

[Prokopton]

I’m surprised that people are upset that Newt made money off of F&F>

No one cares about the money. Newt didn't tell the American people the truth about Fannie and Freddie. Instead he he tried to convince the American people that they were valuable institutions when he new otherwise. Whether he got money to do this makes no difference. He was not honest with the American people and it could very likely have contributed to the hundreds of billions in losses to our economy. Doing this only to make money makes it worse, not better.

[xzins]

Fannie & Freddie were a business. They bought mortgages from banks/brokers. They wouldn’t have been able to do that if it weren’t economically viable for the banks/brokers to dump the mortgages. That way they didn’t have to service them all those years.

They had a market niche, and in that sense, they were valuable. I’ve probably had 4 mortgages in my life, and all except this most recent was sold. The small country bank I’m with right now likes to service their own.

[Prokopton]

They bought mortgages from banks/brokers. They wouldn’t have been able to do that if it weren’t economically viable for the banks/brokers to dump the mortgages.

I thought you understood, many of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie bought were no good, and they knew it, and Gingrich admitted that he knew it. The taxpayers have had to bail them out with tens of billions of dollars. Instead of Gingrich telling the American people of the huge liability Fannie and Freddie had become, he instead decided to publicly promote them, for money.

That's just part of his history that he has to live with.