Obama campaign: New York Times poll is 'biased'

Washington Examiner ^ | May 15, 2012 | Charlie Spiering

[AmonAmarth]

May 15, 2012 9:44am 1 Comment Obama campaign: New York Times poll is 'biased' byCharlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer Share on emailShare on printFollow on Twitter: Obama campaign deputy manager Stephanie Cutter dismissed today's CBS/New York Times poll showing that 67 percent of people believed Obama made his decision on gay marriage for political reasons. Only 24 percent said that Obama did it “mostly because he thinks it is right.”

Host Chuck Todd asked Cutter about the poll, admitting that the methodology of the poll was different, because it was a callback poll. "Put those caveats aside thats a lot of people saying that he did this for political reasons," Todd said, noting that it was a 3-1 margin.

"We can't put the methodology of that poll aside, because the methodology was significantly biased." Cutter insisted on MSNBC this morning.

When pressed by Todd, Cutter said that she didn't want to bore the viewers with talk of methodology, but repeated that she believed the poll was flawed.

[blackdog]

Something is really wrong and Obama company knows it.

Here in Memphis the yard signs for the November elections are already cropping up. Everyone who makes a living off other peoples taxes are worried for their hero. I've never-ever seen yard signs going up in May, seven months before the elections.

[Freestate316]

The NBPP, prisons, welfare recipients, the SEIU, the LGBT crowd and Hollywood were not polled. Therefore, the results are skewed.

[Old Retired Army Guy]

A few weeks ago when a Gallup Poll was unfavorable to Obama, Axelrod said pretty much the same thing. I guess any poll showing their guy down must be flawed.

[anoldafvet]

It probably is biased, they oversampled democrats and undersampled republicans and independents.

[VideoDoctor]

I believe the tactic being used by Cutter is called "pissing into the wind".

The results of that tactic is you end up covered with your own urine.

[Verginius Rufus]

Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack (former Democratic governor of Iowa) was on "Morning Joe" this morning. He asserted that people in Iowa realize that Obama took his position out of principle (or the like--don't remember the exact words he used), and that the unemployment rate there is 5.5% or something like that, so Iowa will go for Obama in the fall.

Iowa is probably one of the states which is up for grabs. Obama would probably be able to count on it if he had picked Vilsack in 2008 instead of Biden. After all, Delaware is pretty safe for the Democrats no matter what.

[RobinOfKingston]

... she believed the poll was flawed.

"Flawed but accurate."

[trebb]

Ain’t it a real live b**** when the truth gets so big that even O’s biggest supporters can see it?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Obama campaign: New York Times poll is 'biased'

Damn right it is.

Just think how bad you'd look if it wasn't.

[krogers58]

Wait til they see how biased the elections are! I think it was Ronald Coase(?) that said if you torture numbers long enough you can get them to confess to anything.

Humor aside, the Obama team, IMHO, wants to keep the polls as tight as possible so they can claim anomalies on election eve, and say the election was stolen. I’m afraid they will probably invoke the race card at that point and many of our cities will be burning. Of course, the President will “Federalize” the national guards of the states to put down the revolution/insurrection, and of course there will be the obligatory martial law that will accompany this to make it appear to be legal, in a United Nations sort of way.

[Kaslin]

I can't decide which one to use