LA Times Skews its Poll for Kerry

The Note/ABC News ^ | June 10, 2004

[Cableguy]

Check out how LA Times skews its poll in favor of Kerry, as explained in the 2nd paragraph:

---------------

Add that to this morning's Los Angeles Times poll, which shows Sen. John Kerry above 50 percent nationwide in a head-to-head matchup and President Bush with a 56 percent wrong-track number, even though his base is holding strong. Keep an eye on the independent and congressional numbers, though.

Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd caveats to ABC News: "A note of caution: be very careful in reporting Los Angeles Times poll. It is a mess. Bush is leading independents by three, ahead among Republicans by a larger margin than Kerry is ahead among Dems, and we are down by seven. Outrageous. And it gets worse. They have Dems leading generic congressional ballot by 19. this means this poll is too Democratic by 10 to 12 points."

[Agnes Heep]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't the LA Times do the same with Schwarzeneger?

[MizSterious]

Talk about media shenanigans!

[Dont Mention the War]

You are not mistaken.

[kennedy]

What, are you suggesting that the LA Times is biased? GASP! Tell me it isn't so!!!

[RonDog]

See also a SIMILAR thread:

Explaining the LA Times Poll
Rush ^ | 6/10/04 | Rush Limbaugh
Posted on 06/10/2004 3:40:55 PM PDT by pookie18

There's a poll that the media is going gaga over today out of the Los Angeles Times that shows John Kerry (true to form) has gone back into his cave this week -- except for his one appearance out in Simi Valley -- and his numbers are going up. Presidential poll says that Kerry is cleaning Bush's clock and gaining ground.

Well, I look at the internals of this poll and there's only one way this can be happening. Let me go through this for you. The poll out today shows that Bush trails Senator Kerry on a ballot test with Ralph Nader on there by six points, 48-42. You take Nader out, I think, it's Kerry may be at 51 and Bush at 44, something like that, but figure six points here. But, in the same poll, President Bush carries independents 49-46 and Republicans by a 92-4 margin.

Now, wait a second. How does this compute? If Bush carries independents 49-46 and Republicans by 92-4, how does Kerry have a six-point lead? Because in the same poll, Kerry leads among Democrats by 86-7, not 92-4. With Bush carrying independents by three points in this poll, and holding more of his own party than does Kerry, the Times' sample, in order to give Kerry this lead, has to contain far more Democrats than Republicans! It has to be a weighted survey. They have to have talked to a vast majority of Democrats compared to Republicans and independents in this poll. And in this same poll, they also point out there are three battleground states, and one of them is now Ohio, that Bush is doing much better in and Kerry is in trouble.

The way Ron Brownstein starts this story -- it's amazing, the headline: "Kerry Increases Lead Over Bush," and the first line, lead of the story is pretty much, "Wow, in what is great news for the campaign," I'm paraphrasing, "John Kerry has upped his lead!" And then after that it's everything that you ought to read to say, "Well but don't trust this."

It's just a strange, strange, strange story. I mean, it's worth noting that three major studies show partisan identification in the nation more or less evenly split. You know, for example, the Gallup study, 40,000 interviews in 2003 finds a 45.5 to 45.2 Republican-Democrat split, and ABC News study of 22 surveys in 2003 with a thousand or more interviews each find partisan identification evenly split 31-31. This is Democrat-Republican. And the Pew study of its 2003 survey finds Republicans trailing Democrats by one point, 30-31. This is Democrat-Republican, pretty much evenly split in all three of these surveys. Now, what this tells you is conservatives outnumber liberals in terms much how they identify themselves 2-1 right now. It's like 36-18. Only 18-20% of Americans actually have the courage and the guts and the temerity and the fortitude and the gonads to identify themselves as liberal. Only 18-or-20%.

So throw out this Democrat-Republican business to a certain extent. But this poll is awfully, awfully suspicious, I shall say...

CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread

[eureka!]

Re#2 Yup. They had Bustamonte by 13 points or somesuch and the recall failing. T'ain't called the LA Slimes for nothing...

[Uncle Hal]

The LA times did skewer their a poll during the recall to give Cruz a lead over Arnold. This was when all the other polls had Arnold winning easily. What the Tims pollster did was count Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in greater portion than they had ever voted in any election. Thus these minorities were over represented and the whites were underrepresented in the poll. The Times was dishonest and slanted the poll to wards what they wanted the outcome to be. Another example of dishonesty by the liberal media.

[wrathof59]

you are correct, and it's worth repeating that the LA Times is owned by the Chicago Tribune. If the source is not credible, than their reporting is not credible.

[fat city]

What's so strange about it?-- they simply polled the city desk.

[prophetic]

nothing to see here folks:

Just the usual biased polling from the L.A. Slimes.

I'd bet that 90% of the poll was from their favorite democrap strongholds and the other 10% from the 'rest of the country'.

[MaineVoter2002]

http://www.presidentelect.org/e2004.html

[Maria S]

"The way Ron Brownstein starts this story -- it's amazing, the headline..."


Poor guy's really missing Sharon, I guess.

[HardStarboard]

The Left is imploding on their own campaign of disinformation and hate .

The Left's main problem is that there isn't anyone in mainstream medialand, the only sources the left trusts, that will report the facts to the Left.

Hopefully they will go into November far too optimistic about their chances.....and not bother to vote.

[bpjam]

Phil Bronstein was Sharon Stone's ex and he publishes the paper in SF. Brownstein in the Washington Bureau Chief for the LATimes. Brownstein is not the most leftist of the ragsters but he clearly is one. He first became a national name by writing a book about the national temper tantrum which lead to the 1994 bloodletting of the Dems.

He is smart enough to know that this poll is a crock. But I doubt he hates his job enough to trash his own paper.

Personally, this could be great news for us. Just think about how well we can spin the numbers a month from now when we are not only not 13 points down but actually up in a variety of polls. We can use the LAT poll as proof that we picked up 15 or 16 points since June and let them explain why Kerry is falling down the well.

[wrathof59]

The date of the electoral map was 5/28, that's after the worst month for President Bush so far, it'll be interesting to see the next map, the summer months will give us a clearer picture of what lies ahead, but it'll be close.

Michigan is a disappointment.

[GiveEmDubya]

They had Bustamonte by 13 points or somesuch and the recall failing.

((Spits out coke dramatically)) How close to the election was that poll taken? Arnold won by 17%! (48.6%-31.5%)

Maybe their poll their newsroom.

[PJ-Comix]

Remember, according to the L.A. Times polls, Ahnold should have lost in a landslide last year.

[eureka!]

Re#9 Yep. A truly shameless lot. Thankfully, their grip is loosening with talk radio and the 'net (thanks Al!)....

[eureka!]

Re#17 Shameless, they are. Outright fraud, it is. My hope of hopes is a GOP shellacking of the 'Rats in November across the board. Gonna be a helluva silly season until then...