Posted on 10/02/2004 7:47:27 PM PDT by slowhand520
Take a look at this poll.
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2004-10/14495553.pdf
The Pre debate Poll had Kerry 48% and Bush 47%. Post debate Kerry 49% and Bush 47%. Bottom line Kerry got a point bounce from an already Kerry leaning poll. The media is trying hard through smoke and mirrors to hype the Kerry "closer myth. Also why would this poll have the sample pre-debate Kerry 48% and Bush 47% when Bush was leading with LV's and RV's before the convention?
I looked at it. I didn't see any obvious distortions. You are right, that it had a 50/50 sample vs. 50/45 sample which was the concensus. But the pickup in certain internals is very clear for Kerry. But it didn't translate into the bottom line which is what counts.
No matter how they do the math in LA Bush will still win by 10 percentage points.
The distortion lies in the poll to begin with. The LA times took a portion of registered voters that ended up with a slight Kerry lead. Why didn't they just use the original registered voter sample (Bush 49%-Kerry 45%)
This is also very interesting.
Newsweek Poll: Stacked?
Look at the makeup of Republicans vs. Democrats in Newsweek’s poll from September 11, 2004: NEWSWEEK POLL: Campaign 2004.
391 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
300 Democrats (plus or minus 7)
270 Independents (plus or minus 7)
Compare against the same data from the new poll, which Newsweek is using to claim that Bush’s poll lead has “evaporated:” NEWSWEEK POLL: First Presidential Debate.
345 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
364 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
278 Independents (plus or minus 7)
Did Newsweek choose a lower percentage of Republicans for the first debate to set up Kerry’s “comeback,” or did they stack the deck with more Democrats in the second poll?
(Hat tips to all who emailed about this.)
UPDATE at 10/2/04 6:54:49 pm:
The loons at Daily “Screw Them” Kos are watching this topic: LGFers moan about Newsweek poll.
This is a new group of people who watched the debates. Not everyone did. Every poll you do, you call a new random group of people, not the ones you called before.
Per LAT, "The opinions of this group are representative of registered voters who watched, heard or read about the debate, and thus are not meant to
represent the views of the national electorate."
Kerry picked up points from democrats who were never going to vote for Bush anyway. He did what he had to do to strengthen his base. He satisfied the passionate Dean voters.
We all knew that the race was going to tighten. Sit back, relax, it's October.
Publisher & Editor ^ | September 26, 2004: L.A. Times May Break Tradition, Make Choice for President
Remember that this is the same Los Angeles Times, edited by John Carroll, who told a group of Oregon students earlier this year that people who watch FOX News Channel are stupid. Anything that comes out of this piece of Communist Crap is just plain P.U.
John Carroll should take his Pulitzer (or is is Putzer) prizes that he won for 2003 and just place them where the sun dosen't shine!
Remember that this is the same Los Angeles Times, edited by John Carroll, who told a group of Oregon students earlier this year that people who watch FOX News Channel are stupid. Anything that comes out of this piece of Communist Crap is just plain P.U.
John Carroll should take his Pulitzer (or is is Putzer) prizes that he won for 2003 and just place them where the sun dosen't shine!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.