CNN Shiils for Bush Vis a vis poll numbers

[John_H]

They say that Kerry isn't really beating bush because nationwide polls don't reflect the electoral college.

True or not, whay was this not pointed out the dozens of times they had Dems trailing Chimp in the polls?

And of course there was no mention of the fact that Clark is beating the Chimpster in the same Newsweek poll.

We're going to have to put the media on notice to win this election, Folks. Let's start with the desk-sitting, unfunny comedian wannabe, Anderson Cooper.

[Jack_Dawson]

1. It's so blatant it's almost funny

But not quite. It's actually alarming.

[lancdem]

2. I agree with your second line 100 percent

The media will do us and our nominee, whomever that may be, no favors in 2004. So be prepared for this in spades as the election nears.

[krkaufman]

3. excellent commentary on CNN Anderson Cooper 360 just now, IMO

To the contrary, just because it diminishes the "certainty" of a hypothetical Kerry win against Bush, it doesn't mean it's not an accurate analysis. If we're honest about it, we should thank Anderson Cooper for highlighting the false impression that people might get from national polling data. This is even more important in light of Senator Kerry's recent comments that the Democrats don't need to win in the South.

Cooper explained that a national poll is no more useful in evaluating the general election's potential results than Gore's 2000 popular vote totals. A national poll discounts the Electoral College.

Why the hell isn't anybody doing an Electoral College-based national poll?

Cooper did finish, though, with a touch of poetic license, rather than straight journalism: "Unless Kerry can convince about 3 million Californians and New Yorkers to move South, the only 'Sure Thing' about November is that the winner's margin of victory could be as thin as a single dangling chad."

Regards.

p.s. Also, I found the following snippet from the same 360 show funny, though I wasn't happy that they continued to treat DK's campaign with less respect than the others.

A Kucinich supporter's response, when a reporter comments that they're outnumbered on the NH streets: "We'll make up for it with enthusiasm. We've got issues!"

[John_H]

4. I wasn't bothered by the validity of Desk Sitting man's report

but the fact that nobody bothered to point this out when CNN cited Bush beating Dems in nationwide polling.

They Kerry piece which was, IMO, a characteristically lame Anderson attempt at humor, was more of the same boring message--"Kerry's supporters are steamrolling the other candidates' supporters just like Kerry is steamrolling the other candidates"

[krkaufman]

8. Will definitely concede that point

You're right.

I'll definitely concede the point that it *is* sad that the first time anyone highlights how a national poll doesn't translate to Electoral success is when a Democrat finally pulls into the lead.

(aaaagggghhhhh!!)

[kstewart33]

5. Let them shill

Let's just see what happens on down the line. Aren't we used to the shilling? SOP and not worth losing energy over.

[Lexingtonian]

6. That's a stupid dodge.

The strongly held Red and Blue states of 2000 and now do balance each other out pretty well. There were enough states (about 10, with about 50-100 EVs) that were very close- within 1-2 percentage points- in 2000 that if one or the other candidate had had a full 1% margin over the other in popular vote, he would have indisputably won.

In short, the two (or three) partisanly biased populations are interspersed enough that in practice electoral vote wins can only contradict popular vote plurality within a very small range- less than a 1% margin, certainly. Basically, the correlation between the two is at least 95% if not over 99%.

Let 'em gab.

[krkaufman]

7. Not entirely -- Senatorial EC Bonus skew

Another factor that causes an Electoral College skew is the Senatorial bonus -- giving voters in sparsely populated states more bang for the buck. And in these exceedingly divisive times, this skew grows larger.

[mikehiggins]

9. Look people, just keep this in mind

these are not reporters that you see on tv.

They are only playing the role.

There are no Cronkites or Edward R. Murrow's out there, nobody with the balls to go up against the powerful. They are owned and operated by corporations, just like one of those SONY robots.

The only newscaster on TV that writes most of his own stuff is Joh Stewart.

So what you are seeing is the face of the enemy, disguised behind a pleasing facade. The Terminator movies come to mind.

They are the enemy and our candidates are fools if they can't see that all the old rules are done with.

Dean and Clark have taken the lead in smacking down the talking heads. The rest had better join in or Bush will be back in office in January and we won't have to worry about who'll run against him in 2008. With a GOP Senate and House and Supreme Court it may become necessary for him to become President-for-the-duration-of-the-present-emergency.

Don't think it can't happen here? Don't be naive.