"Dean on the Rise" 5% story suppressed by Time/CNN. Graphic proof!

[Dems Will Win]

They deliberately scrubbed a whole presentation of Dean on the Rise from their Web sites after paying for this Harris poll and writing a whole interactive deal:

The unlinked to page--still on their Web site:




See how they had Next and Previous links.

This is one we can make hay with! Know any media watch people?

[madfloridian]

1. That is the one Begala ignored while he insulted Dean on Crossfire.

He quote a poll at least two weeks old, and he put Dean down. This poll had just been announced on CNN, then this part of it was hushed up. I was watching that day, and I was stunned when Begala, a Democrat, lied about a poll.....he lied by omission. I even posted here about it

[wtmusic]

2. Dayum, I hate it when that happens

good work! send it off to thememoryhole.org

[windansea]

3. cough cough

posted by thebigthink in another thread but relevant here

I should point out that while national polls can be useful as a rough barometer of the national mood, they are worthless for predicting election results, since we don't have national elections in this country. Presidential elections are actually a series of 50 statewide elections that all happen on the same day (due to the electoral college).

If you want to get a feel for someone's "electability" in the general election, look at New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a Republican-leaning swing state the went for Reagan twice, Clinton twice, and for Bush I in 88 and Bush II in 2000. Right now the people of the Granite state are as familiar with the entire Democratic field as anyone in the country is likely to be with the eventual Democratic nominee by next November, so looking at how they stack up against Bush in NH could actually tell you something useful.

In the most recent NH poll (a real one, by American Research Group) that pitted Democrats versus Bush:

- Kerry and Lieberman both lose to Bush by 15%
- Clark and Gephardt lose by 19%
- Howard Dean by loses 25%.

Remember to double the margin of error when looking at margins in polls. The MoE for that poll was +/- 4% so it could be said that Bush has a solid lead over Kerry and Lieberman, a commanding lead over Clark and Gephardt, and gives Dean a painful spanking.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm tired of getting spanked by Republicans.

[DUreader]

5. Oh Yeah, That is Why Time Fucking Scrubbed A Story

[windansea]

6. huh??

[wtmusic]

10. why did Time scrub the story

if the numbers are so damn meaningless??

[aquart]

11. As you said, NH went for Bush in 2000.

And the same people are going to vote for him again. You're sure about that? Because he's proven himself to them in what way?

Now, you go on and show me where Bush, who LOST the vote in 2000 and had to be appointed by the Supreme Court because counting ballots in Florida would have been detrimental to him, has picked up NEW votes.

Show me THAT state. THAT county. Show me the converts to Bush.

Come on, if he's such a shoe in, show me.

[joefree1]

13. Link please

Just so we can check this out. Thank you.

[windansea]

15. here

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/

[bitchkitty]

18. Didn't McCain win New Hampshire

by a large margin?

On edit - never mind, that was SC.

[JNelson6563]

19. Polls don't count!!

Except if I like what they say.

Interesting approach element du jour/nsea. Very interesting.

Julie

On edit: Whatever happened to your Kerry avatar?

[DUreader]

4. WOW! Send It To MediaWhoresOnline and Fair.org

DiD you get a screenshot?

[DUreader]

7. At Least Send it to Deans Web Site

[candy331]

9. So the real poll says none

of the Dems can beat Bush in New Hampshire so why are they spending so much time attacking Dean when none on them can win either? Seems their time would be better spent laying out their plans to counter Bush.

[janx]

8. What's the link to the CNN page that features this?

?

Edit: How did you find it?

[madfloridian]

14. That's just it, it did not feature their own poll.

I remember seeing something that day, and hearing Crowley mention the way Dean came so close to Bush. Then by Crossfire time it had been forgotten and never mentioned.

[ochazuke]

12. Poll looks good!

After a great month for shrub, and he can only get 51% while a guy whom the general public as yet knows nothing about gets 46%??? Usually, a named opponent won't get very close to shrub, while a generic Democrat is within a few points.

I noticed "some 'not sures' are ommitted". That really skews things.

[Mairead]

16. What am I missing here -- it looks to me as though Dean SANK

Unless I'm reading it backwards, Bush went UP 4% since November and Dean went DOWN 2%.

[giantrobot_2000]

17. ...

CNN, bastards as usual.

Send this to thememoryhole.org immediately...

[CWebster]

20. On another thread I wrote this:

"Why does anyone put any stock in polls?

They are such an obvious tool for manipulation in instructing the country as to how they should think. If you are cognizant of the fact that the media increasingly does not represent the will of, or the interests of the people - who are relegated to the status of a focus group, but broadcasts the agenda to support the corporation's interests---how could anyone possibly put any stock in the most obvious and effective propaganda campaigns of all---polls. Even so-called liberal Democratic politicians heeded pundits of polls over the voices of their own constituents. This is the tragedy of the "new Democrat" strategy - all effort and attention is based on how to diffuse the Republican message by hijacking it. There is little faith in the Democratic identity, so Democrats are increasingly left without a voice in the corporate party's media coverage of popular consensus."


Before I even saw this thread. Timely.