« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
More Rightwing Hackery from The Politico
Top story today:
Obama stalls in public pollingWe've seen this constant Obama-sniping and MCcain-cheerleading all year. So please, please stop mistaking the GOP-funded outfit The Politico as some impartial source.
By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 8/6/08 4:48 AM
He should have a healthy lead. Yet in poll after poll, Obama conspicuously fails to cross the 50-percent threshold.
Politico = Drudge 2.0
Advertisement
Comments (45)
Are you saying Obama hasn't stalled in the polls? It looks to me like he's doing less well than he was a month ago. As a matter of fact, looking at the electoral vote, it looks like he has to hold Michigan this year, or McCain will win. If McCain puts Romney on the ticket, it could be all over.
August 6, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Are you saying Obama hasn't stalled in the polls? "
Are you saying that Mccain hasn't stalled in the polls?
Posing only some questions and not others shows BIAS.
August 6, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, right. Mitt is not going to help McCain win Michigan and would probably hurt him in far more states than he would help him. He's more likely to help in Nevada, where there are a lot of Mormons, than Michigan. Romney probably would have lost Michigan to McCain if McCain hadn't told Michigan voters that their jobs weren't coming back.
August 6, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The story is also ahistorical in discussing polls. It's as if they don't know how polls work or haven't followed polls in other presidential races.
Obama should have a healthy lead and be above 50%? Please.
August 6, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the thing is, this is not a one off. They write this kind of crap week after week.
Typical Politico headline: "McCain's Advisors Expect Landslide Victory" alogn wih the usual GOP memes about Obama's white working class "problem" (ie. he's winning) and on and on.
Who funds this Politico, anyway? They suddenly appeared, have an obvious GOP slant, and yet came out of nowhere.
August 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you only imagine what damage Mitt Romney would do to McCain as far as the Christian Right is concerned. However I just hate to call them the Christian RIGHT. In most instances they are the Christian WRONG. The ides that they think it is their place to judge the LDS church is very sad. Christ himself is the judge and folks who blab all the time that they are capable of making those decisions are not reading scripture.
August 6, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't they have Dem and Repub columnists. Ben Smith is supposed to be the Dem. You saying he's in the bag for McCain? I think you were just hoping to find another Obama echo chamber over at Politico.
August 6, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, and FoxNews has that weasel-like Colmes guy for Hannity to mock. Yep, the token "liberal" to prove they are fair and balanced.
Their Dem guy is a master of out of context misquoting.
Their GOP guy is fawning. He just wrote a teary eyes piece on Robert Novak, that paragon of journalistic ethics.
America's problem is just too many of these rightwing slanted outfits. We have FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, Politico, ABC NEws is now leaning rightward. Times' The Page is run by an old GOP operative.
August 6, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you figure? electoral-vote.com has Obama up by 289 EVs, so even if he loses Michigan's 17 EV's (which I personally think is unlikely) he squeaks by with 272.
August 6, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's going to lose VA, FL, OH, IN, and, if he's not careful, MI. That's the way you lose the election while you're mouthing off about a 50 state strategy and putting red states in play. People like Romney in MI, believe it or not. MI is an accident waiting to happen. If there is going to be a Bradley effect, Michigan might be the place.
August 6, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
All current swing states based on polling trends:
VA, NC, FL, IN, MO, ND, MT, CO and NV
MI is not included, nor is OH. Obama has been polling consistently ahead of McCain, usually outside the margin of error, and doing very well with voters originally thought to be out of reach for him in those states. Your "analysis" is broken from the very start. I'll continue, though.
Of the actual swing states based on polling trends, statistically, an Obama loss is very unlikely. Even if he were to lose every single one of those swing states, he would still win with 284 EVs.
But, let's bring in OH and MI, and pretend that they're really as competitive as you think they are.
Obama then has 247 EVs to McCain's 157, with 134 toss-ups. This leaves only a measly 23 EVs for Obama to pick up. McCain, on the other hand, would need to win 113 EVs to win. ...Kinda reminds me of the old delegate math from back in the day. Something you were way off on, Billy. But to continue.
Obama would simply need to win, say... OH and MT to win the election with exactly 270 EVs. But the likelihood is he would also win other states. Simply throwing every single one of the remaining states into McCain's column is just foolishness, and ignorance on the part of the analyst making such a move. If he did not win those two states, he would most likely win others. That is, unless you're saying he's doing worse than Kerry ever did. If you really are making such an insinuation, you haven't been following the 2008 election.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/obama-outperforming-kerry-among-nearly.html
August 6, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a bald-faced lie. Obama has been polling within the margin of error.
In any case, McCain is going to take VA, NC, FL, IN, MT, ND, and MO without breaking a sweat. He'll probably take CO and NV too. All this according to the site you linked to. But you've got an impressive case of denial going on.
A little career advice: I wouldn't ever try to become a pollster if I were you.
August 6, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of the 44 National Polls released since July 6th that have been tracked on Pollster.com, Obama has been ahead in all of them except for 4. 2 he was exactly tied, and 2 McCain was ahead.
After just quickly browsing the list, I noted at least 18 of those polls showing Obama outside of the MOE. I used around 4% for the MOE, since polls I've seen have tended to have around 4%, sometimes lower, but barely ever higher. By that, one can assume that more than 18 were most likely outside the MOE for Obama. Based on trending, the polls showing McCain ahead are most likely outliers.
So, Obama has been outside the MOE approximately 40% of the time, perhaps even more.
Though "usually" is perhaps too generous a word, the sentiment stays. Obama has consistently polled ahead of McCain, and on a regular basis has polled outside the MOE.
I should just mention, I was not counting the last couple polls mentioned here at TPM. That would raise the numbers for Obama.
I suggest you don't ever go into any kind of analytic work. Ever. I also suggest you actually pay attention to polls, so you don't end up looking like such an ass. Just a friendly suggestion. Take it or leave it. =)
August 6, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I forgot to mention. A lot of those numbers on FiveThirtyEight fluctuate. Especially VA and IN. But I guess you ignored the fact that they show Obama leading McCain by every statistical outlet, right? Oh man. You're too easy to rebut, gasket.
August 6, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but for whatever reason, you can't read polls. You don't get to make up your own MOE! I looked at the charts on 538 and Real Clear Politics. I checked my facts before I wrote my comment. You don't know what you're talking about.
August 6, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You couldn't have, or you wouldn't have contested what I said. If you want I can apply a higher MOE average and it'll still be pretty much the same. If you can, please provide for me a list of polls in the last month with an MOE larger than 4. Just saying "I've checked my facts" doesn't mean shit unless you provide evidence to back it up.
And I like how the top story on TPM's Election Central is the CBS/NYTimes poll showing Obama 45%, McCain 39%, with a margin of error of ±3%.
I love it when gifts like that just appear out of nowhere. Wonderful. =)
August 6, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pick a poll: Obama's losing in one, leading in the other.
August 6, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see absolutely no rebuttal to anything I've said. You provide two polls. That's it. They're both recent, which means you can't be showing me any kind of trends in polling. And the MOE in both is below 4%, so I assume you can't be trying to counter that argument... Hmm... One poll shows McCain with a statistically insignificant 1-point lead, well within the MOE. The other shows Obama with a 6-point lead, outside the MOE.
You've um... proven nothing. But I appreciate the effort.
Oh, and Zogby is about the least reliable polling institution this election. But then, you know that, being the expert on polling that you are, right? =)
August 7, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not rebutting you because it's a waste of time. You can't stick to one issue because you don't know up from down.
1) You outright lied about Obama being consistently ahead of McCain outside of the margin of error for ANY of the states you list.
2) I went to the 538, the site YOU linked to, as well as to Real Clear Politics (my preference), to check the polls for every state you listed. Both sites show that I am right and you are dead wrong.
3) You invent a margin of error of 4%. (Very scientific.)
4) You switch from 538 to tell me you are looking at Pollster instead.
5) You mix state polls with national polls to (supposedly) prove your argument.
I'm not going to rebut someone who makes shit up. End of discussion. You can't even prove you didn't lie (in fact you've proved the opposite).
August 7, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said he was outside the MOE in states. I always said and cited National Polls, buddy. =) You obviously have trouble with reading and comprehension.
August 7, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Yet time after time, McCain has failed to cross the 50% threshold. Moreover, he is generally behind in virtually all the polling."
That's the actual story in the poll results to date. However, this quoted "narrative" suggests that being ahead is somehow a negative, ie, Obama is not leading by as much as he theoretically could be, like 80%-20%.
It implies a negative to the polling where none exists. All the polls say is that the race is close. And anyone with any sense at all would see that's no story. It was always going to be relatively close.
August 6, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious what the unspoken assumption is here, why exactly "should" Obama be leading by bigger margins?
He's a black candidate with a liberal voting record. Does that scream "electoral dominance" to anyone, based on American voting history?
How about "well-known media-darling McCain fails to gain traction despite establishment support and the media covering up for his numerous gaffes and flaws"?
August 6, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on.
August 6, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that a commenter on another blog, who lives in a very red state/town, stated that three of her neighbors were called multiple times to be polled. Two of those three neighbors were called once, and the third was called a whopping three times.
Wonder how those polls are always so close? I think manipulation works well. Call well known GOP strongholds. Don't allow calling for cells (which is fine with me) - which represent Obama's largest base; people who only have cell phones.
The MSM has a horse in this race (no pun intended) and that is to keep those numbers close.
I interact with people from different states and different locales on a weekly basis. I have yet to find strongholds of McCain supporters (for that matter, few who admit to supporting McCain).
This goes well beyond just the poll numbers are skewed. They're skewed for a specific purpose and in a specific manner.
I am not even remotely worried about the poll numbers. I am hugely worried that those poll numbers will be a justification for stealing the election.
August 6, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops...that should read "two of her neighbors were called twice, and the third 3x." Sorry...my bad.
And while you're thinking about that...I will again ask something I asked some time ago: Have YOU ever been polled?
Just sayin'. :-)
August 6, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's also the issue of cherry picking polls, ie. only the polls that favor McCain are so-called "news". We've gone for an entire month of McCain losing in most polls with little comment.
Once again, the selective cheerleading is obvious.
But more than just the MSM's usual rightwing bias, is the Politico's outright unabashed rightwing hackery.
Poltico is literally a GOP campaign apparatus. They pass themselves off as "inside baseball" type commentary, but their loyalties are obvious, as is their readership (a good way to get a vibe for a site -- check out the load of ultra-rightist, illiterate, racist trolls that make up the Politico's commenters.)
I really really wish TPM would stop citing or quoting anything from them. They are Drudge 2.0, a GOP spin machine, and shouldn't be given any attention whatsoever.
August 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spare me your hysterics. You were fine with TPM citing Politico when they bashed Hillary Clinton.
August 6, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's hysterical to point out that this story line goes out of its way to turn a positive (ie, generally being ahead) into a negative (why isn't he leading by more?).
As I replied above, the story should be "Venerable McCain consistently trails upstart Obama, has trouble crossing the 45% threshold."
August 6, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding? Neither TPM nor Politico ever "bashed" HRC.
And shouldn't you be blowing that gasket already?
August 6, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he's flip-flopped to a slow leak.
August 6, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
August 6, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kidding? Do you have Alzheimer's?
August 6, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on. LOL.
August 6, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The two butt boys, Glad and gasket getting it on again.
August 6, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Politico's pro-GOP bias reminds me of John Stewart's take on a Yogi Berra quote:
Nobody goes to Obama rallies anymore, they're too crowded."
Obama is up again in the latest Gallup Poll, is surpassing Kerry and Gore among Latino's, and is beating McCain among those working-class white folks he supposedly couldn't get.
McCain is playing defense in VA, CO, NH, NM --even MT and NV. Nice try, Politico!!!
August 6, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many traditional GOP states are now swing states, yet Obama is the one with the "problem".
It's important that the Politico not get away with the lie that they are anything other than another Drudge-like rightwing spin machine. At least with Drudge, everyone knows his bias.
August 6, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering the way the MSM takes care of John McCain, I am actually astounded that Senator Obama has held so much lead in so many polls for so long... but that is just a testament to what a bad candidate McCain really is.
I am ready to take a vacation during Senator Obama's vacation and then I'll get back on the get out the vote push and doing what I can to support progressive candidates in my state of Colorado.
August 6, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a bio of David Paul Kuhn, the author of the Politico article. That he's trying to report a legitimate story escapes observer2 & friends.
It's also too bad that a brand-new Pew poll confirms Americans have Obama fatigue.
August 6, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, thanks for the link. It's happening way ahead of what I would have expected...maybe that's a good thing.
August 7, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who funds and runs the Politico? From Glenn Greenwald at Salon:
"This Washington Post article -- entitled "The Bank of Dad" -- details how Robert Allbritton's entire career was shaped and molded by his father, who handed him everything (including the money he is now using to fund The Politico). Joe Allbritton -- who is Texan -- has all sorts of close ties to key Republican power centers, including the Bush family:
He donated the portrait of Reagan that hangs in the White House. Former president George H.W. Bush has attended Allbritton's post-Alfalfa brunch. When George W. Bush's inaugural parade passed the Riggs branch on Pennsylvania Avenue, he spotted Allbritton and said, "Hey Joe, how are you doing?"
But I'm sure the fact that The Politico is (a) funded by a family with multiple, intense right-wing allegiances, (b) run by a career-long Reaganite, and (c) dependent upon Matt Drudge for most of their traffic, has no effect whatsoever on their reporting."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/04/politico_funding/index.html
August 6, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, awesome find. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.
August 11, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"3) You invent a margin of error of 4%. (Very scientific.)"
Do you even know what a margin of error is?
Of course all the polls have roughly similar margins of error - typically 3ish percent - because they all poll similar numbers of people. And that number is based on a tradeoff of how few people you can get away with polling (cost) and how many you need to have a decent margin of error (accuracy).
You're simply not going to see any big polling agencies out there with either 1% (too expensive) or 7% (too innacurate) margins of error.
So please shut the hell up as you clearly don't have even a vague idea of what you're talking about.
August 7, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, gotnolife, go to Gallup and they claim that because they poll up to 2,000 people per day their margin of error is 1% or so in the daily tracking polls.
Further, when you combine several polls, such as 538 and pollster do, you get samples that also add up to the thousands and therefore the combined error of the aggregate sample is far less than the error in any one poll.
Or is that too difficult for you?
I have no crystal ball but right now Obama is ahead by more than enough to win.
August 7, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Politico goes to the fights:
The Challenger, originally a big underdog who became a heavy favorite in the days before the bout, knocked out the champ in the third round with a devastating combination of body blows and uppercuts.
This is terrible news for the challenger who should have decked the champ in the first round and sent him to the hospital. Some officials, who asked to remain anonymous, are wondering aloud if the winner should really be allowed to wear the belt.
"The fact that the loser was able to actually walk from ther ring, after he came to, shows what a weak performance the challenger put on," said leading boxing analysts.
August 7, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
For those who are interested in the methodological details of polling, Nate Silver has a good post explaining how Gallup's poll of "likely voters" undersamples younger voters:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/on-likely-voters-and-long-tail.html
August 7, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment