Hannity falsely claimed that Santorum gained 12 points on opponent over past three months
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Sean Hannity stated that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) "picked up 12 points in the polls in the last three months" in his race against Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey (D). Available polls appear to contradict Hannity's claim. While polls indicate that Santorum made marginal gains during the past three months, the totals come nowhere near the 12-point gain Hannity asserted.
On the May 30 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity claimed that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) "picked up 12 points in the polls in the last three months" in his race against Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey (D). Hannity did not cite the source of his data, and the available polls appear to contradict his claim. While polls indicate that Santorum made marginal gains during the past three months, the totals come nowhere near the 12-point gain Hannity asserted.
A review of major polls indicates that Santorum improved at most 5 points against Casey during the time in question:
|
Poll |
Recent poll |
Earlier poll |
Gain for Santorum |
|
Quinnipiac |
(5/11) 49-36 Casey |
(2/13) 51-36 Casey |
+ 2 percent |
|
Strategic Vision |
(5/10) 49-41 Casey |
(1/25) 50-40 Casey |
+ 2 percent |
|
Keystone |
(5/4) 47-41 Casey |
(2/9) 50-39 Casey |
+ 5 percent |
|
Rasmussen |
(4/27) 51-38 Casey |
(1/19) 53-38 Casey |
+ 2 percent |
Hannity also stated that "Santorum
[is] in a very blue of blue state." However, both U.S. senators from Pennsylvania are Republicans, along with 11
of the 19 members of its delegation in the House of Representatives. President
Bush also received about 49 percent of the Pennsylvania vote in the 2004 election.
From the May 30 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
DICK MORRIS [Fox News political analyst]: The big thing that I think you're missing politically is that you have five congressmen -- five senators, really four -- who are Republicans up for re-election in states with very large Hispanic votes. And all four of them are running behind at the moment. Mike DeWine in Ohio, Santorum in Pennsylvania, [Lincoln] Chaffee in Rhode Island, and [Jim] Talent in Missouri. You also have [Conrad] Burns in Montana, but there aren't many Hispanics there. But in those states, you have Hispanic votes that approximate 10 percent or more of the population. And those guys all have to have an amnesty provision for them to get any shot at getting Hispanic votes.
HANNITY: But we've got to go through these state by state. The reason that DeWine is having a problem in Ohio is because of the governor and some corruption scandals that are there that have affected the whole Republican Party in the state of Ohio. That's Issue One. Issue Two: Santorum, he's in a very blue of blue state, and you know what? He's picked up 12 points in the polls in the last three months. So he's moving in the right direction, and he has come out against any amnesty program.
If you add the gains in all the 4 polls (5+2+2+2) it's 11, for a neo con that's as close to the truth as you are likely to get.
You can see them already positioning for the losses to blame it on "angry hispanics" or in the "Bluest of states" both ridiculous but again as close to the truth as they will likely get.
But I don't really care as long as they lose.
These radical extremists just hate facts. PA is HARLDY a "blue of blue state":
[link to www.cnn.com]
Mr. Kerry, 51% awol dubyah, 49%
I just wish for once that these radical extremist righties would tell the truth. They care more for their party then they do for America. How sad.
I don't listen to these guys speak much... mostly read transcripts. But, when you hear this guy talk you begin to realize how much of a blowhard dullard this guy really is. Of course, this is in keeping with the FOX format. But, really... it's a shame these anti-intellectual propagandists get so much play on cable. FOX, in my mind, is a major contributor to the continued 'dumbing down' of the American public.
It's Hannity's style that makes him come across as believable. That's why the right likes him so much. On his radio show, he promises to give his listeners "the most comprehensive, hardest hitting news on your radio dial". Notice he didn't say factual or truthful; but the way in which he says it makes you believe that that's the case. This guy is pretty easy to refute, if you have an open mind. His followers/listeners are some of the most brainwashed, blind people I've ever seen. It's literally breathtaking.
The fix is in.
Has he ever even visited the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? Like the rest of the country, Pennsylvania is pretty much evenly divided. Santorum is behind in the polls mainly because time and time again, he's put his own personal religious beliefs over the best interests of his constituents.
Worrierking, are you suggesting that the primary concern of Pennsylvanians is not the spectre of legalized man-on-dog sex?
Surprisingly, their primary concern is what George W. Bush spoke of in his State of the Union Speech. They are very much concerned about the results of their sexual congress "creating human-animal hybrids".
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to have sex with twenty dogs or no dog; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Not Thomas Jefferson
i would have to agree here. santorum is entitled to his strict religious beliefs but they seem to influence his public policy and that is wrong. while i do agree with some of his conservative principles, i don't want public officials legislating on behalf of their faith.
The thought that forcefully injecting religion into political leadership is not only an injustice to those who choose not to practice faith, but it also can have serious consequences on the church as well.
i don't want public officials legislating on behalf of their faith.
Right on!
he is continuelly involved in faith-based initiatives, bringing down the church-state seperation, verbally aggresses against judges who do not decide according to his liking, is for a marriage amendment. Everyone is entitled to believe and not believe, but here (as with other GOP senators) we have someone who is willing to impose his view of religion onto others through law making.
Just take a look at the site "Rise of the religious right" very interesting.
Hannity even said that people like Santorum should vote their convictions and ideology. WRONG! They're supposed to vote in a way that reflects the will of the people, aren't they?
i would applaud a politician that votes their convictions rather than by polls. if the public doesn't like it, they can vote them out. too many times politicians are spineless and lack any leadership. knowing the true convictions of elected officials makes voting decisions easier and less "finger to the wind". many of them don't dare do anything until their pollsters get back to them. irrespective of their ideology or the party affiliation, i admire elected officials who stand by their convictions, vote accordingly, and let the people decide.
You're saying that an elected representative should vote the way he/she feels, and not be in touch with the people he/she supposedly represents? To me, that's one of the biggest problems with our system. I thought they were supposed to be representing us in Washington. If the system isn't going to work this way, then maybe we'd better try something else.
not the way they "feel". they should lay out their positions on issues clearly and distinctly. if and when they get elected vote those positions based on their convictions. it's when they flip flop based on polls or act other than what people elected for that i have a problem with. leadership requires making tough, sometimes unpopular decisions but making your case as to why you decided as such and why it's good for all the people you represent, not certain special interest groups that just donate to your campaign. if we don't like it, vote them out.
"i admire elected officials who stand by their convictions, vote accordingly, and let the people decide." --Right On
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is nice to agree with you, but are there any politicians who fit your description above? Seems like everyone plays to the interests of their biggest donors and/or constituencies/polls.
I used to think McCain was a good guy, but he does his share of pandering and political calculating at times just like the others do.
I suppose we can always dream of such a candidate, but then, we never really know what these guys are like. Do we? All we see of them is the result of image manipulation for good or bad.
Rick is the master of saying one thing and voting another. He said he supports an increase in the minimum wage yet votes against every bill. He says he supports veterans but votes against veterans every time unless cornered. He is a simple opportunist of the worst kind. Lies after lies after lies.....
Matt,
I'd like to help you out here during your internship with a little advice about Sean and the figures you say he "asserted."
When Hannity needs facts, he doesn't assert them, he extracts them.
Your first paragraph should have ended: "Hannity asstracted."
I am from Philadelphia and we have a joke that goes Pa is philadelphia to the right, pittsburg to the left and alabama in the middle. We are the number two gun state behind texas which i am ashamed of. I can't wait till Casey cleans santorum(bad joke). I am jewish aand most of our groups are deathly afraid of santorum's issues of church and state. Read the article in mother jones and he slept with his dead child before the funeral. No matter how you spin it he is a weird. However, philadelphia never voted for arlen spector but the rest of the state voted for him so the middle of the state is the strange part. However, i think a lot of PA is sick of Santorum but we are afraid Casey is a republican with pro-choice issues. Sorry for my rant.
I'm from Pittsburgh (now in Alaska) and have heard Santorum speak and act Waaaaay too much in disturbing ways. He bilked the Penn Hills school district out of thousands of dollars by receiving funds from them while his kids NEVER went to school in the district. He didn't have to repay the district because the lawyer filing the suit filed ONE DAY too late, and afterwards, Santorum said there the suit against him 'was obviously politically motivated' when it sure as heck wasn't. I remember him speaking with a former welfare single mother (Kathy Jo Kramer- good writer) who was able to graduate from Carnegie Mellon because of student loans, and Santorum, fighting AGAINST future loans said "What? You think EVERYONE should have the chance to go to a great college?" That was my eye-opener to his way of thinking....
I think what Sean meant to say was that he has picked up 12 santorums from poles in the last three months.
Here are a few of his failed endorsements ... PERRO [sp?] for senator ... Dixie Chicks Ban ... Katherine Harris run for Senator ... there are many more.
Maybe there's something to that. There's a McDonald's rule: If a movie is promoted by McDonald's the chance that it will succeed (at the box office) will greatly increase.
Maybe we can invoke a Hannity Rule: Any individual that he supports the chances greatly increase that the individual will fail.
The Katherine Harris for Senate thing seems to be working out well (for Bill Nelson).
As a native (but temporarily displaced) Floridian, I cringe at the idea of that woman representing my state. Jebby is more than bad enough.
If anyone is interested and from the philadelphia region bob casey is coming to my suburbs. Rydal Fundraiser and Town Meeting When Monday, June 5, 2006 at 7:30 PM - 8:30 PM
Where
Washington Lane Rydal, PA 19046 General Area:
Description Join Bob Casey, local Democratic elected officials, and your neighbors from Elkins Park, Jenkintown, Abington, and Rydal the evening of June 5th. Bob will be having a discussion about the race and the importance of Montgomery County in this election. Individuals are asked to contribute $35 and couples are asked to contribute $50. If you are interested in attending, please contact Ari at the campaign at 215-448-3985 for location and more details.
Host Casey Campaign
Sheer Insanity told his listeners the Colorado Rockies baseball team don't have Playboy, Penthouse, or Maxxim in their clubhouse. They have the Bible - "and all they do is keep on winning."
Last time I checked, the Rockies were rocky indeed. Tied for last place in a 5 team division. One game over .500.
Of course, this is the same idiot who said last November "Things couldn't be better in Iraq."
Clueless.
Hannity must have read only the USA Today article about the allegedly Christian Rockies, and not the rebuttal from members of the team. Analysis here: [link to www.cjrdaily.org]
I stand by what I said yesterday about these anchors/commentators about being lazy. That's just hilarious that he got it all wrong.
Wow.
'nuff said.
Normally I'm sure Hannity would have one of the FOX interns do his fact-checking, but yesterday they were all busy trolling this forum.
In 3 of the 4 polls cited the improvement is 2%. Isn't this within the margin of error of each poll - and, therefore, by definition meaningless?
You beat me to it! Even the 5% is misleading. In only 1 poll did Casey actually drop and Santorum gained from that drop. It isn't fuzzy math at all. Actually, this might turn out to be a good thing that he did. If everyone who hates Santorum thinks he might win, then there might be more people voting in the election...against him. Fear is a powerful thing.
if you add them all up.
Hannity knows how to add, he just doesn't know when to add.
If you look at all of the polling in the PA-SEN race, Casey's largest lead in the polls was back in November and October, when he was at +20.
At some point prior to the primary on May 16, two polls had him at single digits and one did have him at +8 points.
So, if you take Casey's largest lead over the last year, and compare it to (a different) poll with the smallest, there was a 12-point turnaround.
But, that did not happen over the last few months and no single poll showed that kind of change.
However, the table here also erroneously shows Rasmussen's latest poll as being in April.
Rasmussen's most recent poll was released earlier this week and shows a huge turnaround for Casey, who was at or near single digits in nearly all pre-May 16 polls. Rasmussen put Casey up 23 points as of the end of May.
Worse, Santorum's support seemed to be exclusively from his smallest base. Casey was leading among every region and nearly every sub-group.
Please, please, please vote Santorum out...he is BAD!
No. I am from the southeastern part of PA (just outside of Philadelphia) and can't stand Santorum. He will (I sincerely hope) lose this fall, but not for the reasons Rannity and the loser Morris claim. Santorum doesn't live in PA any longer; he wears his religion on his votes in Congress; he denigrates working mothers; his minions had some women tossed out of a book signing recently because they wanted to question Santorum about his extremist views; he is the King of the Lobbyists' Forum (the K Street Project); he is simply Bush's toady and doesn't represent our state; his stance in the Terri Shiavo debacle was odious; and, like so many other politicians, he is a congenital liar. Other than those issues, he's a terrific Senator.
And replace the 4/27 data from Rasmussen with the most recent one cited by A Fat Slob, which shows Santorum down by 23 pts. [link to www.rasmussenreports.com]
when i click on the audio clip, i get a caller's voice, not hannity.
Sean is the master of sincere lies. It is amazing that few catch on and the chicken hawk continues to get a free pass
... invited a guest who had called the events at Haditha "a massacre".
Hannity was at his outrage-spewing best, riding the horse of "innocent until proven guilty".
But wait ... why was Hannity accusing his guest of jumping to conclusions prior to a court trial, all the facts, and a VERDICT? Isn't this a completely different standard than Hannity has been following for more than a decade?
Didn't Hannity make up his mind about OJ, about the Clintons on Whitewater, on FBI Files, on Travel Office, on Monica Lewinski, LONG before any trials brought forth any information? Doesn't Hannity CURRENTLY claim to know about the LeCrosse team "alleged" rape situation? Has there been a trial?
It is the "HANNITY STANDARD" to take sides on issues of potential illegality before a jury is even seated. If Hannity had remained silent until a jury came forward with a verdict on President Clinton, Hannity would have been virtually SILENT through the 90's.
So, how does Hannity get away with holding a guest to a standard that Hannity himself violates as a regular practice?
I missed this guest's name ... he was controlled and polite to a fault ... but he missed an opportunity. Before providing Hannity with a forum to namecall him and impose this "innocent" standard, the guest should have set up "GROUND RULES". He should have said, "Are we going to be following the HANNITY STANDARD in this discussion which involves alleged wrongdoing? If so, we can choose sides and discuss all known information. If we are NOT going to follow the long established HANNITY STANDARD of forming guilty opinions prior to any court trial ... why NOT? What makes THIS discussion different?"
I was thinking the same thing when I was listening. Hannity is a bully, and for as many people hear who say he is dumb at this or that, he is smart about how he engages. I was analysing his methods the other day and you identified one possible way to have played him on this. But of course Hannity wouldn't push back and say some nonsense about how that was different, these are soldiers and you sir said MURDERERS did you NOT!
I read a website that pointed out a few of this other tactics and one is that he pulls a fact out of nowhere that may or may not be true, but it is something that YOU don't know and so you can't refute it right then. Also, another technique he uses is your associations. He totally beat up this guy who was the person designated to call an LA DJ tasteless for mocking the deaths of 350 Muslims in the Hajii. The issue of whether or not it was tasteless wasn't addressed. All they did was brow beat this guy for having association with CAIR. Neat trick. And if you aren't a professional bully with your own radio show controlling the mike it is tough to bat this jerk down.
Your table says it all. Add the smallish percent changes, and you get--among the four surveys--a total of 11. Which is nearly the "12" that Hannity proclaims. What a goofball. -Joseph Combs, Rochester NY
Hannity isn't stupid, he knows exactly what he was doing. He's already started giving false information and predicting false results as part of the campaign against real, open, honest, TRADITIONAL AMERICAN elections. Polls can easily be and often are manipulated into giving the results the pollsters want simply by the wording of the questions. Fox pseudoNews has never done anything else. Lies like this will only get worse as we get closer to the elections.
makes Bill O'Reilly look like a Rhodes Scholar.