AP touted old poll showing Lieberman lead in CT Senate race, downplayed newer polls showing dead heat
An August 25 Associated Press article about the Connecticut Senate race -- with Democratic candidate Ned Lamont, Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger, and Connecticut for Lieberman candidate Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman -- summarized the state of the race by emphasizing a week-old poll showing Lieberman with a 12-point lead over Lamont rather than two more recent polls that show the race in a dead heat.
The Associated Press reported:
Since losing the primary, most Democratic Party leaders have abandoned Lieberman and endorsed Lamont. A Quinnipiac University poll last week showed Lieberman with a 12-point lead over Lamont, although another poll this week shows the race much closer. Republican Alan Schlesinger had only single-digit support in both polls.
The Quinnipiac poll was released on August 17, and was conducted from August 10-14.
Two polls -- not one, as the AP suggests -- released on August 22 show the race "much closer." In fact, these polls -- conducted by American Research Group and Rasmussen Reports -- not only indicate that the race is "closer," they show Lieberman with only a two-point lead, well within the margin of error.
In short, the Associated Press led with the older poll (which happened to show a larger Lieberman lead), failed to provide details of exactly how close the race is according to newer polls, and falsely indicated that there is only one newer poll showing a close race.
I am so tired of poll analysis. If I was emperor like President Bush, I would ban all polls as my first edict.
on that campaign pledge alone.
A lot has been made over the right wing's control of the media. What about their influence on polls? There was a Gallup poll out recently that showed Bush at 42 % approval. Gallup was once one of the most respected polling organizationsin the USA, but the son of George Gallup is a right winger and now their polls are always shaded toward the Republicans. They have almost always playing a part in "Bush's "comebacks."
and more money. Somebody has to finance those polls, and they ain't poor.
Republicans good, Democrats bad, bleat bleat... Pro war industry good, anti war industry, bad, bleat bleat.
No really someone tell me.
oh that's why the right-wing media have been quite on liberman. when he was up in the polls they were talking about him 24/7.
Media Matters should do a study comparing the amount of times that the name "Lieberman" appears in the Courant's front page, or in the whole newspaper, as compared to Lamont. The results would show an enourmous bias in favor of Lieberman.
Anyways, the Courant carried this biased piece of propaganda by the AP, which as noted as mediamatters, ignored both the ARG and Rasmussen polls that were taken more recently than the Quinnipiac one, and therefore reflect better the current snapshot of voter preference.
Contact the Courant here: [link to www.courant.com]
As the election is two months away, the polls are meaningless.
ps. I was roundly criticized just the other day when I questioned a poll result about Hillary by many here. And now I see some taking shots at the Gallup poll and questioning their results.
Other than the fact that I pointed out the statistical machinations showing Hillary's poll numbers were not supported, and here we have an unproven conspiracy theory conjectured by Ernest, Olive, and Ufleirx ; I'm wondering if so many that felt a need to respond to my post, will care to comment on these unsupported comments?
;-)
The results or even methodology of the Gallup poll are not what is in question. What is in question is the use of the Gallup results to bolster an opinion in the face of contradicting, more recent poll numbers.
You have a point about other posters applying creative license to the poll numbers generated by Gallup. As for any personal affronts you perceive from the other posters, well, you also have a confrontational style. That's observation, not derision.
But, regarding MMFA's intention I stick by my previous post.
I agree with your general point here. I believe it is important to have a heterogenous debate. Many times liberals are not able to see the flaws in their own arguments because they have never encountered opposition. The same could be said for conservatives.
You have just demonstrated why healthy debate is important and I for one appreciate it.
What is going on the airwaves today is not helpful. Too much misinformation (from both sides) is tolerated and goes unchallenged.
Thank you for doing your part even though we may often disagree.
I agree with your observation regarding Earnest's and Olive's comments. Their remarks deserve a reference to substantiate a claim of bias by Gallup. I'll note that this issue has been previously discussed on MMFA here: [link to mediamatters.org] (Personally, I wasn't convinced by much of anything by that item, other than highlighting a reasonable debate regarding political poll methodology.)
Ufleirx appeared to be responding to the MMFA item, i.e., the use of old polling data. That it doesn't surprise him isn't really debatable. I'll have to take him at his word that he wasn't surprised.
Since you raised the issue of responses to your earlier posts, I'll just note that none of this changes or refutes any of my prior comments with repsect to your posts regarding the Sen Clinton polls.