Russert still cherry-picking polls to claim Giuliani beating Clinton
On the August 1 edition of NBC's Today, discussing the July 27-30 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that found Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) would defeat former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) by a 47 percent to 41 percent margin if they were the candidates for president in 2008, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said that the poll was "significant, because many of the polls had shown Rudy Giuliani beating Hillary Clinton in a general election." In fact, of the five national head-to-head match-up polls conducted in July before the poll Russert called "significant," Clinton led in three:
- A July 17-18 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, with a +/-3 percent margin of error (MoE), found Clinton leading Giuliani 46 percent to 41 percent.
- A July 12-14 Zogby America poll, with a +/-3.1 percent MoE, found Clinton leading Giuliani 46 percent to 41 percent.
- A July 9-10 Rasmussen Reports poll, with a +/-4 percent MoE, found Clinton leading Giuliani 44 percent to 43 percent.
- A July 15-18 George Washington University Battleground 2008 poll, conducted by The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners with a +/-3.1 percent MoE, found Giuliani leading Clinton 49 percent to 44 percent.
- A July 12-15 Gallup poll, with a +/- 3 percent MoE, found Giuliani leading Clinton 49 percent to 46 percent.
Clinton also led in all three polls conducted in July regarding a hypothetical three-way presidential race between Clinton, Giuliani, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I):
- The July 12-14 Zogby America poll found Clinton with 44 percent, Giuliani 37 percent, and Bloomberg 7 percent.
- A July 10-12 New York Daily News poll, conducted by Blum & Weprin Associates with a +/- 4 percent MoE, found Clinton with 40 percent, Giuliani 33 percent, and Bloomberg 10 percent.
- A July 6-8 USA Today/Gallup poll, with a +/- 4 percent MoE, found Clinton with 45 percent, Giuliani 39 percent, and Bloomberg 12 percent.
Russert has repeatedly cherry-picked polls to assert that Clinton is running behind Giuliani in a head-to-head matchup. As Media Matters for America documented, during a discussion of Clinton's "electability" on the June 13 edition of NBC's Nightly News, Russert cited a June 1-3 Gallup poll that found Clinton's "favorable rating amongst all Americans was 46 percent, her disapproval, 50 percent," and called this "a real warning sign." He concluded that "it would be a very difficult, hotly contested campaign -- winnable -- but no doubt difficult." In his response, Russert did not address a June 8-11 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that found Clinton would win a head-to-head matchup with Giuliani 48 percent to 43 percent.
In addition, as Bob Somerby noted on his website The Daily Howler, during the July 29 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Russert cited two polls that showed respondents would be more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican in the 2008 presidential election and went on to claim that in head-to-head matchups, Giuliani, "in both polls, beats" Clinton. On the same show, responding to Russert, NBC News political director Chuck Todd claimed "I think that [Clinton is] having a problem of electability." In fact, as Somerby noted, "those are the only two polls in the past seven weeks where Giuliani has beaten Clinton." From Somerby's July 30 post:
What was surprising about that presentation? According to PollingReport.com, those are the only two polls in the past seven weeks where Giuliani has beaten Clinton. (For polling results, click here.) But uh-oh! In ten other polls (including the most recent), Clinton has beaten Giuliani! That's right: In head-to-head match-ups, Clinton has beaten Giuliani in ten of the last twelve polls, including the most recent (basic data below). But so what? Russert cherry-picked the two polls Clinton lost -- and Todd chimed in with the pleasing claim that she's having electability problems.
From the August 1 edition of NBC's Today:
MATT LAUER (co-host): If we take this, hypothetically -- that, let's say, Hillary Clinton gets the nomination on the Democratic side, Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination on the Republican side. Let's take a look at what our poll found in a head-to-head matchup between those two. Hillary Clinton would win 47 to 41 percent. A lot of scenarios, though, could shift those numbers.
RUSSERT: But that's significant because many of the polls had shown Rudy Giuliani beating Hillary Clinton in a general election.
LAUER: So she's the person to beat right now?
RUSSERT: [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] also beats Giuliani. And so does [Former Sen. John] Edwards [D-NC]. But the fact is, Matt, Hillary Clinton has a lot of high negatives. Her numbers are pretty much fixed at that mid-40 level, but nonetheless, this is good news for the Democrats.
From the July 29 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: And we're back. Let's look at some interesting polls. The generic question, "Are you going to vote for a Democrat or a Republican for president of the United States?" And look at these margins in the generic question: 51 to 27 in The Hotline poll; Battleground poll, 49-38. And then when you match up specific front-runners, Giuliani, in both polls, beats Hillary Clinton. You match Giuliani against Obama, Giuliani wins in one poll, 49-45; Obama wins in another poll. Then take [Former Sen.] Fred Thompson [R-TN] Thompson loses to Clinton in one, ties on another. But Obama does much better against Thompson than Hillary Clinton does, winning handily in both those races. What does that mean to you, Chuck Todd?
TODD: Well, I think that she's having a problem with electability. The Clinton folks will say that they -- they believe their biggest challenge is proving electability, and it -- and it really bugs them because they actually feel like in the polls show that, you know, the fact that she's competitive with Giuliani, they think that should be a good thing, you know. I think there were some folks that thought she might be 10 points down to Giuliani at this point.
Oh come on! 2 out of 5 can still be considered "many" can it not?
sure but why does russert refer to the new poll as "significant", as if it were a complete turnaround? it's not. and then you have todd talking about her problem with "electibility". doesn't sound like she has such a problem.
I saw this on the Fox News web site, so take that into consideration:
"POLLS: GOP Losing Ground in '08 Race
Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton holds slight lead over top Republican Rudy Giuliani for the first time in a hypothetical 2008 presidential matchup."
"In seven different head-to-head matchups, the poll shows the Democratic candidate tops the Republican. While this had been the case when Clinton was tested against Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, this is the first time she has the advantage over Giuliani."
"Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from July 17 to July 18. The poll has a 3-point error margin."
(full article on foxnews.com Thurs. July 19th. Dana Blanton)
I would imagine any poll taken at this stage would be as worthless as a cherry would be come next November, if one were picking it off a tree today.
then take you own oft-repeated advice and ignore it.
Tommy,
You're absolutely correct here.
Of course constant Poll taking is an obsession in politics, but these are rather worthless in that the the head to head matchups are purely, at this point, hypothetical.
But better to have the media absorbed by these basically useless numbers than hyperventilating over Hillary's cleavage & what it all means ;-)
Great point J,
It is curious how many here were all in a huff over the media spending an inordinate amount of time, even documented by MMFA in an earlier thread, on Hillary's cleavage and how it should be discussing important, more relevant topics.......yet they are now concerned with polls for a vote that's well over a year away, with hypothetical candidate matchups?
You're correct that polls - in so far as they can predict they election - are worthless.
But the polls are being used - and in this cased skewed - to support a narrative (perhaps self-fulfilling?) the media is constructing that 'Hillary is divisive and cannot win.'
Remember all the yammering about how 'Al Gore said he invented the internet' and 'Naomi Wolf told Al Gore to wear earth tones' during the 2000 election. And how the big media people have quietly - years after the fact - admitted there was no truth to either (the former by WaPo on 7/23/06 and the latter by NYTimes on 7/29/07).
Whether or not the polls are true is irrelevant... the media uses them to prop up false narratives they wish to construct about the candidates.
The media is constructing....??? Newsflash for ya, Hillary is divisive, whether you accept it or not.
Whether she can win or not based on polls taken today is worthless.
but do you have an actual comment on this story? why for instance, did russert call the poll "significant" when it's really nothing new?
I would agree with you Tommy, any poll at this point is irrelevant and cherry picking.
Timmie makes up his own numbers...
When you're as big as Tim-bob, you just pull numbers out of your ass.
...Whatever can be done to keep your conservative pals in power.
Tommy's point is well-founded, but I think the gist of the article is not so much the poll results themselves as Timmeh's puzzling misrepresentation of them.
Mefirst says it pretty well above -- why present this one poll as if it were a turnaround when it's clearly not?
Those approved narratives must have some strong undertow.
It looks like the fumes from the whiteboard markers Russert uses every Election Night have finally fried his brain.....
you've failed to mention the most important poll: more of the same 100%, the american people 0%.
Might as well get ready for more WSJ "polls" with Murdoch at the helm. See how he now has his fingers in NBC? Of course, Russert is almost as much of a GOP yes-man as George Will (the civil, polite kind). They ought to call the MSM the GOP Softball League.
My letter to Tim Russert:
Holy Moses, Tim, What is the deal with the Sunday talk show format? It's like the last refuse of the white upper-class privilege good-old-boy network. Novak. Oh my god, what a pathetic coward. He refuses any responsibility in outing a CIA operative and all you can do two weeks ago was roll out the red carpet for him and act like you're sharing a handle of Jack out by the horseshoe pit. What was worse were the underhanded insults he threw out against Clinton and Obama ("all I have to do is look at who the Democrats are putting forward, a black and a woman, and I have hope for the Republicans") and all you do is chuckle along with him. Truly disgusting. I tell you what, if you are truly interested in anything resembling objectivity, why not make this your policy: any time Bob Novak or David Broder is on your show, you also will ask Amy Goodman to be on. That would be a nice change to the terminally boring list of old white farts you seem to only allow on. It's like ensconced political hacks posing as veteran journalists are the real newsmakers, who the world needs for wisdom, so you just shiver and bow in their presence. Were it not so destructive to our political discourse and an impediment to solving huge problems in the world, it might just be funny.
Now, you offer skewed polling summaries of a Clinton/Giuliani match up. Five polls, Mrs. Clinton leading in three, yet you think the two with Giuliani leading are the only relevant ones to comment on. Go figure.
There is a reason why I only watch television about once a month. Sunday shows like yours which ought to be handling issues in a balanced manner yet which completely shed all skin of objectivity or relevancy are a big reason why I cannot tune in that often. They ought to call Sunday morning shows "The Republican Softball League", with yours running in first place for parroting GOP talking points.
Thanks for reading.
Tim Hogan Colorado Springs, CO