CNN and Time REFUSE to report Dean-Bush CNN/Time Poll

From Democrats.com


The latest CNN/Time Poll shows Dean Nearly Tied with Bush - but CNN and Time REFUSE to report this poll, because they want Americans to believe Dean is 'unelectable.' Send this image - below - to images@cnn.com

we already know the media is complcit...and dean has already shared his views on this.

At least they showed their bias early.

infuriating although, sadly, not at all surprising! Is there an email address to which we can express our extreme displeasure to the high-and-mighty GOP-shilling hypocrites at CNN?

a guy who has only been seen on wonk-y news shows like "Meet the Presstitute" would be running this high this soon.

I doubt that Clinton had these numbers at this stage of the game.

I hope that we were not suprised that the media would be for Bush now?

A few different times.

The spin they put on it was that Bush retains a solid lead, but nonetheless they did report it.

Yes, they're ignoring the change. Actually, I think they mentioned Dean's rise, but they still tried to make it sound unimportant, nothing for Republicans to worry about.

This poll tracks with Bush's approval ratings. 52 percent-ish of the people have approved of the overall job Bush is doing. 43% is the number of people who just think he is the worst president ever (count me in that number). In my opinion, that 52% is soft and can be taken down 8 points or more by focused attacks on the presidents abysmal record.

If the question "Would you vote for Bush or Hank McCloskey in 2004" were posed to a DUer, the DUer is likely to answer Hank McCloskey (twice a day my dog creates better presidential material than Bush and whether or not I know the name Hank McCloskey, he's got to be better if he's a democrat) - hence 42% for Dean through Nov.

Dean is now known by name by most voters, and is seen as the democratic front runner, so he had more credibility at the beginning of last month than the prior month. This can sway those independents who are weary of Bush, but aren't going to trade him in for the devil they don't know.

I'd be willing to bet that Kerry's, Clark's and Gephardt’s numbers would be similar.

Has anyone seen any poll data for these candidates?

You need to understand a couple of things about how polls work.

First, this poll has a margin of error of + or - 4%. This means that even according to this poll's results, Dean's support may be as high as 50% or as low as 42%, and Bush's support may be as high as 55% or as low as 47%. So, even according to this poll, Bush could have a lead as large as 13%.

Second, even this rather broad spectrum of possible results (like all scientifically conducted polls) has a 95% likelihood of being accurate. To understand what this means, think about a basketball player who has a 95% probability of making a freethrow--he misses one out of every twenty times. So, while 19 out of 20 such polls do capture real public attitudes somewhere within their margins of error, 1 out 20 polls simply miss the mark. If this is that twentieth poll which is wrong, which fails to capture reality within its margin of error, then Dean must in actuality have less than 42% support (I am assuming he can't possibly have more than 50%). To know whether this is the 1 out of 20 polls that is just plain wrong, we need to compare it to similar polls. Other polls asking the same question in the last few weeks have shown Dean with support in the low 40s or high 30s, and Bush with a 12%-20% lead (+ or - some margin of error--usually between 3% and 5%, depending on the particular poll's sample size). This poll therefore appears to be incorrect.

Third, we then are left with two possibilities. (1) Something has happened in just the past week or so to give Dean a huge boost after all the other polls had been taken, and that real boost is reflected only in this new poll; or (2) this poll is simply one of the few wrong ones. Since I can't think of any reason to think (1) is true, my guess is that it is (2). In fact, there is a good reason to believe that (2) is true--and this poll is just wacky. Scientific phone polling is becoming increasingly difficult and inaccurate as more and more people are not home, screen calls, refuse to answer polls, etc. These factors mean that the people who do answer the polls are not truly representative of the overall population. And all these problems become more extreme during a holiday. Holiday polls always yield questionable results--particularly since Republicans are less likely to be home than are Democrats.

So, in sum, I bet these results are not being emphasized by Time or CNN not because of a conspiracy against Dean, but rather because the poll is likely just wrong. They don't want to lose credibility by promoting a mistaken poll.

Here's the Washington Post/ABC polls (plus/minus 3%). If we look only at the data between Bush and an unnamed Democrat, the numbers for the recent CNN poll would suggest that Dean has replaced that unnamed Democrat, and the margin of error would be negligible. Unfortunately for Dean, they've also tracked Dean vs. Bush over several months, and those numbers have remained virtually unchanged (look at questions 3 & 4):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data122203.html

So yes, I would say the CNN poll, in all likelihood, tracked wrong. Subsequent polls will tell the story.

those things could be said of all polls, there's nothing there that says anything about this particular poll. If they chose not to publish this poll, why do they publish any polls at all?

That said, it appears they HAVE published this poll. Otherwise, how did Democrats.com get it?

It's no ones fault, it just happens. CNN is using the same questions in every poll, as are other polling agencies, and in this one case, CNN's is the odd man out.

One reason you publish your polls is so that you can tell how your poll is tracking. If ABC waited until CNN published, and CNN waited until Gallup published and Gallup was waiting on ABC ... well, you get the idea.

When your poll tracks WAY outside what is expected, you still publish it, but you're not going to make it front page. If subsequent polls verify it, then you got something.

Normally we beat up news orgs in this group for sensationalizing stories with too few facts. Let's not beat them up when they are actually being prudent. :-)

you're giving CNN way too much credit. WAY too much.

For one thing, even CNN hasn't given this explanation, you're speculating on their behalf, for whatever reason.

For another thing, CNN has much lower standards than you give them credit for. Off the top of my head, a good example is the fake question at the "Rock the Vote" debate. Any network that rewrites a good question into a stupid one like that woulnd't care as much about their poll methodology as you give them credit for.

I saw Matt Lauer on the Today Show either thur or fri with a pollster( dont know which one)

The thing that sruck me was that H. Dean's negatives were at the mid 50's and GWB's negatives were at the high 30's.

But the big sign that the repubs are on the victory lap is that Hillary is not running. If any Democrat had even a remote chance of attaining the Presidents Office, Hillary would be in the race. For if a democrat did win the presidents office, Hillary could not run for president until the 2012 cycle.

Those two graphics are very powerful. They distill the closeness of the contest. I've tried to put it into words that Dean, by the polls, is very electable but I sense people are glossing over it. These pictures are definitely worth 1K words or more.