MSNBC Keith Oberman admitted that the 11 point bounce was a partial poll

He said that the bounce was the question on Iraq but it's not on the other questions about Bush.

Can I ask all of you how they can only report a partial poll and make it look like a complete poll?

Is this a legal tactic?

They ask 4 questions and 1 question out of 4 Bush is up 11 points but the other 3 Kerry is way ahead but they report only on the one question where Bush is ahead. That is what Oberman was talking about.

If correct, this is a total outrage and proof positive that CNN is totally corrupt.

When people were asked the other questions Kerry was up. He literally said that Bush had a bounce only on Iraq.

New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. Poll results are available on TIME.com and will appear in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine, on newsstands Monday, Sept. 6.

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

he can't run on his record

I'm just not sure what this means. Did he suggest that they only used part of the survey sample in generating findings? If so, that's way wrong!

So why are they reporting that Bush is way ahead in the Polls?

when these fuck heads at CNN announced this poll did they present it as: In the race for President the numbers are XXX??? Or did they say: On Iraq the numbers areXX?

All I heard on CNN was the part about Bush being 11 points up.

When Oberman was interviewing the democratic guest (sorry I don't know his name) he said that Bush was only up on one question of the polls.

We are going to have to listen to what they are saying.

They are brainwashing people like the SS did for Hitler.

This was presented as Bush is WINNING by 11 points!!!!!!!!!

but wasn't that poll a horse-race poll? I don't think it was just one question.

By this time next week the water (Bu$h's poll numbers) will be back down, and the death and destruction in his wake will be the news.

"Vote for us or you're going to die!"

Matthews said the head to head number was Bush 52 Kerry 41.

The number on terrorism was even worse. I believe it was 21 points. I also heard Peter Jennings say give results of Time poll, Bush 52 Kerry 41.

Neither one of these networks is CNN.

When is Zogby going to come out ?

He then said that Kerry was ahead of Bush on the Economy, Health Care, Etc.

How can they pick apart polls and only give the results of what they want to give them on?

There is an incredible race to be the first polling firm to announce the "bounce" from the convention. So much so that a couple firms did polling that didn't even include the heart of the conventions (or not much). The same thing happened to us. The early polls that said "negative bounce" or "no bounce" were largely taken BEFORE Kerry spoke.

But the numbers were not as you are assuming.

Bush was up/down as follows:

Economy +2
Health Care -6
Iraq +12
Terrorism +21
Understands the people -3
Strong Leader (THE gold standard) +19
Taxes +9
Commanding the Armed Forces (a category I've never seen) +15


Job approval:

Overall 55% (ouch!)
Handling Economy 48-48
Handling Iraq 50-46
Handling of War on Terrorism 59-38


Other results -

Right to go to war in Iraq? Yes 52-41
World safer because of Iraq? Tie 45-45 (after our convention it was NO 52-38)

That rundown explains a lot.

I'm waiting for next week's poll results, myself.

That Bush is at 52 well do you see any of the other questions where Bush is higher then Kerry outside of the war on terrorism or Iraq? No you don't so why are they concentrating on an unbalanced poll?

They're reporting the IRAQ NUMBERS as the "who ya gonna vote for" numbers????

What the hell is going on with this load of BS?

They are NOT reporting one issue as the overall poll.

The straight line "who are you going to vote for" was the 11 point gap.

The rest of what you heard was an attempt to decide WHERE Bush made up his ground. Was it on the economy? No, but they didn't spend a whole lot of time talking about the economy during those first couple days.

They spent the vast bulk of their convention concentrating on 9/11, terrorism, and Iraq. It was already his strong suit and they strengthened it. They're trying to make it the focus of the election.

What they're saying is that Kerry will win or lose largely by how successfully he is over the next few weeks of steering the focus of the election back to domestic issues.

Iraq approval numbers?

"Who is winning?" Bush 52-41
Bush vs. Kerry on Iraq 53-41


http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

that they didn't ask all the questions over each day of the polling process? Instead, did they exclude domestic issues and only ask questions about Iraq and terrorism for most of the polling days?

The REPUBLICANS spent their convention concentrating on those issues. So of course those would be the ones that would show any "bounce".

You didn't hear anyone from the podium talk much about the economy (what was there to say?), so the polling (on the economy) reflects only the tidal pull of the overall numbers and very little movement.

If so, please post.

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

The article is all that's up so far. Though this site http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm shows some of the history of the TIME results.

Doubt we'll ever be seeing a graph or any solid representation of these "results".

They are jerking the American Publics chain and we are sitting back and falling for the BS.

numbers are identical - 52-41.

here's the key folks. Those two items fluctuate in tandem. Chimp bastard obviously blurred the line between war on terror and war in iraq. Must fix that lie.

I have to question the validity of this poll if that's the case.

Was he saying that those Time numbers...the 52-41 numbers...are numbers on simply IRAQ???? Not the "who you gonna vote for" numbers?

Bush is 52 Kerry is 41 and that is what they are reporting on.

THESE MOTHERFUCKERS ARE REPORTING THE IRAQ APPROVAL NUMBERS AS THE VOTING FOR NUMBERS??????

:mad:

kill somebody.

There is NO FUCKING WAY they did this.

There is going to be HELL TO PAY if that's what they did.

They just happen to be the same so it appears that way.

How do you know this?

I've yet to see these numbers...I'd like to. I mean, I saw them upthread but I didn't see the voting numbers.

are both the same, by coincidence.

I've asked this questions 4 times already on this thread, and nobody has responded.

It would show their lies and no one has one.

What do you mean by "a graph"?

A graph is just a pictoral representation of the data they've already reported. All of the internals were in there. Are you looking to compare the poll to the previous data?
Here's the link to the previous poll with comparable numbers from just after our convention (I'm sure you can mock up a graph for yourself if you like).http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,678367,00.html

I thank God every day for DU. Otherwise I might be as brainwashed as your average freep. Well, maybe not THAT brainwashed.

We need the official numbers, first.

Then we're going to raise some fucking hell at CNN AND MSNBC. For sure.

Whoever is responsible for this is going to lose their fucking JOB- and that's going easy on them.

but it does make me feel a heck of alot better about our chances.

they really sent this message board into a panic

the Iraq and the overall numbers are the same?

or else we need to shut down the CNN building.

It really shouldn't be that hard! :wtf:

I was in charge of creating the questions and sitting up the focus groups.

Right now I am blowing a fuse over this load of garbage.

What the hell are they doing to the American Public and why are they doing this to us?

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

"For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2."

What the hell was Keith talking about?

I don't remember exactly what he said, but he did mention the 4% margin of error. I don't remember if he called it a "partial poll," but he probably meant to say it was a poll with a small sample size.

Had he said itty bitty, tiny, or little I could relate.

The polling sample would have been roughy 50% before the convention was really underway and the entire sample would have been before Bush spoke. I think they're saying you can't really judge the "bounce" effect of the full convention on this poll.

But what they dont say is that it could be worse.

The jump in "ONLY" on the war on Terrorism and Iraq.

One of the single most important "internals" for a Presidential poll is "strong leader".

Bush was up by 19% on that stat. I find it almost impossible to believe that this doesn't reflect a big move. There's no way we came out of our convention with Kerry down by almost 20 on one of the most important measures.

Oberman wasn't the only want that mentioned the polling today.

Why this thread, then?

LOL

Thanks for the clarification.

I've never seen a poll reported by its pollster without a graph. Didn't find one on the TIME link. Without a graph of results in different categories and overall I am going to remain suspicious.

If you did then the public would figure out what they are trying to pull.

with the whores.

And we all know it.

Fuck off, AOL/Time Warner/CNN, you goddamned whores. I've seen your shit on AOL.