The Washington Post and ABC published a poll Sunday with an eye-opening subheadline: Obama has opened up a big lead in the swing states.
Nationally, the race is unmoved from early September, with 49 percent of likely voters saying they would vote for Obama if the election were held today and 47 percent saying they would vote for Romney. Among all registered voters, Obama is up by a slim five percentage points, nearly identical to his margin in a poll two weeks ago.
But 52 percent of likely voters across swing states side with Obama and 41 percent with Romney in the new national poll, paralleling Obama’s advantages in recent Washington Post polls in Florida, Ohio and Virginia.
If that second paragraph is true, then it would take a knockout blow for Romney just to become competitive again, let alone win. But is it true? Jennifer Rubin found a flaw in the poll.
You’ve got to get deep into the weeds to tell what is going on. The Washington Post-ABC pollsters tell us that “52 percent of likely voters across swing states side with Obama and 41 percent with Romney in the new national poll.” But without the proper context, readers may jump to an incorrect conclusion when they see that figure, concluding that Obama is home-free in swing states. As I learned from Post pollster Jon Cohen, that finding is based on the responses of a total of 160 people, and it has a margin of error of 8 percentage points. So yes, there may be a difference between swing-state and national numbers, but the gap might be very small or it might be big.
Obviously, 160 respondents is a tiny, tiny number for any poll. The margin of error such a small sample creates is so large that the poll is practically useless. Applying the error bar, Obama’s lead could be anywhere from three to 19 points. Or, given the miniscule size of the sample, it might not be a lead at all.
The Post should probably have not published that poll at all. They could have published it honestly with a disclaimer that its sample size was among the smallest ever used in a presidential poll. But that disclaimer would have robbed the story of its shock value, and this is the MSM we’re dealing with. The Post also fronted this headline from its subsidiary The Root over the weekend:
Pat Caddell has things about right, I’m afraid. The MSM can no longer be trusted with so much as a weather report.
“When we poll by phone, we mostly get Democrats to respond and it turns out that most Democrats want a Democrat as President and are only too happy to tell us so. Republicans simply don’t talk to pollsters because its their perception that polling organizations are actually Democrats.”
“its their perception that polling organizations are actually Democrats”
Gosh, I wonder how people get that impression.
In the absence of any corroborating trend, this is just junk. I’d be curious of what the actually wording of the question(s) was.
“The MSM can no longer be trusted with so much as a weather report.” You got that right. Warmer than usual? Climate change. Heavy thunderstorms? Climate change. Dry spell? Climate change. Tornado warnings? Climate change. All to scare us proles into surrendering our freedoms and conceding control of our lives to our “betters” in Washington, D.C., and Turtle Bay. If Julius Streicher, publisher of the execrable anti-Semitic rag, “Der Stuermer”, were alive today, he’d find a place at the “New York Times” or “The Guardian”.
Is Obama Really Leading by 11 Points in the Swing States?
But of course! And he has both the flying cow and the unicorn vote sown up!
Cavuto floated a suggestion: the swing states are mostly governed by Republicans, whose policies have meant flourishing economies. So, the citizens of those states will vote for Obama, because everything is good in their backyards.
I have thought the same thing. Maddening, isn’t it?
When we live in the era of the Imperial Presidency and stunted education, these things are bound to happen.
If so, why aren’t those GOP governors on the stump on at least a weekly basis letting their citizens know this?
Because, clearly, people who vote are idiots, right?
Cavuto’s part of the press; the press lies. Cavuto is lying.
No, Cavuto presented this idea as just that: an opinion. If it is so, then, the swing state voters may be more ready to think about the flames in North Africa.
I wonder:
The pollsters are oversampling Dems, I think that’s pretty clear. The question is why? Simple laziness can’t be ruled out, of course, but if they are trying to influence the election, they are betting the farm on the belief that they can actually create a massive Dem turnout.
This can play out one of three ways:
(1) The pollsters actually do change turnout on election day.
(2) The pollsters start bringing their models more in line with reality. This will mean the gap will narrow, creating a “trend” to Romney that I suspect will work in his favor.
(3) The pollsters don’t bring their models in line with reality, and the final results make them look like fools. Un-credible fools.
“The pollsters are oversampling Dems, I think that’s pretty clear. The question is why?”
Because that’s what the press is paying them to do.
And who will call the polls fools when the people with the megaphones are the ones paying for the lies?
It’s all about creating & protecting a narrative.
Which swing states are we talking about, the extra 7 that he’s always visiting but nobody else has seen?
Push polls writ large.
They no longer have even the tiniest fig leaf of respectability.
When I read the “within the margin of error” crap, I just laugh.
They haven’t been close to the truth since Nixon, but we still breathlessly report each tea leaf as it falls.
Idiots.
This country better learn how to evaluate data and read English to get the real meaning pretty quickly. The number of illiterate, incoherent reports I hear on the news now is just embarrassing. They don’t know enough math. They actually report that two an two are 15, like it’s the truth. They don’t understand simple English. They say things that don’t agree with what’s said on the videotape.
Again. Idiots.
Oh.
And LIARS.