Bad Poll Reporting and Manufacturing Consent to a Potentially Stolen Election

by Chris Bowers, Sat Oct 23, 2004 at 02:51:10 PM EDT

Here is where things stand:
  • Kerry holds a commanding lead in the battleground states, according to post-debate polling.

  • Undecideds break heavily for the challenger, especially in Presidential Elections. This will only serve to further increase Kerry's lead in the battleground states.

  • According to Real Clear Politics, which regularly fishes for pro-Bush polls, Bush is under 47.5 in states worth 277 electoral votes. It will be very difficult for him to win any of these states, including Ohio where he rarely travels anymore. He is under 49 in states worth 316 electoral votes, and over 50 in states worth only 202 electoral votes.

  • According to the most recent polls from the fifteen polling firms that have conducted polls entirely after the third debate, Bush is only at 47.3% simple mean to Kerry's 45.9% simple mean. The median is Bush 47, Kerry 46. In the history of Presidential elections since there was public polling, no incumbent has amassed a large enough percentage of undecideds to hold on to such a small lead.
That is the narrative we need to immediately push the media to report. Instead, right now they are pushing the narrative that Bush is leading. Although in the past I have debated whether or not such a narrative would help or hurt Democrats on turnout between now and November 2nd, there is no doubt that such a narrative will substantially hurt us after November 2nd. The reason for this is that Republicans are trying to use widespread fraud to destroy registrations, change polling places, intimidate minorities and disenfranchise voters in an attempt to swing a close election where they are slightly behind into a narrow Bush victory. However, for many, if not the significant majority of the country, the charges of fraud and disenfranchisement will not stick. As a result of the bogus, narrow and fishing trip poll reporting that is fueling the narrative, when the theft is done, very few people in the country will have thought that the result could, and should, have been otherwise.

Krugman yesterday:

But if you get your political news from cable TV, you probably have a very different sense of where things stand. CNN, which co-sponsored that Gallup poll, rarely informs its viewers that other polls tell a very different story. The same is true of Fox News, which has its own very Bush-friendly poll. As a result, there is a widespread public impression that Mr. Bush holds a commanding lead.(...)

A lot can change in 11 days, and Mr. Bush may yet win convincingly. But we must not repeat the mistake of 2000 by refusing to acknowledge the possibility that a narrow Bush win, especially if it depends on Florida, rests on the systematic disenfranchisement of minority voters. And the media must not treat such a suspect win as a validation of skewed reporting that has consistently overstated Mr. Bush's popular support.

The media is reporting that Bush is ahead, as much as the preponderance of polling evidence indicates otherwise. At the same time, widespread fraud threatens to tip the election:There is much more here.

There is even more here.

Prepared for such tactics, the Kerry campaign and allied groups have created a widespread legal network to reveal, challenge, and thwart such attempts at stealing the election. However, the polling narrative in the corporate media is one hole that they are unable to plug. We must try to plug it ourselves.

Email the four talking points I listed at the top of this page to as many news outlets as possible in order to make the case that either Kerry is winning or the election is tied. The key is to destroy the "Bush is leading" narrative, and dismantle consent to a potentially stolen election. This is not as important as GOTV, but it is important. Destroy the lie that is the narrative. There will be no consent to a stolen election this time.

Tags: Media (all tags)

  • 24 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

24 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Why not a major speech by Kerry pointing out
these anti-democratic (small d) efforts? This could be very powerful and create a backlash against the GOP.
by DSKinMD 2004-10-23 03:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why not a major speech by Kerry pointing out
This seems to be one of those stories that has to be advanced by a strong surrogate. If Kerry does it, it could come across as whining (rather than "informing," which is how we might perceive it).
by Dana 2004-10-23 06:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why not spend a day in Virginia, NC and/or AK
If Kerry really wants to give off an impression to the media that he thinks he's winning and winning big, why not spend next Thursday (or so) in Virginia and North Carolina (or Arkansas).

By going to these Bush leaning states, the following might occur:

  1. Kerry can tell the media that he sees all the polls breaking his way
  2. get the media to start talking about how Kerry could win big
  3. cut the public perception that Bush is winning and make it appear that "come back" Kerry has pulled even or taken a lead in the last days of the campaign
  4. scare the pants off Rove and Bush in making them think Kerry knows something in the polling that the Reps don't (which may be a bad thing as this may push Rove to do something really nasty out of desperation)

As a side note, what are peoples thoughts about true Republicans (not the Bush neo-cons) casting protest votes for Badnarik taking away a good 2% from Bush.
by davidscott 2004-10-24 07:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why not spend a day in VA, NC, or AR (not AK)
I know, I wrote AK for Alaska in the header, not AR for Arkansas.  Meant Arkansas!
by davidscott 2004-10-24 07:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
More Bad Polling
There are four third-party candidates, not just Nader.  While Cobb (Green) is on the ballot in barely more than half the states, and mostly states where the outcome is not in doubt, Peroutka and Nader are on in 3/4 or so, and Badnarik (Libertarian) is on the ballot everywhere except NH and OK, including every battleground state except NH. (YMMV on NH as a battleground).

A poll on Ohio that is a 3-way Bush Kerry Nader is just wrong, because (accuracy depends on litigation) Nader is not on the ballot in Ohio, but Badnarik the Libertarian (whose draw is very different than Nader's) is there and drawing votes.

These bad three-way polls selectively damage the Kerry campaign, because they show a 3-way with Nader competing with Kerry for votes, but fail to show Peroutka selectively scooping up conservatives, and Badnarik doing the Libertarian thing.  It is worthwhile for Kerry supporters to call for competent polling where the pollees are given correct lists of the candidates: Honest polling helps Kerry.

by phillies 2004-10-23 04:40PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: More Bad Polling
Good comment. Badnarik's vote totals may surprise everyone.
by Mark Fulwiler 2004-10-24 12:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It's not paranoia if someones really following you
The thing I like about Chris is... I'll have a nagging feeling bothering me in the back of my mind, and he will verbalize exactly what I'm feeling.  There has to be a reason for all these bogus polls. I believe that the Shrubbies are getting setup so they will continue to back the Shrub after he steals the election.  Any good con man wiil tell you that the most important thing in a successful con is, the mark has to want to be conned.  Bush has millions of marks out there that want to believe everything he tells them.  I can hear it now... "Yeah, yeah, yeah, you whiney Democrats are just having your sour grapes again. Polls showed Bush was up 8 points going into November, and now you're trying to say he stole the election."  Makes you want to scream.  I for one will be ready to take to the streets and riot if this happens.  What have I got to lose.  I've been laid off for the past ten months anyway, thanks to the Shrub administration. It's not like I have to be somewhere.
by Slapmaxwell 2004-10-23 05:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
An ongoing coup d'etat
Exactly right.

Krugman's article is important because it says it out loud that we are in an evolving coup d'etat. And it reinforces the picture of Bush's world painted by Ron Suskind in his important NY Times article

Krugman's point about Gallup illustrates perfectly what the Bush advisor meant when he told Suskind that "we create our own reality." This remark has nothing to do with faith vs secular, it is ad-speak. I've been around advertising types for years, and it is how they speak. They do create perceptions, and for them, that is reality.

Gallup, Fox, and the others are working very hard to create the perception that Bush is winning. They are not obsessed, like those in the reality-based community, with analyzing facts as they exist. They are creating perceptions--reality in the world of politics. And as the Bush adviser told Suskind, the rest of us just have to rush to catch up.

While the rest of us are glued to TV on election night, analyzing the election results, the right wing media machine will be forging ahead, creating the perception that Bush has already won. We've all got to do what we can to create the alternative perception, that Bush lost and Kerry won. Let's not be caught flat-footed this time around.

We have to start now on developing our own script. The point is not to say the Bush script doesn't match reality.  Rather, the point is to present our version of reality.  What will be needed on election night is a straightforward, convincing explanation for why Bush lost.

by Alan S 2004-10-23 05:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Wake up zombies
I'm sorry, these things have to be said.

When John Kenedy was shot, I remember Dixie-crats (the ideological progenitors of today's GOP) cheering and laughing.

When Nixon was caught involved with dirty tricks, GOP supporters said, he had done nothing wrong, he just got caught.

GW Bush has repeatedly lied to the US population and the world. His decisions have led to the un-necessary deaths of more than 1100 US soldiers, tens of thousands of Iraqies, and the expense of 140 Billion and counting. With billions going to his cronies and billions more totally un-accounted for.

These people believe they are on the verge of destroying the entire social safety net. They are not going to give up and stay behind the line of decency, honesty, or limit themsleves to democratic methods.

The corporate media are also on their side. The wealthy mistakenly believe they can live safely in any political system, they do not need our nominal democracy or our social safety net, they are not concerned about the dilution of our civil rights becasue our system has become so corrupted by the influence of money at all levels. George Soros is right, he has seen this all before.

You have to realize that all or most of Rove's dirty tricks designed for this election have already been set in motion and he is not going to limit himself to the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

The corporate media is setting up something related to a contested election, at the very least, that is if the election is close. If the election appears to be going heavily in the Demorats favor, expect even more extreme actions to be taken.

People - please WAKE UP!

Media matters has been protesting the misreporting referred to in this blog note.

More people have to start noticing and start responding to the phony narrative the media have been establishing now since the genned up post GOP convention polls.

This web site and others proved those polls to be biased and un-represenative of public opinion, but most people who will vote do not know that and never will.

Somthing is in the works and its not going to be something good for the average Democrat voter who wants change and who wants to depose these money mad - power mad SOBs who are using Bush and his phony christianity to get what they want from the tresury and federal budget.

Pay attention to the media narrative, please talk about it and help get other people to notice. Write into CNN, MSNBC, keep up with Media Matters.

Nothing would make me happier than to wrong about all of this, but I'm sorry - I've seen this sort of wind up to a sucker punch too many times and its clear to me the average guy still does not know its coming.  

Please don't spend all of your time analyzing the daily poll data showing results going back and forth within the MOE. Please start noticing and talking about and helping others to see what is happening now with this lying media narrative that is being broadcast over and over and over and over again.

Please help people who are not aware at this point to wake the ** up.

by leschwartz 2004-10-23 05:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Why Bush Lost the Election
Following up on my post above, here is my take on why Bush lost.  I encourage others to put themselves ahead to Nov. 3 and then look back and come up with their own story about why Bush lost.

The voters were just exhausted after four years of George Bush.  In the end, when they faced the actual choice of voting for four more years, they just couldn't do it.  They were tired of limping from crisis to crisis with no end in sight: 9/11, Bin Laden's escape at Tora Bora, the Iraq War with no WMD, Abu Graib, repeated terror alerts, gruesome beheadings on TV and here at home lost jobs, a crushing deficit, and the final shock of the flue vaccine mess.  In the end, people just couldn't say they supported Bush's performance.    

In the end, the Bush team's own message did them in: they spread fear, they told people to be afraid, but they couldn't really offer a way for people to feel safe.  Pushing Bush as a steady leader worked at the start, but after so many failures, it lost traction.  In the end, the climate of fear worked against Bush, because people realized that the world is dangerous, and Bush had no real solutions.  At the debates, Kerry really turned this around.  Bush was projecting fear and Kerry was projecting calm assurance.  After the debates, the air went out of the fear balloon.

by Alan S 2004-10-23 05:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why Bush Lost the Election
Alan,

For the most part that is a passive narrative. You need facts. That is why they are generating and broadcasting over and over againt the skewed poll data. We don't simply need a narrative, we need one that can be backed up with what the public will accept as independently cooberated facts.

Right now we have to make a big stink about the use of biased polling data in the daily media narrative. This site and others provide the technical facts to prove the bias of those polls, our role must be in part to refer to those facts in our complaints to the media and in our conversations with antone who may share our concerns.

I have noticed, the media feels it when enough people write in to complain. They don't llke when their "reporting" draws a lot of publc criticism.

We need this to be the nail that sticks out and gets hammered down, not the bogus contraversy over the "Mary Cheney comment".

CNN Aaron Brown has advanced the theory recenlty advanced by Gallop that bad polling numbers do not surpress one sides turn out at the polls.

I know for a fact that is not true, and it is obvious that since the GOP can't raise the numbers they need to win they are now concentrating on supression methods of all kinds.

We need to pound down this nail and not let the media spend its time on trivial mole-hills like the Mary Cheney remark while they continue to ignore the national outcry over Bush's Iraq policy and his failed economic policies.

   

by leschwartz 2004-10-23 05:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why Bush Lost the Election
We need facts?  Oh, how reality based.  We have had facts for the last goddamn 4+ years, and where has that gotten us??  

We need to shape the facts in a way that tells a coherent story.  The facts you see are the facts you look for.  Lets try looking for the right facts.

by Alan S 2004-10-23 09:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why Bush Lost the Election
Alan, did not mean to offend you.

We need to build the alternative narrative piece by piece with facts that are as independtly verifiable as they can be.

We need to start with the fact that the media continues to trivialize the election by spending so much time on the really inconsequential, like the Mary Cheney remark, and by not talking about Iraq, the economy, the candidates platforms world view, and not allow the media to serve as an amplifier for the sensational personal attacks by the opposition.

You can't just hand people a narritive youy think people will go for. It has to be built day by day on the points, facts, issues highlighted by the campaigns.

And people like oursleves have to do what we can, including to write in and complain we we see a cable outfit or broadcaster consistently attempting to build a story line around polling data we know to be questionable.

There is plenty of anger and disgust with the media about these practices, we need to focus on them, not each other.

In 2000, no matter what the polling data was showing at any point in time, GW Bush was consistently portrayed by the media as the inevitable winner. They are trying to do this again, we can't allow them to get away with it.

If we can raise enough attention to these specific distrotions, then what we have done will become part of the campaign itself, part of the narrative of important events which reflect the publically expressed concerns during the election, and a possible spring board for the other compaints about the constant misleading and trivializing of issues the media practices.

by leschwartz 2004-10-23 10:40PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why Bush Lost the Election
Why did Bush lose the 2004 election?

First of all, his campaign shot their wad too early. They were suckered by the early-primary strategy of the Democrats and got their base all fired up in APRIL. Their biggest negative ad attacks peaked in JUNE. They stoked the fires so much that they ran out of fuel ... and five months later in NOVEMBER when the election actually was held, the swing voters were sick of the same old tired lies and sent Kerry to the White House in a landslide.

Second, his terrible and inconsistent performance in the debates shocked people out of the media narrative. Perhaps the public's most enduring memory of George W. Bush leading up the election was how thoroughly he contrasted himself with John Kerry in the debates. He ran out of things to say; he blinked uncontrollably; he repeated himself. And then there was the time when he almost rushed Charlie Gibson in anger. Even his folksy moments (need some wood?) made him look clownish and unprepared next to Kerry's presidential honesty and seriousness.

by drewthaler 2004-10-23 06:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
oh, my bad
You're looking for a script. I just said what really happened. Don't use that -- the simple truth is not anywhere near as convincing as a good drama.
by drewthaler 2004-10-23 06:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: oh, my bad
You guys don't get it.

We are not looking for a story line we hope will come true, and composed before the fact.

The narrative is the story the media collectively presents, the day by day conventional wisdom the media hacks present to fullfill their commitment to give a report and have something to say that day.

If we don't have interesting enough set of facts for them to present, our opponents will have.

We can't hand them a film script story line. We hand them specific time sensitive hot facts they can not ignore for that day's presentation.

The media was not able to ignore the BS about
John Kerry's Mary Cheney remark because the opposition spent a lot of their Right Wingnut air time with it, so all of the media had to present it and treat it like it was a legitimate issue.

All we can to in response is to generate a lot of heat and light on the issues we care about like the manipulated polling data used to mis-represent the state of the electorate's decison about these two candidates.

by leschwartz 2004-10-23 10:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I wish we could hack...
...the USA Today headlines and the CNN and other news tickers with MyDD's polling headlines.

Failing that, I'd be willing to develop my own personal list of media to contact, ranging from tv to paper, both local and national.  I'd send a message every day or so to my list.

I'd definitely need MyDD to craft daily talking points for me.  I think the message has to go out every day.  At some point it ought to occur to these mouthpieces that they're going to look like first place idiots if Kerry, a) wins; and even, b) wins fairly big.

by sarany 2004-10-23 06:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
for wider distribution - post on Dkos
 If this has been posted please inform me.  If not I will write a diary and recommend that it be reommended so that this will get wider distribution so we can get it flooding the cable networks.  

In particular MSNBC and CNN.  

Last night Buchanan, sub hosting for Scarborough, not only said Bush lead Kerry, ignoring Kerry polls and misstating that the AP Ipsos poll  shows Bush ahead, not Kerry.  He probably has just so thoroughly convinced himself that he was unaware that he done so.  Nevertheless  there was a catch in his voice when he discussed the battleground states with Luntz.  They both had to admit that Ohio did not look good, so
Bush was going after, WIS. and Iowa.  

The scenario where Kerry wins the electoral college but Bush wins the popular vote has been a background paranoia of mine since the summer.

Everyone says what irony, couldn't happen to a better bunch of bums, but The Bushies in that circumstance would not be constrained by anything.  Assumptions of proforma procedure would immediately be overthrown by them.  Charges of hyporisy would not restrain them.  And remember that in this case they control all the machinery of government.  I fear for a lack of a popular vote mandate because it could be welded to the narrative that Kerry "stole" the electoral college with strategic manipulation.

 

by debcoop 2004-10-23 06:56PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: for wider distribution - post on Dkos
Who cares.  As long as Kerry actually gets the Elector votes on the day the electors vote (THAT is my biggest fear, a repeat of the way Hayes was made president, even though his opponent was supposed to get the votes.) I don't care if he wins the popular...YES it is obviously a better scenario to win both, but if Bush can lose it and make this even a close election, I am sure an intelligent person like Kerry can as well.  The MOST important thing is to get rid of Bush by any means necessary.  We can concentrate on winning re-election by doing a stellar job on Jan 21.  
by yitbos96bb 2004-10-23 08:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: for wider distribution - post on Dkos
Write it a bit more clearly and post it here!  
by Alan S 2004-10-23 09:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I forget...
I know it was mentioned somewhere else, but I can't find it.  What is the reasoning behind the rule that the incumbent is in trouble if he has < 48%, even if it's more than the challenger?

(In other words, I know I heard it explained somewhere here why, say, a Bush 46% vs. Kerry 44% figure is actually better news for Kerry, but I forget where that was.)

by Kjorteo 2004-10-23 10:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
In theory...
...approximately 85% (6 out of 7) of undecided voters vote for the challenger.  So, if a poll shows 46 Bush 45 Kerry 2 Other 7 Undecided, an actual result of 51 Kerry, 47 Bush, 2 Other is likely.
by Geotpf 2004-10-24 12:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
More fraud: see also TPM
Josh Marshall reports at TPM:

"It's looking more and more clear that the GOP is looking to pull in Ohio the same voter 'fraud'/voter suppression operation they tried to pull two years ago in South Dakota. Probably they'll be doing it in other states as well, but Ohio is clearly ground zero. Not altogether a surprise since they just sent their South Dakota get-out-the-vote chief to run things in Ohio.

"We'll be posting more on this later today."

by Bean 2004-10-24 10:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
BushCo = FASCISM
If you look dispassionately at the extreme right's disturbingly-vague-nonplatform, in a historical context, you'll realize that should be a warning sign.

What we are clearly headed towards under Bush is basically a localized version of neofascism, stripped of the elements that might make it easy to recognize on the surface, but in its intent, - and, ultimately, its methods, exactly the same as fascism everywhere.

Fascism is a very dangerous thing. Fascists lead their countries into very bad situations.

They kill millions of people.

Read up a bit on what 'fascism' really is.

Again, disregard the surface signs and reduce it down to its essential elements. It then starts to look very disturbingly familiar.

If you do some research, you'll realize that the Bush family has a long history of involvement with fascism. This is not some new thing.. some on the right have been planning this for a very long time..

And it could kill America.

Don't underestimate them!

by ultraworld 2004-10-27 01:00PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------