MSM completely ignored 2 polls in which Hillary was ahead of Sanders by 9 pts TWICE yesterday;

[riversedge]

We can dump that talking point that Sanders is not covered by the media!



For Clinton, Good News Is No News When It Comes To Polling

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/01/22/for-clinton-good-news-is-no-news-when-it-comes/208115
Blog ››› 1 hour and 44 minutes ago ››› ERIC BOEHLERT


There are lots of different ways campaigns can try to "win" the daily news cycle. Scoring a high-profile endorsement or releasing a new campaign commercial have proven successful in recent days, for example. Another traditional way is to post winning poll numbers, the catnip of the campaign press.

If that's the case, Hillary Clinton's camp probably thought yesterday was shaping up as an overall positive. In the morning, a new Monmouth/KBUR poll was released showing the former secretary of state with a 9-point lead in the very competitive state of Iowa, which holds its caucus on February 1.

A few hours later, Emerson College released an Iowa poll and it also indicated Clinton enjoyed a 9-point lead. At the time, it meant Clinton had led in eight of the previous ten Iowa polls taken, which translates into positive news coverage, right?

Wrong.

Because around 5 p.m., CNN released its latest Iowa polling results, showing Senator Bernie Sanders with an 8-point advantage. So instead of basking in positive coverage about leading in two of the three latest Iowa polls, Clinton had to settle for "it's a draw" reports regarding Thursday's three Iowa polls, right?

Wrong, again.

Instead of reporting on the three polls, several major news organizations yesterday ignored the first two polls and only reported on the CNN survey.

At The New York Times, the CNN poll was news: But the KBUR and Emerson polls were not covered. ..........lots more.....

[KittyWampus]

1. Well, O'Malley is still invisible.

[riversedge]

3. ;-(

[Hortensis]

5. Sure. Analysts say MSM are cherry-picking polls

in Bernie's favor to make it seem more like a horse race, pump up the interest level. Advertising revenues do rise and fall with viewership and readership after all.

Kitty, I like OM A LOT, A WHOLE LOT, but what news has he made since the last debate?

[KittyWampus]

22. At this point, I think O'Malley's influence lies in his small contingent at caucuses.

He won't have 15% support so both Hillary and Sanders will be trying to woo his supporters.

[Hortensis]

39. Yes. That'll be interesting and his 5% support becomes very important.

[hrmjustin]

2. But the media is ignoring Sanders damn it!

[riversedge]

4. yaddy yah....

give it a REC if you want.

[hrmjustin]

6. Done!

[riversedge]

9. :-)

[libdem4life]

26. Just notice how that worked out for them. Hard to ignore the front runner.

[Fast Walker 52]

7. the corporate media sucks, particularly in political campaigns

I guess now their narrative is that Bernie is surging.

[riversedge]

10. yah--He gains a pt and he is SURGING.

[Dawson Leery]

8. The media hates Hillary.

They will go with anything to destroy her, including Sanders.

[KingFlorez]

11. That contradicts that notion that Sanders is being ignored

Seems like he's a getting good coverage

[NCTraveler]

12. They have been attempting to hurt Clinton while treating Sanders with kid gloves...

the whole time. Obvious as could be. They have been working for a horse race. This is about as close as they are going to be able to get it.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. They want to "steal" it from her! Again!

[last1standing]

13. Anything coming from the Brock machine is propaganda, nothing more.

He's a proven liar and power grubber. No one should trust a word of this any more than they should trust a Drudge article.

[riversedge]

19. I think your are on the wrong thread. the OP is about polls--

[last1standing]

35. It's about propaganda spewed by a renown sexist/racist who destroyed Anita Hill for money.

If you want to listen to and follow that kind of sleaze, go right ahead.

[riversedge]

36. bye

[jeff47]

14. Probably because 70% respondents over 50

does not an accurate poll make.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Those bastids!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. They are too clever by half and actually harming Senator Sanders.

If he loses Iowa after the media said he was winning he will be seen as unfulfilling expectations rather than exceeding them.


I can see HRC giving her "for everybody who got knocked down and got back up" speech after barely winning Iowa.

[Dawson Leery]

17. +1

[riversedge]

18. umm. you have a point there.

[Motown_Johnny]

21. If he loses Iowa it is over anyways.

He will still win NH, but that will be written off because it is his neighboring state.

NV could be close, but it won't matter because without some serious momentum out of the first two contests Bernie will lose SC badly. With that loss he won't have the momentum or fundraising to compete on Super Tuesday.


I honestly have had the same thought about Hillary. If the same attitude could be fostered about Iowa that is widely accepted about New Hampshire, she could lose the first two without serious damage to her campaign.

Instead, they are still betting on winning Iowa. It is a risky bet with a big downside. I think it is a mistake.

She should have stuck to her previous "Caucuses ruled by the extremists" attitude and written off the first two contests. All she really needed to do was keep Bernie's growth at a minimum to wrap it up on March first. Now that may not happen, and it is because of a choice she and her campaign made.


Only time will tell how this plays out.

[Bjorn Against]

27. So are you harming Clinton when you post outlier polls that show her with huge leads?

You just posted a poll today that shows her winning by a nearly 2 to 1 margin in Iowa. You declared this poll a "shocker", but none of the other Iowa polls show numbers even close to the one you were promoting.

Does this mean that you are posting these polls to harm Hillary by setting unrealistic expectations for her?

Thank you in advance.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Thank you, sir.

So are you harming Clinton when you post outlier polls that show her with huge leads?

Bjorn Against

Thank you very much for saying my posts have so much clout that I am in the same category as FOX NEWS, CNN, MSNBC, ABC. Al Jazeera, NBC, CBS, ABC, the Washington Post, The New York Times and other media outlets.


I can't wait for my fiancee to get home from works so I can tell her that her plebeian fiance has become a media mogul.

Thank you so much.



Respectfully,
DSB

[Motown_Johnny]

20. robo call polls suck. CNN/ORG is a more reliable poll.

You seem to be in denial.

[Godhumor]

25. Outliers claim even the best pollsters

But the CNN poll had a very, very loose voter screen, which favors Sanders (I.e makes made up 53% of the poll but only 43% of the electorate in the last primary season, etc).

Generally, the role of thumb is to use the Law of Big Numbers by aggregating current polls to come up with a more realistic look that smooths methodological differences. Relying on any one poll is a losing proposition.

[mcar]

23. The media wants a horse race

So they will get one, no matter what.

[Metric System]

24. But the media LOVES Hillary! It's true because a Sanders supporter said so.

[libdem4life]

29. No, it's counted by minutes. They love Trump, too. Bernie, too, now he's "an item"

Even though they think we are, they are not stupid. If it sells, run with it. If not, forget it. No magic. The non-coverage of Bernie initially was because they were convinced he didn't have a chance...why bother.

Well, now that he's proven them wrong and they're after him...as is the other candidate, he's in the news...getting coverage about as he should.

And the poor Republican candidates, what's the media coverage of them? Slim and none. So, what's you point again?

[lunamagica]

31. K&R. Just the media promoting their horse race.

[Mike Nelson]

32. The "Media" see Hillary as a threat...

...they want a Republican President to make sure they keep their millions and don't have to suffer and new regulations or taxes.

[CoffeeCat]

33. Just my guess

but the last Monmouth polls were pretty much discredited. The MM poll before this one only polled Iowans who had previously attended a caucus. That's a useless poll when it comes to Iowans and the Iowa caucuses-- because it excludes everyone under the age of 26 and first-time caucus goers. Their numbers were just so off, compared to The Iowa Poll. I don't think anyone takes them seriously anymore. There were scads of articles talking about their flawed methodology (and many of you laughed at me.)

That's just my guess. And for all I know, their methods may have changed since the last poll.

I briefly looked at the Emerson poll and into the background on it. There was very little information. However, it appears that this poll was done by students. It wasn't done by university officials or pollsters. The person who spearheaded that polling effort was a student at Emerson.

So, that is my guess. Those polls just weren't viewed as reliable.

I do agree that the CNN poll may be an outlier. It's entirely possible. Although the Quinnipiac Iowa poll (which is very reliable and scientific and uses the same mythology as the "gold standard" Iowa Poll) had Sanders up by 5.

Good news and bad news--the most reliable Iowa polling data is of course The Iowa Poll. Selzer is releasing her final Iowa poll the Saturday before the caucuses. That's great. What's bad is that it's 7 days from now. I think I'm just going to wait for that. The Q poll is reliable, so I'll hang my hat on that until Ms. Selzer releases a week from this Saturday.

Ok, I will now take the usual brow beatings and mocking that I usually get when I comment on polls...

(((braces for incoming)))

[Kalidurga]

34. sorry bout that

Up until now you had no idea what it was like for the media to ignore your candidate or to spread half truths and sometimes lies.

[SheenaR]

37. Love the faux outrage at lack of airtime

But Sanders supporters were insane when we claimed the same and had stats to back it up.

I'll repost this link with hundreds of polling outlets: Find me Monmouth COLLEGE (not University) and Emerson. They now account for 3 polls

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

[thesquanderer]

38. The polls were actually nearly ties...

Emerson College, Clinton beats Sanders 54% to 42% among registered Dems, with a 6.1 point margin of error (meaning that they are 95% sure that each of those figures are within 6.1 points of being correct), which yields a statistical tie.

Monmouth College, Clinton beats Sanders 48% to 39% among likely voters, with a 4.1 point MOE... in this case Clinton does win outside the margin of error (barely).

The same thing happens on the Sanders side, where people tout polls showing him ahead, when his advantage is within the margin of error. When you get down to it, most polls seem to actually be showing them statistically tied, regardless of who is being touted as ahead.