Revising math- MSNBC stays on memo arithmetics be damned

[robbedvoter]

from a letter:

This email is regarding the article found at the address:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/990895.asp?0dm=N21LN

In this article, the writer states:
"Dean continues to poll best against Bush, with 45 percent of respondents saying they would vote for him, compared to 49 percent for Bush. Last month, 43 percent would have voted for Dean and 49 percent Bush. In a race against Clark, Bush would win 48 percent of the vote vs. 45 percent for Clark. Last month, those numbers were 49 percent and 43 percent."

However, a basic look at the numbers from your most recent poll shows that this analysis is not correct. According to the data above:
Dean 45%, Bush 49% - difference of 4%.

Clark 45%, Bush 48% - difference of 3%.

From looking at the above, it would seem that actually Wesley Clark polls the best of all the Democratic nominees against the President. Or am I reading this data incorrectly? If I am, I would be interested in the reason why I am not correct.

In the interest of fairness and accuracy, if my understanding is correct, I ask that you change the text in your article to reflect this information.

Beyond this, a more interesting takeaway from the data could be that while in your last poll, both Clark and Dean polled the same versus the President (43% vs. 49%), in the new poll, the President has remained the same in terms of beating Dean (with Dean gaining 2%).

However, in a mathcup against Clark, the President has actually declined in numbers, while Clark has risen, possibly signalling not only a move of previous undecided voters towards Clark, but also previous Bush supporters switching to the General's camp. I would suggest that this could be an interesting news idea for Newsweek to pursue further?

Thank you and I look forward to any comments you may have.

Best regards

[tsipple]

1. They Goofed

Although I hate how the press reports polls. What they should say is: "Both Wesley Clark and Howard Dean are statistically tied with President Bush in head-to-head matchups."

There's margin of error in these things. Four points -- much less one point -- is not a meaningful difference. And that's excluding the fact that we're still a year away from the election.

[robbedvoter]

3. Funny! They never "goof" in favor of "General "What's his name"

as Safire called him. I wonder why? :shrug:

[robbedvoter]

2. Breaking News: NY Post reports thr truth - read all about it!

Irony of ironies of Dept: the New York Post carries the most accurate description of the new Newsweek poll, accurately noting that only Clark is statistically tied with Bush within the margin of error. Anyone want to send them a thank you note?


http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/10330.htm

November 9, 2003 -- Fifty percent of Americans would not vote to re-elect President Bush, according to a Newsweek poll.

And leading Democratic presidential candidates continue to gain on Bush, with Gen. Wesley Clark in a statistical dead heat with the president.

Sen. John Kerry, Howard Dean and Sen. Joe Lieberman all trail the president, but by amounts that are within the poll's margin of error.

One bright spot for Bush was the economy.

Although 48 percent of those polled disapproved of the way the president's dealing with the economy, 44 percent approve - a six-point jump from just one month ago.

The poll - which was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates - surveyed 1,002 people 18 years or older and had a margin of error of plus or minus three points.

Stefan C. Friedman with Post Wire Services

[robbedvoter]

4. A theory on math "goofing"

Not so fast
 
 http://www.arktimes.com/max/110703brantley.html
By Max Brantley
November 7, 2003
If you read the daily papers, you know the script to Election 2004.
Democratic contender Wesley Clark's campaign has peaked. He won't contest the Iowa caucuses, he'll be blown away in New Hampshire. The Big Mo will then belong to the New Hampshire winner, probably Vermont neighbor Howard Dean, and Mo will carry Dean straight to the nomination.
It is only coincidental (isn't it?) that the media script mirrors almost to the letter the script coming from Republican headquarters More

[tsipple]

6. Um, It's Arkansas. Favorite Son and All That.

Besides, if someone can win both Iowa and New Hampshire, it is a big deal. Clark got a late start, and it's a crowded field. And he's run a mediocre campaign thus far. The GOP doesn't change those basic facts.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Screw them, and the polls.

We're not even into hard campaigning yet. Aside from us political junkies, nobody out there knows who these people running are.

Watch trends, not the daily numbers. Shrub is slowly, but invariabl;y falling. News about employent numbers or GDP give him a blip, but it won't last. He could pull up with a constant stream of good news, but that doesn't seem likely. Iraq is blowing up, and too many people know people desperate for work, if they're not desperate themselves.

The press is lazy about the economic numbers now, but there's a good chance they'll get it together.

Local news in places like Weirton, WV, where the steel works is closing, is what counts. With the mill closing, over 3,000 jobs are lost and the city becomes a ghost town.

Tyco's new management is selling off businesses and announced a minimum of 7,000 layoffs around the country. Just another daily announcement of job losses.

This stuff hurts. And it will hurt everyone in the chain of power.