Today, mainstream media made a much ballyhooed fuss about the latest AP-Ipsos poll, taken 4/23 - 4/27, where Clinton's numbers versus McCain were stronger than Obama's numbers versus McCain.
Sure, they were right about that. But why didn't they say anything about the REST of the poll? Why didn't they compare it with the SAME POLL TAKEN 2 WEEKS AGO??
More on the jump
Here's a link to the poll: http://www.ipsos-na.com/...
First of all notice the poll numbers and poll dates:
4/23-4/27 | 46-43 | O+3 |
4/7-4/9 | 46-43 | O+3 |
2/22-2/24 | 46-43 | O+3 |
2/7-2/10 | 46-43 | C+5 |
1/14-1/17 | 41-46 | C+7 |
Guess what? Obama hasn't EVER done better than 46:43 in this poll; in fact, this poll is UNCHANGED since late Februray!
Yet, the Halperin article reads:
The AP-Ipsos poll found Clinton and Obama about even in the race for the Democratic nomination.
I recall Ben Smith and MSNBC had blips that focused only on theoretical vs. McCain numbers, rather than the democratic race. I'm too tired to look up all the links, but I'm sure I saw this AP-Ipsos poll referenced on other MSM websites too.
Another example: MSNBC features a Newsweek article entitled, "Losing Ground", where Obama is ahead by 7 points versus Clinton. the article focuses on Obama dropping from a 19 point lead 1 week ago.
HELLO??
That was the ONLY poll where Obama ever had a 19 point lead nationally. Anyone looking at the polls would have called it an outlier (other polls were ~ 8-10 points at that time). Did Brian Braiker, the author, actually think that Obama was truly 19 points ahead nationally, just before the Pennsylvania Primaries?
The responsible title would have been, "Obama loses slight edge in national polls" -- which would be true. Obama went from an average of polls of around 8-10 points to around 5-7 points.
Plus, actual inspection of the polls will reveal that nationally, Obama is near 50% and has not dropped significantly. Meaning: most of the gain is Clinton, regaining ground she had lost since "Bosnia".
The spin-less title would have been that Obama and Clinton BOTH have strong coalitions, which do not easily move from one camp to the other.
But, I suppose that would not make nearly as exciting a headline.