CBS Slants Bush Poll in Favor of Democrats

[FrankRizzoXD40]

CBS Slants Bush Poll in Favor of Democrats

In its classic "fair and balanced" tradition, CBS slanted in favor of Democrats its poll that found Bush has a 34 percent approval rating and a 59 percent disapproval rating, an all-time high for a CBS poll.



On the bottom of the PDF version of the poll (page 18 it says how many Democrats versus Republicans were contacted.

"Total Republicans" contacted: 272 unweighted and 289 weighted.

"Total Democrats" contacted: 409 unweighted and 381 weighted.

"Total Independents" contacted: 337 unweighted and 348 weighted.

www.newsbusters.org

===========================================


Apparently not all polls are what they appear to be. The PDF document mentioned above can be found here at the CBS website:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_bush_022706.pdf

That's pretty bad that polls like this exist and are given credibility.

Because of this, I have now learned to research the background data behind polls before I put too much faith in them. We should all do the same.

Frank

[NewXD40fun]

And the Democrats want to run this country based on polls....will wonders never cease...

Tom

[VAXDGUY]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

CBS Slants Bush Poll in Favor of Democrats

In its classic "fair and balanced" tradition, CBS slanted in favor of Democrats its poll that found Bush has a 34 percent approval rating and a 59 percent disapproval rating, an all-time high for a CBS poll.



On the bottom of the PDF version of the poll (page 18 it says how many Democrats versus Republicans were contacted.

"Total Republicans" contacted: 272 unweighted and 289 weighted.

"Total Democrats" contacted: 409 unweighted and 381 weighted.

"Total Independents" contacted: 337 unweighted and 348 weighted.

www.newsbusters.org

===========================================


Apparently not all polls are what they appear to be. The PDF document mentioned above can be found here at the CBS website:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_bush_022706.pdf

That's pretty bad that polls like this exist and are given credibility.

Because of this, I have now learned to research the background data behind polls before I put too much faith in them. We should all do the same.

Frank

First, there are more registered Dems than Repubs in the US and to simply make the polling a 50/50 split would NOT be representative statistically of the demographics of the country. Plus, there are subcategories like Repubs who voted for Kerry, Dems for Bush, and a whole host of other metrics (income? shop at WalMart?, etc) to make a poll of ~900 (or any poll) representative and statistically valid. If there's going to be bias in it, it's going to be too subtle for you to pick up.

If you want some statistics you can understand look no further than the last election. That correlated with the poll data pretty much shows the poll is spot on, no?

[slugger6]

One of my all time favorite books that I picked up several years ago at a flea market was "How to Lie With Statistics". It appears that someone else has a copy too!

[bd]

Originally Posted by VAXDGUY

....it's going to be too subtle for you to pick up.

Better watch out, Officer BarneyFrank will pull his records on you and cite you for something you said in the past.


bd

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by VAXDGUY

First, there are more registered Dems than Repubs in the US and to simply make the polling a 50/50 split would NOT be representative statistically of the demographics of the country. Plus, there are subcategories like Repubs who voted for Kerry, Dems for Bush, and a whole host of other metrics (income? shop at WalMart?, etc) to make a poll of ~900 (or any poll) representative and statistically valid. If there's going to be bias in it, it's going to be too subtle for you to pick up.

Of course, that is true to a certain extent. However, the true number of registered voters is not 41% Democrat, 27% Republican, and 33% Independnent. Some other polls do weigh them equally. My main point was that polls can be misleading and that it is important to look at the numbers behind the polls.

Originally Posted by VAXDGUY

If you want some statistics you can understand look no further than the last election. That correlated with the poll data pretty much shows the poll is spot on, no?

If you look at the last election, it was much closer than 34% to 59% in favor of the democrats. You can't even really compare an approval poll about one person to the results of hundreds of elections involving individual candidates.

Frank

[bd]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Of course, that is true to a certain extent. However, the true number of registered voters is not 41% Democrat, 27% Republican, and 33% Independnent. Some other polls do weigh them equally. My main point was that polls can be misleading and that it is important to look at the numbers behind the polls.



If you look at the last election, it was much closer than 34% to 59% in favor of the democrats. You can't even really compare an approval poll about one person to the results of hundreds of elections involving individual candidates.

Frank

Can you guarantee that people vote the way they are registered?

bd

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by bd

Better watch out, Officer BarneyFrank will pull his records on you and cite you for something you said in the past.
bd

I only do that to people who make contradictory statements on a REGULAR BASIS.

Are you STILL upset about how I've brought up past things that you've said? What reason could you possibly have for being upset about things that I've brought up from the past, besides not wanting people to see them??? I am sorry if you are embarassed about things that you have said in the past.

Frank

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by bd

Can you guarantee that people vote the way they are registered?

bd

Absolutely not. You can't guarantee how anyone is going to vote, period.

Thank you for bringing up another reason why polls can be misleading.

Frank

[bd]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

I only do that to people who make contradictory statements on a REGULAR BASIS.

Are you STILL upset about how I've brought up past things that you've said? What reason could you possibly have for being upset about things that I've brought up from the past, besides not wanting people to see them??? I am sorry if you are embarassed about things that you have said in the past.

Frank

No prob, Barn.

Never have been upset nor embarassed, just amused that you apparently have an archive of what I and others on this board have said in the past - just a little obsessive don't you think....?

bd