L.A. Times Poll Loaded With Dems

The Bush campaign is accusing the Los Angeles Times of loading its latest presidential survey with Democrats in order to show Sen. John Kerry with a 51 percent to 44 percent lead.

"Be very careful in reporting [the] Los Angeles Times poll," Bush strategist Matthew Dowd warned ABC News. "It is a mess."

"Bush is leading independents by three, ahead among Republicans by a larger margin than Kerry is ahead among Dems, and we are down by seven," Dowd said, noting the math doesn't add up.

Calling the distortion "outrageous," he accused the Times of oversampling Democrats "by a margin of 10 to 12 percent."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0/225936.shtml


Those sneaky Democrats! Loading up a poll to try and make Kerry look like he has a chance!

Look for Bush to have a 5 point lead after this week of reminding people how right Reagan was, and how Kerry has been wrong every time.

I'm not sure why anyone would bother, because we all know that polls mean absolutely nothing. In any case, having taken a statistics class, I can see where this could be a sampling error and nothing more.

Yes, it's easy to get sampling errors when you purposely poll 13% more Democrats than Republicans.

1. Newsmax

2. People being of a certain political group do not always go with the representatives of said group.

*shrug* I'm not defending them, I'm just stating what is plausible.

I also find it interesting how the Bush Administration is ONCE AGAIN accusing others of conducting something or doing something(Look to the 237 misleading thread for a fine example of how trustworthy they are).

Its quite common, it seems, for ultra-conservatives to cry "bias!" whenever something happens they don't like, that's for sure. Like Rush's cries that he was misquoted when he compared the prison abuse scandle to a college prank...or when he made the McNabb comments last fall...

Is polling 13% more Democrats than Republicans biased, or not?

Crazy question: Did 13% more Democrats show up to get polled than Republicans?

People don't show up to get polled. Polling companies ask if you are a Dem or Republican when they call, and only use a sample of each that is equal, if they are not trying to slant the poll, as the LA Times was.

The good news is, they got caught, and Kerry is not ahead.

Do you have another quote besides Newsmax???? Because Newsmax is decidedly biased.... as they have admitted.....

Crazy question again: Exactly how do they know when people are telling the truth about their political standpoint?

Hey Lawson, what's your job in real life?

It doesn't matter if they are biased. The truth is the truth.

They call each person it, and hook them up to a lie detector, and then get 20 eyewitnesses to swear they are telling the truth.

I'm a millionaire playboy.

A biased source is doubtful.... unless credence to the claims are shown through a few other factual articles....

Go read the LA Times sampling list of the poll. They admit it. I refuse to join their site, so I can't post it here for you.

Rasmussen has Bush up by 3 points, in their latest poll today:


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Pres...cking_Poll.htm


Good news!

Which still places them in a statistical tie, just like its been. That aside, I'd have to see all of the numbers to actually prove it, but I suspect that these all fall within the acceptable range of error for a sample of the size required...With statistics, nothing can ever be exact.

Yeppers... all polls lead to a tie between them.... with kerry climbing and bush falling.... and it is going to be a long fall for bush....

"It doesn't matter if they're biased."

Does this mean if people start putting out articles relating to how bad Bush is and then make up crap or over-exaggerate things it doesn't matter that they're biased against Bush?

And so we can take everything they say as the truth...yippee!