NY Times/ CBS news has really dropped all pretense of being non-partisan

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,288
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
More proof that the poll is total BS.
link


Political make up of the poll
27% liberal 37% mod 29 conservative.

And yet we just had another national poll that states conservatives out number liberals by a 2 to 1 margin 40% to 21%

So NY Times under counted conservatives by 11 points and over counted libs by 6 points.
I am thinking a 16 point swing would make a big difference.

And as always they over counted Dems vs Reps
25% R 38% D 31% I

According to the 2008 exit polls the make up of the people who actually vote in this country is:
32% R 39% D 29% I

So they under counted the Republicans by 7%.

No wonder they got the results they wanted.

And by the count of more recent polls than November, 2008 Republicans now make up only 21% of the electorate, so by that count they OVERCOUNTED Republicans by 4 points.

Oh, and picking people at random most certainly WILL get you a scientific poll. In fact, if you do anything BESIDES pick people at random, you are introducing variables into your poll that make it LESS scientific. Haven't you ever taken stats 101? Do you know what a 'random sample' is?
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Is this the one where they asked if UHC cost nothing would you support it? Cause you know, when living in fairytale worlds people always would decline something that cost nothing.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
OP fail.
If they randomly selected people and happened to be 2:1 for Obama, as long as they disclose that, it's fine, doesn't mean there is an intentional bias.
So if they 'randomly' called people from Chicago then it would make the poll ok right??
You have some facts to show they did not randomly pick people, or just engaging in innuendo?
Very few pollsters do NOT weight their results. Picking people are random will not get you a scientific poll.

Noone is stopping you from weighing the results any way you see fit. They are giving you the raw data they go, you can interpolate it however you want. If you want to believe that there is a much broader support for McCain, and interpret results accordingly, noone is stopping you.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
OMG there is so much wrong with this post.
It clearly is the form of propaganda that uses huge amounts of info to make it incredibley difficult for people to even follow it, much less refute the HUGE numbers of lies, mistruths, and unsubstantiated facts.

Here's a hint. If its posted by Prof John and has a huge quote and NO link, nor even a CLUE as to where its from, you can just safely add it to the list of Prof John propaganda posts.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
:roll: This may as well have come straight from the mouth of FOX. Is this a parody thread?
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Perhaps CBS should do more to discuss the political affiliation of their polling base because it certainty does factor into the potential bias of the poll results AND the uncertainty in the results.

But hey... at least the information is available.

And BTW... polls may say folks want UHC but that doesn't make it the prudent thing to do at this juncture.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,058
70
91
Originally posted by: techs

OMG there is so much wrong with this post.
It clearly is the form of propaganda that uses huge amounts of info to make it incredibley difficult for people to even follow it, much less refute the HUGE numbers of lies, mistruths, and unsubstantiated facts.

Here's a hint. If its posted by Prof John and has a huge quote and NO link, nor even a CLUE as to where its from, you can just safely add it to the list of Prof John propaganda posts.

I found the source, and you're right. It's CNS, definitely one of the right wingnut aluminum foil beany sites. :laugh:

But critics including pollster Kellyanne Conway say the results are inaccurate because they are heavily skewed toward those who voted for Obama in the 2008 presidential election.
.
.
Out of 895 respondents, 24 percent were Republicans, 38 percent Democrats, and 38 percent were independents, according to a June 20 release from CBS News. While the release says the sampling was conducted at random, those numbers are significantly below the 32.6 percent who identify themselves as Republican according to a May survey from the nonpartisan Rasmussen Reports.

Similarly, the Times/CBS poll said 48 percent of respondents had voted for Obama, versus 25 percent for McCain, a nearly two-to-one advantage for Obama supporters.

Hey, PJ -- I hate to break it to you, but that happens to line up with the demographics of the general population of the country, right now, which means the poll reflects the opinion of the general population, exactly the opposite of your mathmatically challenged conclusions. :cool:
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,572
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Similarly, the Times/CBS poll said 48 percent of respondents had voted for Obama, versus 25 percent for McCain, a nearly two-to-one advantage for Obama supporters.

Hey, PJ -- I hate to break it to you, but that happens to line up with the demographics of the general population of the country, right now, which means the poll reflects the opinion of the general population, exactly the opposite of your mathmatically challenged conclusions. :cool:

really, obama beat mccain 2 to 1 at the polls?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,288
136
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Harvey
Similarly, the Times/CBS poll said 48 percent of respondents had voted for Obama, versus 25 percent for McCain, a nearly two-to-one advantage for Obama supporters.

Hey, PJ -- I hate to break it to you, but that happens to line up with the demographics of the general population of the country, right now, which means the poll reflects the opinion of the general population, exactly the opposite of your mathmatically challenged conclusions. :cool:

really, obama beat mccain 2 to 1 at the polls?

In a way, yes.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
In other words, the polling trends for Obama are essentially stable, and tell us that a majority of Americans like Obama as a person, but the more troubling trend for him is that he is losing approval on policy.

The risk for Obama is that the success of his Presidency, and the judgement of history, will focus entirely on his policies...popularity is a fun metric to throw around, but popularity eventually and inevitably aligns to policy.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,547
1,127
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
OP fail.
If they randomly selected people and happened to be 2:1 for Obama, as long as they disclose that, it's fine, doesn't mean there is an intentional bias.

Sample bias doesnt matter if it is intentional or not. If a poll shows evidence of sample bias, even if its random, people in academic research would either discard it and conduct a new survy, or weight the data to bring it to be where it should be based on previous evidence. I'm not going to say its outright biased, but the poll and the news reports off of it ARE very misleading.


Also the most recent times poll shows 79% of people do not trust the government to do what is right(see its easy to manipulate stats). 56% of the people say the government is doing to much. 44% approve and 34 disapprove how Obama is handling healthcare. 41/46 for handling the auto industry. While 64% dont want Roe V Wade overturned a plurality wants stricter regulation of abortion.

It is completely intellectually dishonest to believe 72% of the american people support Obama and the publich health option. And this isn't the first time Obama has been intellectually dishonest either. Obama is all about fudging the numbers without giving the full story.

Theres a good chance that the Public option won't make it out of the House as Congressional Dems are in full protect mode of their moderates(their majority).
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: senseamp
OP fail.
If they randomly selected people and happened to be 2:1 for Obama, as long as they disclose that, it's fine, doesn't mean there is an intentional bias.

Sample bias doesnt matter if it is intentional or not.
It does if you are accusing NYT/CBS of partisanship using sample bias as evidence.
If a poll shows evidence of sample bias, even if its random, people in academic research would either discard it and conduct a new survey, or weight the data to bring it to be where it should be based on previous evidence. I'm not going to say its outright biased, but the poll and the news reports off of it ARE very misleading.

How do you know that previous sample was not biased, self identification didn't change, etc ? Raw data is raw data, you can interpret it how you want to interpret it. If you think sample is biased, you are free to believe there is little support for public option, or whatever you want.

 

sammyunltd

Senior member
Jul 31, 2004
717
0
0
Originally posted by: OCguy
The lefties just lap this stuff up.

NY Times needs to go the way of the dino....

NYTimes is one of the world's most respected newspaper. I suggest YOU go to the way of the dino...
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
[ ... ]
How do you know that previous sample was not biased, self identification didn't change, etc ? ...
If people will bother to read Eskimospy's link above, they will find that this is, in fact, what has happened. In that light, the NYT's sample demographics are right on track, invalidating the basis for PJ's attack. It would be quite refreshing to see PJ step up, acknowledge this, and apologize for unjustly slurring the Times.
 

ZeGermans

Banned
Dec 14, 2004
907
0
0
It can't be that a lot of americans like the concept of a government backed system. It must be a conspiracy!

Learn Ockham's razor, bitch.
 

Mr. Lennon

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2004
3,492
1
81
Originally posted by: OCguy
The lefties just lap this stuff up.

NY Times needs to go the way of the dino....

I think the only lapping being done here is you actually lapping up another failed ProfJohn post. I guess I'm not surprised.... you also take BarrySoetoro and Fear No Evil seriously.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
My memory might be a little foggy, but I am pretty sure we just had an election in which Obama won 53 to 46.

And yet NY Times and CBS news recently published, on the front page, a poll in that had 48% Obama voters and 24% McCain voters.

and surprise surprise when you weight the numbers that much the results comes out heavily in favor of supporting Obama's position.

This poll happened to be a healthcare poll which showed 72% support for Obama's plan.

Read the details below to see how heavily skewed the results were and how this seems to be a blatant attempt by the highly partisan NY Times and CBS news to steer public opinion in Obama's direction.
A New York Times/CBS News poll released Saturday that showed broad bipartisan support for President Obama?s health care reform, over-sampled Obama voters compared to McCain voters, critics say.

The poll, administered June 12-16, found that 72 percent of respondents favored the creation of a government health-insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.

It also said 50 percent of respondents thought the government would do a better job providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in 2007; and that 59 percent thought the government would be better at holding down costs, up from 47 percent two years ago.

But critics including pollster Kellyanne Conway say the results are inaccurate because they are heavily skewed toward those who voted for Obama in the 2008 presidential election.

In addition, other indicators point toward a repeat of the defeat Hillary Clinton's proposed government-run faced in the early ?90?s.

Out of 895 respondents, 24 percent were Republicans, 38 percent Democrats, and 38 percent were independents, according to a June 20 release from CBS News. While the release says the sampling was conducted at random, those numbers are significantly below the 32.6 percent who identify themselves as Republican according to a May survey from the nonpartisan Rasmussen Reports.

Similarly, the Times/CBS poll said 48 percent of respondents had voted for Obama, versus 25 percent for McCain, a nearly two-to-one advantage for Obama supporters.

Had those results been reflected in the November presidential election, Obama would have garnered 66 percent of the vote to McCain?s 34 percent, Conway, president & CEO of ?the polling company,? told CNSNews.com.

?Was the vote 66-34? You tell me,? Conway said.

In 2008, Obama won 53 percent of the vote, McCain won 46 percent.

Conway said that the poll was skewed toward Democrats and Obama supporters because the Times and CBS made it so.

?Their original result was more in line (with other non-partisan polling for party identification) but they weighted those numbers,? Conway charged.

The random information gathered by the two media outlets originally saw fewer independents and Democrats, but their polling methodology saw those numbers shift at the expense of Republican representation. Conway called this a case of ?a conclusion in search of evidence.?

Janet Elder, editor for news surveys and election analysis at The New York Times, defended the poll?s methodology.

?Although some polling organizations do, The New York Times/CBS News poll does not weight by party ID,? she told CNSNews.com. ?We weight by characteristics that are known from census data.?

Scott Rasmussen, founder and CEO of Rasmussen Reports, a nonpartisan pollster, defended the veracity of the Times/CBS News poll -- but found it difficult.

?We have absolutely no idea what their weighting process is and what their technique is,? he told CNSNews.com. ?I believe that they did not make adjustments based on party (identification). I believe they go on other factors and simply report what comes out of that.?

Elder said in 19 out of every 20 cases, the results using their technique ?will differ by no more than 3 percentage points in either direction? of the outcome they would have had if they?d sought to interview ?all American adults.?

But Conway says the over-sampling of Democrats was consistent throughout the poll.

?Show me the other polls that are that low," she said. "If you look at the way Scott (Rasmussen) reports things, they?re very different from The New York Times. The Census is taken every 10 years, so what are they looking at? The 2000 Census??

?Almost nobody ever takes them to task for this, because they are CBS and the New York Times,? Conway added. ?It is true that more Americans are identifying themselves as Independents, but everyone is doing polling; no one (else) is getting these numbers,? Conway said.

The Times ran an accompanying story on the front page of the Sunday edition with the headline ?In Poll, Wide Support for Government Run Health.? The findings were also reported by most other major outlets.

The Times article interpreted the poll results as indicating broad, bipartisan support for government involvement in health care.

?Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system,? the article began, ?and (they) are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.?

But other key findings in the poll suggest, on the other hand, that Americans have not significantly changed their positions since the last time health-care reform was seriously considered by Congress, according to Conway.

?We are identical to where we were in 1993-94,? she told CNSNews.com, ?with only 51 percent of respondents even in the Democrat-skewing poll saying the health-care system needs fundamental changes, versus 52 percent in January 1994. When the question becomes whether the system needs to be completely rebuilt, 34 percent say yes in the NYT/CBS poll, versus 38 percent in 1994.

Additionally, the vast majority of Americans are satisfied with their own insurance coverage, as they were at the beginning of the Clinton administration. Approximately 77 percent in the current poll say they are at least somewhat satisfied.

Rasmussen points out that, in these areas, the Times/CBS poll was consistent with other polls.

?CBS, like everybody else, found that most people are satisfied with their health-care coverage,? he said. ?But they have qualms about the overall system. And that is the biggest single obstacle to reform: people do not want to change their own coverage.?

Conway agreed. Because of their satisfaction with their own coverage, Americans are unlikely to rock the boat.

?The difference this year could be that Barack Obama is a more compelling messenger than Hillary Clinton.? But, she added: ?Americans can do the math.?

They are hesitant to support the record expenditure it would take to pass sweeping health-care reform. Conway says.

"As they are deciding whether to take a vacation this summer or keep their child in private elementary school . . . they are asking to take a look at the ledger book now,? she added.

Americans like the words ?change? and ?reform,? she says, ?but then they find out that you can?t define those.? When they see the possibility of their own healthcare options changing, ?(T)hey discover that their reform is not someone else?s reform.?

Conway?s ?the polling company,? in conjunction with Americans for Tax Reform, is performing an audit of all numbers released on health-care reform, to be issued on Wednesday.

The Times/CBS poll reports a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. CBS did not return calls for comment.

Oi, vey(palm/faceX3)another propajohn post, with no link yet. Too shamed to share??
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I love how conservatives are attacking poll methodologies instead of Obama's policies. It's just amazing how low that (bowel) movement has fallen.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
I love how conservatives are attacking poll methodologies instead of Obama's policies. It's just amazing how low that (bowel) movement has fallen.

The GOP is constantly attacking anything about Mr Obama including his policies. What we are seeing here is an attack on anything that is even remotely positive towards Mr Obama.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Wow, there's a shocker. CBS and the NYT's in Obama's pocket? It's a sad (and dangerous!) state of affairs when the general media in the country decide they are 100% for one politician and will do everything within their power to help him achieve his goals.

That's where we've arrived today. During the Bush admin, it was plain as day that Fox was a shill for the administration. Now the tables have turned and essentially most of the major media outlets have become willing shills for Obama's administration.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wow, there's a shocker. CBS and the NYT's in Obama's pocket? It's a sad (and dangerous!) state of affairs when the general media in the country decide they are 100% for one politician and will do everything within their power to help him achieve his goals.

That's where we've arrived today. During the Bush admin, it was plain as day that Fox was a shill for the administration. Now the tables have turned and essentially all the major media outlets have become willing shills for Obama's administration.

All major media outlets are shills for Obama? Whatever. You still have Faux News (#1 by a longshot) and all of AM talk radio slamming the Obama administration 24/7.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wow, there's a shocker. CBS and the NYT's in Obama's pocket? It's a sad (and dangerous!) state of affairs when the general media in the country decide they are 100% for one politician and will do everything within their power to help him achieve his goals.

That's where we've arrived today. During the Bush admin, it was plain as day that Fox was a shill for the administration. Now the tables have turned and essentially all the major media outlets have become willing shills for Obama's administration.

wrong. Fox news is pretty much Anti obama. sure you will find one or two that are fair but its rare.

most msnbc, cnn (to a point) etc are very pro obama as are most newspapers.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,854
4,966
136
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Please add ABC to the list. Anyone watch their "Obamacare Infomercial" last night?

You just started another post where you admitted you didn't even watch it.

:roll: