- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,095
- Reaction score
- 1,544
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
According to the media it was hard-fought after a lot of "retail-politicking" and completely natural. Here is what actually happened.
On December 28th CNN released a poll of Iowa voters. It was commissioned by CNN meaning they got to pick the criteria so it is their poll before anyone says otherwise. Like all their polls it plainly states the fatal flaw in its criteria without noting that it is a flaw:
As you may know, Independents and even Democrats could register at the door to get into the caucus, vote, and go right on back to being Independents and Democrats. Honest polling would factor that into the equation, but not CNN's polling. It ignores a large voting bloc and presents that as an honest representation of the likely outcome. What did the media do with this poll? They went all-out whoring it on every major outlet that day irrespective of private competition and party line with little, if any, criticism of the bad criteria (most neglecting to even mention that it was limited to registered Republicans):
CNN Poll: Romney on top, Gingrich fading & Santorum rising in Iowa – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Santorum Surges - Rick Santorum - Fox Nation
As Santorum surges, Gingrich fades in Iowa
The Rick Santorum surge is here - War Room - Salon.com
Romney and Santorum surge as Iowa caucuses near - The Washington Post
Santormentum? Rick Santorum Surges In Iowa | Mediaite
Santorum surge: Underdog candidates push for surprise Iowa caucus 'win' - CSMonitor.com
Rick Santorum Surge | Iowa Voters | CNN Poll | The Daily Caller
Talk of a surge was in the air. So then what happened? Like magic the actual decent polls showed a surge beginning that very day of gangbuster coverage:
Romney leads Paul in new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll; Santorum surges | Iowa Caucuses
Romney leads in Des Moines Register poll: Santorum surging - Lynn Sweet
Des Moines Register Poll: Rick Santorum Surging, Mitt Romney on Top, and Newt Gingrich Falling - ABC Newshttp://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rasmussen-polls-iowa-romney-23-paul-22-santorum-16_614984.html
Do CNN's various competitors seek to exploit the blatant manipulation of voter sentiment to turn the public against them? Is there an outcry about the "liberal" or "conservative" media from the respective political camps calling them out on such obviously dishonest reporting? Can anyone say they do not already know the answer?
Of course, obviously that's all just crazy. Exact statistical correlations are not evidence of a connection. A uniform lack of interest in the integrity of a poll or the bias of media that report on it is not evidence of blackout-type behavior. That the Des Moines Register poll showed Ron Paul at 29% in the first day of polling (the only day included before the CNN poll's release) and seven points ahead of Romney, a fact that is conveniently left out of major media reports, has no relevance at all. How paranoid must someone be to think all of that suggests any impropriety on the part of the media? Don't you know we live in an open democracy with free and independent media?
On December 28th CNN released a poll of Iowa voters. It was commissioned by CNN meaning they got to pick the criteria so it is their poll before anyone says otherwise. Like all their polls it plainly states the fatal flaw in its criteria without noting that it is a flaw:
BASED ON INTERVIEWS WITH 452 REGISTERED REPUBLICANS WHO ARE LIKELY TO
ATTEND THE IOWA REPUBLICAN CAUCUS IN THEIR COMMUNITY.
As you may know, Independents and even Democrats could register at the door to get into the caucus, vote, and go right on back to being Independents and Democrats. Honest polling would factor that into the equation, but not CNN's polling. It ignores a large voting bloc and presents that as an honest representation of the likely outcome. What did the media do with this poll? They went all-out whoring it on every major outlet that day irrespective of private competition and party line with little, if any, criticism of the bad criteria (most neglecting to even mention that it was limited to registered Republicans):
CNN Poll: Romney on top, Gingrich fading & Santorum rising in Iowa – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Santorum Surges - Rick Santorum - Fox Nation
As Santorum surges, Gingrich fades in Iowa
The Rick Santorum surge is here - War Room - Salon.com
Romney and Santorum surge as Iowa caucuses near - The Washington Post
Santormentum? Rick Santorum Surges In Iowa | Mediaite
Santorum surge: Underdog candidates push for surprise Iowa caucus 'win' - CSMonitor.com
Rick Santorum Surge | Iowa Voters | CNN Poll | The Daily Caller
Talk of a surge was in the air. So then what happened? Like magic the actual decent polls showed a surge beginning that very day of gangbuster coverage:
Romney leads Paul in new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll; Santorum surges | Iowa Caucuses
Romney leads in Des Moines Register poll: Santorum surging - Lynn Sweet
Des Moines Register Poll: Rick Santorum Surging, Mitt Romney on Top, and Newt Gingrich Falling - ABC Newshttp://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rasmussen-polls-iowa-romney-23-paul-22-santorum-16_614984.html
Do CNN's various competitors seek to exploit the blatant manipulation of voter sentiment to turn the public against them? Is there an outcry about the "liberal" or "conservative" media from the respective political camps calling them out on such obviously dishonest reporting? Can anyone say they do not already know the answer?
Of course, obviously that's all just crazy. Exact statistical correlations are not evidence of a connection. A uniform lack of interest in the integrity of a poll or the bias of media that report on it is not evidence of blackout-type behavior. That the Des Moines Register poll showed Ron Paul at 29% in the first day of polling (the only day included before the CNN poll's release) and seven points ahead of Romney, a fact that is conveniently left out of major media reports, has no relevance at all. How paranoid must someone be to think all of that suggests any impropriety on the part of the media? Don't you know we live in an open democracy with free and independent media?