Are FOX's polls rigged/slanted?

[PD]

Would you care to enlighten us on how all of the major news networks except your precious FOX are liberal propaganda?

Maybe tomorrow. Trust me, I will. But I have to go now. My dad needs to use this computer because the other one does not have internet access because my parents don't like me on the internet w/o them knowing. But I have pages and pages of proof. I would tell you a few details now, but my dad's needs it now. So, I look forward to prooving my point tomorrow afternoon. Be waiting for me.

[Nation]

Oh, I will. And make sure you include sufficient evidence for every one of the stations you said.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm starting to wonder about the accuracy of Fox's polls.  Kerry is shown leading Bush in the ARG, Newsweek, Quinnipiac, and Gallup polls, yet FOX has Bush leadin Kerry.  Does FOX slant their polling?

Lets look at the job ratings for Bush:

FOX: 53%
Gallup: 49%
Quinnipiac: 48%
Newsweek: 49%

Hate to confuse this issue with the facts, but CNN has just released a poll showing Bush ahead of Kerry 50-48%...AND a 54% approval rating for Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/elec04.prez.poll/index.html

[Nym90]

Yes, though that's still slightly less of a lead for Bush than Fox had.

It should also be slightly troubling to Bush supporters that he consistently, in all polls, gets a lower percentage saying they'd vote for him than those that say they approve of his job performance. It appears that Bush needs about a 54-55% job approval rating to get reelected.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, though that's still slightly less of a lead for Bush than Fox had.

Yes, though Fox's had Bush's approval rating slightly less than CNN had.....there is nothing to here to spin.

---

It appears that Bush needs about a 54-55% job approval rating to get reelected.

Considering the spotlight has been on the Dems for the last  month,  which is different from the conditions surrounding a general election, your conclusion may not be founded on reality.

[Gustaf]

Yes, though that's still slightly less of a lead for Bush than Fox had.

Yes, though Fox's had Bush's approval rating is slightly less than CNN had.....there is nothing to here to spin.

---

It appears that Bush needs about a 54-55% job approval rating to get reelected.

Considering the spotlight has been on the Dems for the last  month,  which is different from the conditions surrounding a general election, your conclusion may not be founded on reality.

Why would the relationship between his approval rating and his number of voters be affected by that?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why would the relationship between his approval rating and his number of voters be affected by that?

Because Bush hasn't started his campaign.

[Gustaf]

Why would the relationship between his approval rating and his number of voters be affected by that?

Because Bush hasn't started his campaign.

But you seem to mean that the relative number of people who approve of him, and support him will increase. I can see that his approval ratings might go up, but that's not what you're saying.

[© tweed]

Even if Bush's job rating is around 45% he still can win.

[Nym90]

Sure, he still can win. Anything's possible. But that would require a complete reversal of what has gone on for a long time now, which has been that Bush's approval rating has been higher than his reelect numbers. It hasn't just been in the last few weeks, for a long time his reelect numbers have been lower than his approval rating.

As for the discrepancy from one poll to the other, the differences are almost all within the margin of error. None of the polls are biased, it is just to be expected that there will be slight variations. Most of the polls have a 4 percent margin of error for each side, so if the race is tied, you would expect to see some polls showing Bush 8 points ahead and some showing Kerry 8 points ahead.

[Gustaf]

Sure, he still can win. Anything's possible. But that would require a complete reversal of what has gone on for a long time now, which has been that Bush's approval rating has been higher than his reelect numbers. It hasn't just been in the last few weeks, for a long time his reelect numbers have been lower than his approval rating.

As for the discrepancy from one poll to the other, the differences are almost all within the margin of error. None of the polls are biased, it is just to be expected that there will be slight variations. Most of the polls have a 4 percent margin of error for each side, so if the race is tied, you would expect to see some polls showing Bush 8 points ahead and some showing Kerry 8 points ahead.

Exactly, even though good pollsters can usually avoid messing up the numbers too much. There was that Swedish polling firm that published a poll with 250 respondents and MoE of 6% A SIDE (!) and used it to predict a catch-up for the yes-side in our referendum campaign. Now, that is bias for you....

[PD]

Oh, I will. And make sure you include sufficient evidence for every one of the stations you said.

Alright. Here we go. First, the obvious: ABC is owned by Disney, a large contributor to the Gore campaign. Next, on election night 2000, all networks except for FOX announced that Gore had won Florida when in fact, the polls weren't even closed. CBS alone announced 18 times that the polls were closed during the last hour that they were still open. This ended up costing Bush votes, since some people figured they stood no chance now. Dan Rather even assured CBS viewers that night: "If we say somebody has carried a state, you can take that to the bank." At 2:16 a.m. the next morning, FOX called Florida for Bush, note that this was WAY after the others TOLD viewers that Gore already won Florida, which was at 7:49 p.m. NBC announced Gore had WON Florida at 7:49 p.m. CNN waited and announced it at 7:54 p.m. ABC announced it at 8:03 p.m. When Fox announced Bush's Florida victory at 2:16:46 a.m., long after the polls had closed and with 95% of the precincts reporting, all the others followed because they new that they were in trouble if they didn't. All other networks quickly covered themselves by fixing the "mistake" 55 seconds after FOX had correctly called Florida for Bush. Gore won Maine by FIVE percentage points and was declared the winner within 10 minutes of the polls closing. Bush won Colorado by 9 points; it took CNN 2 HOURS and 41 MINUTES to make that call. Bush's 15 point margin of victory in Alabama took CNN 25 MINUTES to call. Bush won North Carolina by 13 points; CNN waited 39 MINUTES to announce a win. Bush won Georgia by 12 points; CNN waited 59 MINUTES. Here, look at these:

Arizona, Bush....................7 points (51-44)-----2 hours, 51 min.
Michigan, Gore..................4 points (51-47)-----1 hour, 24 min.
Arkansas, Bush.................6 points (51-45)------3 hours, 42 min.
Pennsylvania, Gore...........4 points (51-47)------1 hour, 24 min.
Tennessee, Bush..............3 points (51-48)------3 hours, 3 min.
Minnesota, Gore...............2 points (48-46)------1 hour, 24 min.
West Virginia, Bush..........6 points (52-46)------ 3 hours, 16 min.
Washington, Gore............5 points (50-45)------1 hour, 8 min.

Now, there is much much more, but I'm getting tired of typing, so I'll continue in a little bit.

[Beet]

The conclusion that "it cost Bush votes" is arbitrary because if people heard that Florida had been called, BOTH Gore and Bush voters had the same incentive to go home. And in fact, the panhandle was one of the three areas of Florida that Gore was drawing votes from (the other 2 being Miami-Ft. Lauderdale and Tampa Bay), so diminished voting in that region would actually cost Gore.

[Nym90]

But you forgot to mention that all of the networks had taken Florida out of Gore's column before about 10 PM Eastern. It was deemed too close to call by all networks until it was called for Bush at 2:16 AM, which was of course also a mistake, it was clearly too close to have been called for Bush, as the media should have known about the automatic recount in races in Florida that are closer than 0.5%. This call for Bush gave him a huge advantage in the recount process in the minds of the public, as he was perceived as having already won the election, when in fact Florida never should have been called for Bush on election night either since it was way too close.

As for all of your call times for CNN...didn't Fox also call those states at close to the same times? All of the networks were taking their data from VNS (Voter News Service) and all had similar call times. VNS was basing their data on the exit polls and results from key swing precincts. If neither of these turned out to be reliable, then it shouldn't be a surprise that the calls would be a bit off.

And the polls were closed in the Eastern time zone portion of Florida at 7 PM Eastern. Rather said that the polls were closed in the majority of the state, he didn't say that all polls in Florida were closed.

[PD]

The conclusion that "it cost Bush votes" is arbitrary because if people heard that Florida had been called, BOTH Gore and Bush voters had the same incentive to go home. And in fact, the panhandle was one of the three areas of Florida that Gore was drawing votes from (the other 2 being Miami-Ft. Lauderdale and Tampa Bay), so diminished voting in that region would actually cost Gore.

I know that. My point was that it cost OUR guy votes, the one that was winning. He could have had more. And it would look like we whooped the dems there. If this incident had not occured, bush would have been ahead by 60%, according to a study and poll conducted by one of your liberal strategists. I'm not done, just give me a while, I have to take a break.

[Nym90]

The polls were only open for 11 more minutes in the panhandle after NBC called it, 6 minutes after CBS called it, and they were already closed when ABC called it. Anybody voting that late would almost certainly already be in line to vote, or at least on their way to the polls already, and thus very likely wouldn't have heard the news. Even if they did, there were still local races to be decided, plus the election nationwide was still too close to call even with Gore winning Florida, so I can't see how a significant number of votes would have turned around their cars and headed home. Plus, as has been mentioned, it would have caused Gore's voters to stay home there too.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But you seem to mean that the relative number of people who approve of him, and support him will increase. I can see that his approval ratings might go up, but that's not what you're saying.

Kerry's negatives will go up once Bush starts campaigning, and Kerry's nagatives will go up faster than Bush's approval rating.  So the spread between Bush/Kerry could change even if Bush's approval rating stays the same.

[Gustaf]

But you seem to mean that the relative number of people who approve of him, and support him will increase. I can see that his approval ratings might go up, but that's not what you're saying.

Kerry's negatives will go up once Bush starts campaigning, and Kerry's nagatives will go up faster than Bush's approval rating.  So the spread between Bush/Kerry could change even if Bush's approval rating stays the same.

OK, then, fair point.

[Gustaf]

I think a lot of the premature calling has to do with wanting to be first, rather than wanting to help one candidate. And, as Beet pointed out, it's hard to say if either side is favoured by someone being named winner too early. I know that in Sweden, whichever side is leading in polls is usually carefully making sure to spin it as a close race to get people tp the polls.

[Nym90]

Yes, but ultimately the election will be a referendum on Bush, not Kerry. If Bush's approval rating is low, he won't win unless he can make Kerry out to be incompetent (which is highly unlikely). That strategy has never worked in the past. I think that you have to run a mostly positive campaign to win if you are an incumbent.

[Nation]

I think a lot of the premature calling has to do with wanting to be first, rather than wanting to help one candidate. And, as Beet pointed out, it's hard to say if either side is favoured by someone being named winner too early. I know that in Sweden, whichever side is leading in polls is usually carefully making sure to spin it as a close race to get people tp the polls.

And since stations and the AP get their information usually from VNS and exit polls, there is no bias, just the desire to be first. All media stations this year will not be broadcasting their "projections" until after all polls have closed for that state, so it's pretty safe to say we won't have problems with people being turned off from going to the polls.

[© tweed]

Yes, but ultimately the election will be a referendum on Bush, not Kerry. If Bush's approval rating is low, he won't win unless he can make Kerry out to be incompetent (which is highly unlikely). That strategy has never worked in the past. I think that you have to run a mostly positive campaign to win if you are an incumbent.

Well, Kerry is a pretty weak candidate, so they can apint him as a Mass liberal, or the new 'latte-drinking' liberal tag, so a damaged Bush could beat Kerry.

[Nym90]

I don't see him as weak at all, I think he has a lot of strengths. I guess we'll just have to see what happens though.

[© tweed]

I don't see him as weak at all, I think he has a lot of strengths. I guess we'll just have to see what happens though.

Massachusetts liberal, taxachusetts liberal, latte-drinking liberal, Dukakis liberal, tax and spend liberal, conservative senator of Massachusetts, more liberal than Ted Kennedy.

They can say all that and much more.  Kerry has so much baggage you would think he's headed to the airport.

[Nym90]

That will only get them so far. Bush's job performance will be the main issue, not Kerry's ideology and home state. Bush can't win with only a negative campaign.

Hopefully this is just you being your good ol' cynical self.