Typical Newsweek Bias


I find this new Newsweek article quite amusing.  They breathlessly lay out the fact that Bush is at a 28% approval rating and that all the Democrat Presidential candidates beat their Republican counterparts:

It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups. …

Like Obama, Edwards defeats the Republicans by larger margins than Clinton does: the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee outdistances Giuliani by six points, McCain by 10 and Romney by 37, the largest lead in any of the head-to-head matchups. Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton wins 49 percent to 46 percent against Giuliani, well within the poll’s margin of error; 50 to 44 against McCain; and 57 to 35 against Romney.

But, as we’ve all become used to with these MSM polls, there is a huge imbalance of Democrats polled in this polling of all adults. 

When you look at how people LEAN, the gap becomes even greater.  But somehow this poll result is indicative of how the country feels…..yeah.  Take a look at the latest Rasmussen poll which has Bush’s approval rating at 38%.  A huge 10% difference.

And I think we can safely call shenanigans.  

Ed Morrissey notes this whole poll flies in the face of ALL the recent polls done:

It contradicts nearly every other poll, which has consistently shown Giuliani beating Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. How could Newsweek get the results they have published?

Well, for one thing, it helps when you poll 50% more Democrats than Republicans. If one reads the actual poll results all the way to the end, the penultimate question shows that the sample has 24% Republicans to 36% Democrats. Compare that to the information given by Newsweek’s NBC partners in February, which showed that party affiliation had shifted from a difference of less than a percentage point to a gap of 3.9 points — 34.3% to 30.4%, with 33.9% independents.

Plus we have this Reuters report:

Nice picture to go along with it huh?

Typical bias on display here once again.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The other interesting thing about the Rasmussen poll is that it has remained pretty much flat for the last two months, not rising or falling more than a point or two.

They didn’t set out to find an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. They RANDOMLY sampled x number of people. Of those, more identified themselves as Democrats than Republicans.

That’s not bias; that’s how the members of their sampling are identifying themselves these days.

Bias? Look in the mirror, pal.

Very naive thinking there PAL.

Polls can be twisted and skewed to give a result wanted quite easily by a number of factors. One of them being a oversampling of one segment, which most certainly happened here.

That’s not bias; that’s how the members of their sampling are identifying themselves these days.

Really? Since most studies show the population at 34 to 30 dem vs. rep you choose simply to ignore those studies and polls and believe that only 24% of the population identifies themselves as rep? How retarded.

Of course the end result was something you agree with so it must be true.