Ace of Spades HQ

« Pictorial Endorsement: Why You Must Vote For Bush | Main | Gallup: Tied 49-49 »

October 31, 2004

Bush Leads by Three in Dem-Skewing CBSNYT Poll

OTOH, Frank Luntz says that Bush needs to be up by at least three in order to win (due to new voters and late-undecideds voting against him, plus, you know, fraud), so if this poll is merely accurate, Bush is still only fifty-fifty to prevail.

The article is worth reading, because it does endeavor to spin this as really bad news for Bush.

It's not just news-- it's hilarious liberal desperation.

Update: But the New York Times goes, as usual, a little farther.

If any of you are fans of Mickey Kaus, you know that Times' reporter Adam Nagourney is their go-to guy for liberal cocooning. For example, when the last NYT poll in 2002 showed a massive movement towards Republicans, Nagourney buried that interesting finding until nearly the end of the article, and wrote some idiotic article about the polls' findings about voter anxiety and the like. He gave it the following headline:

Poll Finds Americans Like Cheese

Okay, not that, but something equally anodyne and boring. The New York Times "newspaper" deliberately refused to report its own discovery of actual news in order to not distress its archliberal constituency.

At any rate, the latest NYT poll finds that Bush is ahead by three-- cause for some alarm to liberals, given the poll's Democratic skew.

And what's the headline?

In Final Days, Divided Electorate Expresses Anxiety.

Once again, Nagourney deliberately avoids mention of the actual news-making part of the poll in favor of a non-newsworthy headline that won't discombobulate liberals too much.

The first two paragraphs:

The nation is girding for tomorrow's presidential election, worried about the integrity of the voting system, divided over the legitimacy of President Bush's election four years ago and anxious about the future no matter who wins the contest, according to the final New York Times/CBS News Poll of the 2004 campaign.
The poll shows that Mr. Bush and his opponent, Senator John Kerry, remain locked in a statistical tie as they head into the final 48 hours of the race. But the poll registered an increase in Mr. Bush's job approval rating, as well as an increase in the number of Americans who said the nation was heading in the right direction. Republicans described this as evidence that Mr. Bush was picking up speed in these closing days of the campaign, but Democrats dismissed the numbers, saying that both figures remain dangerously low for an incumbent.

Nagourney waits until the sixth paragraph to actually let you know Bush is up 49-46-- not really a "statistical tie" at all, because any statistician can tell you that any lead indicates at least the probability that one man is ahead, even if you can't be sure of the margin. This lead isn't big, but neither is it tiny.

Nagourney has waited far, far longer in his articles to inform his readers of what the poll actually says. He's slipping a bit. I expect better/worse from him.

Loose shit, Adam.

posted by Ace at 10:21 PM

Comments

Try deciphering the new Gallop poll. Bush down in fl and OH up by 4 in PA? they are on crack. It is totally ass backwards. I think the polls are shit this year more so than usual. Just better get everyone to vote.

Heard 500 old folks die a day in florida or something bizarre like that earlier and they are having poll workers check obits for dead voters to watch out for.

Bush should win this handily. If he loses it will not be for not fighting the fight. When they are not playing by the same rules it makes it hard to win.

Posted by: jennifer on October 31, 2004 10:37 PM

Oy. 2 days. I feel like the guy pounding on the rail and screaming during the last lap of a horserace.

Posted by: Russell Wardlow on October 31, 2004 10:43 PM

I'm starting to understand the whole "icing the kicker" thing too.

Posted by: Joe R. the Unabrewer on October 31, 2004 10:46 PM

In this poll, 71% said they are as well off or better than they were four years ago. Doesn't sound like the Great Depression to me.

Posted by: on October 31, 2004 11:03 PM

I don't know if I can understand all this wacky, esoteric poll number gobblygook without Kim Richards to explain it to me, Ace.

Posted by: Alex on October 31, 2004 11:50 PM

That is what I'd call "objective reporting" from the Times. After all, they didn't make things up.

Posted by: jb on November 1, 2004 12:23 AM

Tha weekend polls are straight garbage..

First off, It's been pointed out all over the blogoshpere, that Bush folks are attending Friday night football games, second, it's Holloween weekend! All the good mommies and daddies are out doing what they do with tha kiddies.. This leaves either A)people who hate football or B)people who hate kids -- at home, answering the phone.

I'd take these last poll numbers -- wad em'up,-- do a Kerry-Jump-throw with em' right into the waste basket. I'd also like for someone to please stick a bloody sock in Terry Macoluf's mouth every time he mentions the exit polls showing Kerry ahead with people who've already voted in Iowa and Florida. That stuff is crap to.

Its all crap.

Posted by: StreetGOP on November 1, 2004 02:00 AM

http://digicastondemand.com/Products.asp?Service=Details&ItemID=30

WMD in iraq

This amazing investigative report uncovers evidence
of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Over 30
plus kilos of weapons grade Anthrax have been
turned over to US-Coalition Provincial Authority

Posted by: Raymond on November 1, 2004 03:16 AM

49-46.
Hmm.
That would mean there are 4% undecided if you assume at least 1% for Nader or Bednarak or whomever, combined.

The incumbent rule, which has only been true in 4 of the last 6 elections, says people break against the incumbent 2 to 1. It is of course horsesh**. But, that would still leave Bush winning the popular vote.

But all of the above is nonsense. Expect Bush to win 5 or 6 states that are 'surprises' to the media. They're not surprises. They're figured out of the numbers to fit preconceptions.

No Kool-Aid here. I just have my ear to the ground. Cutting like a fu**ing hammer, I'm like the Lone Ranger out here. I've already sent Tanto into town and I'm just waiting to ride into town to put the smack down.

Posted by: Birkel on November 1, 2004 04:00 AM

Even one with such an obviously Republican cut to my jib has friends in certain liberal circles around town (Manhattan, if you have to ask.) These guys give me lots of good scoop on these reporters, Nagourney being the reporter they hate but need. Why? First of all, he's an ass-bandit. And second, he is a sniveling, Andy Sullivan-type ass-bandit.

His ambition, his enthusiasm for his career is second only to his fixation with the "stinky starfish".

Posted by: spongeworthy on November 1, 2004 09:28 AM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

Funniest thing I've read about the Virginia mess. Back when they were hustling the referendum through the assembly both Senators, Warner and Kaine, advised them to go slow and play by the rules. Louise Lucas said she respected them but didn't need advice from the "cuck chair" in the corner. The gerrymandering was overturned and Louise is heading for the big house. Edward G. Robinson voice "where's your cuck now?"
Posted by: Smell the Glove

I posted his post on twitter and it's gotten 25K views so far. Thanks, Smell the Glove

Chris
@chriswithans

"Ahhhhh ahh I put my career on the line for Louise Lucas and Jay Jones thinking they'd vault me into presidential contention and we ended up costing Democrats 20 House seats and unleashing a Reverse Dobbs ahhhhh ahhh"

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click That Sums Up the Democrat Communist Party Today
Something is wrong as I hold you near
Somebody else holds your heart, yeah
You turn to me with your icy tears
And then it's raining, feels like it's raining

TJM wonders about world building in stories, mostly The Hunger Games

"It's f**king f**ked."
-- reportedly a genuine comment offered by a "senior Labour source"
Correction: I wrote that Labour is losing 88% (now 87%) of the seats it is "defending." I think that's wrong. The right way to say it is the seats they are contesting -- that is, they don't necessarily already hold these seats, but they have put up a candidate to run for the seat. It's still very bad but not as bad as losing 87% of the seats they already held.

Basil the Great
@BasilTheGreat

🚨ED MILIBAND [a Minister in Starmer's government] SAYS KEIR STARMER WILL RESIGN AS PRIME MINISTER

He has reportedly reassured Labour MP's that Starmer will be resigning following the disastrous results tonight

It's over

"The end of the two party system in the UK" as first the Fake Conservatives and now Labour chooses political suicide rather than simply STOPPING THE INVASION
Incidentally, the only reason this didn't already happen in the US is because of the Very Bad Orange Man (who is right on 85% of all policy calls and extremely, existentially right on 15% of them)

No political party that is NOT also a doomsday religious cult would EVER choose a cataclysmic loss -- and possible extinction as a party -- to support a toxically unpopular favoritism of NON-CITIZEN ILLEGAL MIGRANTS over actual citizen voters.

Only a cult does this.

Now they've lost 84%.

Annunziata Rees-Mogg
@zatzi
If this continues Labour loses 2,148 seats tonight.

That is much worse than the worst case predictions I’ve seen.

Cataclysmic

Update: They've now lost 88% of the seats they're defending. As I mentioned earlier, I think I heard that London will not bail them out, as many of those Labour seats will probably flip to "Muslim Independent" or Green. Detroit's 5am vote will not save them.

Yup, Labour is losing 80% of its seats...

The British Patriot
@TheBritLad

🚨 BREAKING: Labour have lost 80% of all seats contested as of 2:25 AM.<
br> If this continues, Keir Starmer will be out of office next week.

Reform has surged and projected to pick up between 1700-2100 seats.

Wow, up to 1700-2100 seats. It's not incredible that this is happening. It's incredible that the Davos crowd is so absolutely determined to privilege Muslim "migrants" over the actual native population who elects them, no matter how loudly the natives scream that they want to be prioritized, that they will gladly self-extinguish as a party rather than simply representing the interests of their own voters. Astonishing.
Remember, when they call other people "cultists" -- they are the ones so imprisoned in their social reinforcement and discipline bubbles that they will choose political death rather than dare upset the Karen Enforcement Officers of their cult.
Update: Now they've lost 83% of the seats they were defending.

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges

Reform are basically wiping Labour out in the North. It's not a defeat. It's not even a rout. Labour are simply ceasing to exist.

Nick Lowles
@lowles_nick

Tonight’s results are calamitous for Labour. Not just for Keir Starmer's leadership, but for the very future of the party

STARMERGEDDON: In early returns, Reform gains 135 seats, Labour loses 90, the Fake Conservatives lose 36 (and I didn't even know they could fall any further), the Lib Dems lose 4, and the Greens gain 6. Note that the only other party gaining seats is the Greens and they're only gaining a handful of seats.
Update: Reform now up 145, Labour down 98.
Labour projected to lose Wales -- where they've ruled for 27 years.
Fulton County Georgia just discovered 400 boxes of ballots for Labour
Update: REF +156, LAB -107, CON -45
Brutal: In four out of five council seats where Labour is defending, they've lost. 80%.
I'm sure it's not this simple, but Reform is straight taking Labour's and the "Conservatives'" seats. They've lost almost exactly what Reform gained. If understand this right (and warning, I probably don't), all of London's council seats are up for election, and Labour might lose hugely there, as their old voters abandon them for Reform, Muslim Indenpendents, and the Greens.
REF +190, LAB -134, CON -56.

Updates on the Labour collapse in council elections -- which wags are calling #Starmergeddon -- from Beege Welborne. There are about 5000 seats up for grabs, Labour is expected to lose 1,800, Reform will probably gain 1,580, up from... zero. So this would be more than that.
People claim that while Labour has adopted the Sharia Agenda to appeal to the million Muslims it allowed to migrate to the country, those voters are ditching Labour to vote for the Muslim Independent Party or the Greens. Delicious. This shadenfreude is going straight to my thighs.
Oh, and if Starmer loses about as badly as expected, Labour will toss him out of a window Braveheart style and replace him. He will announce he is resigning to spend more time with his Gay Ukrainian Male Prostitutes.

Media bias and senationalism are as old as, well, the media:

That was written by Denny O'Neill and illustrated by, get this, Frank Miller. Editor to the Stars Jim Shooter was in charge at the time.
I always thought the gag was original to the comic book, but in fact the "Threat or Menace" headline was a satirical joke about media bias and sensationalism for a long while. The Harvard Lampoon used it in a parody of Life magazine: "Flying Saucers: Threat or Menace?"

Hamas is Humiliating Trump's 'Board of Peace'
[Hat Tip: TC] [CBD]

Tucker Carlson is pretty sure Trump is a wizard

Ted Turner Dies At 87 [CBD]

Podcast: Starting a new season, CBD and Sefton discuss their personal journeys to conservative principles, is Nick Shirley the beginning of a trend?, Iran trying to reignite the war, the Left attacks itself, even on "Best Guitarist" lists, and more!

TJM definitively ranks the films of Billy Wilder, like Some Like It Hot

TJM talks about Billy Wilder