AP spins electoral data Bush's direction
 

Don't know if you saw the recent headline on Yahoo News, USA Today, et al "AP: Bush leads Kerry in electoral vote count"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...al-votes_x.htm


For those of you who follow Samboni's Electoral Vote Count page, you know this is complete garbage; while Kerry holds very slim leads in many of the states he would claim if the election were held today, the current count is Kerry 310, Bush 217, Undecided 11, which changed just this weekend because Kerry currently has Nevada, which is very bad news for Bush's re-election possibilities.

This kind of shameless distortion also plays into the fact that many people like to back a winner. If you can convince a lot of people that Bush has it locked up, then they will swing to his side.

It's also important to remember, for those who don't know, that the AP is a cooperative. The owners are the owners of the major newspapers in the country, about 99.99 percent of whom are pretty right-wing.

The USA Today story tellingly does not include the name of the author, but when it was posted at Yahoo! yesterday I learned that Ron Fournier is the author of this piece of crapulent hackery.

Check out the plethora of items at the Campaign Desk mentioning Ron Fournier

http://www.cjr.org/mt/mt-search.cgi?...IncludeBlogs=1

Notice how many of the pieces show Fournier spinning against Dem candidates. Then notice that nowhere in Fournier's story does he give us any actual data, tell us which polls he used, the MOE in those polls - really, nothing in that story that you could use to fact-check his media-whore ass.

Fournier's piece is pure, unadulterated propaganda, intended to make Kerry look like a loser. Just look at some key gaffes of his crap:

But, Fournier ignores recent polls showing Missouri leans Kerry, and neglects to tell us about two separate polls showing Kerry with 5- and 10-point leads in Pennsylvania, because that wouldn't fit the script.

Even the notoriously Republican-biased Rasmussen has Kerry ahead in the EC vote in his craptacular calculations.

I'll go with dwbh's electoral college projection that shows Kerry way ahead, because I can look at the data and see for myself.

Screw Fournier for the hack he is.

I'm sure the GOP camp-followers in the media, Fournier in particular, had a big ****ing party last night after seeing this puerile propaganda hit-piece picked up in time for just about every Sunday paper in the land.

All good as far as I'm concerned, anything to get all dems out to vote.

Rofl!

This is typical of Ron Fournier of the AP. He's a Democrat suck-up and the purpose of the article is to make Kerry look better when they run a post-convention article showing a "dramatic" bounce for Kerry in the polls that is only mildly better than what he was before the convention. Pravda in action. Undersell Kerry before the convention so you can portray a fake groundswell of support afterwards.

Your literally unbelievable. Being a cooperative makes the news even handed, not the opposite you dimwit. The idea that the print or internet media is "pretty right-wing" is so poorly informed it's incredible. To you, Pravda would be considered right-wing.


I guess Bart-Cop isn't a member of AP. Maybe you can get Al Jeezera feeds from Canada for your accurate information soon.

The polls are all over the map right now, and will be so till after the second convention, when it will start to settle out. The funny thing is, when Kerry/Edwards get their post convention bump, you will be the first one to post it's results.

That is so true. Lets just wait and see if his hypocrisy comes through.

who cares about polls this early anyway? We don't vote till November anyway.

Remember, that boob Dukakis had a 17 point lead after the democrats convention and almost had a 50 state loss.

Guess what? Kerry is a Massachusetts liberal too. Landslide for Bush.

What is it with Dems and far left massachusett pols?

I'm beginning to think that these pollsters are just looking out for their own best interests. They probably like to keep the polls as close as possible so that they can convince more Americans to watch the news, thereby earning more money. Its all corrupt, head to toe.

Kerry pulled his ads in Missouri, there's no denying that. That's probably because Dem internal polling shows him behind, even if public polls say opposite, and they feel the state is trending away from him. That could still change between now and the election, but the Dems/Kerry would not have pulled advertising in a battelground state (and I believe they pulled some in the Deep South too at the same time) unless they believe they don't have a real shot at winning there.

its close right now. Id agree with LABF on the proposition that Kerry is probably ahead in the popular and electoral vote right now. Alot of polls say he is up around 2 or 3 but in reality thats more like 6 or 7. Undecideds generally break towards the challenger and Bush has struggled to get his approval rating back up over 50. Its around 48 or something, he needs to get it up to around 54,55 by election day. While money isnt going to be the advantage that Bush thought he would have i really think the 41 or so million the White House invested very early this year in building an even better election day ground team and infrastructure is going to keep Bush right in the thick of it. Im hoping W can pull it off but it seems right now if nothing changes Kerry will win by a few percentage points. It is still early though.

45-50 gives Bush the advantage because even then you've got a good amount of U's that still like the job he's doing. Over 50% and Bush wins.

Bush is in weird territory for an incumbent Prez. His approval rating is below the ratings of Presidents who were re-elected, but it is also much higher then sitting Presidents who were defeated.

AP story giving Bush electoral lead is faulty

Recently, the Associated Press ran a story that was widely published in newspapers and on the Internet titled, "Bush Leads Kerry In Electoral Votes" that could have been written by the Bush campaign. The assignment of states to candidates, the headline and the conclusions were all simply wrong. The Associated Press should print a retraction and work to see that it is widely published.

In the story, they stated that 14 states and DC were either solidly behind Kerry or leaning to Kerry. These states give Kerry 193 electoral votes. The leaning states were Maine, Minnesota and Washington with a total of 25 electoral votes.

They assigned 25 states to Bush with a total of 217 electoral votes. These states included 7 that leaned Bush. These were Missouri, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Colorado, Louisiana and Arizona for a total of 73 electoral votes.



This AP story listed 11 states as toss-ups. These states were Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Oregon with 128 electoral votes.

The story basically posed the question, "can Kerry catch up with the Bush lead?" Actually, there is no Bush lead. Here is why these writers make this statement.

Tennessee has been assigned as a solid Bush state in the AP story. The most recent polls in Tennessee have the state tied. Zogby has the race at 48 percent for both candidates. The most recent Mason-Dixon poll had Bush ahead by only a single percentage point. Tennessee should be added to the toss-up states. No state is as closely contested as Tennessee. The trend is Democratic! These electoral votes must be removed from the Bush total.

The latest Pennsylvania polls have Kerry up by 5 to10 percentage points. The Kerry lead does not indicate a toss-up state. It is likely a solid Kerry state and definitely at least leans Kerry. Using the AP methodology, Pennsylvania's electoral votes should definitely be added to the Kerry total. The article suggested that might soon happen but should have reassigned the state in the story since this change alone drastically changes the analysis, the headline and conclusion!

Oregon and Ohio are actually leaning Kerry and are not toss-ups unless you are a Republican campaign strategist. Almost every recent poll gives Kerry leads in these states.

Using their numbers, the solid Bush states (even including the faulty assignment of Tennessee) have only 144 electoral votes. The solid Kerry states (even without adding Pennsylvania) give Kerry 168 electoral votes.

The Associated Press owes the American people an apology for this sloppy story that gives a distorted view of the current Presidential race. Kerry has a definite advantage at this point in the campaign in terms of the Electoral College!

Bush will wrap up the nomination by the time Kerry even talks.

That rediculous assertion by the billionaire wife is going to sink him.

His only hope is that Edwards can retrieve it. You could hear the jaws dropping as the Billionaire Wife ranted on and on and on.

It was pretty funny.

Edwards will retrive a bit.

I picked Edwards. I am so dissapointed they couldn't even manage an electable candidate.

This is typical of Ron Fournier of the AP. He's a Democrat suck-up...

Looks like someone hasn't been doing his homework and has things all bass-ackwards.

Fournier is an anti-liberal spin machine.

http://www.cjr.org/mt/mt-search.cgi?...IncludeBlogs=1

You could hear the jaws dropping as the Billionaire Wife ranted on and on and on.

How bizarre and brazenly idiotic is it that so many rightards are jumping on the "personal wealth is a political liability" bandwagon?

Hello?

Pssst!

Bush is the ultimate silver spooner/slacker and Cheney is a gazillionaire ex-CEO.

Are wingnuts like you born with some special hypocrisy gene or do you have to take classes?

Wrapping up the nomination is usually a foregone conclusion when an incumbent faces no opposition... ::)

errr Einstein, the bankroller of the Dems-gigolo John Heinz-Kerry is worth 3 billion.. then comes Edwards the trial-Liar er lawyer.. no liar was right is in the range of 50 million + then Comes Cheney and then Bush..

Don't they know math at bartcop?

errr Einstein, the bankroller of the Dems-gigolo John Heinz-Kerry is worth 3 billion.. then comes Edwards the trial-Liar er lawyer.. no liar was right is in the range of 50 million + then Comes Cheney and then Bush..

Which is completely beside the point, genius.

The point is, the repukes are trying to make the case that neither Kerry nor Edwards can relate to "the common man" because of their personal wealth.

Trouble is, there's no way this silly "argument" wouldn't also apply to AWOL Boy and Cheney.

Furthermore, Edwards is a self-made millionaire who started out dirt-poor and worked hard for everything he acheived.

Kerry could have easily used his background to avoid Viet Nam (like Dim Son) but chose to go anyway.

Hence, by your own logic, it is Smirk and Dick who are far less likely to be able to relate to the "common man."

John Heinz-Kerry is worth 3 billion...

Total conjecture on your part.

If you're including Teresa Heinz-Kerry's net worth in this figure then you're just pulling numbers out of your ass (since no one knows exactly how much she's worth.)

Teresa hasn't made her tax records public.

Isn't that the point?

It's Teresa now is it? That "sounds" innocent. I don't have any vendetta against this bimbo, except Kerry played her.

What I found out after her pathetic speech was who really wears the pants in the family. She was incoherent at times, and obviously was out there. Did you see Hillary rolling her eyes?

If Kerry can be p***Y whipped by this dumb broad, how is he going to negotiate with North Korea? Send Billy Carter and Jesse Jackson?

Maybe we can send John Edwards over there and sue them for a pile of rocks.

Isn't that the point?

Yes it is.

That is, since no one knows how much Teresa Heinz-Kerry is worth, Exile is just pulling those figures out of his patoot.

That wasn't the point whatsoever.

I don't care if Kerry wouldn't of milked his cow for 100 million in the supposed nonprofit and non biased moveon.com.

It won't make any difference anyway.

You totally ignored every point I made, instead yanking yourself about what she is worth.

His estimate is wrong. Mrs. Heinz is worth about 1 billion, but with that much wealth, what is the ****ing point dimwit.

Your going to tell me she isn't filth rich?

So what is your point?

Moveon.org, the fact she only had 500 million or 3 billion?

Good Grief.

Her worth isn't even the issue on this thread. The issue is how it is used for a suposedly non profit organization to funnel funds.

What part of this don't you understand.

Your going to tell me she isn't filth rich?

Never said that at all.

Cheney and Gigglekill are also "filthy rich."

Your point?

BTW, if there is some sort of inverse relationship between personal wealth and ability to govern, as you imply, then you must have thought Bill Clinton was a great president.

Your going to tell me she isn't filth rich?

This from a guy who constantly boasts about his credit limit and his own alleged personal wealth?

Too funny!