The numbers posted show ABC is out of line with most of the rst of the news polls. I always suspected a hard left slant from ABC but these numbers tend to confirm it.

I doubt they skewed the poll deliberately, it’s just that few moderates or conservatives turn to ABC for a fair read of events.

Posted by: jeffers at February 14, 2004 07:11 AM

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Feb. 5-6, 2004. N=822 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.

George W. Bush 45%
John Kerry 50%

Associated Press poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Feb. 2-4, 2004. N=743 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.7. (Data from 11/03 and earlier co-sponsored by Cook Political Report.)

“If the election were held today, would you definitely vote to reelect George W. Bush as president, consider voting for someone else, or definitely vote for someone else as president?”

Definitely Bush 37%
Someone Else 43%

Quinnipiac University Poll. Jan. 28-31, 2004. N=1,219 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.8.

Bush 43%
Kerry 51%

Posted by: Anthony at February 14, 2004 07:48 AM

jeffers:

This ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Feb. 10-11 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation were done by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.

The poll has nothing to do with viewership. The sample is taken at random.

Posted by: Anthony at February 14, 2004 08:39 AM

Hardly surprising considering that the whole Dem slate has been hitting Bush hard lately and Bush hasn’t really begun to campaign yet..

Posted by: Del Simmons at February 14, 2004 09:07 AM

Hard left? Makes a change from ultra left, I suppose.

Posted by: dirk strom at February 14, 2004 09:21 AM

Blame the left slanting media for the numbers?

Your boy’s misteps are making him unelectable. Fiddle while Rome burns all you want, conservatives, but I would think you should be demanding more.

Posted by: Todd at February 14, 2004 09:36 AM

// Your boy’s misteps are making him unelectable. //
What difference does that make? He was unelectable the last time and he won! LOL.

The question is whos side is the liberal-but-we-don’t-like-gore media going to be on this time around. Or was it the we-want-a-close-race media. Last time they gave Bush a season pass. Which media will show up this time around will probably effect the outcome.

Posted by: Anthony at February 14, 2004 10:42 AM

Results like this are to be expected at this stage in the race because no one knows the first thing about Kerry. Before long it will become clear that he doesn’t really have anything to offer and unlike Clinton, Kerry’s not articulate enough nor slick enough to get away with selling the country on an empty bill of goods based on some amorphous idea of “change.”

Expect a 50%-50% race.

Regards/
jackson.

Posted by: jackson zed at February 14, 2004 11:24 AM

The way things are going with intelligence deception and jobs lost, Kerry may not need to offer up much. Kinda like Bush in the last go around.

Posted by: Todd at February 14, 2004 11:59 AM

Liberal media? What liberal media?? ABC is not liberal. Maybe some of NPR and for sure Pacifica Radio but that’s it…

Posted by: Dnice at February 14, 2004 02:55 PM

ABC is not liberal. Peter Jennings will be shocked to find this out.

Posted by: popd at February 14, 2004 04:16 PM

liberal media??

Then there’s the conservative-when-we-want-to-be media. They should up in the run up to the war and joined forces with the war-is-profitible-for-the-media media. Of course now they’ve disappeared since their profits have dried up.

Posted by: Anthony at February 14, 2004 05:40 PM

ABC has a liberal bias, by ABC’s own admission in their “blog” The Note:
I’m posting the link to Instapundit because I think Glenn’s commentary is pertinant - and because the link to The Note is not perma-linked.
“Read the whole thing”.

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014040.php

The bottom line is that the media will deny that they are liberal with a straight face, because they don’t consider their own opinions “liberal”, just “normal”.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 14, 2004 06:02 PM

As far as political coverage goes, their mainstream media is not liberal. It’s all a bunch of nonsense. Their is a relatively small liberal media. There is a conservative media.

Posted by: Anthony at February 14, 2004 06:36 PM

As far as political coverage goes, the mainstream media is not liberal.

Posted by: Anthony at February 14, 2004 06:46 PM

Here we go again.

EVERYBODY, relax with the polls. Haven’t we been over this already?

The last candidate to lead in the polls wire-to-wire was Nixon in 1972, for crying out loud, and SUMMER polls were completely different from the results in 1984 and 1992. Shoot, Dole lead Clinton in August 1996 in a few major media polls.

You want to know who will win in November? About the only sure thing we know is, it’s down to Bush vs. Kerry, but even then there is a small but real chance that the DNC could end up in a brokered convention if things get murky by Super Tuesday.

As ALWAYS, this election will get a lot of stories and rumors, but it will come down to three basic but critical decisions:

• Is the economy healthy? Right now the Republicans point to a bull market, strong GDP growth, housing starts, low inflation, and high consumer confidence. Democrats want to know where the jobs are;

• Was the US right to invade Iraq? The Democrats bark and whine about WMD and insurgent attacks, while the Republicans remind us about stability in the region, shown by the much better response from Libya, Syria, even N Korea and Iran. While the Democrats complain about the intelligence failure, Republicans can play the tape of major Dmeocrats, including Clinton (both), Kerry, daschle, and Clark making even bolder statements about the WMD threat from that same data, and that Kay has clearly stated that Bush does not owe an apology, he did the right thing, and in fact Bush is owed an apology by his critics;

• Finally, the matter of Integrity. While conservatives aren’t speaking highly of Bush now, because they are upset by his work to suport Medicare prescription coverage, education funding, amnesty for hispanic undocumented immigrants, and spending, no one seriously believes a conservative will pull the lever for Kerry. And while liberals are unhappy with Kerry’s recent embarassments and double-speak on every major issue, no one seriously thinks a liberal will pull the lever for Bush. So, it comes down to the 12-20% of the vote which could seriously consider either candidate, or may just stay home. What they decide, may well decide the election, and folks, dirty stories aren’t likely to matter, unless they’re connected to a major issue already, and somehow are unchallenged. In the end, Bush’s problem is that he doesn’t like hardball politics; he will have to spend a lot of time and effort in the pit. But Kerry’s biggest problem, is that he will have to get past what Bush has done right; so far, Bush-hate has been a winner with Democrats, but it won’t win in the General Election. Kerry has to find a platform that actually stands on more than rhetoric.

But anyone believing a February poll is worth anything as far as March even, needs to read their History.

Posted by: GDubya at February 14, 2004 08:03 PM

Re: Liberal Media: Anthony says It’s all a bunch of nonsense. Nice substantial refutation there, kid.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 15, 2004 01:00 AM

lewy14:

Thanks!

Posted by: Anthony at February 15, 2004 09:32 AM

Liberal Media? Wesley Clark was blasted by the so-called “liberal media” for refusing to disassociate himself from Michael Moore when Moore called Bush a dodger. This may have cost Clark New Hampshire and perhaps even the nomination. However, the media does not require Bush to repudiate his supporters when people such as Pat Robertson say things that a larger percentage of Americans believes is outrageous.

The media has made a much bigger deal of the Howard Dean yell than it has that no one has been fired for providing incorrect information to the president and that the President’s speaches on Iraq differed significantly from what the analysts indicate that they provided him.

Academic studies have indicated that the Wall St. Journal’s editorials are more likely to support the Republican’s position, than the NY Times is likely to support the Democrat’s position. Likewise the Washington Times has been even more pro-Republican than the Washington Post has been pro-Democrat. Yet you would never guess that if you just read the comments in letters to the editor about a left slant in coverage.

I agree that it is too early to tell who will win this election. In fact, I think that it is possible that either candidate could win by a landslide (although I believe it is less likely that Kerry will win by a landslide).

Posted by: Zreebs at February 15, 2004 10:23 AM

However, the media does not require Bush to repudiate his supporters when people such as Pat Robertson say things that a larger percentage of Americans believes is outrageous.

Media doesn’t have to, Bush repudiates them anyway.

CAIR: Muslims welcome President’s remarks on Islamophobia

Posted by: lewy14 at February 15, 2004 04:17 PM

>>Bush’s problem is that he doesn’t like hardball politics

Is this the same Bush who ran push polls in the 2000 S. Carolina primary saying, “Would you think less of John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”

Posted by: FJohnson at February 16, 2004 02:37 PM

Oh good. More rumors.

At least Republicans don’t hold political strategy sessions in Hollywood like the Dems “HATE BUSH” rallies last month.

I don’t suppose you’ve ever considered, that the average folks don’t like you trashing Bush with your rumors and slander? No, I bet you don’t respect the voters enough, to realize they can figure things out for themselves.

Well, you might find out something in 8 1/2 months…

Posted by: GDubya at February 16, 2004 03:01 PM

>>Oh good. More rumors.

I was wrong. The question wasn’t, “Would you think less of John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”, it was actually, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/17006/104959

As for slander . . . I wouldn’t throw that word around too much, if I were you.

An Ex-Republican

Posted by: fjohnson at February 16, 2004 04:13 PM

Why? Does it bother you to hear that Democrats slander people?

It sure bothers me, when the issues get left behind, because someone would rather play the “goon” card.

Why is it, I wonder, no Democrat has yet apologized for the conduct of Al Franken?

I guess tackling people from behind is okay, if you’re a Democrat, huh?

Posted by: GDubya at February 16, 2004 04:39 PM

>>I guess tackling people from behind is okay, if you’re a Democrat, huh?

I don’t think it’s okay for anyone.

Posted by: fjohnson at February 16, 2004 05:54 PM

Would be nice to hear that from Kerry or Dean.

Posted by: GDubya at February 16, 2004 06:09 PM