More USA Today Slants

I’m still traveling in the Republic of California and so still reading the free (and worth every penny) USA Today that appears at motel room doors.

This offensive transgression has become so common that it’s almost not news any more, but I was still struck by political writer Susan Page’s reference, in her article about recent polling showing Bush gains in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, to the “Republican-financed attacks on Kerry’s service in Vietnam.” For some reason many Pennsylvanians seem to think Kerry may be lying about his record.

Page’s comment strongly implies that the Republican party is financing those ads. If all she meant is that some of those financing the ads (over a million dollars raised on the Internet so far) are Republicans (she doesn’t mean they all are does she?), then to escape justified accusations of bias she’d have to refer to most of the other 527s as “Democrat financed,” and I don’t think she does that.

But wait; there’s more! In a long article right next to Susan Page’s USA Today poll maven Mark Memmott does a creditable job of explaining the debate over relying on “registered voters” vs. “likely voters.” He points out, for example, that “John Kerry is consistently doing better in polls of ‘registered’ voters, while President Bush comes out slightly ahead in polls of ‘likely’ voters.”

In fact, in the last five USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup polls, from early July through this week, the split has been the same: things look better for Kerry when the sample is based on registered voters; things look better for Bush if the sample is based on likely voters. Other polls show similar results.

Memmott then explains why many legitimate pollsters, not just Democrats, believe that it is too early in the campaign season to determine who is likely to vote. For example, writes Memmott,

The Los Angeles Times on Thursday released its latest presidential poll and based its findings on registered voters.

Say What? (1)

  1. Sigivald August 30, 2004 at 6:17 pm | | Reply

    Since Memmot’s article isn’t “breaking news”, there’s a good chance he wrote it as early as the 26th, when the LAT poll was released, glacning at the URL.

    One needs neither bias nor incompetence to explain this omission; mere delay in printing can easily manage. I imagine plenty of columnists write Monday columns on Thursday or Wednesday.

Say What?