Author Topic: How Bloomberg Spun Its Own Poll Data To Make Hillary Clinton Seem Inevitable  (Read 323 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline unknown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,124


How Bloomberg Spun Its Own Poll Data To Make Hillary Clinton Seem Inevitable

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-16/how-bloomberg-spun-its-own-poll-data-make-hillary-clinton-seem-inevitable

Tyler Durden
Aug 16, 2016 4:25 PM

A couple of days ago, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson published a very interesting article which examined how Bloomberg News egregiously spun the results of its recent presidential poll.

She notes:

Quote
Is Hillary Clinton squashing Donald Trump into oblivion in the polls? Or is her lead over him perilously shrinking? One thing we know is: there are countless ways to spin a poll. Consider the case of selective reporting on the most recent Bloomberg national poll.

On Aug. 10, Bloomberg reported “Clinton up 6 on Trump in Two Way Race.” But looking at the actual poll, Trump has moved so close to Clinton, the results are within the margin of error.

In the most recent poll, the spread between Clinton and Trump in a two-person race was down to just 3 percentage points, Clinton at 45% and Trump at 42%. That’s within the margin of error. When Libertarian and Green Party candidates are put in the mix, it’s Clinton 42% and Trump 40% –again within the margin of error.

But this notable trend isn’t reflected in the Bloomberg write-up here. Instead, the reporter chose to use the poll numbers that look better for Clinton: ones that added in “leaners.” What are leaners? Respondents who were first asked who they’d vote for, then answered they didn’t plan to vote or didn’t know who they’d vote for, and then were pressed to pick a candidate they were leaning toward, anyway. This is how Bloomberg got to the 6-point spread cited in its headline…double the actual spread of 3%.

The graphic Bloomberg used in its news story appears somewhat misleading in this context. It depicts the 6-point spread as the result of the question “…for whom would you vote?” It doesn’t disclose that the graphic adds in “leaners” who were asked a followup question.

It’s simply another reminder that what you read in the news often comes through a filter.

So here’s the primary thing Sharyl is calling out in the above paragraphs.

{.. snip.. see URL for lots more analysis and data..}



I won't be here after the election and vote.

If Hillary wins - I will be busy, BLOAT! (It won't be long before she won't let you buy.)

If Trump wins, I won't be here to GLOAT. (I don't want to hang around while everyone looks at every speck in his eye.)