Any state where McCain leads, no matter his margin, is defined as "Leaning Republican"

[bigtree]

. . . and, States where Obama leads outside of the margin of error are defined as "battleground states "

A 2.2% McCain lead is greater than a 13.8% Obama Lead

by: Chris Bowers
Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 20:30

The Washington Post maintains a webpage titled "Political Landscape 2008." This webpage has been updated recently enough to reflect Obama's 13.8% polling lead in Pennsylvania, a trend that uses polls released as recently as Wednesday. On this webpage, the Washington Post collects recent polling data, and then declares a state to either be a "battleground," or leaning toward one party or the other. Here are some of their polling averages and diagnoses:

Obama +13.8%: Battleground state (PA)
Obama +10.4%: Battleground state (NH)
Obama +10.0%: Battleground state (NJ)
Obama +9.5%: Battleground state (IA)
Obama +9.0%: Battleground state (OR)
Obama +8.2%: Battleground state (MN)
Obama +8.2%: Battleground state (MI)
Obama +8.8%: Battleground state (WI)
Obama +7.3%: Battleground state (NM)
McCain +6.8%: Leaning Republican (GA)
Obama +5.1%: Battleground state (VA)
Obama +4.0%: Battleground state (CO)
McCain +3.8%: Leaning Republican (IN)
Obama +3.5%: Battleground state (OH)
Obama +3.1%: Battleground state (FL)
Obama +3.0%: Battleground state (NV)
McCain +2.2%: Leaning Republican (WV)

Notice anything wrong with this list? Could it perhaps be that any state where McCain leads, no matter his margin, is defined as "Leaning Republican?" Could it be that states where Obama leads by 7.3%-13.8% are defined as "battleground states," while states where McCain leads by 2.2%-6.8% are defined as "leaning Republican." Does the uneven math in this strike anyone as problematic?

The Washington Post claims that a 2.2% lead for McCain is larger than a 13.8% lead for Obama. That is objectively wrong and quantifiably unfair. This is as blatantly imbalanced as election reporting can possibly get.

read: http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9018


For more on this . . .


Here are the latest electoral projections from independent, small media electoral forecasting websites:

Election Projection: Obama 364-174
Electoral-Vote.com: Obama 349, McCain 174, 15 tied
Fivethirtyeight: Obama 347.6-190.4 McCain
Pollster.com: Obama 320, McCain 158, Toss-up 60
Real Clear Politics: Obama 277, McCain 158, Toss-up 103

There are many more, but I'll stop there. The key point is that all small media election projection websites, including the Republican Election Projection and Real Clear Politics, have Obama over 270 electoral votes. This is because polls now objectively show that Obama is well over 270 electoral votes. However, none of the big, and so-called liberal, media websites show Obama over 270 right now. Every single one is even more favorable to McCain than Real Clear Politics:

MSNBC: Obama 264-174 McCain
CNN: Obama 264-174 McCain
New York Times: Obama 260--200 McCain

None of these websites can admit what is patently obvious to even Republican poll watchers right now: Obama is over 270 outside the margin of error. The inability of these big media sites to simply admit reality--reality that is evident in their own reporting about McCain playing from well behind right now--is pathetic.

Maybe they are afraid of being accused of pro-Obama bias (probably). Maybe they are just biased toward McCain (possibly). Maybe they just suck at electoral forecasting (definitely). Maybe they are invested in a close campaign (absolutely). Whatever it is, you would be well served to never, ever listen to big media for election forecasts and horserace information. They just don't have it. Stick to the small media independent websites, since we pretty only exist because the big media websites suck so bad at this stuff. So much information is publicly available now that a few nerds obsessed with poll numbers are much better sources for election information than you will every get from big media. The lack of depth in horserace coverage on major news websites is actually how I discovered the blogosphere myself back in 2002.

read: http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8971

[FLAprogressive]

1. They want to create a close race....watch the media controlled polls "tighten" for no reason soon nt

[bigtree]

2. well, that's it isn't it? They want to create the illusion of a tight race

But, I also think there's a lot of these pollsters and editors who are projecting their own bias that Obama can't possibly carry these states republicans have traditionally won in the past. Or, they're projecting their bias that Obama's race is an inhibiting factor, notwithstanding the polls.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

3. Interesting

Personally, I don't want this labeled as a blowout until all the votes are in. I want people to vote, not get lazy thinking it's inevitable.

But Oregon and New Jersey are not "battleground" states. I don't know who is cooking up these definitions, but they are wrong.

[bigtree]

4. 10 and 9 points respectively

a couple weeks before we vote, those are definitely Obama's

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

5. But that's not even the point......

Oregon, even in a close election, should never be "in play" as it is a blue state and the same with New Jersey.

[bigtree]

6. right. that's what OL was getting at

I'm just fiddling around