The AP-Ipsos Poll making the mainstream media rounds claims that a majority of Americans want the administration to obtain warrants for all "eavesdropping":

WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.

Party affiliation is a factor, too. Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants.

REGISTERED
VOTERS
Strongly Republican .......................... 13
Moderately Republican ..................... 27
Definitely Independent/neither........... 8
Moderately Democrat........................ 32
Strongly Democrat ............................ 20
Refused/not sure............................. -
Total Republican ............................ 40
Total Democrat ............................... 52

So why did AP-Ipsos choose to magnify that split by 300% in their poll? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:20 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Er, to give lil' ernie a new factoid to screech about?

Posted by: hondo at January 08, 2006 01:53 AM (3aakz)

2 AP and Pew measure party ID very differently. Both methods are defensible but you cannot compare the results the way you have. There was much discussion of party ID measurement before the 2004 elections; check the archives at mysterypollster.com for details.

Posted by: Joe Incognito at January 08, 2006 09:58 AM (Yw+ky)

3 So, Joe Incognito, what you're saying is that Ipsos makes a reasonable claim that only 40% of the electorate is Republican compared to 52% Democrat? I disagree. Btw, AP is the news agency; Ipsos does the polls. Therefore, you "cannot compare" AP and Pew the way you have done.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 08, 2006 10:29 AM (RHG+K)

4 Exactly, Joe Incog, that is the reason we had the networks refusing to call states like No. Carolina for Bush when he had a double digit lead. It was obviously done in an attempt to influence the election in favor of the Democrats. What we needed immediately after the election was an investigation into the pollsters and their methods. I see they are still using their same flawed methods in an attempt to influence public opinion. Of course, they think that reporting the news is no longer their job, but facilitation, now brother, that is what the media is here for. Now we have a media that has entered the realm of Stalinism. And once they embark on their Stalinist adventure, they should not be surprised by the reception they receive from the American people.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 08, 2006 01:24 PM (rUyw4)

5 Maybe they did it to counter-act the results of last week's Rasmussen Poll: http://mediamatters.org/items/200601030004

Posted by: Drew at January 08, 2006 04:17 PM (UHKaK)

6 Yeah, Dave, Media Matters has a worldwide reputation for objectivity. I would certainly believe anything I read there.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 08, 2006 05:39 PM (rUyw4)

7 Kinda like that untarnished cradle of objectivity, the DPB

Posted by: Drew at January 08, 2006 06:02 PM (oxMjD)

8 I don't pretend to be objective, Drew. I'm not an oh-so-fashionable citizen of the world. I'm on America's side.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 08, 2006 11:23 PM (RHG+K)

9 Understood and appreciated.

Posted by: Drew at January 08, 2006 11:38 PM (oxMjD)

10 This is just manufactured outrage. It's an artifact of their coding scheme and the nuances of how people will respond when asked about party identification, which of course is not 1:1 with what they do in the voting booth.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 11, 2006 11:47 AM (CG5Pe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment