"Good Morning America" on Wednesday reported on a new Quinnipiac poll that highlighted leads for Barack Obama in Florida and Ohio, but completely skipped the network's own national poll that found a tight race. A September 30 ABC News/Washington Post survey concluded that Obama leads Senator McCain by four points -- 50 to 46 percent. In contrast, GMA last week trumpeted an ABC News/Washington Post poll that showed Obama with a nine point lead.
On September 24, former Democratic aide-turned journalist George Stephanopoulos touted the larger lead and asserted, "...You have to go back to 1948 for the last time when a candidate having this kind of a lead, in late September, lost." He mentioned that on the issue of the economy, the Illinois senator is "blowing away John McCain." An onscreen graphic proclaimed, "Obama Surges Ahead." But, just a week later, GMA not only ignored findings suggesting a closer national race, the morning show highlighted a rival poll's state numbers.
(The Washington Post also reflected the skew. Last Wednesday, the top of the front page headline screamed: “Economic Fears Give Obama Clear Lead Over McCain in Poll.” But this Wednesday, while still on the front page, the poll article did not hint at the nine-point gap closing to four, “Most Voters Worry About Economy: Majority Consider Situation a Crisis.”)
In the 8am hour on Wednesday, news anchor Chris Cuomo explained, "Barack Obama is actually widening his lead now in the key battleground states. A new Quinnipiac poll shows Obama leading John McCain by eight points in Florida and leading by eight points in Ohio, as well." Less than an hour earlier, at 7:11am, co-host Robin Roberts played up the state numbers: "A new poll out this morning has Barack Obama leading John McCain by eight points in Florida, eight in Ohio, and 15 points in Pennsylvania."
The MRC's Rich Noyes reported in a September 26 NewsBusters posting that the earlier ABC poll had come under fire for an oddly weighted sample. Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 16 points in the survey, a larger than usual amount.
A transcript of the September 24 segment, which aired at 7:02am and featured the larger poll lead, follows:
7am tease
DIANE SAWYER: Breaking news this morning, Barack Obama gains ground in a new ABC News poll. A nine point lead over John McCain. And Sarah Palin, who came to New York for meetings with foreign leaders. Your new views on her. They've shifted too.
7:01am
ROBIN ROBERTS: Also, the new ABC News/Washington Post poll, found that voters believe that Barack Obama has a better handle on their economic concerns and there are also new numbers on the Palin factor, now that the public has gotten to know John McCain's running mate a little bit better. George Stephanopoulos will break it all down for us in just moments.
7:02am
SAWYER: But let's get right to the news this morning. It is our brand-new, ABC News/Washington Post poll. And here's a benchmark: Two weeks ago, Senator McCain led by two points. Now, Senator Obama leads by nine points. 52 percent to 43 percent. And, as we said, to break it down for us with the bottom line, ABC's chief Washington correspondent, host of "This Week," George Stephanopoulos. Good morning, George.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Hi, Diane.
DIANE SAWYER: All right. Take us through it. Is this shift just the economic upheaval? Is it something personal with the candidates?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Boy, it is all about the economy, Diane. People are angry and shocked and worried about the economy. And that is all helping Barack Obama right now. Go back to our poll a couple of weeks ago. On the trust to handle the economy, Obama had about a five-point lead. Now, it's up to a 14-point lead for Obama on trust to handle the economy. And then when you ask this question, who understand our economic problems better? Barack Obama is blowing away John McCain on that point. They say he gets it. It's a 24-point lead. All of this is fueling the first time that Barack Obama is above 50 percent. And, Diane, you have to go back to 1948 for the last time when a candidate having this kind of a lead, in late September, lost.
SAWYER: Hmm. 1948. Let me zero in, then, on a couple of the most talked about groups of voters. And one of the most changeable groups. White women. Tell us what we're seeing now. And the Hillary Clinton voters, particularly.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Boy, we are really seeing something here. I don't want anybody to get this wrong, but white women are the swingers of 2008. You know, two weeks ago, we saw that John McCain had opened up an 11-point lead over Barack Obama on white women. Now, it's down to a two-point lead for Obama. They've come, again, on concerns of the economy. Now, with Hillary Clinton voters, Barack Obama is still having a bit of a tough time. He's only getting about 77 percent of the Hillary Clinton voters. But he's doing far better with Democrats overall, getting 88 percent of Democrats.
SAWYER: All right. A couple of footnote issues here. Age. What did our polls show about age as a factor?
STEPHANOPOULOS: More and more people worried about age. 48 percent of voters say they see that age is an issue. And if you think age is an issue, those 48 percent of voters, they break heavily for Barack Obama by 30 points. We also looked at Sarah Palin. You know, we know there was a big Sarah Palin effect coming out of the Republican convention. She has high favorable rates. She's coming back down to earth a little bit. Her favorable rating has gone from 58 on September 7th, now 52 percent now [sic]. So a little bit of a deflation there.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Polls
October 1, 2008 - 12:04 ET by merlin61The reason the polls show McCain is behind, is
because he suspended his campaign to attend to
the business of the United States. Obama
stayed on the campaign trail, and did not go to
Washington till the last minute. I believe the
polls will pick up dramatically, once they vote
on the "rescue" plan. Also, the debate is tomorrow
night w/Palin and Biden. If Gwen Ifill is fair,
there should be a big boost for McCain/Palin.
That is, of course, if Ms. Ifill is fair. That's my
big concern. Too bad McCain didn't know about
her book coming out in favor of Obama.
Potato chips are to blame
October 1, 2008 - 21:50 ET by wdhorningIn 2004, Bush was way down in the polls and Kerry was sure to win by a landslide. I suspect the same thing will happen this election, because those that vote Republican are too busy to answer the phone when pollers call, while lazy Democrats are sitting by their phones, watching TV, and getting fat on potatos chips.
Even Clintion is More Objective than Stephanopolus
October 1, 2008 - 12:08 ET by allanfEven Bill Clinton is more objective than Stephanopolus.
We are watching the death of the old media institutions. The deliberate lying and obfuscation for political purposes will someday come back to bite these people.
You got that right, allanf
October 1, 2008 - 12:35 ET by easygoerFrom today's Wall Street Journal:
In BusinessWeek.com, Maria Bartiromo reports
that she asked the former President last week whether he regretted
signing that legislation. Mr. Clinton's reply: "No, because it wasn't a
complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and
insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for
disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable
investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly
profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter.
"But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that
signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed,
one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as
much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America,
which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that
bill."
Ms. Bartiromo asked Mr. Clinton if he felt Mr. Gramm had sold him "a bill of goods"?
Mr. Clinton: "Not on this bill I don't think he did. You know, Phil
Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be
wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if
you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look
at the evidence.
"But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they
forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of
banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it
possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking
business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that
it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment."
The editorial is here:
http://online.wsj.co...
But it may be too late in coming
October 1, 2008 - 13:25 ET by Tom PaineThe old media may be dying, but I fear they are going to take us down with them. Look at what they have invested in getting Barry elected. They are determined to get him across the finish line even if they have to drag him. While the informed NB subscribers can see through the MSM smokescreen, I worry about people who only get their information from the network news. I mean, look at the number of people who are convinced that the Fannie Mae meltdown is the fault of the Bush Administration. It would be a fairly easy matter to convince then that Barry is a shoo in by running these juiced polls.
I do NOT need Stephan opo louis to "break it down" for me
October 1, 2008 - 12:10 ET by JayTeeBlowing away McCain by the MSM's obvious Bias is what is going on.
The first ones now will later be LAST . . .comes to mind.
Why doesn't Stephan "announce" BHO the winner in the Next 3 Debates ? Why hold back Opoluis?
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
tampered polls?
October 1, 2008 - 12:13 ET by Old EuropeDoes anybody ever question the authenticity of these polls? Apart from the fact that the ABC poll was weighted towards Democrats heavily, who could ever check that the pollsters registers the correct answer they have been given? If they get "McCain" as answer and they tick "Obama" instead, who on earth could ever come across this fraud? The DNC media will stop at nothing to win this election. So why would we believe them? Not to mention the fact that many Republicans lie to the pollsters to piss them off. Hey, wouldn't it be a hoot when the msm get it all wrong on election day and are awoken rudely?
Thats my concern
October 1, 2008 - 12:27 ET by play21cwI too believe that not even these polls are accurate. Due to the huge problem in properly polling different demographics and the moods of people on a certain day, and WHO they are getting their information from, I have to say that these polls are simply tools of the media to further their agenda and make people think that BHO will win and there is no point in voting for McCain.
They talk about trends and how hard it is for a candidate to come back a month before the election.. well dont believe it trends can be used in forecasting the market, but in a presidental election, a trend is nothing more than a term the media uses to -- you guessed it, further their agenda. There are too many variables to consider, so i think these polls really dont tell the whole story.
But have faith, these polls dont determine who becomes president, so when McCain wins on election day, hopefully, the American people will see what the MSM tried to do and discredit them completely.
One thing to keep in mind, if you want the MSM to stop trying to pull for one candidate then we must boycott them all, do not watch, and once advertisers realize that they arent getting as much exposure they will pull the networks funding and they will topple like dominos. That is the only way they will begin to report unbias news.
Exactly. Look at the media
October 1, 2008 - 12:34 ET by SmartypantsExactly. Look at the media contradicting itself. McCain actually had a lead in most polls as recently as a week or so ago. He's lost a lot of ground in a week for a couple of specific reasons, and the media is essentially saying he can't come back. Huh? If McCain can go from leading to losing in a week, doesn't it make sense that he can turn it around in a month? Isn't it possible the polls can continue to ebb and flow as they have done so far to date? The media sees everything from such a limited perspective that it is ridiculous. Rest assured, if McCain had the current lead that Obama is showing in the polls, the media would be harping on what Obama has to do to catch up before the election. Now we get stories that it is over.
Whether the polls are
October 1, 2008 - 12:38 ET by bigtimerWhether the polls are accurate or not, I put the blame squarely on McCain, he keeps going against the conservatives, tries to get all the dems to love him...what does he think is going to happen?
This bail-out bill is another prime example, and if he votes for this that has grown to over 450 pages, crammed with pork now, the very thing he says he goes against....he is going to lose more voters...trust me.
I am calling his office today to speak my mind.
I tire of listening to his BS anymore...I wished he would get a clue.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
I see where you are coming
October 1, 2008 - 13:05 ET by play21cwI see where you are coming from, but remember this, he may be upsetting some Republicans, but on election day can any honest republican vote for BHO? No matter how much he ticks people off right now, it wont be nearly as much if Obomb gets into office.
High Obama numbers could help McCain
October 1, 2008 - 13:10 ET by sweetbeatriceIf it looks like Obama has a sizeable lead, many Democrats might decide that he can win without their trips to the voting booths. High Obama numbers might also light a fire under Republicans who might otherwise have stayed home on Election Day.
they can reference polls all they want ...
October 1, 2008 - 13:19 ET by pmohbuckpeople still have to go to the voting booth to actually vote ... i look at 04 when it seemed like kerry was a lock (dems banking on no WMD, "hijacked" 200 election, etc) and he was spanked soundly.
has anyone ever stood in line at a quizno's and seen a new sandwich being advertised and you convince yourself that you're going to give it a try ... then, when it's your turn to order, you order the same old ham and cheese you've ordered every other time you've eaten there?
to me, it would take a complete idiot to NOT give the democrats a majority of the credit for the economy ... the proponents and signees of the bills that contributed to the mess we are currently in is a virtual "who's who" of the democrat party. i'm betting that the majority of people who ACTUALLY vote (not those answering polls, running their mouths or pasting bumper stickers on their cars) are not going to be so hasty come election day ... they'll weed through the media spin ... polls do nothing but breed more ignorance.
mccain is my ham and cheese (i saw the add for the obama sandwich ... it had the wrong ingredients and looked as if it would guarantee digestive problems)
Very nice take, i agree.
October 1, 2008 - 13:28 ET by play21cwVery nice take, i agree. Polls breed ignorance.
The idea that someone "has
October 1, 2008 - 13:21 ET by mattmThe idea that someone "has a lead" is a misnomer. No one had a lead (unless some absentee votes have been cast.)
Polls might indicate what could happen in the election, but since no votes have been cast or counted yet, to report that someone 'has a lead" is more typical journalistic malpractice.
WOW
October 1, 2008 - 15:04 ET by tremwebjunkGasp! A tv news show went with something Sensational (in a literal sense) that they could make a big deal out of (you have to go back to 1948) as opposed to less fantastic (again, literally) "these numbers haven't been seen... since the last time we took a poll!". They do polls daily, but they only trumpet them when they can jump up and down and make a shiny graphic for it.
Seriously, there is enough to complain about without getting p.o.'d at nonsense
I have to disagree with
October 1, 2008 - 15:24 ET by mattmI have to disagree with your conclusion. I don't believe anyone here is surprised, but there is every reason to be irked by this.
This is not simply a matter of selective reporting of a poll they like, it is a deliberate attempt to portray a particular image with the intent of swaying public opinion about an election.
This is not journalism, it's propaganda posing as journalism. It's routine, typical and not surprising in the least, but it's still infuriating - to people who believe journalism should be objective, that is.
I absolutely agree with
October 1, 2008 - 15:33 ET by tremwebjunkI absolutely agree with you. The media shouldn't take the campaign spin and read it like it were the truth. This goes for dems and Obama, but also for McCain. He says "I'm a Maverick", so they say "he's a maverick!". He puls a list of times he bucked republican leadership, because that "proves" hes a different. They never question the narrative.
And as much as he deserves respect for his time as a POW, being locked in a cage and tortued doesn't make you a good president, but he thinks it does. The media never questioned this logic, imagine how this website and others would explode if someone said that outloud!
I'm not saying the media
October 1, 2008 - 16:33 ET by mattmI'm not saying the media are reporting campaign spin as news, I am saying they are selecting bits of facts, factoids and even false information or dubious information (like polls) and reporting it as if it were real news; all for the purpose of swaying public opinion in favor of Obama.
This is what I have labeled "push reporting" i.e. report what you want the facts to be in order to get the public to believe that is what the facts are. They have been doing this since JFK v. Nixon, and probably before.
BTW- No one is saying that "being locked in a cage makes you a good president" - that's a Democrat spin on the issue. The point of bringing up that incident is to focus on the lessons he learned about love of country and service to it.
If Obama had something to show he loves America, I'm sure he'd bring it up.
Patriotism
October 1, 2008 - 18:28 ET by easygoerThat's just it. This country has been very good to Obama. So good, in fact, that he is on the cusp of possibly being elected its president. Yet he has nothing show to he loves America. And his wife, who has also prospered in this country, has actually shown contempt towards it.
McCain's a patriot. Obama, not so much.
When Obama was giving his closing remarks during the debate he waxed nostalgic about the time before his father came to this country. He went on about how we were respected the world over in those days.
Well, I don't know if you saw this but James Taranto in his daily WSJ Best of the Web Today column completely eviscerates his argument:
One thing that bothered us, though, was Obama's closing statement:
Barack Obama may be the world's leading expert on Barack Obama, but
he managed to misstate a crucial fact in his father's life story. Obama
père came to the U.S. in September 1959, the Washington Post
reported in March--which would mean that the letter-writing campaign
Obama fils describes would have taken place in the 1950s, not the 1960s.
Why is this important? Because it is weird to hear a left-liberal
politician wax nostalgic for the "moral authority" the U.S. supposedly
enjoyed in the 1950s--before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, the War on Poverty, America's defeat in the
Vietnam War, women's liberation, gay liberation, Roe v. Wade, Nixon's resignation--all the liberal triumphs of the 1960s and '70s. It is conservatives who usually argue, rightly or not, that the era since the 1950s has been one of moral decay.
Presumably it was to divert attention from this contradiction that
Obama misstated the decade in which his father attempted to come to
America. Liberals, at least those who weren't there, remember the 1960s
fondly. But however one evaluates the legacy of the 1960s and early
'70s, is there really any substance to Obama's claim that "our standing
in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United
States," has deteriorated? (Obama's father, by the way, was a "child"
of 22 or 23 when he arrived in the U.S.)
Our sense is that there is not, that Obama is painting a rosy
picture of the past in order to disparage contemporary America. It's
nothing more than feel-bad rhetoric.
In fact, we'd say the most salient contrast between America in 2008
and America in 1959 is this: In 2008, Obama fils has an excellent
chance of becoming the next president. In 1959, there were large
portions of the country where Obama père would have been treated as a
second-class citizen. Obama père seems to have seen past America's
imperfections and focused on its greatness. If Obama fils is to be the
next president, one hopes he will learn to do the same thing.
Here's the complete column:
http://online.wsj.co...
Rose-colored glasses for
October 1, 2008 - 18:41 ET by CortillaenRose-colored glasses for the past, smoked glasses for the present, and the pair for the future depends on which candidate wins the race. Here we all thought glasses were supposed to help one see clearly, hah!
www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
These POLL numbers are AWESOME
October 1, 2008 - 15:33 ET by LionKingThank you MSM!!!
Keep propping these false poll numbers for Obama. Liberals, being a lazy breed, will trust that with such a huge lead, they will not have to bother to vote. On the other hand, conservatives and Republicans will become even more motivated.
Zogby, noted liberal, even suspects that McCain will actually win by a landslide.
one for the team
October 1, 2008 - 16:58 ET by tonemeisterit's possible that this jack-a$$ (obama) may get elected.i'm afraid that people have forgotten what a disaster jimmy carter was .this my be our "jimmy reminder".he's going to make bush look like abraham lincoln. then there won't be more naive notions of camelot
15 point lead in PA? Sorry,
October 1, 2008 - 21:44 ET by ckc122715 point lead in PA? Sorry, not buying it. Obama may have the lead, but not that much. Still, McCain better get his ass in gear. Clearly a lot of fools are bound and determined to put Obama in the White House, and if something doesn't change, we're all screwed. The fools are just too stupid to know it.