10/16/2004 02:05:54 PM|||Nathan Moore|||

The biggest lead comes from likely voters in the Newsweek poll. But look here at MSNBC's lead

With just 17 days remaining in the race to the White House, President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry remain locked in a dead heat, according to the NEWSWEEK poll, taken after Wednesday’s final debate in Arizona. In a three-way race with Independent candidate Ralph Nader, 48 percent of all voters say they would reelect Bush while 46 percent prefer Kerry.

You have to get to the third paragraph to get the results from the more relevant likely voter poll, showing Bush up by 6 points, a statistically significant margin.

If there isn't some modicum of bias in this article, then why is the more relevant result buried under a lead of dubious relevance? Aren't voters more likely to vote more accurate in determining election results than polling all those who are registered, a large proportion of which will not vote? Registering is ridiculously easy nowadays - I'm not sure such polls should even be conducted and considered newsworthy.

The entire story is a mishmash of information. You can't tell what samples are being discussed. Right after discussing the likely voter number, the next sentence is about a poll of first time voters, a plug for Kerry, which, by their very nature, cannot be likely voters. Then a myriad of numbers are discussed, though there is no way we can tell where they come from.

This is a major news network's website, and these are the best writers they can get? Disappointing.

UPDATE Power Line beat me to the punch - great minds think alike.

|||109795399500282612|||Further Info