The Noble Nagourney, the chief poll analyst of the NYT - and by "poll analyst" I mean the guy who wedges polls results into the established BushCo and Kerry narratives - has churned out another numbing story in which he speculates what the latest polling means.
Here's the bottom line: The polls show conclusively that Kerry is unable to break out despite BushCo's lousy performance in every area except terrorism. Nagourney writes: (emph mine)
Whatever problems Mr. Bush might be experiencing as he comes to the end of his first term, his position continues to be bolstered by concern about terrorism. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they had a lot or some confidence that Mr. Bush would make the right decisions to prevent another terrorist attack - compared with 62 percent who said they felt that way about Mr. Kerry.
Hang on, that's only a six point difference. And although I can't find a link to prove it, the gap is definitely narrowing, something Nagourney doesn't acknowledge until seventeen paragraphs later and even then weakly. Here's what Time says about their poll's similar results on the terrorism question:
Bush's leadership in the fight against terrorism has been a key centerpiece of the President's reelection campaign. Yet Bush does not appear to be getting much mileage from the terrorism issue at this point. As reported above, Bush has only a small edge over Kerry in handling of terrorism—in spite of the Bush campaign pounding on Kerry for being wishy-washy and not supporting spending for anti-terrorism and defense.
[snip]
Another indicator of the difficulty Bush is having in focusing on terrorism is that only a little more than one in four voters (27%), agree that "having a President who is strong on terrorism is the only issue that matters in their vote." More than two-thirds (70%), disagree. The so-called "security moms" swing vote bolstering Republicans among traditionally Democratic-voting females does not appear to have materialized.
So the mythical Security Mom doesn't exist. Terrorism isn't the biggest issue voters face. BushCo is losing his grip on the King of Terror crown. And ironically, that may be because instead of going positive and telling us what he's done to keep us safe, his campaign has chosen to hammer Kerry for being weak, an idea that is losing it's sway.
But here's Nagourney's take: (emph mine)
Mr. Bush, in a speech in New Jersey on Monday, assailed Mr. Kerry's credentials for fighting terrorism, and released a new television advertisement hitting the same theme. The poll findings were highly unusual in that many measures used by pollsters to determine the strength of an incumbent - from job approval to the percentage of Americans who believe the country is heading in the wrong direction (59 percent) - would normally signal trouble for an incumbent.
In addition, voters seem to be listening to many of Mr. Kerry's arguments; 59 percent, for example, said they thought that Mr. Bush's policies favored corporate interests.
What's he talking about? Nagourney is forgetting that poll results aren't election results. C'mon, Adam, you can say it - BushCo is in trouble. But instead he runs to Matthew Dowd for analysis, which predictably beats up on Kerry as unable to get his message out. Always a good way to rack up the Ketchum Points!
And there's this head-scratcher:
Mr. Bush is now perceived less favorably than he was earlier this month, which is probably a reflection of the fact that he has fiercely attacked Mr. Kerry recently, erasing an advantage he had had over Mr. Kerry. Typically, candidates who go on the attack pay a price in seeing their own negative ratings rise.
Or...maybe BushCo's slip could have something to do with Kerry getting his message out. But that would upset Nagourney's idea that Kerry isn't the master of his fate, whereas BushCo is. And so we also get this analysis:
The poll underlined the extent to which Mr. Bush has succeeded in raising doubts about Mr. Kerry. In addition to the perception of Mr. Kerry as a liberal, 60 percent said that he told people what he thought they wanted to hear, rather than what he believed. By contrast, 59 percent said Mr. Bush said what he believed, one of the biggest differences Mr. Bush has sought to draw with his opponent.
And there's more! Here's the backhanded acknowledgement that the terror gap in narrowing:
The poll and follow-up interviews signaled the extent to which Mr. Bush's candidacy rested on his terrorism record, even though Mr. Kerry has improved his credentials on the issue.
Because....? BushCo's numbers on every other issue are in the tank. And that matters why? Thanks to Time we know that terrorism is only one of the top three most important issues to voters. (Healthcare and the economy are usually the other two.) See where we're going here? Nagourney must have because he doesn't provide us any context or connect any dots to make that point clear. Instead we're back to Matthew Dowd - and here I was thinking that Nagourney the Noble had sworn off spin. I guess Dowd's spin is too good to pass up:
Mr. Bush's job approval rating of 44 percent is slightly higher than the 37 percent job approval rating his father had before losing in 1992 to Bill Clinton. Mr. Dowd said he was not concerned by the figure, disputing the finding and pointing to a poll by the Gallup Organization.
"If it were true, it would be a problem," he said. "Gallup has our job approval at 51. They're the ones I pay attention to."
And why Gallup? Nagourney doesn't bother to ask as he politely ignores the put-down. But if you want to find out, you know, for laughs, then read Steve Soto:
Yet after looking closely at the demographic breakdown of the sample that Gallup used to reach their conclusions, it becomes clear that Gallup has become the in-house pollster for Karl Rove and the GOP’s view of how the American voting populace should look. Why?
Because according to Gallup’s poll this week, they expect the electorate to be 85% white, 41% conservative while only 19% liberal, and a third to make over $75,000 per year.
Well, of course an electorate of that composition would vote for Bush by 8% over Kerry. But is that the electorate we’ll see this year? And does Gallup really believe that only 15% of those who go to the polls this year will be nonwhites, or are they privy to some inside information from the GOP about minority voter suppression that the rest of us don’t have?
I don't know why Gallup skews its samples like it does, but I'm sure that Rove isn't sharing his voter suprression plans with them. Those are top secret and largely ignored. It would take investigation and a willingnes to lose powerful friends to dig into that story. It's more fun to play with poll numbers and talk spin with top campaign aides. Or at least that seems to be true for our noble Mr. Nagourney.
Comments