{"id":46749,"date":"2014-08-28T08:00:12","date_gmt":"2014-08-28T13:00:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=46749"},"modified":"2014-10-19T16:19:49","modified_gmt":"2014-10-19T21:19:49","slug":"water-to-be-carried","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=46749","title":{"rendered":"MPR: Everything Is Juuuuust Fine"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mark Twain once observed that there are three types of media “fact-check” efforts:\u00a0 Democrat PR puff-pieces, Bald-Faced Democrat PR puff-pieces, and legit ones.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A good fact-checker will note that Twain said no such thing.\u00a0 My first paragraph was really a bit of hyperbole.<\/p>\n

As such, it wasn’t intended to be a “factual” statement, per se, as one intended to express a subjective opinion and win people over to my side of an argument (or at least mock those who oppose me).\u00a0 It’s a form of rhetoric; using language to try to persuade and convince.\u00a0<\/p>\n

So while it’s not strictly “factual”, it is <\/em>two things:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. It\u00a0makes what I believe to be a legitimate point; from the smugly left-centric “Politifact” all the way down to most local efforts, the “Fact-Check” industry is for the most part intended to aid Democrats.\u00a0 My statement isn’t intended to be a “fact” so much as a rhetorical device to open my case to the reader.\u00a0<\/li>\n
  2. It sets off my personal opinion (based on years of reading and studying media fact-check organizations) that they are in the bag for Big Left.\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Hyperbole is but one tool the rhetorician uses to state his case.<\/p>\n

    OK.\u00a0 I have a question:\u00a0 Of the three choices I gave in the first graf, what is the latest edition of MPR’s “Poligraph” – a DFL PR Effort, a Bald-Faced PR effort, or legit?\u00a0<\/p>\n

    Read reporter Catherine Richert’s latest effort<\/a>, and you be the judge.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    Richert:<\/p>\n

    Mark Twain once said that \u201cthere are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    D’oh!<\/p>\n

    \u00a0That quote applies to a recent statement made by Republican gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson, who says two polls show he is within striking distance of Gov. Mark Dayton.<\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u201cMark Dayton is in trouble,\u201d reads the headline of a recent Johnson press release. \u201cThese polls confirm that Mark Dayton is in trouble, and that I am in a great position with the general election campaign just underway.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    So here are the facts.\u00a0 As we discussed over the past week or so, a variety of polls show the Minnesota governor’s race as being some degree of close or another:\u00a0 Rasmusson says 8 points; KSTP has the race at\u00a09 points.\u00a0 Both show Dayton in the high forties, Johnson in the low forties.\u00a0<\/p>\n

    For what they’re worth – and polls before Labor Day are of dubioius value – any of them are closer than Tom Emmer was at this point four years ago.\u00a0<\/p>\n

    Richert says “But wait!”:<\/p>\n

    Dayton is in better shape than Johnson lets on.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Is it just me, or does that sound just a little cheerleader-y?\u00a0\u00a0 Or at least like a bit of editorial commentary designed to reassure MPR’s relentlessly liberal audience?\u00a0<\/p>\n

    What’s In A Poll?: <\/strong>Yes, it does.\u00a0<\/p>\n

    Dayton has near-100% name recognition; Johnson’s is much, much lower – he just got out of the primaries, for crying out loud – and that will increase over the next few weeks.\u00a0 That’ll raise Johnson’s number, inevitably.<\/p>\n

    SurveyUSA (the KSTP pollsers) polled 600 “likely voters” – but their sample included 37% Democrats, 30% Republicans and 25% “independents”.\u00a0 Is this an accurate sample?\u00a0 It looks like SUSA is re-using 2012 turnout numbers.\u00a0 This is not going to be 2012, <\/em>as KSTP\/SUSA also notes<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    I didn’t see crosstabs for the Rasmussen poll, but I strongly suspect their poll of 750 “likely voters”, but I’m going to guess they also lean heavily on 2012 turnout (and I’ll find out shortly).\u00a0<\/p>\n

    Note:\u00a0 I don’t know <\/em>the turnout model that’s being used; I’m inferring.\u00a0 Is Richert?<\/p>\n

    Judgment:\u00a0 Richert took two polls, with little in the way of context (although we’ll return to this below) and nothing in the way of meaningful\u00a0crosstab, historical\u00a0or turnout information, and plopped them in front of the reader\/listener with an assurance that Dayton is juuuuuust fine:<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

    I give this a rating of “Cherry-picked”;<\/p>\n

    What’s In A Name?:\u00a0 <\/strong>To be fair, Richert did give the reader\/listener some <\/em>context.\u00a0<\/p>\n

    KSTP\u00a0went to Larry Jacobs<\/a>, who did something Richert didn’t; put the numbers into historical context:<\/p>\n

    Although Dayton has a significant lead, University of Minnesota political analyst Larry Jacobs puts the lead in historical context.<\/p>\n

    “That lead is probably going to dwindle,” Jacobs says. “That is pretty common as voters learn more about the challenger.”<\/p>\n

    Jacobs says most voters have already formed opinions about the incumbent after four years and if they’re undecided now, they’re more likely to vote for the challenger.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    \u00a0KSTP quoted their expert (who, to be fair, has also had his issues with polling<\/a>).\u00a0 Richert quotes hers:<\/p>\n

    But pollster Rob Daves says Dayton\u2019s lead is a solid one because Dayton is leading in most demographic groups. And according to the KSTP\/Survey USA, Dayton has a lead in critical parts of the state, including the vote-rich Twin Cities area.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    [scraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatch]<\/em><\/p>\n

    <\/em>Rob Daves?<\/p>\n

    ROB DAVES?<\/p>\n

    MPR is using Rob Freaking<\/em> Daves as their polling expert?\u00a0\u00a0 The same Rob Daves that singlehandledly turned the Strib “Minnesota” Poll from a modestly-accurate media poll into one of the most risible major-media polling operations in the country<\/a>?\u00a0 A poll where, consistently, the\u00a0closer the race, the more pronounced the underrepresentation of Republicans<\/a>? \u00a0 A polling operation that continuously delivered election-eve polls that under-represented Republicans<\/a> and over-counted Democrats in an effort that is a textbook bit of evidence for the “Bandwagon Effect<\/a>?”<\/p>\n

    And what blazing\u00a0insight did Daves give us?\u00a0 Dayton is doing well in the Metro?\u00a0<\/p>\n

    We’ll notify the media.<\/p>\n

    (And if we assume the polls are weighted properly, the “vote-rich Twin Cities” aren’t a factor, since the polls purport to be snapshots of the entire state, which should\u00a0<\/em>make regional variations irrelevant anyway. \u00a0 Of course, as I noted above, I do not assume the polls are weighted properly – indeed, I suspect that the weighting of the KSTP poll favors the “vote-rich” metro).\u00a0<\/p>\n

    Judgment:\u00a0 This borders on “Praetorian Guard” – a claim that furthers the perception that a news organization is actively serving as an organ of a political party…:<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

    \u00a0I’ll stick with a rating of “Huh?”.\u00a0 I mean – Rob Daves?\u00a0<\/p>\n

    ROB FREAKING<\/em> DAVES? <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Much Ado<\/strong>:\u00a0 Let’s also remember; it was a press release.\u00a0<\/p>\n

    In which the Johnson campaign correctly <\/em>noted that :<\/p>\n