How does the R-J pollster rate ...
Since election night, the Reid-friendly press in Nevada have been dancing around the bonfire with their shirts off screaming for the head of the R-J's pollster, who had Reid down by four with one week to go. He won by almost 6.
Here's the New York Times' ranking of the accuracy of national polling firms. Halfway down the link you will see a chart. The R-J pollster, Mason Dixon, is in the middle of the pack. It is also the only firm rated as having a pro-Democrat bias.
Don't expect it to quell the party going on over at the Reid Media Central echo chamber. But that's not point.
We're the big boys on the block. We're used to ankle-biters like the Jon "I-AM-A-GENIUS!" Ralston & crew who try to elevate themselves by taunting No. 1. This is for serious people looking for the straight story.
Editor Tom Mitchell will be writing more on this in Sunday's R-J. I'll be explaining more about how the good-old-boy empire struck back to save Reid, but lost the war down-ballot. Inside the R-J, you will find a Reid-centric thing called the Sun. Inside the Sun you will find Ralston's "itsallaboutme" account of how Reid won the war. If you can find a disclosure in the column explaining Ralston's spectacular conflict in analyzing said campaign, let me know and I'll give you a sucker.
This entry was posted on Friday, Nov. 05, 2010 at 05:17 PM
and is filed under The Complete Las Vegan.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response.
33
Responses
to "How does the R-J pollster rate ..."
Haha you have to love Mr. Frederick scrambling to defend his honor all over this blog and in the comments.
You can tell us, my friend: You're a conservative. You toe the party linee on your blog. And you'll say anything to defame your competition.
We all already know. We read your blog every day. We just want you to say so instead of crying piety and objectivity.
Endor
You can tell us, my friend: You're a conservative. You toe the party linee on your blog. And you'll say anything to defame your competition.
We all already know. We read your blog every day. We just want you to say so instead of crying piety and objectivity.
Endor
Put your shirt on.
Hey Capt'n - think the Holder justice department will start an investigation or is there nothing here?
Harry Reid is a punk
Harry Reid is a punk
You have to love Mr. Frederick scrambling to convince anyone who will listen that he and his paper are nonpartisan and objective.
We all read your blog every day, sir. We already know which way you "lean".
You can't just pretend all your campaigning for Angle and fear-mongering against Reid-Ralston didn't happen. Well, you can, but you look like a fool.
Also: fine hair-splitting in the other post. Obviously, Murdoch won't suspend himself, but that doesn't change the fact that Fox News and Co. gave ONE MILLION DOLLARS to Republicans exclusively.
An entire News Corporation. That's called being "partisan".
You know, the news organization that gives you most of your talking points and vocabulary.
Unless you were acknowledging that Fox News has no journalistic ethics while NBC still does? In which case, we may have some ground for agreement.
Also: endorsing Democrats who have no opponent (or no worthwhile opponent) while damning them with faint praise hardly qualifies as "objective".
We all read your blog every day, sir. We already know which way you "lean".
You can't just pretend all your campaigning for Angle and fear-mongering against Reid-Ralston didn't happen. Well, you can, but you look like a fool.
Also: fine hair-splitting in the other post. Obviously, Murdoch won't suspend himself, but that doesn't change the fact that Fox News and Co. gave ONE MILLION DOLLARS to Republicans exclusively.
An entire News Corporation. That's called being "partisan".
You know, the news organization that gives you most of your talking points and vocabulary.
Unless you were acknowledging that Fox News has no journalistic ethics while NBC still does? In which case, we may have some ground for agreement.
Also: endorsing Democrats who have no opponent (or no worthwhile opponent) while damning them with faint praise hardly qualifies as "objective".
I don't really care, dave... I'm more concerned about Mr. Frederick's campaigning as a newspaper publisher then Harry Reid, who, yes, is probably as corrupt as every other politician in history
What a shock
Glad to know it gets to you, Sherm... It should
Fox News, Mr. Frederick's news source: $1 million in Republican pockets
While he pleads objectivity
Campaign onward, Christian Soldier!
What a shock
Glad to know it gets to you, Sherm... It should
Fox News, Mr. Frederick's news source: $1 million in Republican pockets
While he pleads objectivity
Campaign onward, Christian Soldier!
Am I really blocked? Censorship, baby.
Hoooold on a minute; is Sherm quoting a story by the "liberal elite" over at the New York Times favorably? Hypocrisy they name is Sherm.
Never mind - I won't accuse you of things you haven't done, Mr. Frederick
*wink*
Probably will grow weary of fighting the storm of partisanship, at least for a while, after the election
But I can rest assured that media watchdogs - ever heard of Poynter, Mr. Frederick? Neither had I, but they seem more legit than anyone else - will keep an eye on the hackery
Until next time! Although I'm sure it won't be long
*wink*
Probably will grow weary of fighting the storm of partisanship, at least for a while, after the election
But I can rest assured that media watchdogs - ever heard of Poynter, Mr. Frederick? Neither had I, but they seem more legit than anyone else - will keep an eye on the hackery
Until next time! Although I'm sure it won't be long
Also: endorsing Democrats with no opponent or no opponent who can win while damning them with faint praise hardly qualififes as objectivity...
Good night!
Good night!
Also, what's Ralston's conflict again? He has sources?
I mean, is there more conflict than your boss being a insurance and investment banking tycoon worth billions?
More conflict than lifting headlines from Fox News, which donated $1 million to Republicans?
More conflict than spending the last month of the campaign practically begging people to vote against Harry Reid and for Sharron Angle?
Please and thank you
Guess I'll have to stick around, if you're gonna keep hacking
I mean, is there more conflict than your boss being a insurance and investment banking tycoon worth billions?
More conflict than lifting headlines from Fox News, which donated $1 million to Republicans?
More conflict than spending the last month of the campaign practically begging people to vote against Harry Reid and for Sharron Angle?
Please and thank you
Guess I'll have to stick around, if you're gonna keep hacking
I like how Mr. Frederick and Mr. Mitchell say "Read our opinionated columns to find out how we spin this in our favor."
Shermie:
If Mason-Dixon only screwed up by an average of 4.6 points, as Nate Silver says, why then were they twice as inaccurate in the Nevada polls you paid for? Did you lowball them on the price? Dictate the questions? Or were you just extremely unlucky for the second election in a row? Instead of spitting sour grapes at the guy who actually called the election right, maybe you could give your readers a cogent explanation for this embarrassment.
If Mason-Dixon only screwed up by an average of 4.6 points, as Nate Silver says, why then were they twice as inaccurate in the Nevada polls you paid for? Did you lowball them on the price? Dictate the questions? Or were you just extremely unlucky for the second election in a row? Instead of spitting sour grapes at the guy who actually called the election right, maybe you could give your readers a cogent explanation for this embarrassment.
Sherm,
Your defensiveness always betrays you. You contiuously believe that if you CLAIM it, then the readers will BELIEVE it. It wasn't true of your shrilling and shirking about Reid, and it isn't true about your polling. You were wrong. It's not the end of the world. But the way you continue to deny it just makes you look silly. Just admit your bias and move on. The secret is out....
Your defensiveness always betrays you. You contiuously believe that if you CLAIM it, then the readers will BELIEVE it. It wasn't true of your shrilling and shirking about Reid, and it isn't true about your polling. You were wrong. It's not the end of the world. But the way you continue to deny it just makes you look silly. Just admit your bias and move on. The secret is out....
Come on Sherman.Man up and quit sniveling about the "Reid friendly press" in Nevada.You are the press here in this part of Nevada and you have done nothing but attack Reid for years.Now you are going to attack the biggest private sector employers in the state (the casinos)for helping their employees to get out and vote?You already hate all the public employees in the state.Who besides you and your buddies do you think should have a job and have a vote here?
The reaction when Mr. Frederick adopts his 'new' strategy of "Continue attacking the Sun and Ralston even though it was me and my paper and my polls that were wrong" in his Sunday column should be interesting...
Noticed a certain uptick in a certain kind of comment lately, Mr. Frederick?
I'm sure they're all plants
No one could be catching on...
Noticed a certain uptick in a certain kind of comment lately, Mr. Frederick?
I'm sure they're all plants
No one could be catching on...
And again, shermans posturing does nothing to change the basic, simple facts.
Stinks of desperation in here.
Stinks of desperation in here.
Hey Capn' Crunch-you need to take a breath, grab another wicked bong hit of your medical marijuana and chill out. The whole point of these blogs is to interact and banter back and forth-not rave on like a dope-smoking, maggot-infested, good-time, plastic-banana, fm-type, progressive goof. It's not life and death. We're talking dingey harry here.....
Do you feel better now, Larry?
Because you haven't contradicted a word I've said about Mr. Frederick's hypocrisy
Just made some bland and predictable assaults on me as a "liberal", whatever that means, you don't even know
I would love some reasonable discussion on here, but we have to start with the source
Because you haven't contradicted a word I've said about Mr. Frederick's hypocrisy
Just made some bland and predictable assaults on me as a "liberal", whatever that means, you don't even know
I would love some reasonable discussion on here, but we have to start with the source
Also, gotta love that you went into a rant to deliver your point... Easy now! Just a friendly jab, man
But, in principle, you're right: I've been way too over the top today, and I shouldn't direct my annoyance at you
I take your leave, sir
But, in principle, you're right: I've been way too over the top today, and I shouldn't direct my annoyance at you
I take your leave, sir
You're the "big boys on the block" who hired a self-described mediocre polling firm which failed in 2008, and yet you didn't think it wise to ask them to update/modify their methodologies?
So the "big boys on the block" aren't wise enough to recognize the difference between a pollster's national ranking and the actual job they're doing for YOU?
So the "big boys on the block" consistently and constantly reported a polling figure from a company which claimed Angle would be +4 on election day, when it was actually Reid, +6? You realize that's far, far outside of the margin of error, right?
Instead of taking responsibility for your poor reporting and holding your staff and pollsters accountable, you're quibbling with a reporter. Other commenters are correct: your defensiveness screams the truth, Sherm.
So the "big boys on the block" aren't wise enough to recognize the difference between a pollster's national ranking and the actual job they're doing for YOU?
So the "big boys on the block" consistently and constantly reported a polling figure from a company which claimed Angle would be +4 on election day, when it was actually Reid, +6? You realize that's far, far outside of the margin of error, right?
Instead of taking responsibility for your poor reporting and holding your staff and pollsters accountable, you're quibbling with a reporter. Other commenters are correct: your defensiveness screams the truth, Sherm.
Sherm,
Come on man.... your polling minions need a swift kick in the butt. Your points were off on a scale of about 10% which is outside of the margin of error and a direct indication of 'planned' bias.
Not that I don't expect a propagandist enterprise to tweek polling results... just not so obviously.
Can't wait to hear Mitchell's sad excuse for how badly you two failed your overlord emperor at Fox. His Evilness Rupert Murdoch.
Come on man.... your polling minions need a swift kick in the butt. Your points were off on a scale of about 10% which is outside of the margin of error and a direct indication of 'planned' bias.
Not that I don't expect a propagandist enterprise to tweek polling results... just not so obviously.
Can't wait to hear Mitchell's sad excuse for how badly you two failed your overlord emperor at Fox. His Evilness Rupert Murdoch.
Trouble with all this blogging is none of it admits to the polls outside the state, HR said it himself, all the public polls missed the mark. His internal polls contacted people who use cell phones exclusively along with people who use land lines. Public pollsters have resisted this as most cell phone plans still charge for incoming calls. This in itself was believed to sway opinions. More and more cell phone plans are billing in similar ways as land line plans, making polling these people simpler. In the future all pollsters should include cell phone only people in all polls.
Also, every time -- unless he coughs up some decisive proof -- Sherman Frederick says that Jon Ralston has a "conflict of interest" in covering Nevadan politics, he's lying
Unless he has the proof that Ralston is on Reid's payroll, which I would love to see... But, so far, Mr. Frederick hasn't presented any to us
He's just ranted and raved and slandered his competition... A lot
Not to mention, that claim is almost remarkable in its hypocrisy, but that's not really a surprise here... It's pretty par for the course as everyone seems to be figuring out
Unless he has the proof that Ralston is on Reid's payroll, which I would love to see... But, so far, Mr. Frederick hasn't presented any to us
He's just ranted and raved and slandered his competition... A lot
Not to mention, that claim is almost remarkable in its hypocrisy, but that's not really a surprise here... It's pretty par for the course as everyone seems to be figuring out
The way he blathers on, Captain Oblivious reminds me of little p patrick, aka little StevieA, and there was one other alias, that escapes me at the moment.
You were obnoxious as little p, and nothing has changed with time, but the moniker. You still living with your Momma?
You were obnoxious as little p, and nothing has changed with time, but the moniker. You still living with your Momma?
Sherman, Keep up the good work.
Why don't you go into the actual reason for polls? The reason you buy them. In reality, it's just another campaign tool for you.
"Look! Look! More people are going to vote for Sharron Angle so you should too! You really shouldn't be thinking for yourself. Don't pay any attention to issues. Do like others do. Count the number of bumper stickers that has Sharron Angle on them. Just as politicians' names on a bumper or pin tells you to do what others do. Don't actually discuss issues; school, like fish, and do what the majority of others do; or we tell you they're doing. Listen to us and our slanted opinions. Vote like we tell you."
So tell us, Sherman, why did you not actually discuss issues, this campaign, but instead purchased polls that said your favorite was ahead, and then report them here? What was the purpose?
"Look! Look! More people are going to vote for Sharron Angle so you should too! You really shouldn't be thinking for yourself. Don't pay any attention to issues. Do like others do. Count the number of bumper stickers that has Sharron Angle on them. Just as politicians' names on a bumper or pin tells you to do what others do. Don't actually discuss issues; school, like fish, and do what the majority of others do; or we tell you they're doing. Listen to us and our slanted opinions. Vote like we tell you."
So tell us, Sherman, why did you not actually discuss issues, this campaign, but instead purchased polls that said your favorite was ahead, and then report them here? What was the purpose?
Do you think it's possible to just say,"Congratulations, Senator. We don't support everything you do, but we hope you'll consider our position and work on what's in the best interest of the nation." Or, if you're as angry as you seem to be at the Senator's re-election, at least make an effort to emulate the intellectualism and logic in your posts as George Will or David Brooks.
In a parallel situation, I find it fascinating that the Saturday RJ online mentions not one word I can find that NBC suspended host Keith Olbermann for donating to three Congressional races recently. Could it be that that hesitancy to blast a prominent liberal media person is because the RJ has no such policy for its supporters, or expects one from its "joined at the hip" buddies at Fox have any similar policy either? Cherry picking polling results favorable to ones candidates is no different than avoiding coverage of a mostly liberal media network's action on principle in such a matter, and perhaps we should, therefore, not be surprised at the silence.
So, Athos, you gonna contradict anything I've said or just keep blathering yourself?
I've noticed a patter of Frederick defenders with no point to make
They're only good at regurgitating the one, rather obvious - aha! - one-liner that Mr. Frederick conjured all on his own
Petty insults only underline my point... So thank you!
I've noticed a patter of Frederick defenders with no point to make
They're only good at regurgitating the one, rather obvious - aha! - one-liner that Mr. Frederick conjured all on his own
Petty insults only underline my point... So thank you!
No insult intended, little p. Just a memory of past banalities, and an identification of the source.
Besides, you don't really want to address the "issues". Your solution is the same as Dr. Utopia's..... Marxism. Trot out the Alinsky book and go back to work.
We'll be waiting for you. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Thomas Jefferson.
Besides, you don't really want to address the "issues". Your solution is the same as Dr. Utopia's..... Marxism. Trot out the Alinsky book and go back to work.
We'll be waiting for you. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Thomas Jefferson.
Sherm, you can put all the spin you want on Mason Dixson's polling, but the fact remains that your readers will never again believe any poll published by the RJ. So save your money next time.
You're cute when you get mad, Athos
Resorting to the Marxist calling card so early?
Resorting to the Marxist calling card so early?
It's all he's got, Captain. Athos is a zero sum moron.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Comments (33)
Registration Notice: The Review-Journal has implemented a new registration procedure that requires all existing and new accounts to validate and login using Facebook. Visit the Registration FAQ for more information.
Share your thoughts on this story.
Sign in or register to make a comment.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.