Whoever was running the CNBC Twitter feed last night didn’t know the difference between a scientific poll and a Web poll:
[POLL RESULTS] Who do you think won the VP Debate? Paul Ryan: 56%, Joe Biden: 36%, Neither: 8%. #CNBC2012
— CNBC (@CNBC) October 12, 2012
As I’m writing this, that misinformation has been retweeted 4,838 times, favorited 405.
Eh, it’s just the Twitters, you say. Problem is, that tweet was seen by countless more readers, including ones with megaphones at Politico, The Guardian, and The Daily Caller, and more, who used the bogus numbers to report, erroneously, that more polls called the debate for Ryan than for Biden. That spread the misinformation much further.
Politico puts this headline “above the fold” on its home page: “Snap polls: Ryan 2, Biden 1” and writes that “A CNBC snap poll shows a similar result, with 53 percent of respondents identifying Ryan as the winner. By contrast, 41 percent thought that Biden won, while 6 percent believed that neither won.”
The Daily Caller reported this in a story that reported, falsely, that “Most polls and media talking heads gave the advantage in the vice presidential debate to GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan”:
A CNBC poll said that 56 percent thought Ryan was the winner, while 36 declared Biden to be the winner.
Less surprising is that Michael Barone of The Washington Examiner made the boo-boo too, as did National Review and Breitbart.com.
Still all of it is just plain sloppy.
First, why would CNBC of all networks, do a snap poll of the vice presidential debate? If anyone at NBC was going to do such a poll, it would be NBC or MSNBC. CNBC’s usually showing get-rich-quick infomercials at that time of night.
Second, it’s clear that Politico didn’t even bother to actually visit the CNBC website to look at this “snap poll.” If it had, it would have seen that it was a SurveyMonkey-style Web poll, which is worse than useless: Unrepresentative samples that are easy to manipulate.
Third, neither actually links to their bogus source.
A little over an hour after its first “poll” tweet, CNBC tweeted again with dramatically different numbers (and making the same error):
[UPDATED POLL RESULTS] Who do you think won the VP Debate? Joe Biden: 52%, Paul Ryan: 44%, Neither: 4%. (Track here: cnb.cx/RjX8aS)
— CNBC (@CNBC) October 12, 2012
Not to excuse Politico and The Daily Caller for their poor reporting, but CNBC’s misleading tweets instigated a false media narrative that spread far beyond its Twitter feed.
If you want to have Web polls on your site, fine. But don’t report on them for crying out loud. It’s just not smart.
I personally think Biden was rude interuppting Ryan all the time and that stupid smile was to get Ryan off track. Even when Ryan mentioned it to him he just kept doing it . Ryan was more reserved! Do we want a asshold smilling all the time and very RUDE PERSON leading this Country? Along with Obama? He had 4 years to turn around America and he did not suceed BIDEN SHOULD HAVE WAITED HIS TURN. I feel Ryan won the debate by a LANDSLIDE! If anyone raised properly would have waited his turn. WE WANT ACTION NOT A CLOWN OR RUDE PERSON IN OFFICE!
#1 Posted by Dorothy Campbell, CJR on Fri 12 Oct 2012 at 07:56 AM
It is not clear where CNBC misled its audience to believe it was a scientific poll. Looks like just another over-hyped political tweet by another CNNBCBSFOX outlet. Anyway, such polls are only useful in justifying what the pollsters, media, and govt school system misled people to believe anyway: that there's such major difference between the two parties that the election will fundamentally change anything. The only real differences are that Biden has some sense of reality, and much more sanity, on Iran and foreign policy, while Ryan has some sense of reality about monetary policy and domestic-fiscal policy. Unfortunately, this is politics, so neither will be so good in office as he was in the "debate." They and their bosses will simply tweak the same ol' interventionist policies to "the right" and "the left." Same as always.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 12 Oct 2012 at 10:44 AM
Thanks for stepping up on Biden's behalf to set the record straight.
#3 Posted by Dan B., CJR on Fri 12 Oct 2012 at 10:52 AM
Wow! You just can't stand to see the Republican ticket pulling away in this race! It's laughable that you would actually write an entire article dedicated to CNBC's snap poll to explain why people shouldn't trust it's validity. SO NOW, we are only supposed to trust snap polls made via telephone.....doing it through the web is not sufficient enough.....I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if the poll was in favor of Biden. Unfortunately for you....the American People can think for themselves!
#4 Posted by Scott, CJR on Fri 12 Oct 2012 at 12:08 PM
Hey, Scott,
You didn't read the whole post, did you? Check out the tweet at the bottom, which CNBC sent an hour and 15 minutes after the first one: Biden 52, Ryan 44.
Still think unscientific Web surveys are cool?
#5 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Fri 12 Oct 2012 at 12:21 PM
Ryan Chittum. A sane voice in a sea of insanity.
I was very critical of the President for his performance in the first debate, so it is only balanced to say that Biden hammered Ryan to his knees on the most important question, one the tenacious moderator kept in focus so that both candidates were forced to reveal underlying character: the Libya opening question.
If you can explain the video and transcripts so as to show that Ryan won that exchange, then you are a master of fake rhetoric, because by any measure, coherence in argument or skill in presentation, Biden showed himself an adult with immense powers of concentration, while Ryan revealed that on foreign affairs he is an untutored youth who needs to work on his linguistic skills.
Ryan Chittum, this work is perceptive and original. Go to the head of the class.
[UPDATED POLL RESULTS] Who do you think won the VP Debate? Joe Biden: 52%, Paul Ryan: 44%, Neither: 4%.
#6 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 12 Oct 2012 at 12:31 PM
Whether the Obama Administration knew what, when, etc., ultimately is irrelevant in light of the historically self-destructive nature of aggressive war, regime change, occupation, sanctions, etc. So, both candidates lost: neither one suggested that the insane policy itself must be wiped. (Then again, these are politicians we're dealing with.)
#7 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 12 Oct 2012 at 12:55 PM
Any small movement on the GOP side is going to be built up beyond reality and the media is there to see that any minor win becomes major. The media needs a close race to maintain ratings in what looked to be a much easier Obama win before. It's all about media ratings but conservatives are dying to get out in front and will help that effort, yet the electoral maps aren't budging much.
All Romney basically did was energize his base, but didn't change any states from blue to red. And Ryan was much more effective than Obama as a debater to date, I agree, but Biden clearly won last night if not for anything else but responding to each and every item Ryan mentioned and killing it. Biden's laugh was his tell that he had a comeback that would effectively refute what Ryan said. I especially liked the way Biden made it known that Ryan sent him a letter about the good being done by the stimulus and asking for stimulus money. As Biden said: "You bet he did!" Biden made it very clear last night the difference between Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan--and that's have the middle class' back.
Robney/Lyan cannot explain in detail their plans or do the math. They appear to be war hawks while at the same time complaining about the deficit. Yet the biggest problem with the deficit is that we spend $2.1 million per minute on our military. Much of what they say is the same. They speak out of both sides of their mouths. I'm surprised about the surges for Romney considering he leaned so far left during the debate to get a vote he stepped all over teabaggers. I guess bravado with no substance was a hit for Romney, while bravado with factual explanations for Biden is considered obnoxious and arrogant. Again we see conservatives dismissing facts and intelligence as "elitist" in nature rather than honorable.
#8 Posted by Valeria Rogers, CJR on Fri 12 Oct 2012 at 01:14 PM
CNN poll: DEBATE WATCHERS Who Was More Likeable? Ryan 53% Biden 43%
CNN poll: DEBATE WATCHERS Who Was More In Touch With Problems of People Like You? Ryan 51%, Biden 44%
Yahoo poll: Ryan 54%, Biden 46%
#9 Posted by Zach, CJR on Fri 12 Oct 2012 at 02:38 PM
Enough blustering !! Mr. Ryan was exemplarly last night .
#10 Posted by greg doud, CJR on Fri 12 Oct 2012 at 03:47 PM
I would have thought everybody learned their lessons about polls from the marblecake incident:
http://www.itpro.co.uk/blogs-archive/daveyw/2009/04/28/how-marblecake-hacked-time/
And Paul Ryan's "I'm a little b*tch so I need you to vote on this poll cause people are so mean to me" poll rigging:
http://americablog.com/2011/12/paul-ryan-trying-to-rig-politifacts-lie-of-the-year.html
Sigh.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 12 Oct 2012 at 05:30 PM
Ps. What's with all the bellyaching over Biden's civility? Is this the "Al Gore sigh" redux? Biden whooped R and R with the distain their 'platform' earned:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/new-new-romney-13541557
"However, I am rather stunned that the quote from the primary debates that seems to be most revelatory of the Romney campaign was the answer he gave when poor, unfortunate Rick Perry asked him about the undocumented immigrants who once trimmed the hedges at the Romney family manse.
"I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals."
This is not just lying or fudging or flip-flopping, although it contains elements of all of these. It is the same impulse that has fueled his (apparently successful) refusal to disclose fully his tax returns. It is the same impulse that led him to say what he did in the debate about his health-care plan and pre-existing conditions, and then have his campaign dispatch Eric Fehrnstrom to the spin room to declare precisely the opposite...
This is altogether stunning. All candidates soft-pedal positions that they feel might cost them votes. (Romney's running mate is something of a past master at it.) All candidates lie, or fudge, or flip-flop with something like abandon in order to win an election. But what Willard Romney is saying to the electorate here is so deeply, profoundly cynical that it seems to me to be unprecedented. In essence, this is what he's selling to the country.
I'm not giving you specifics because I might lose the election, and I'm telling you that right up front so you can make it part of your calculation about voting for me.
I am doing this because my policy ideas will make me unpopular and therefore, I am not going to share them because the opposition may use them to say mean things about me and help me lose the election. We all are in agreement on that. I am not required to do anything that might jeopardize my chances, and that includes telling you people what I will do if you elect me, because I'm running for office, for Pete's sake."
How do you respond to a 'Say Anything' campaign, other than with Peter Gabriel?
Taibbi has a clue:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-vice-presidential-debate-joe-biden-was-right-to-laugh-20121012
“What he got absolutely right, despite what you might read this morning (many outlets are criticizing Biden's dramatic excesses), was his tone. Biden did absolutely roll his eyes, snort, laugh derisively and throw his hands up in the air whenever Ryan trotted out his little beady-eyed BS-isms.
But he should have! He was absolutely right to be doing it. We all should be doing it. That includes all of us in the media, and not just paid obnoxious-opinion-merchants like me, but so-called "objective" news reporters as well. We should all be rolling our eyes, and scoffing and saying, "Come back when you're serious."
The load of balls that both Romney and Ryan have been pushing out there for this whole election season is simply not intellectually serious. Most of their platform isn't even a real platform, it's a fourth-rate parlor trick designed to paper over the real agenda – cutting taxes even more for super-rich dickheads like Mitt Romney, and getting everyone else to pay the bill.”
When a democrat acts half as rude and aggressive as the average conservative, suddenly that's when the authorities emerge with the roberts rules of order and a guide to etiquette for ladies?
What a load of hokum.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 13 Oct 2012 at 06:51 PM
Pps. What's with the onion? I thought they did satire.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-proudly-explains-how-hes-turned-campaign-ar,29845/
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 13 Oct 2012 at 06:52 PM
When your debate strategy depends on hogging the mic and juvenile histrionics...
You might as well make the U-Haul reservation and update your Monster.com profile.... You're not exactly scoring points with voters.
What Americans want to hear is:
1. The USA is the best country in the world. PERIOD.
2. The government shouldn't mess with people anymore than necessary.
3. If you choose to bust ass and take risks, you can achieve anything you want and get rich in this country.
Obama and Biden would turn into pumpkins if any such words came out of their mouths.
And THAT is why they are doomed in debates. THAT is why we get snickers, frowns, interruption and other such nonsense that does nothing but repel all but the most juvenile leftists.
What the Hell are Obama and Biden supposed to say?
Yeah, we promised to cut the deficit in half in our first term... But so what?
Yeah, we apologized for our First Amendment to the entire world and blamed an Al Quaida terrorist attack on an American Christian.. But so what?
Yeah, we said the stimulus would have unemployment under 6% by now... But so what?
Yeah, we crammed Obamacare down your throats, just about everybody hates it and it costs WAY more than we said it would... But so what?
"So what" isn't going to cut it. The problem for Dems is they have a whole lot of nothing to stand on with regard to their record, and even more nothing to stand on with regard to the future...
You can pick apart Ryan's or Romney's plan for funding Medicare.. Fair enough.. But where's Obama's plan?
You can bitch about the GOP budget proposals, but where's Obama's budget? His budget was so idiotic, he couldn't even persuade a single DEMOCRAT to get behind it.
Unless some miracle happens, you guys need to get ready to say "President Romney" and I bet it won't be easy for you. (It won't be easy for me, either). We'd better start practicing.
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 14 Oct 2012 at 11:49 AM
"When your debate strategy depends on hogging the mic and juvenile histrionics..."
Oh, I know this one! 'You just may be a conservative.'
Amirite?
"You might as well make the U-Haul reservation and..."
Awww. I really thought I had that one.
"What Americans want to hear is:
1. The USA is the best country in the world. PERIOD."
The stupid people do. The smart people would ask the question "How are we the best country?", look abroad, measure the evidence, and make conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of the nation.
But I know, your crowd, and North Korea's, is more into the faith based approach.
"2. The government shouldn't mess with people anymore than necessary."
Necessary having different definitions depending on where you are on the income strata. Liberals believe it's necessary to help the 99% who have been getting screwed by the lawless top. Conservatives believe its necessary to lubricate the 99% for the pleasure of the top. Different people, different definitions of the government's role, ya know.
"3. If you choose to bust ass and take risks, you can achieve anything you want and get rich in this country."
More of that faith based approach, I see. Keep smiling and the whole world will smile with you. If that's the way the world works, then hey, it doesn't matter who gets elected because 'you bust ass and take risks' under of the current contending parties. Think positive, man!
It's bs. We all need a little luck, we all need a little help. None of us changed our own diapers. Those who pretend they did are trying to preserve their advantages over the rest by reducing opportunities to succeed for the rest.
That's what being a well funded republican is about, no mistake.
Which brings us too...
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 14 Oct 2012 at 01:47 PM
Thimbles wrote: "The stupid people do"
padikiller responds: And stupid people vote.
Negativity repulses. It isn't a complicated concept, but Obama and Biden are going to learn it the hard way.
#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 14 Oct 2012 at 01:52 PM
"Yeah, we promised to cut the deficit in half in our first term... But so what?..
Yeah, we said the stimulus would have unemployment under 6% by now... But so what?"
Sorry, who's been in charge of congress over the last two years? Plus, what's been happening in the global economy over the last two years? Plus who's tried to provoke a global economic crisis over the stupid debt ceiling after doing a whole load of brinkmanship over the Bush tax cuts?
You can't keep the Bush tax cuts and reduce deficits. You can't reduce deficits and keep a signed pledge which prevents any possibility of new revenues. You can't break the global economy, throw sand in the gears of any attempts to repair the national economy, then yap about "Ha HA! You're not bipartisan and you can't keep your promises about deficits!"
And you can't claim you're against policies which you were for under a republican idiot without admitting error.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/91384/when-conservatives-loved-keynes
Either the government has a role in combatting a recession or not, but if it does than you support it no matter who it benefits and you condemn it no matter who it hurts.
Your guys don't play by those rules. They're running for office, for Pete's sake.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 14 Oct 2012 at 02:05 PM
And WHO was in charge when the "shovel ready" stimulus passed?
You know, the one that was guaranteed to have unemployment under 6%?
And WHO was in charge when Obamacare was crammed down the throats of the American people in a politically corrupt process?
But we digress... The argument here isn't policy-driven. It's emotional.
It's time for vision and spin to sway the masses.
Romney can stand on stage and say "America is the best country in the world.. PERIOD". And be credible doing it.
Obama can't. He just can't.
Romney can stand on the stage and advocate for limited government and be credible (even though he's as liberal as Obama at heart)...
Obama can't.
Romney can tear apart Obamacare and sound credible doing it (even though he's the one who invented it).
Obama can't.
You're missing the point. The juvenile name-calling and tantrum-throwing is NOT effective and it will NOT attract voters.
It just won't.
But it's all the Dems have, and so I guess we'll have to endure three more weeks of it.
It just doesn't matter to Joe from Sheboygan that the GOP did the same thing under Bush (which it did). Or that the GOP's position has "evolved" (which it has).
You have 60 million people watching the President and Vice President acting like spoiled kids and spewing invective, disrespect and disdain on real time, split-screen. That's a no-no. A BIG no-no, no matter what Taibbi rants to the contrary.
These guys are toast, absent a miracle for the Dems.
All together now... "President R-O-M-N-E-Y".
Lives a bitter taste, I know, but we'd better get used to it.
#18 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 14 Oct 2012 at 02:36 PM
And this is the problem with the Romney 'plans', if you can call promises that violate simple arithmetic and lack the substance of a cloud a plan and not figures plucked out of thin air for political reasons without regard to whether they were feasible.
He hasn't got any specifics, but he's got people. Bush people. His electorate is the Bush electorate. His representatives are the Bush reps. His foreign policy team and his economic team are Bush.
Thus the choice becomes between Obama and Bush on steroids.
No wonder Romney doesn't want to draw attention to that, the American people voted on the Bush agenda after it destroyed much of the national and global economy while sacrificing thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians on ventures of questionable value while making torture and the abandonment of the Magna Carta tools of government coercion while turning surpluses of federal government revenue into giant tax cuts for the bloody rich.
And they voted for the guy with Hussien in his name and who took out Osama bin Laden in two years instead of eight and nailed him in the right country.
Do they want to remind people of the incompetence, corruption, and criminality of the people who made up the Bush years and speak now for Romney? Do they want to remind people how awful and hurtful their polices were under Bush and how much worse they will be under Romney? Do they want to remind people of Bush's major domestic policy failure, which Paul Ryan pushed with all his bitchy might, to put social security on the stock market?
Nooooo. They're running for office, for Pete's sake. If they talk about that, they'll lose. So they won't... if we let them.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 14 Oct 2012 at 02:39 PM
Yeah..
Obama's got the "specifics"...
Like??... How does he intend to fund Medicare and Social Security, exactly?
How will raising taxes create jobs, grow the economy and reduce the deficit, exactly?
Please....
The problem liberals have is that the fundamental premise of liberalism - namely, punishing productive people and rewarding unproductive people - is just a stupid proposition. And anyone who isn't a hardcore leftist knows it.
All of the derivative liberal policies are therefore doomed in any fair debate, because they can always be reduced to a fundamentally idiotic premise by any opponent with blessed with the slightest intelligence and any ability to articulate it.
So instead of specifics or any attempt to defend this indefensible liberal nonsense, we get what we've seen - hogging the mic - we get shouting - we get name-calling, insults and tantrums. Because that's all they have. A WHOLE lot of nothing.
But it aint' gonna work. Not this time, absent divine intervention.
We'll see what four years of Romneyism will do for us, I suppose.
#20 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 14 Oct 2012 at 02:57 PM
"We'll see what four years of Romneyism will do for us, I suppose."
We saw what eight years did. But what's another drowned city, another giant terrorist attack, another mining disaster, another episode of domestic surveillance, another giant transfer of wealth to the wealthy, another couple of wars,...etc going to harm, eh?
Oh this time, the bushies will get it all right. They've had eight years of practice.
Ps. Social security is funded. Medicare is a function of healthcare and the costs in the system as a whole need to go down. And "How will raising taxes create jobs, grow the economy and reduce the deficit, exactly?"
We answered that question under Clinton, times were pretty good under Clinton, very crappy after him, and anyone who isn't a idiot teabagger knows it.
Democrats are better on the economy and better on fiscal responsibility. Period. And they have a foreign policy, not just a dart board with excuses to invade new countries. Period.
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 14 Oct 2012 at 03:27 PM
I will take the RUDE PERSON over the disingenuous schmuck any day.
#22 Posted by Dave G, CJR on Sun 14 Oct 2012 at 03:48 PM
Tomasky on tax cuts:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/ryan-on-kennedy-and-reagan-oh-and-the-one-he-didn-t-mention.html
"So, what are the facts? Well, first of all, Kennedy did not technically pass a tax cut. He proposed it, but he was killed before it passed. Nevertheless it was Kennedy’s economic team that put it together, and Kennedy who decided to proceed with it. Johnson made passing it his first order of business.
It did cut rates, and it did spur growth (although there was a credit crunch in 1966 and a mini-recession later). But the key point is this: It was not a supply-side cut. It was a demand-side cut...
Bottom line: What Kennedy was doing was demand-side stimulus—putting money into the middle class’ hands to drive consumption, not (chiefly) into the wealthy’s hands or businesses’ hands...
Finally, there’s that president who Ryan didn’t mention. You know. Under him, the Treasury “hemorraged revenue,” as Bruce Bartlett put it.
Obama needs to be on top of all this. He needs a good strong rebuttal on Kennedy. An answer on Reagan. And this is the context in which he needs to bring up Bush. The Bush experience is by far the freshest one for most voters, and it shows that this aggressive tax-cutting no longer works the way conservatives say it does. It failed. It...doesn’t...work. It helped bring on our calamity. And Romney-Ryan want to do it again."
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 14 Oct 2012 at 04:06 PM