Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? Part DXIII

The Whiskey Bar writes about how the New York Times can't even report its own polls straight:

Whiskey Bar: The New Pravda, Part III: Some highlights from the lastest New York Times/CBS News poll:

• President Bush's approval rating has fallen eight points over the past month, and now stands at 50%, matching the lowest mark of his presidency for this poll.

• The percentage who view Bush favorably has dropped to 41%, the lowest since May 2001, while his unfavorable rating has risen seven points in the past month, and has hit an all-time high.

• The percentage of those polled who think the country is on the wrong track has risen 10 points, to 53% -- ending the brief era of good feelings triggered by Saddam's capture.

• Approval of Bush's handling of foreign policy has dropped to 47% -- only three points higher than its September low, and only two points higher than his foreign policy disapproval rating.

• Approval of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq has tumbled 11 points since Saddam's capture, to 48% -- also just two points higher than the percentage who disapprove (and that was before Sunday's suicide bomb spectacular.).

• A plurality (45%) say they will probably vote for the Democratic candidate, instead of Bush (43%), this November.

Given those trends, what kind of headline do you suppose the Times put on the story? "Bush Loses Bump From Saddam's Capture"? "Electorate Increasingly Polarized About Bush"?

How about: Poll Bolsters Bush on Terrorism but Finds Doubts on Economy

The economic "doubts" are certainly real enough -- despite all the media cheerleading for the jobless recovery. Bush's economic approval rating, which briefly turned positive last month -- by a bare 49-43 plurality -- has turned negative once again, 51-44. The percentage saying the economy is getting worse has risen by seven points; the share saying the economy is getting better has fallen by five.

Other than that, though, I'd call it a case of missing the forest for the trees, if not for the fact that the Times can't seem to see the trees, either. The story spends an inordinate amount of time rebutting the paper's own poll:

Other polls released last week and conducted earlier than the Times/CBS News poll found Mr. Bush's job approval rating to be higher.

quoting Republican hacks on the relative merits of George Bush and his Democratic opponents:

"People wonder whether the Democrats will be as aggressive as Bush in keeping the country safe," said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster.

and, of course, bashing Howard Dean:

"Already, credibility as commander in chief has emerged as a major issue in the battle for the Democratic nomination. Many Democrats in rival campaigns have argued that Howard Dean, who has led in the polls for most of the primary season, is unlikely to pass that test on national security, because of his opposition to the war in Iraq and his lack of foreign policy experience.

Granted, the media pack has become extremely inventive in its efforts to drag down Dean's candidacy. But even so, it's hard not to be impressed -- at least on a purely technical level -- by the Times' ability to shoehorn an attack on Dean into a story that's ostensibly about Bush's poll ratings. They couldn't pass up the opportunity to get in few final pre-Iowa kicks, I suppose.

But I disgress. What I found most interesting about the Times story was its failure to even try to diagnose the deterioration in Bush's numbers -- other than making a passing reference to the fading of the we-got-Saddam euphoria.

But, digging a little deeper in the poll results, however, I'm struck by how much -- and how quickly --the voters seem to have soured on Bush's pro-corporate agenda...