Topic: WorldNetDaily
President Trump isn't polling very well, and WorldNetDaily wants you to believe that's because the polls are biased.
In a June 28 WND article, Bob Unruh writes:
The headlines on presidential approval polls have become repetitive, with “Independent voters sour,” “Trump’s approval at 40%,” “Trump’s approval rating plummets” and “Majority disapprove of President Trump.”
But an analysis of media polling practices by McLaughlinOnline suggest the media isn’t give you the real story.
[...]
A recent survey by McLaughlin took into account the “gotcha” pitfalls in polling practices, concluding Americans have a higher view of Trump than reported and want to move away from President Obama’s agenda.
McLaughlin’s poll, taken a few weeks back, found 4 in 10 voters said America is going the right direction, a significant improvement over the past four years and “by a 5 to 4 ratio, 48 percent-41 percent, voters prefer the country change and move away from the policies of Barack Obama over continuing Obama’s policies.”
Further, the results showed more people approve of Trump’s agenda and their priorities for Congress are to create jobs and keep America secure from terror.
Also, a majority, 53 percent, believe the economy is getting better, and “in spite of Congress’ failure to act yet, the majority of voters still favor repealing and replacing Obamacare.”
And, they want smaller government.
Unruh makes sure not to mention that the McLaughlin poll was taken in April -- a full two months before he wrote his story, making its results less than timely.
Unruh also makes sure not to mention that that McLaughlin describes itself as a "Republican pollster," making any claim to accuracy and nonpartisanship highly dubious. Indeed, the press release accompanying the McLaughlin poll pretty much admits it's skewing things in order to benefit Trump and his agenda while denouncing any other methodology as "media polling bias for the Democrats."
Unruh even invokes a bogus, meaningless "unscientific Internet poll by the Drudge Report" in which "92 percent of respondents said Trump was doing a 'great' or 'good' job six months into his presidency."
WND editor Joseph Farah took his own shot at poll reinterpratation in his July 23 column:
First, there’s the Reuters poll, which was portrayed as a disaster for Trump. If you run the numbers, though, they also show if the election were held today, Trump would win bigger over Hillary Clinton, even taking the popular vote bragging rights away from his opponent.
That’s right. You heard it here first.
Just look at all the numbers.
Hillary Clinton won 66 million total votes.
Donald Trump won 62 million total votes.
The Reuters poll shows, based on what respondents say now, some 12 percent of Trump voters would no longer cast their votes for him, while 88 percent would. His defectors, however, virtually all said they would not have switched their votes to Hillary Clinton.
Meanwhile, 86 percent of Hillary voters said they would vote for her again if the election were a do-over, while 3 percent of that total said they would indeed have switched to Trump.
When you do the calculations, here’s what you get: Hillary with 56.7 million votes and Trump with 57 million – meaning today Trump would win the popular vote against Clinton.
Curiously, Farah doesn't provide a link to the Reuters poll he's reinterpreting, so it's difficult to double-check his work. That's probably what Farah intended.
Farah goes on to laughably whine: "Do I need to add that no president in my memory has been beaten up by the media as badly as Trump has been in his first six months? Is there any dispute about that?" He doesn't mention the quarter-century of media-bashing Hillary Clinton has endured, in no small part from his own media outlet.
Farah's column was accompanied by a bogus opt-in WND poll in which 61 percent of respondents declared Trump earned a A+ for his first six months in office. Farah probably wants you to think it's unbiased.
