Jack Kelly Sunday

In this week's column, Jack Kelly, the former "National Security" Correspondent for the P-G, ventures out into national politics. We all know Jack's political leanings (somewhat right of center, to say the least) and so it's not surprising that he's using this week's column to undermine Senator Hilary Clinton's presidential campaign.

The first sentence:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently has hit a speed bump on the way to her coronation.

And it goes on from there. He starts with a number of appraisals of her performance at a recent debate (I didn't see the debate, but I guess she didn't do too well) and then goes into over drive with some Rassmussen poll numbers.

But it could spell big trouble in the general election. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reported a shocking result from a recent poll. In a head-to-head matchup with Libertarian fruitcake Ron Paul, Hillary drew just 48 percent of the vote.

This was not because Rep. Paul, who is polling in the low single digits among GOP voters, has had a sudden burst in popularity.

"When we polled among people who knew who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote," Mr. Rasmussen said. "When we polled among people who didn't know who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote."

Fruitcake? Did J-Kel just call Ron Paul a fruitcake? I trust that that smear won't go unanswered by the Friends of Ron Paul who occasionally surf through this blog (coughMark Rauterkuscough).

Looks like Commando Kelly got his research from this page at Rasmussen Reports. He's really working towards setting up a Clinton-Giuliani matchup. He has this to say about it.

In head-to-head matchups against more likely Republican nominees, Mrs. Clinton trails former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani slightly...

And a little later

The polls make it clear Rudy Giuliani is the Republican most likely to beat Mrs. Clinton.

And finally

A Paul candidacy excepted, the arithmetic of the 2008 election is clear. In a two-candidate race, the Republican wins, especially if the Republican is named Rudy Giuliani. In a multiple candidate race, Hillary Clinton wins.

But let's take a look at what Rasmussen actually says. This page has the info. Looks like our pal Jack didn't look deep enough at the data. The first paragraph, indeed, begins with:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading Senator Clinton 46% to 44% in an early look at a general election match-up.

But what's the margin of error? How does it match any trend in the poll data or is it a new trend? Jack doesn't bother with any of that, no sir. He's got his talking point that Clinton trails Giuliani slightly and runs with it all the way past November, 2008. Rasmussen, though, has slightly more to say on the subject:

Clinton and Giuliani have been in a very competitive match-up for most of the year, but Clinton had gained ground in three bi-weekly consecutive polls. By October 9, the Democratic frontrunner was leading the former mayor by seven percentage points. But, the current results suggest a return to the longer trend-line established for this race.

Individual polls can sometimes overstate volatility in a race, especially when the results carry a four percentage point margin of sampling error. One way of addressing this is to look at a rolling-average of three consecutive polls. Using this approach, Clinton and Giuliani have both been within two points of the 45% mark for eleven consecutive polls dating back to May 1, 2007. The candidates have been within two points of each other on seven of those eleven surveys. [emphasis added]

Ok, so it's a two point lead within a four percentage point margin of sampling error. Any wonder why Jack Kelly didn't mention that? Then there's this next paragraph from Rasmussen:

Still, while the candidates have hovered consistently around that 45% level of support, a modest trend in Clinton’s favor can easily be detected. During the first eight sets of three-poll averages, Giuliani was “ahead” in seven and tied with Clinton in the eighth. Clinton has held the advantage in the last three updates of the three poll rolling average. She currently leads 47% to 44%. [emphasis added]

So by averaging three consecutive polls together, not only is there a trend (albeit a "modest" one) in Clinton's favor, but she's actually leading by a slightly larger margin than in the individual poll Kelly is touting as support. Any wonder why Jack Kelly didn't bother to mention any of this?

Jack Kelly does, however, write the arithmetic is "clear" that Giuliani beats Clinton in 2008.

But this is but one poll. What do the other polls have to say? From the PollingReport.com we can read that the poll numbers are far from what Jack Kelly said.

Newsweek from 10/31-11/0107, to the question: Suppose you had to choose between [Senator Clinton], the Democrat, and [Mayor Giuliani], the Republican. Who would you be more likely to vote for?" If other/unsure: "As of today do you lean more toward [Senator Clinton], the Democrat, or [Mayor Giuliani], the Republican? (MoE 4%)

45% said Giuliani, 49% said Clinton

Quinnipiac from 10/23-29/07 to the question: If the 2008 election for president were being held today, and the candidates were [Senator Clinton] the Democrat and [Mayor Giuliani] the Republican, for whom would you vote? (MoE 2.4%)

45% said Giuliani, 43% said Clinton

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg from 10/19-22/07 to the question: If the November 2008 general election for president were being held today and the choices were [Senator Clinton], the Democrat, and [Mayor Giuliani], the Republican, for whom would you vote: [Senator Clinton] or [Mayor Giuliani], or would you vote for a candidate from some other party? (MoE 4%)

41% said Giuliani, 47% said Clinton

Do I need to continue? Ok one more, this one from Fox.

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics from 10/9-10/07 to the question: Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general election were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were [names rotated]? (MoE 4%)

43 % said Giuliani, 47% said Clinton

The point here is not further any supposed "coronation" of Senator Clinton, but to point out, yet again, how our friend at the P-G, Jack Kelly, misstates manipulates and distorts in order to further his own political agenda.

Yet again.