Jack Kelly Sunday

If you needed any more evidence that Jack Kelly's spin crosses the line all you'd have to do is to dig beneath the numbers Jack uses at the opening of this week's column. Took me about 5 minutes to discover Jack's sleight of hand. The opening:

Here's a data point that should give liberals pause: There is no statistically significant difference between the proportion of Americans who think ill of Sarah Palin and the proportion of Americans who disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president.

In a Washington Post-ABC News poll of 1,001 adults released July 24, 40 percent of respondents viewed Ms. Palin positively, 53 percent viewed her negatively.

In a Rasmussen poll of 1,500 likely voters released Monday, 49 percent of respondents at least somewhat approved of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, while 50 percent disapproved.

The margin of error for both polls was plus or minus 3 percent, so Ms. Palin's negative numbers and Mr. Obama's fall within it.

First, let's look at the data from that Washington Post/ABC poll. A few minutes in and you'll see how Jack shows his dishonest hand. First the question:

23. Changing topics, do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Sarah Palin? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

And the data:

             NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion
7/18/09       40       20         20      53       19         34         7

So the numbers are there. He's not making that part up, at least. But do you see the number "23" before that question? That means it's the twenty-third question of the poll. Now what do you suppose is the first question from that poll? Here, I'll do the work for you:

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?

And the data:

             NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion
7/18/09       59       38         22      37        9         28         4

Whah?? Didn't Jack say that Palin's disapproval/unfavorable numbers matched Obama's? He said they there was "no statistically significant difference" between them. But according to the very same poll Palin has a 53% unfavorable rating while Obama has a 37% disapproval rating.

The way Jack does this is he simply omits the data he doesn't like (the stuff in the Washington Post poll) in order to quote data he does - a different poll using a different methodology and with a different sampling Here's Jack again:

In a Rasmussen poll of 1,500 likely voters released Monday, 49 percent of respondents at least somewhat approved of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, while 50 percent disapproved.

Note how Jack slips in "likely adults" into his sentence on the Rasmussen poll. The Washington Post poll was a random sampling of the entire population and the Rasmussen, well, isn't. As far as I can tell Jack's using Rasmussen's "Daily Tracking" Poll (scroll down to 7/31/09 and you'll see Jack's numbers). But Rasmussen offers up this caveat on the data:

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. Other factors are also important to consider when comparing Job Approval ratings from different polling firms.

Like say, Washington Post/ABC.

Jack's mixing apples and oranges and telling us the numbers reflect the same population, the same reality.

They aren't and they don't and he must know that. If he doesn't, someone at the P-G should sit him down and teach him the difference.

This isn't just Jack dancing up to the line separating "spin" from "falsehood." By picking and choosing data to support his pre-existing conclusion, he presents an impression of reality clearly at odds with the data he clearly relies on. In logic, it's called a lie by omission.

And it's plainly dishonest.