Two different Fox voting polls show a number of Democratic presidential contenders beating current President Donald Trump.
On Thursday, a new Fox News poll reported on MSNBC showed four Democratic presidential candidates beating Trump: Joe Biden (52% to 38%); Bernie Sanders (48% to 40%); Elizabeth Warren (46% to 40%); and Kamala Harris (42% to 40%).
The poll ran from September 15-17, among 1,008 registered voters, with a +/- three points margin of error.
Polling can be a good marketing tool for those who have their name attached, even if the actual polling on-the-ground work comes from third parties.
In the past, all this might be a shrug of the shoulders. But when we are talking about the Fox News Channel brand, it comes with lots of consumer expectations/political leanings. (Some might say the same is true for MSNBC and CNN, Fox competitors.)
As has been mentioned in this column, not all Fox News on-air journalists and anchors (mostly in daytime) elicit undying support for the Trump Administration. The prime-time commentators are at a different fawning level.
Do these new polls change viewers' perceptions of Fox News? Especially with Trump recently tweeting the network “isn’t working for us anymore.” We don’t know. But please, first define “working for us.”
Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto had an on-air answer for Trump: “I don’t work for you. My job is to cover you, not fawn over you or rip you. Just cover you — call balls and strikes.”
Business TV networks on-air hosts/analysts might have a different, more off-hand perspective of the Trump Administration -- even shaking their heads over Trump's tweets attacking the current Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell, something no president has ever done.
On Tuesday, CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” offered a different kind of poll on the economy: Trump’s economic approval rating. As of June 2019, Trump’s approval is at its lowest level since taking the high office -- 41% approve/39% disapprove.
CNBC’s Steve Leisman explains many don’t approve of his China trade policies, nor his criticism of the Federal Reserve.
It's not just analyzing balls and strikes. For U.S. consumers and investors, it also comes down to dollars and cents -- and being incensed.
Wayne, what is missing in your article is the "silent majority". Ask Hillary Clinton about her interpretation and why see lost. These are people who refuse to give out any information or opinions about themself on the phone. Even after the voting poles end, they refuse to partisipated in any survey. Their is a very strong fear to say anything political in today's enviroment. For this reason I don't trust low number poling and I use to own a marketing company that did polling.
It wasn't any "silent majority" that gave Trump the win...it wasn't a majority at all. The 12 final polls gave Clinton a 3% win and they were only off by 1% (source: thehill.com), well within the margin of error. Remember, Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1%. It's only because rural voters' choices count more than city voters under the Electoral College that Trump won the presidency.
Mark, I understand your message clearly. However, Since I live in Tulsa, OK, I take great offense to you blame on "Rural Voters". The 1st Congressional District in Oklahoma is one of the most conservatives House Districts in America. The voters in rural America are very private and don't answer telephone calls or emails unless they are screened. There is a very real fear of future attacks if they respond in a way that is different than the surveying company.
Interesting point, Mark. One thing, however. It's not possible to determine a survey's "accuracy" based on its sample size. All that "the margin of error" percentages give you are the odds that you will get the same answer if you repeat the study---with all of its sampling and other flaws repeated. As a case in point, the Arbitron radio diaries consistantly reported 30% more listening that the PPMs, yet both had similar sample sizes. Ditto with the through-the-book Simmons studies and the "recent reading" MRI magazine readership studies. Both had the same sample sizes---and "error margins", yet MRI reported 50-70% more readers.
Craig, I never meant to place "blame" on any voters, and I understand there are conservatives in cities as well as liberals in rural areas. But I think it's pretty clear that sparsely populated states like Wyoming have more electoral votes per person than heavily populated states like California. It's the American system, written into the Constitution, and at least in 2016 it gave Trump the win despite his loss in the popular vote and the national polls. My point was that these 12 polls were quite accurate, and do not indicate any evidence of a silent majority that refused to answer polls and threw off their accuracy.
I don't doubt that a significant number of people refuse to answer polls. Some may be privacy lovers who are suspicious of "big media" and their questions. But others are people who are tired of hearing from "Rachel at Card Services" and don't answer the phone if caller ID doesn't show up. Put it all together and those 12 polls referred to by The Hill were quite accurate and don't indicate a silent majority voting one way or the other.
Mark, there are a number of points that we agree upon. The one you are overlooking is the fact that the US Census creates the basis for the number of House seats in Congress as well as a factor in the electorial college of 538 total electors. That's a different debate for another day...
On the silent majority, what happened that major media grossly over looked was Hilliary Clinton's "deplorable" comment. This happened short before election day and the majority of the press didn't think it was important. To many, at best the comment was a very bad and even stupid choice of words. To others deplorable is new racist term. No matter, the voters heard it and changed their votes. From the numbers people changed their vote from Clinton to Trump in as many as 4 or 5 states.