Media editors sometimes have their OWN agenda with stuff they ‘report’….
Well, maybe for the first time in history, the Post decided not to create a likely voter model.
However, if you go to the research firm that actually executed the survey, you get a story that puts the outcome outside of the margin of error…
Among all adults – relevant since there’s plenty of time to register – Harris and Tim Walz lead Trump and JD Vance by 50-45 percent. Among those now registered to vote, it’s 49-45 percent, a slight Harris advantage given sampling tolerances. And Harris has a 6-point lead among likely voters, 51-45 percent.
This is exactly the same language ABC News uses in their reporting. ABC also uses Harris’s all adults 50-45 lead as the headline.
The Washington Post only used the lowest possible lead (registered voters) throughout their story with no mention of any other results even though they paid for them.
So my question is why has the Post changed its approach for this result, allowing it to present the following as the primary takeaway, and I repeat,
Given the margin of error in this poll, which tests only national support, Harris’s lead among registered voters is not considered statistically significant
If the Washington Post never presented likely voter models, I would be less suspicious. Or, if they explained why they chose not to present the likely voter results due to a concern about methodology, I would be less suspicious.
But to simply pretend a 6 point likely voter lead doesn’t exist, raises all types of red flags and to me, and in my opinion, shows an inherent bias in the Post’s coverage of the race and highlights why any coverage should be viewed skeptically…..