This one pretty much speaks for itself.
First the numbers: Five days ago, to great media fanfare, the ABC News-Washington Post tracking poll showed Hillary Clinton opening a huge 12% lead over Donald Trump – 50% to 38%.
This morning (without any interviewing conducted after the new revelations about Hillary Clinton’s email were made public), it is Hillary Clinton 47% to 45% for Donald Trump.
That’s Hillary Clinton’s 12% lead cut to 2% in five days flat….with enormously bad news for Ms. Clinton not yet taken into account.
So how does ABC News report it?
It’s a tale of two electorates in the ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll, with shifts in intended turnout moving a large advantage for Hillary Clinton a week ago to a far tighter 2016presidential race today.
From a 50-38 percent Clinton lead over Donald Trump in the tracking poll’s first four days, Oct. 20-23, it’s a 47-45 percent contest in the latest results. The movement has been in Trump’s favor, +7, while the -3 in Clinton’s support is not significant, given the sample size.
Translation: it’s far tighter, but Hillary’s loss of support is not statistically significant. The end.
Great job, ABC.
But tell us: is the DIFFERENCE between those two poll results, of 10%, significantly different? Is Donald Trump’s 7% GAIN statistically significant? Is the news about Hillary Clinton LIKELY to move these data further in Trump’s favor once it is incorporated into the tracking poll?
Actually, don’t bother. Based on your sample size, a difference of 6% is outside the margin of error, thus significant. So the answer you declined to give us in your “news” report about this tracking poll is that, yes, both of those findings are statistically significant. And the effect of this news about Hillary Clinton is self-evident.
That noted, I would like to thank you for me find this information outside of your report – something a great many readers will not do. It provides still another demonstration of why I call so much of mainstream media biased.