Political Animal
Blog
A few weeks ago, Dick Morris, the sleazy Republican consultant, wrote an entire print column built around a single observation: the economy lost 30,000 health care jobs in the month of August. There was, however, a small problem: the economy actually gained 30,000 health care jobs in August. Morris’ entire indictment was based on numbers he misunderstood.
This week, it happened again. Here’s the lede in Morris’ new print column, published yesterday.
Behind the president’s whining to the Black Caucus, begging them to “quit grumbling,” is a decline in his personal popularity among African-American voters that could portend catastrophe for his fading reelection chances.
According to a Washington Post/ABC News survey, his favorability rating among African-Americans has dropped off a cliff, plunging from 83 percent five months ago to a mere 58 percent today — a drop of 25 points, a bit more than a point per week!
If the president’s favorability rating among African Americans really had slipped to 58%, that would be a pretty significant development. But once again, Morris based an entire column on numbers he chose not to read carefully enough.
What the poll actually found is that President Obama enjoys an 86% favorability rating among African Americans — 28 points higher than Morris’ column claimed.
How’d he screw this up? The poll found that 58% of African Americans have a “strongly favorable” view of Obama, but that’s only part of the basis of a favorability rating. Morris apparently noticed one number, brushed past the relevant detail, and published a claim that’s plainly not true.
The point here isn’t that the president can ignore some of his key supporters, and win a second term with his current levels of support. Clearly Obama has a lot of work to do. The point is, The Hill keeps publishing Dick Morris claims that are demonstrably wrong. It’s not a matter of opinion — the columnist is making specific arguments about numbers that aren’t connected to reality.
Indeed, Morris said Obama was doing well when his favorability rating among African Americans was 83%. But right now, they’re 86%. By Morris’ reasoning, Obama is doing great with this constituency.
Also note, this wasn’t just some side detail Morris flubbed — just as with the clearly dishonest health care column a few weeks ago, the columnist is building entire print pieces around basic statistics that don’t exist.
Either Dick Morris can’t read or he’s assuming his readers won’t bother to check. Either way, maybe it’s time for The Hill’s editors to start taking a closer look at his pieces.
Facebook
Twitter
JJM on September 28, 2011 12:38 PM:
All the GOP has is lying.
Ron Byers on September 28, 2011 12:40 PM:
The Hill has editors? Who knew?
stratplayer on September 28, 2011 12:44 PM:
Either Dick Morris can't read or he's assuming his readers won't bother to check.
It is most certainly the latter.
MattF on September 28, 2011 12:48 PM:
@JJM
The GOP also has an abundance of exceedingly unattractive candidates none of whom has a national constituency. Morris is just pissing into the wind, and I expect that the known laws of fluid dynamics will do their thing.
bigtuna on September 28, 2011 12:50 PM:
the point is that Dick Morris has an apt first name ...
OKDem on September 28, 2011 1:00 PM:
The Hill "Editors? We don't have no stinkin' editors! We don't need no stinkin' editors!"
Sadly, this is true of far too many once literate news sources.
R. Porrofatto on September 28, 2011 1:05 PM:
I doubt if Dick Morris is misreading anything since he lies for a living. It's like expecting Karl Rove to be reasonable, or Grover Norquist to be human.
exlibra on September 28, 2011 1:10 PM:
If wishes were horses, Dick Morris would ride.
pamelabrown53 on September 28, 2011 1:11 PM:
THIS. If the Hill cares a rat's azz about journalistic integrity, it's time they employ a little fact checking rather than publishing outright republican lies.
c u n d gulag on September 28, 2011 1:15 PM:
Just think, this prostitute-toe-sucking-deviant is considered a reputable pundit on the Right!
I wonder if he and Senator Vitter shared hooker tips?
Paul Gottlieb on September 28, 2011 1:18 PM:
Dick Morris can read perfectly well. What Dick Morris does is lie, consistently, almost unceasingly.
c u n d gulag on September 28, 2011 1:19 PM:
I laugh every time I realize that this troll-like, prostitute-toe-sucking-amoral-deviant is considered a reputable pundit on the right.
I wonder if he and Senator Vitter shared any hooker tips?
flubber on September 28, 2011 1:39 PM:
"Dick Morris, the sleazy Republican consultant"
You left off Democrat strategist, ex-friend and advisor to the Clintons.
the president can't ignore some of his key supporters, and win a second term"
Yeah, he kinda can. African Americans vote 95% Democratic, historically, and turnout in their communities is pretty consistent. Who else are they gonna vote for? All the Democratic strategists think they can win more from swing white voters by distancing themselves from African Americans, than they lose by appealing to them. Who will be Obama's Sista Souljah?
As with all the articles about Jewish support for Obama, it's near irrelevant. (They're 2% of the population, already ensconsed in solidly Democratic districts and states. Even in Florida, marginal swings in support among Jewish voters is highly unlikely to do anything).
liam foote on September 28, 2011 1:40 PM:
The right has always ahamelessly botched up their statistics and conclusions, so this is nothing new. If you compare straight approve - disapprove poll results with a previous or subsequent polling scale of 1-5 with "strongly" thrown in, you can basically say whatever you want to.
DisgustedWithItAll on September 28, 2011 1:53 PM:
DICK knows what he's doing.
And after commenters pointed out to The Hill the errors in his last "column" they published yet another pile of his trash.
Republicans are a malignancy on society that needs to be killed.
Patrick Star on September 28, 2011 2:16 PM:
Hmm, I always assumed that The Hill was a reputable news source. Quite obviously, if they're publishing anything written by Dick Morris, a disgraced partisan hack, then my favorable impression of The Hill couldn't be more wrong.
Meme on September 28, 2011 2:21 PM:
Dick Morris, Sleazy?
I think NOT!! I think you and your opinions and any one who defends the low life, scum-sucking, BO are bottom feeding sleazy worms!! Stop sticking your head in the sand buddy and face reality!! BO is history and Dick Morris has it pegged right his eyes are 20-20 and are focused on the true state of affairs - unlike people like YOU and those who agree with you, Dummy.
Meme on September 28, 2011 2:24 PM:
Dick Morris, Sleazy?
I think NOT!! I think you and your opinions and any one who defends the low life, scum-sucking, BO are bottom feeding sleazy worms!! Stop sticking your head in the sand buddy and face reality!! BO is history and Dick Morris has it pegged right his eyes are 20-20 and are focused on the true state of affairs - unlike people like YOU and those who agree with you, Dummy.
Gregory on September 28, 2011 2:29 PM:
Morris ... published a claim that’s plainly not true.
You don't say.
Daniel Kim on September 28, 2011 2:49 PM:
Bad statistics! Bad!
Last Friday, John S. Gordon wrote in the Washington Post "Five myths about millionaires", in which he tried to shoot down the 'myth' that "Millionaires think they're rich" by reporting:
[quote]
On Thursday, 44 percent of people voting in an online survey as part of the GOP debate coverage said that a $1 million annual income made a person “rich.”
[endquote]
Conveniently, he linked to the survey for convenient checking. It turns out that the question was:
[quote]
Here's the question: "I define rich as someone having an annual income higher than." A hundred thousand dollars, 13 percent of you weighed in there; $250,000, 22 percent; $500,000, 22 percent; and the majority went with $1 million annual income, that defines you as rich,44 percent of those who voted.
[endquote]
OK, so if one can assume that those who answered that $100k makes you rich would also believe that an even higher income also makes you rich, this works out to 100% of those surveyed believe that a million a year makes you rich, not just 44%!
(This was pointed out by an alert commenter, who is more thorough than I am.)
So, stats are kinda slippery. I wonder how these guys managed on the SAT's Data Interpretation section?
CAPTCHA says: Indeed! yprubsit
Stephen Stralka on September 28, 2011 2:55 PM:
There's definitely a pattern of right-wingers trying to convince themselves that Obama is less popular than he actually is. I'm not sure if that's the case with Morris' error, but I am reminded of it.
I saw some one comment about the LinkedIn forum where this guy was saying he saw the video, and he could tell the crowd hated Obama, and it was just liberal bias that made the reporter claim he got a positive reception. I don't get it. I guess it makes these people feel better to tell themselves Obama is wildly unpopular, but I don't see how that's going to help them beat him. It's generally considered sound strategy to know your enemy.
Robert Waldmann on September 28, 2011 4:23 PM:
Looks like the reading evfort has worked out not necessarily to Mr Morris0s advantage. " maybe it’s time for The Hill’s editors to start taking a closer look at his pieces." is brilliant hypobole (that is the logical word for humorous understatement no ?).
But seriously, if they want the Hill to be worthy of respect, they must publish corrections and not consider publish Morris again.
Robert Waldmann on September 28, 2011 4:32 PM:
Also as we suffer do to the boring spineless technowimp no drama Obama, I fondly remember the political genius of Bill Clinton
Who trusted Dick Morris to explain to him how to get popular approval.
See also the brilliant Richard Penn who Bill trusted to tell Hillary how to beat Barack and who just explained how Obama is repelling moderates with tax proposals which appeal to partisan
Republicans.
I appreciate the efforts of the professional left, but I wish they had memories.
Another Steve on September 28, 2011 4:37 PM:
See, I think "fact checking" in this decade means "we will fix, or require you to fix, statistical errors that are inconsequential and typographical. So if you say '85%' and the actual number is '83%,' you must fix it or we will fix it. However, if the error is huge and fixing would render the entire story pointless or nonsensical, we will deem it "opinion" and ignore it because our need for 'content' to cover up all the white space supersedes our interest in not willfully lying to our readers."
wb on September 29, 2011 12:04 AM:
It's interesting that Morris, supposedly a professional pollster, is evidently completely innumerate. I mean, I've met political pollsters who couldn't tell a k-means cluster from a confounding variable, but they at least could do simple arithmetic. Morris, not so sure anymore.