by David Safier
If the story is, Glassman's numbers have gone up 6% since the primaries, why make sure to say, first and last, that McCain is doing much better?
In today's Political Briefs in the Star is the item, Glassman gains in poll. Can't leave that by itself, can we? So the head ends, McCain's still well ahead.
The new Rasmussen number -- Rasmussen, the unbelievably pro-Republican pollster -- has Glassman moving up from 31% to 37%. It has McCain at 51%.
Let's see, how can The Star report that and make sure everyone understands that McCAIN IS STILL IN THE LEAD?
The answer is, begin the story with the words, "Sen. John McCain is still comfortably in the lead," then end by mentioning Nate Silver's analysis that McCain has a 99% chance of winning. (When was the last time you heard Nate Silver's analysis mentioned in the Star?)
Sen. John McCain is still comfortably in the lead in the race to retain his seat, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, but Democrat Rodney Glassman is narrowing the gap.
According to a phone survey of 500 likely voters earlier this week, McCain has 51 percent of the vote to Glassman's 37 percent. The poll, which had Glassman at 31 percent post-primary, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Meanwhile, statistician Nate Silver did a handicapping of the Senate race Thursday in the New York Times and gave McCain a 99 percent chance of retaining his seat.
Question: If McCain has the race completely, totally in the bag, why does The Star feel the need to make the case for McCain so vehemently? This, after all, is a story about Glassman gaining on McCain. Apparently, McCain's numbers haven't moved. [See correction in UPDATE below]
The Star, here was a chance for you to show you could cover the Glassman/McCain race evenly, and you blew it. Again.
UPDATE: The Star blew it more than I realized. I mistakenly said "McCain's numbers haven't moved." The Rasmussen poll has McCain slipping from 53% to 51% while Glassman went up from 31% to 37%. That makes it an 8% shift. The Star must have missed the fact that their Golden-Oldie Boy slipped a few notches. Or maybe that fact was left out because it interfered with the narrative.