At www.nationaljournal.com Steven Shepard discusses the night of truth which settled the partisan debate about the skewed samples of polls.
I tried to post two comments. One notes that the article presents the debate over whether all major pollsters but Rasmussen and Gravis were statistically biased. It notes the evidence is that those two are biased and the MSM pollsters aren't. I objected that this was not an open question before the 2012 election, since Rasmussen's polls had a 3.8% Republican minus Democrat bias in 2010.
By shouting loudly, Republicans managed to make the debate over alleged bias in pollsters with good records and not the bias in a pollster with a very bad record. People who looked at the data from 2010 were not surprised by the results in 2012. I have no doubt that there will be an article in 2014 on the Republicans' argument that all polls but Rasmussen Gravis and new imitators are biased and, after the election, another noting the new discovery that Rasmussen is biased and that the Gallup likely voter filter introduces bias. I am confident that, two years from now, journalistic conventions will imply that two year old facts must be considered irrelevant again.
My more serious concern with the generally good article is that the choice of one word repeats an unsupported claim made by the unskewers in an article noting that they're predictions were wrong.
The unfortunate choice of word in context (my emphasis)
Groups such as Project New America and Americans United for Change commissioned multiple surveys in battleground states over the final weeks of the campaign, in some cases releasing more than one poll in a state per week, in large part as an effort to combat what one prominent Democratic strategist involved in the effort called the "negative storyline" formed by automated polls and other surveys that understated Obama's vote share. These were live-caller polls, conducted using landlines and cell phones, and in most cases they reflected Democrats' view that the demographic composition of the electorate would be more favorable to Obama.
My comment (edited a bit)
I want to object to "