More reeking hypocrisy by the Columbian: THEY question someone ELSE'S methodology on polling?

.
In their latest article on a poll, the rag questions the methodology used by the pollster to get the results they show... results that include the following:

The firm reported that 33 percent of respondents favored Pollard, 27 percent supported Leavitt and 19 percent backed Stemper, with the remaining 21 percent undecided.

And

Fifty-eight percent of respondents said they would not support bridge tolls, even if that is the only way the Interstate 5 Bridge could be replaced.

KMac & Associates also reported that 71 percent of respondents opposed "a Las Vegas-style casino in northern Clark County."

Now, the numbers here are pretty close to the reality of the situation.

Leavitt, a thoroughly political shill who has usually totted Royce's water (and the fishwrapper's) like a Gunga Din clone, offers no vision or history substantially different than the mayor's.

His scam of the minuscule hispanic endorsement was a complete exercise in political cynicism, top to bottom, that was as sickening to watch as it was predictable. His lies about his position on tolling for the unneeded and unwanted I-5 Bridge replacement/Loot rail swindle (He DOES want tolls, anything else notwithstanding) and his general, over all failure to separate himself from Pollard over the several years he's been on the council doom his candidacy.

Since he is something of a portrait of a younger, more arrogant, more manipulative version of Royce who offers no real difference, he has no chance to win... nor should he.

Unfortunately, neither Leavitt NOR Royce are fit for elective office. Leavitt, not doubt, intends to use this election as a springboard for bigger and better things down the road... Congress or something.

Like Jon Russell, however, political cynicism is not a qualification for running for office, and I'll be doing all I can to make sure he fails.

All of that said, however, we're stuck with the response of the despicable rag that poses as our local paper.

They produce absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest the poll is wrong, save relying, rather stupidly, on a 4 year old poll THEY did "scientifically" as if opinions and attitudes simply couldn't change.

That finding contradicts scientific polling The Columbian did on the Cowlitz casino almost four years ago, which found a slight majority in favor of the project.

Now, why did they attack the methodology?

Simple. Because they hated the findings.

Twelve or so years ago, we had a very scientific poll that slaughtered the idea of loot rail coming into Clark County. So why does this despicable rag support it now in the face of that scientific and overwhelming opposition?

Of course, the simple solution would be for the rag to do their OWN poll, a useful tool in the absence of a vote (which this rag would NEVER support) as long as it was a straight, legitimate poll... unlike the kind they've favored in the past with numbers as pre-ordained as the CRC study "outcome."

If the numbers conformed with this steaming pile's world-view, this article would have been completely different.

Mize supports his position by stating:

McDonald for years has been an outspoken casino opponent. Her firm's Web site lists an anti-Cowlitz casino group, Citizens Against Reservation Shopping, as a former client.

Using THAT kind of reasoning, then, we have no choice to but to doubt anything the Columbian tells us that supports the massive waste of billions of our dollars and their support of any candidate... because, after all, they've been "outspoken supporters" of leftists and that massive waste of money that would bring in the unwanted and unneeded bridge replacement... and fair is fair.

Because it's not like this lying scumpile would ever lie, is it? They'd NEVER manipulate or let their biases rule the day. So, we would be wise to apply the exact same standard to the rag as they apply to everyone else that opposes their agenda.

But then, what else can we expect from a waste of space that long since gave up any pretense of journalistic tenets? They offer nothing to show the pollster wrong... they just attack her methods.

There's a reason this rag is circling the drain. And this article is just one of them.