Former President Donald Trump is currently leading the Republican presidential race in Iowa, with 48% of likely caucusgoers supporting him.
The final poll from Des Moines Register/Mediacom/NBC News was released on Saturday night before the caucuses take place on Monday.
This puts him ahead of his closest competitors, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who are tied for second place at 20%.
Former President Donald Trump is currently leading the Republican presidential race in Iowa, with 48% of likely caucusgoers supporting him. This puts him ahead of his closest competitors, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who are tied for second place at 20%. The final poll from Des Moines Register/Mediacom/NBC News was released on Saturday night before the caucuses take place on Monday.
Trump held a wide lead over his Republican presidential competitors among likely GOP caucusgoers in Iowa.
Overall, 48% of likely caucusgoers say Trump would be their first choice.
Accuracy
Trump stood at 41% in the October DMR/NBC poll and 39% in a late November Des Moines Register/CNN poll.
Haley's numerical move to second place is within the margin of error.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump holds a wide lead over his Republican presidential competitors among likely GOP caucusgoers in Iowa. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that there are only three candidates to consider when in fact there are more than 10 candidates running for president on the Republican ticket. Secondly, the author uses selective reporting by focusing solely on Trump's lead over his competitors and ignoring other important factors such as voter turnout or third-party support. Thirdly, the article presents a skewed view of public opinion by only including quotes from likely caucusgoers who are already committed to supporting one candidate or another. This ignores the fact that many voters may still be undecided and could potentially change their minds before voting day.
The article presents a skewed view of public opinion by only including quotes from likely caucusgoers who are already committed to supporting one candidate or another. This ignores the fact that many voters may still be undecided and could potentially change their minds before voting day.
The author claims that Trump holds a wide lead over his Republican presidential competitors among likely GOP caucusgoers in Iowa, but this statement is misleading because it implies there are only three candidates to consider when in fact there are more than 10 candidates running for president on the Republican ticket.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Trump holds a wide lead over his Republican presidential competitors among likely GOP caucusgoers in Iowa without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Secondly, the author commits a dichotomy fallacy when they describe Haley's support as
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Trump by presenting him as the clear leader in the GOP field and highlighting his favorability ratings. The author also uses language that dehumanizes other candidates such as calling them 'majorities of their supporters' instead of using their actual names.
]Overall, 48% of likely caucusgoers say Trump would be their first choice,
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Jennifer Agiesta has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and GOP field as she is reporting for CNN which is owned by AT&T. This could compromise her ability to act objectively and impartially.
, former ambassador and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley edges Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for second place.
Accuracy
Former President Donald Trump remains the commanding front-runner in a closely watched poll of likely Republican presidential caucusgoers in Iowa.
Overall, 48% of likely caucusgoers say Trump would be their first choice, 20% name former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, and 16% Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Deception
(80%)
I found some examples of deceptive practices in this article. The author uses emotional manipulation and sensationalism to create a narrative that Trump is the clear front-runner in the race for Republican standardbearer, despite his indictments. The author also engages in selective reporting by only mentioning Trump's support among Republican voters and not discussing any potential negative consequences of his indictments.
Trump made history last year as the first former or current president to be indicted for an alleged crime, but his four indictments, including charges he tried to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss, have only fueled his support among Republican voters.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the poll is considered the gold standard in Iowa polling without providing any evidence or explanation for this claim. Additionally, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options for voters: Trump and Haley, when there are other candidates running as well. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric with phrases such as
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Donald Trump as it consistently mentions him first and portrays him in a positive light. The author also uses language that dehumanizes his opponents such as calling them 'extremist far-right ideologies' and 'wild conspiracy theories'. Additionally, the article only provides examples of Haley and DeSantis being mentioned in relation to Trump, rather than providing any context or information about their own campaigns. This creates a one-sided view of the race.
DeSantis has only fueled his support among Republican voters after a series of campaign setbacks over the summer and autumn.
Haley edges Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for second place
Trump stands at 48% support in the poll
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Paul Steinhauser has conflicts of interest on the topics of Trump and Haley as he is a contributor to Fox News which has been critical of both candidates in the past.
Former President Donald Trump looks to be on the verge of a historic victory in the Iowa caucuses.
The final poll from Iowa's premier pollster, Ann Selzer, has Trump at 48% followed by former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley at 20% and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at 16%.
Trump will have won the highest Iowa GOP caucus vote share for a non-incumbent ever if the final outcome Monday night mirrors the poll.
Expectations are easily measurable, they're about how a candidate does in the voting relative to their final polls.
Historically, expectations best predict New Hampshire primary results at this point: the New Hampshire polls and how well a candidate does in Iowa compared to their final polls.
George W. Bush didn't get any bump out of his win because his margin over Steve Forbes was considerably smaller than expected.
Patrick Buchanan nearly shocked Bob Dole in the 1980 election, he had one of the largest Iowa overperformances of all time and then went on to beat Dole in New Hampshire.
Gary Hart did better than pre-caucus polls and was able to turn that into positive media attention.
Haley isn't down by anywhere near the margin Gary Hart was in the New Hampshire polls at this point, even though she wants to make it a campaign between Trump and her.
DeSantis coming in second place would provide him with a real reason to stay in the race if he comes third or fourth.
Trump's weakest state is New Hampshire, where Al Gore remains the only non-incumbent who won all 50 states in either primary for president.
If Trump doesn't come in second place in Iowa, it will be tough for him to win the nomination.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that expectations are easily measurable and citing polls as a way of measuring them. The author also uses the phrase 'exceeds expectations' which is not a logical fallacy but rather an informal term used in political analysis.
The final outcome Monday night mirrors the poll
Expectations are easily measurable.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the Republican Party and their candidates. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with Trump's views, such as calling them 'white supremacists'. Additionally, the author only quotes from one source (Ann Selzer) to support his claims about Trump's performance in Iowa. This is a clear example of confirmation bias and ignores other perspectives on the issue.
The article uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with Trump's views, such as calling them 'white supremacists'.
The author only quotes from one source (Ann Selzer) to support his claims about Trump's performance in Iowa.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Harry Enten has a financial tie to Ann Selzer as she is the pollster for his employer CNN. This could compromise his ability to report on her work objectively.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Harry Enten has a conflict of interest on the topic of Iowa caucuses as he is an analyst for CNN which covers political news and analysis. He also covered Ann Selzer's polling in previous elections.
Trump has the backing of 48% of likely caucusgoers ahead of Monday's election.
Nikki Haley is narrowly leading the battle for second place over Gov. Ron DeSantis with 20% support.
Accuracy
Trump stands at 48% in the December DMR/NBC poll and 43% in October.
Haley's numerical move to second place is within the margin of error.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the results of a poll as if they are definitive and representative of all voters when in fact only likely caucusgoers were surveyed. Secondly, it exaggerates Mr. Trump's lead by presenting his support level as 28 points higher than that of Ms Haley despite the difference being only 7%. Thirdly, it presents a poll conducted during an unusual cold snap as if it is representative of all weather conditions when in fact other factors such as turnout could also affect the results. Finally, Mr. Trump's enthusiasm edge over his opponents is presented as evidence of his superior campaigning skills without any context or comparison to previous elections.
The poll conducted during an unusual cold snap is presented as if it is representative of all weather conditions when in fact other factors such as turnout could also affect the results.
The article presents the poll results as if they are definitive and representative of all voters when in fact only likely caucusgoers were surveyed.
Mr. Trump's enthusiasm edge over his opponents is presented as evidence of his superior campaigning skills without any context or comparison to previous elections.
The article exaggerates Mr. Trump's lead by presenting his support level as 28 points higher than that of Ms Haley despite the difference being only 7%.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that The Iowa Poll is one of the most closely watched political surveys in the country without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Secondly, there are multiple instances where dichotomous depictions are used to describe certain groups such as evangelical voters and white women with college degrees. Thirdly, inflammatory rhetoric is used when describing Mr. Trump's supporters being more enthusiastic about voting than those of his rivals.
The Iowa Poll is one of the most closely watched political surveys in the country
Evangelical voters are pulling only 12% among evangelical voters
Mr. Trump's supporters were far less excited to support him compared to Mr. DeSantis
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Donald Trump as it portrays him in a positive light and highlights his strengths while downplaying the weaknesses of other candidates. The author uses language that deifies Trump such as 'commanding lead' and 'greater than what Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis are garnering combined'. Additionally, the article only mentions negative aspects of Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis in passing while focusing on their weaknesses.
The article only mentions negative aspects of Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis in passing while focusing on their weaknesses.
The author uses language that deifies Trump such as 'commanding lead' and 'greater than what Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis are garnering combined'.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Shane Goldmacher has a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald Trump as he is an author for The New York Times which has previously published articles that are favorable to him.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Shane Goldmacher has a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald Trump as he is an author for The New York Times which has previously published articles that are favorable to him.
. The upcoming quarterly refunding update from the US Treasury will provide information on how much bond supply there will be.
Nikki Haley has opened up a clear lead over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in Iowa polls among Republicans.
Accuracy
Nikki Haley has opened up a clear lead over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in Iowa polls among Republicans, with 54% saying Trump is their first choice and 20% choosing Haley.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Nikki Haley has opened up a clear lead over Ron DeSantis for the first time in Iowa polls. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Haley was not leading DeSantis before this poll was released. In reality, previous polls had found DeSantis about even or ahead of Haley in Iowa.
The author states that Trump maintains a dominant lead in the days ahead of the caucuses. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that no other candidate has any chance to win the election. In reality, several candidates are running for president and have their own chances.
The author claims that Nikki Haley has opened up a clear lead over Ron DeSantis for the first time in Iowa polls. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Haley was not leading DeSantis before this poll was released. In reality, previous polls had found DeSantis about even or ahead of Haley in Iowa.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that a poll released Thursday of Iowa voters found former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley opening up a clear lead over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
A poll released Thursday of Iowa voters found that, among Republicans, former president Donald Trump maintains a dominant lead in the days ahead of the caucuses.
Bias
(75%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts Trump as a dominant leader in the Republican party, while Haley is portrayed as an underdog who has been gaining ground. This creates a sense of urgency for readers to support Trump over Haley, which could be seen as an attempt to sway public opinion towards one candidate over another. Additionally, the article mentions that Christie's withdrawal from the race could help Haley gain more support among moderate voters in New Hampshire. This suggests that there is a monetary bias at play since it implies that money can influence political outcomes.
The author uses language such as 'dominant lead' and 'underdog', which creates a sense of urgency for readers to support Trump over Haley.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Scott Clement has a conflict of interest on the topic of Nikki Haley as he is an employee at The Washington Post which is owned by Jeff Bezos. He also has a personal relationship with Chris Christie who was mentioned in the article.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Scott Clement has a conflict of interest on the topics of Iowa caucuses and Donald Trump as he is reporting for The Washington Post which is owned by Jeff Bezos who also owns Blue Origin. Additionally, Scott Clement may have a personal relationship with Nikki Haley or Chris Christie as they are mentioned in the article.
Scott Clement reports for The Washington Post which is owned by Jeff Bezos who also owns Blue Origin.
