Looking to the Polls for Answers?

The news was filled with charts and graphics of the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll today.

Let’s start by saying I have a little experience with survey research – known popularly as polling. I studied methodology and statistics. I worked as a research officer in mental health for years. I’m not a world renowned expert, but I am an informed consumer.

Some principles are absolutely essential for results that have any value:
* random selection of participants
* large sampling (at least 2000 to have real statistical significance)
* pre-testing the questions to ensure participants understand what you’re asking
* unbiased statement of the questions
* adequate range of responses
* timing – complete the survey efficiently so relevant events don’t intervene (some people get asked before the relevant event, and others after, potentially changing the results – i.e., “Is your home insurance adequate?” asking some before the hurricane hits and some after – the first people might have given you a different answer after!)

The next time you pick up a newspaper or turn on the news and see another poll telling you how the American people are feeling on any particular subject, try to find out whether those principles have been met. It’s hard to do, because the most you usually get is the “+ or – “ levels. If the + or – levels are higher than 2%, ignore the data completely if anything important is riding on a close result.

That said, I was interested to see the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. I searched around a bit until I found the full report. They surveyed only 1005 people, in 350 geographic regions, made sure they got an even number of males and females … not truly random sampling, but they tried to ensure a “representative” sample … and their results had an error rating of +- 3.1% for some questions, and +/- 4.4% for other questions. That pretty much wipes out most of the differences in this poll. The pundits, of course, are finding evidence for just about everybody’s viewpoint in these results.

But there were a few things that are probably accurate reflections of American sentiment. I’ll cherry pick a little.

To start, “What do you think will be an indicator that the economy is improving?” 58% said increased employment – only 9% are looking at the stock market. Can somebody please tell that to politicians and media pundits? Economists have their formulas, but people live in the real world.

51% approve of the job Obama is doing. This is unchanged. 77% approve of him as a person, also pretty steady.

22% approve of the way Republicans in Congress are handling health care reform, 66% disapprove. Even with a small sample and large margin of error, this is a significant finding. But not a surprising one.

Who will be to blame (remember that part about unbiased questions?) if health care reform fails? 10% blame the President; Dems 16%; the Repubs 37%; everyone equally 23%.

39% approval on Obama’s health care plan – 41% disapprove, 20% no opinion. This is an improvement over last month’s poll, where the approval was only 36%, disapproval was 42%, and the no opinion/not sure was 22%. If it were a bigger sample, I’d say this is evidence of a swing in favor of the proposals President Obama has been touting.

45% said it would be better to pass the plan than stick to the status quo; 39% favor keeping the current health system.

This is one of my favorite questions:

“Thinking about efforts to reform the health care system, which would concern you more? Not doing enough to make the health care system better than it is now by lowering costs and covering the uninsured; OR Going too far and making the health care system worse than it is now in terms of quality of care and choice of doctor.”

The way they asked that question was unclear, contained apparent bias, and was pretty restrictive in the responses. They only asked half the respondents this one, so the sample was even smaller. It would be hard to base your vote on this response if you were a member of the Senate Finance Committee, but let’s bet some will.

The responses? Not doing enough 44%; Going too far 48%; Not sure 8%

For what it’s worth, one month ago the responses to that question were: Not doing enough 41%; Going too far 54%; Not sure 5%.

You might interpret this to mean that President Obama’s public sales pitch has been working, because this time more were afraid the reform wouldn’t go far enough, and fewer were afraid it would go too far.

Consider the possibility that of the 41% who disapprove of Obama’s plan, many are progressives who think he hasn’t gone far enough.

Commenting on MSNBC today, White House advisor David Axelrod said they don’t look at the polls (though he was familiar with this one). He said “Washington thinks every day is election day”, and the Obama group doesn’t take that approach. They see a problem and address it without concern for the political fallout.

Fact is, virtually every day IS election day for Congress – with elections every two years for ALL of House and 1/3 of Senate.

That’s why everyone pours over the latest poll results and bases the future of America on them. Here’s one that seems interesting - 49% said they would like to get a new representative, 40% said they would “keep the one I have.” I thought that was encouraging – the higher the number in favor of change, the better – but pundits on both sides claim this one as good news for their side. Truth is, it turns out the numbers have been about the same on nearly every poll since 1992! And incumbents almost always get re-elected.

Cross your fingers for change, but don't bet the kids' college funds on this one.

JM

Journalism in America

We must note the passing of a legendary, groundbreaking journalist. Don Hewitt, originator and producer of 60 Minutes for over 30 years, producer of the first Kennedy/Nixon televised debate, has succumbed to cancer. The world of investigative journalism got a true energy burst from the development of 60 Minutes. They set a standard that has yet to be exceeded. Though we're sure he was disappointed with the state of journalism on television today, we believe he never lost sight of the importance of getting to the truth, and telling it effectively without bias. Any reporting of Don Hewitt's death by Fox News will be abruptly switched off in our home.

A day can't go by without more outrage over sputtering health care reform. The latest is the NBC poll that shows most Americans - 91% - want some kind of health care reform. Which makes it difficult to understand why most also believe three of the four biggest lies about the proposed health care reform bills in Congress. Breaking it down, 55% believe Obamacare would be available to illegal immigrants (not true); 54% believe the Government will completely take over health care (not true); 50% believe the Government would pay for every abortion (not true); and 45% believe the Government would use death panels to refuse care to Grandma (NOT TRUE!). Unbelievable. But real.

And here's where it gets really interesting. Viewers of Fox News account for most of those numbers. 72% of Faux News viewers believe illegal immigrants would be covered; 79% that Government would takeover all your health care; 69% that tax dollars would pay for abortions; and 75% that the Government would pull the plug on Grandma.

They have believed the outright lies that Fox propagates as news. Journalism. Without shame.

Sadly, CNN (supposedly completely neutral) and MSNBC (supposedly liberal) haven't been able to squelch the lies either. Among their viewers, 41% believe the illegal immigrant lie; 39% believe the takeover lie; 40% believe the abortion lie; and 30% - YES 30% - believe the death panel lie.

Pundits are complaining about the ineffective messaging put out by the Obama White House, but for heaven's sake, how do you combat the Big Lie when its primary promulgators are one of the most watched news outlets? Then add those internet scandal sheets, and the way ALL the news outlets, broadcast and cable, cover the liars at town hall meetings, only occasionally pointing out the lies.

Is there really no law that requires news outlets to tell the truth? Or correct their lies? Are Americans really so gullible? Obama wasn't born here? Obama's a Nazi? We despair.

And tonight, Tom Delay says it's Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP that are driving up the cost of health care. And he'd like the President to produce his birth certificate. And he gets on TV - virtually every channel. And we wonder why so many people believe the lies.

Of course there's more to life than health care.

Governor Bill Richardson has been talking with the North Koreans, and he reports that he feels they are now prepared to enter into dialog with us. So where do the "journalists" of today put the emphasis in their coverage? "Why aren't they talking with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton?" Pat Buchanan says this is evidence that Mrs. Clinton isn't being taken seriously. That this is a slight. Obama's playing it wrong. What game is Buchanan playing? What's important is that the relationship with North Korea may be warming up, substantive discussions may be possible. State Department had to give permission for these talks (since North Koreans aren't allowed to go anywhere in the US besides the United Nations without getting permission), and clearly Secretary Clinton was involved in this granting. The North Korean officials had had discussions previously with Gov. Richardson when he was a special envoy for then-President Bush in April of 2007. They knew him, he knew them, they were comfortable in talking with him. Is it such a stretch to posit that Secretary Clinton actually cared more about improving relations with a hostile nation than thumping her chest in a territorial in-fight? Men! Journalists! Thank God Hillary Clinton can set aside any ego issues and do what's right for America.

The people of Iraq are going to the polls in January in an effort to put their country on course for security and freedom. Sadly, that may be the reason behind the six deadly bombings that happened Wednesday, taking at least 95 lives and injuring 500 more. The location, timing and efficiency of the attacks indicate that a well-organized, well-funded and well-connected group is responsible. The most likely motivation for this outrageous violence is to show that the Iraqi government has failed to develop adequate security. Who could gain from such a demonstraton? Two possibles: those who want the US to maintain a military presence in the cities, and political opponents of Maliki and his governing party. Some journalists at Al Jazeera point the finger at interfering Arab neighbors, specifically Saudi Arabia. Regardless of who is responsible, the danger for America is getting caught up in the idea that we need to stay longer in order to give the Iraqi people more time to develop better security. Let's not forget that attacks like this, even in the Green Zone, happened when we had a huge military presence in the cities. Lately, things had been relatively peaceful in Iraq, despite our pullback from those cities. We need to maintain our resolve to get our military completely out of that country. The people of Iraq have to come together and stand up to the terrorists -- it's the only way to a secure and stable democracy.

JM