Polls

Support for Healthcare Downplayed by Media

Date: March 24, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Healthcare, Polls, Washington Post

As I reported yesterday, the press is tending to underplay the actual support for healthcare reform.  If I were asked in a poll if I support the bill that was passed, I would have said no because it doesn’t go far enough.  The CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted during the weekend showed that when you combine those who supported the legislation signed by the president yesterday and those who opposed it because it did not go far enough, 52% of Americans support the bill and/or even greater reform.

Today in The Washington Post, reporter Scott Wilson again mischaracterizes the level of support for reform.

In staging such a high-profile event, the Obama administration was helping to make health-care reform something for Democrats to run on in the midterm elections this fall, despite the fact that a majority of the electorate opposes it, according to opinion polls conducted before the vote. Rarely, if ever, have such events been as raucous as the ceremony-turned-political rally that rocked the ornate East Room for just over half an hour.

Looking at the healthcare polls on PollingReport.com, few of them ask whether opposition is based on the idea that the current bill or general principles about reform don’t go far enough.  But I found two that did.

A Ipsos/McClatchy poll in late February found that overall 41% supported “health care reform proposals presently being discussed" and 47% opposed them.  The poll then asked those who “opposed” the proposals, “Is that because you favor health care reform overall but think the current proposals don’t go far enough to reform health care; OR you oppose health care reform overall and think the current proposals go too far in reforming health care?"  The result:  37% said they favored reform but that the current proposal didn’t go far enough, meaning another 17% actually support greater reform.  The overall support for reform, then, is 58%. 

In a CBS poll in early January, 57% of respondents said the “changes to the healthcare system under consideration in Congress” either were about right or “don’t go far enough.”  When asked about the proposals to “regulate the health insurance industry,” 61% said they were about right or didn’t go far enough.

Electorally, I can’t imagine that those who are disappointed that reform hasn’t gone “far enough” or isn’t “liberal enough” would vote for Republicans in 2010 based on their opposition to reform.  They may stay home because they are disappointed with Democrats, but they won’t be GOP voters.

If you like, write Post reporter Wilson (wilsons@washpost.com) and ask that he not mischaracterize the public’s opinion of healthcare reform.

Cross posted on Commonwealth Commonsense.

Support for Healthcare Reform

Date: March 23, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Healthcare, Polls

Just heard the chattering on MSNBC between Chris Matthews and Patrick Buchanan.  They misrepresented the recent CNN/Opinion Research poll.  They focused on the top line:

As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are trying to pass final
legislation that would make major changes in the country’s health care system. Based on what you
have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor it or generally oppose it?

Favor 39%
Oppose 59%
No opinion 2%

But the next question tells the real story:

(IF OPPOSE) Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is
too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?
QUESTIONS 20 AND 21 COMBINED

Favor (from Question 20) 39%
Oppose, too liberal 43%
Oppose, not liberal enough 13%
No opinion 5%

So what you get is this:

52% support the bill or wish it went further in the direction the Democrats wanted, while 43% oppose it.

You can make an argument that the term “not liberal enough” leaves much to the imagination.  But I’ll bet most folks would include a public option or a single payer system within the “not liberal enough” definition.

Cross posted on News Commonsense.

UPDATE:  Looks like most people now like Obama’s plan.

Support for Healthcare Reform

Date: March 23, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Cable News, Chris Matthews, Healthcare, Polls

Just heard the chattering on MSNBC between Chris Matthews and Patrick Buchanan.  They misrepresented the recent CNN/Opinion Research poll.  They focused on the top line:

As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are trying to pass final
legislation that would make major changes in the country’s health care system. Based on what you
have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor it or generally oppose it?

Favor 39%
Oppose 59%
No opinion 2%

But the next question tells the real story:

(IF OPPOSE) Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is
too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?
QUESTIONS 20 AND 21 COMBINED

Favor (from Question 20) 39%
Oppose, too liberal 43%
Oppose, not liberal enough 13%
No opinion 5%

So what you get is this:

52% support the bill or wish it went further in the direction the Democrats wanted, while 43% oppose it.

You can make an argument that the term “not liberal enough” leaves much to the imagination.  But I’ll bet most folks would include a public option or a single payer system within the “not liberal enough” definition.

Cross posted on Commonwealth Commonsense.

Why The Post is Becoming Irrelevant

Date: February 20, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Declining readership, Polls, Punditry, Tiger Woods, Washington Post
With all the problems the American way of life faces today–declining economic leadership and standard of living, two wars, a broken healthcare system, climate change, increasing energy costs, a financial system that holds the taxpayer hostage–what is The Washington Post covering today?

Before the papers even hit the driveways, I count on its web site 12—Count ‘em, 12!–stories/posts/commentaries, etc. on Tiger Woods’ apology yesterday.  And these are only the ones I can find links for on its home page:

“A disgusting apology,” “Woods convinced me,” “Taking the blame,” “Call it a half-apology,” “Tiger Woods Apologizes,” “Tiger Woods’…Mea Culpa,” “…Apology Leaves Little Room for Sincerity,” “Sincere and Thorough,” “…What Do We Believe,” “Woods Opens Door on Private Life…,” “Will Tiger Join the Shame Hall of Fame,” and last, but not least though certainly a new low for The Post, a poll, asking readers what they think.

Let me spare you all the wasted time reading the work of 12 writers and God knows how many editors, web and graphic designers, and the poor dead trees that gave up their lives for this.  Here’s the video of his public apology.

Let me save you more time:  Don’t view the video.  I didn’t.  And as Friday night rolls into Saturday morning in the central time zone, I can say I have survived not knowing what he had to say.  I may not make it ‘til morning.  I may wake up in a cold sweat and succumb to watching it and reading what all these underemployed journalists think about it. 

Most of them, of course, are pissed that he apparently took a swipe at them.  (I couldn’t help hearing that on a TV news report that caught me before I could run out of the room screaming.) They feel cheated:

“Tiger, would you let us know what your wife said to you when she found out?”

“Yo, Tiger, did you really tell a porn star you loved her and would marry her?  Oh, and how was she?”

“Please tell us, how does it feel to be so humiliated?”  (Note to non-reporters:  “How does it feel?” is the first question all reporters learn to ask.  Adding questions to their repertoire can help their careers, but isn’t really necessary.)

I’m willing to bet that when the paper comes out in the morning, you won’t find 12 full-fledged news stories in the A section.  As I’m out of town, let me know, and if proven wrong, I’ll admit it—in front of cameras with my family members in the audience.  And I’ll try to top Tiger by getting my wife to be there looking distraught and shamed that I guessed wrong.

But only if The Post apologizes to all those dead trees.

Punditry=Over Analysis

Date: February 19, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Chicago Tribune, Polls, President Obama, Punditry, Research, Steve Chapman

Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman provides context to Obama’s declining popularity, currently around 50 percent, depending on the poll.  He’s simply following the usual path of a new president’s first year.  In fact, the Dallas Morning News headline outs it this way:  “Just Like Reagan.”  Mr. Greed-Is-Good, however, rebounded to win 49 states in the next next election.  George W. Bush was on his way to suffering the same fate in his first year, but for 9/11, which despite it being his administration that let its guard down and cost the lives of 3,000 people, that helped his popularity soared.

Chapman cites research by Stanford University professor Douglas Rivers.

Though Obama rated the lowest of recent presidents at the end of his first year, Rivers says the pattern "is pretty much in line with what you would expect." What we see is "more a continuing trend than an Obama phenomenon."

That’s not to say Obama has made no mistakes. Every president bungles some things, and every president pays a price.

His fiscal policy and health care plan, in particular, have spawned public resentment. On the other hand, his grades on gay rights and immigration have actually improved — possibly because he has done less than expected on either. There is no real evidence to suggest that the public finds Obama far more fallible or detestable than they usually find presidents at this stage.

On health care reform, it’s not clear what he could have done differently to appease a notoriously demanding citizenry. Surveys indicate people think that if his plan passes, they will get "worse care at a higher cost," says Rivers. What do they expect if his plan doesn’t pass? "They’ll get worse care at a higher cost."

I wish I could say Americans’ suspicion of health care reform shows a sensible appreciation of the limits of government power and responsibility. But I suspect the real problem is they fear it will not guarantee them everything they want at someone else’s expense. Rivers notes that when you ask people about specific components of the plan, they turn out to be "fairly popular."

If Americans distrust the government, they also take a dim view of the private sector, or parts of it. "Anything negative for insurance companies is popular," says Rivers. Most people blame insurers for rising health care expenditures, even though insurance companies are one of the few constituencies with a powerful interest in reducing outlays.

This is not the contradiction it may appear. People don’t mind when national health care costs rise. They do mind when their personal health care costs rise. When that happens, they blame health insurers. They may also blame the president.

But most important is Chapman’s observation of politicians and the media, pointing out how frustrating it is to see the amount of newsprint dedicated to the daily politics of reform and the insipid observations of the pundit class.

American politicians and commentators are generally not afflicted by a deep knowledge or appreciation of history. If they were, they would not waste their time laboring to explain something that requires little explanation. They could simply state the obvious — new presidents invariably lose public esteem in the first year of their terms — and go on to try to explicate something truly mysterious, like Lady Gaga.

And later,

It’s a mistake to think every political trend has deep meaning.

Ignorant Americans

Date: January 29, 2010
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Polls

Here’s a poll that tells us basically, if you’re polling Americans on public policy issues, you might as well save your money.  American don’t know the basics. 

So will media outlets now stop promoting polls?  Yeah, I don’t think so either.

Journalists Addicted to Polls

Date: November 19, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Polls, Washington Post

Joe Klein makes a good point about polls on issues:  They are useless. But for the press, they are heroin.

This is one of my biggest gripes with journalism as it is practiced, particularly on cable news: Polling numbers are "facts." They can be cited with absolute authority, sort of. And so they are given credence beyond all proportion to their actual importance or relevance. But they are not very truthy facts. The are imperfect impressions. They don’t tell us how many people actually know what’s in the House bill. They don’t tell us what the public thinks a plausible alternative strategy might be in Afghanistan. They are what journalists hang on to instead of actually reporting and thinking. And they are–for me, too–addictive.

Klein seems to target cable news, but have you noticed that just about every poll The Washington Post conducts it touts on its front page? 

I think it’s also true that even when ascertaining opinion on politicians, polls can be misleading.  If a pollster asked me if I was happy with the job Obama is doing, I’d answer “no.”  Does that mean, I’m ready to vote for the next GOPer on the ballot?  Not unless they can resurrect Clifford Case form the dead.

So What’s a Poll Tell You?

Date: September 28, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Polls

Writing earlier today on News Commonsense, I mentioned the fact that if you believe polls, 9/11 and sending our young men and women to die are somehow reasons to feel much better about how things are going in the States.

Like I said, if you believe polls….

When…asked in another survey whether the government should “stay out of Medicare” — an impossibility — 39 percent said yes.

…The results, however, are debatable — respondents might have said they wanted the government to “stay out of Medicare” because they don’t want anyone to change the program — not because they don’t know who runs it, for example.

So while they can’t figure out how to ask a question that really tells us something, they decided to correct an oversight

And as for the Antichrist question [when 8% of New Jerseyans said Obama was], Jensen notes that they should have asked the same question about former President George W. Bush for comparison. They plan to remedy the error this week.

Don’t know about you, but I can’t wait!

And then we have a pollster telling us why polls are important.

“Some would argue that we really shouldn’t even be looking at public opinion, because it’s not informed,” acknowledges [Mark]Blumenthal. “But like it or not, we live in a democracy, and people get to vote every two years.”

Which means public opinion — however it is derived — matters. So legislators hoping for clear-cut answers are probably out of luck — and should accept their fate, say several pollsters.

“Politicians need to understand that voters are very comfortable having mutually contradictory views,” says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake.

But (and it is a big but)

 

Unlike an election, there is no deadline for voters to make a decision about health care reform — and some never will.

So maybe, if the public doesn’t get it by now, dragging it out any more won’t educate them.  In fact, there’s a sizable suspicion that they’d only become more confused.

So, ladies and gentleman of Washington, get ‘er dun.  And when the world doesn’t end and some folks even find things a little better, 2010 will take of itself.

It’s the only poll that counts.

The President’s Ratings Plummet?

Date: September 28, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Polls

“The president’s ratings plummet” is a phrase lifted from a quote by Charlie Cook in describing the usual path of post-election favorability ratings of a president in front of a huge loss in the off year election that follows.  It’s part of a post by Brendan Nyhan.

This month’s, Obama’s rating have ranged from 50% (at the beginning of the month to 58% (with the latest poll at 56%).  Even if that’s more than a 10% decline form its peak, is it really fair to suggest that Obama’s ratings are “plummeting”?  Falling, sure, but in the last month they haven’t even been doing that. At worst, they’re stabilizing.

But that doesn’t make for good press, does it?  I wonder if his ratings hit 60% we’ll hear of his “skyrocketing” poll numbers?

P.S.  If you ever wondered what “right track/wrong track” really measures, here’s something I stumbled across while looking at the numbers above:

  • Right track number was 43% in June 2001.
  • Right track number jumped to 72% in September 2001 and stayed there for three after the 9/11 attacks.
  • Right track number was 36% in January 2003.
  • Right track number jumped to 62% in April 2003, a month after we invaded Iraq.

Just wondering, what was so right track about 9/11 and the Iraq War?

Best Corporate Symbol?

Date: September 28, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: 60 Minutes, CBS News, Polls, Vanity Fair

Vanity Fair and CBS News is teaming up for regular polls to survey “the American consciousness.”  First poll out asks which company is “the best corporate symbol of America today.”  The winner, garnering 48% of the vote, is Wal-Mart. Before you wet your pants about this, consider that those polled had only five choices, the others being Microsoft (doubtful to have won if you were on your computer at the time), NFL (unlikely choice of females), Google (reserved for the technocrats), and Goldman Sachs (placed in the survey just to see if you were paying attention).

Now watch as Wal-Mart’s PR officers try to breathlessly make the claim that it is the pre-eminent symbol of American capitalism!

If you’re not impressed, as I’m not with such a silly poll, you have ample evidence to bolster your impression.  Jeffrey Fager, the executive producer of “60 Minutes” said, “We’re combining our collective brainpower.”