A blog about politics.

Polls

A poll taken by CNN today has Americans opposed to the health care legislation passed by the House, 49-46. A poll taken by the Washington Post has a 52% majority opposed to the war in Afghanistan.

I'd say that I take both with a grain of salt, except a grain of salt is more substantive. Let's say, for a moment, the questions were asked in a different way: Are you in favor of the way of the current health care system or would you favor a plan that makes it impossible for insurance companies to deny you coverage but requires that all Americans carry insurance that the government would subsidize for those who can't afford it? Or, Are you in favor of allowing the Taliban to regain control of Afghanistan and provide a safe haven for Al Qaeda?

I daresay the results would be different. The point is, polling on issues is next to useless--especially on issues as emotionally complicated as wars and as technically complicated as health care reform. The only safe conclusion from these particular polls is this: the public has mixed feelings on Afghanistan and health care reform. Brilliant! I have mixed feelings, too. But that's not the way you'll see these played: the headlines will be: Public Opposes Health bill. Public Opposes War.

And the headlines will be ginormous. 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.

  • Print
  • Comment
Comments (16)
Post a Comment »
  • 1

    Joe: polling has become a substitute for good reporting. It is amazing how every day a poll here and a poll there adds to our confusion.

    We have lost the ability to think for ourselves. Should I go to work tomorrow? I'll wait for Rasmussen to poll this before I get up.

    Polls are a curse: they substitute serious political analyses with "at the moment" junk.

  • 2

    Thanks for highlighting this, Joe. Even though I pay pretty close attention, I am not sure I could enumerate what is in the House bill at this point. There have been so many stories about various proposals, it is difficult to keep them straight. People who are not paying close attention at this point (some members of my family) know even less about it.

    I only trust what Nate Silver tells me about polls - except about the Oscars.

  • 3

    Another thing I was reminded of - many shows now have questions that they ask the readers to vote on by the end of show. Re-enforcing the idea that any sampling of opinion, no matter how poorly constructed, is important.

  • 4

    Look at this new ABC poll (pdf) that suggests that 53% support a public option, in general, and 72% support a public option that is limited to the uninsured.

    How does that square with other polls showing less support for a public option?

  • 5

    A frequent defense used by Iraq war supporters when confronted with the pointlessness of the war is that 'everyone thought they had WMDs'. They leave out the fact that the reason 'everyone' thought Iraq had the WMDs was because the republican administration TOLD everyone to think that.

    Polls are interesting in judging who's winning the marketing battle at a particular point in time. That's about all. They say nothing about the rightness or wrongness of an issue. Nor do they say much about where the public's opinion will be in a week or two.

  • 6

    Lies, damned lies, and statistics?

  • 7

    It's a gaddamned shame that few people get an elemental education in empiricism, the scientific method, basic social science and statistics (I'd throw in logic and rhetoric to boot). Everyone could use one but, in particular, I don't know how political journalists function without it. Oh, right, you just told us: badly.

  • 8

    I think Joe and the others commenters here all are making good points that should be considered about polls and polling. One other thing I would also point out is that its hard for polls to measure the effect of the misrepsentations, misleading information and out right lies that come out about any issue. Thats why is so important that we have a strong traditional media and its backed up by support staff and researchers. Even opinion writers like Joe really need the support. Its an almost inhuman feat for a sole reporter to go through these complex bills and come away with a concrete understanding of all the possibles.

    • 8.1

      Quite right, Gunny. They have neither the time nor legal expertise to figure out who's right...
      .
      ...yet that doesn't stop them from spouting off half-baked opinions and mis-characterizations.

  • 9

    Joe Klein:
    .
    You and I are at ideological odds most of the time, but I can recognize a key political insight when I see one:

    [Polls] don't tell us how many people actually know what's in the House bill...They are what journalists hang on to instead of actually reporting and thinking.

    Given the extensive coverage of the health care reform debate in almost all professional news media, doesn't the obvious question then become:

    Isn't the systemic failure of journalists to "report and think" (rendering questionable the public's level of good information concerning the issue) the biggest news story of them all about health care reform?

    , Joe Klein?
    .
    How could that be so?

    • 9.1

      You mean, how could it be that the biggest story in politics, i.e., how political reporting affects it, is never told?

  • 10

    Great epiphany Joe: Polls are useless. If you don't get the result you are looking for using honest, straight forward questions, just rephrase the questions to get the "correct" results.

    I dare-say that your epiphany stems from a disbelief that anyone could not want a government-controlled single-payer system.

    The public does not want government-controlled healthcare no matter how you tilt the polling questions. But I guess the public doesn't know what is good for them, right?

    Poll this: "If your Congressman of Senator votes for a government-controlled health care bill, will you vote against them in 2010?" 80-90% will say "yes"

    How could anyone know what is in the house bill? That is by design. It is 1,900 pages of new regulations and taxes designed to implode the healthcare system and create a single-payer system.

    You rarely hear polls lead the news cycle unless it fits a certain view of a topic. That is the problem. Polls have become news stories and, as such, are contrived to elicit a certain response.

    It is great that you have come around to the same opinon of polls as most of your readers. We will see how long it will be until you quote a poll that agrees with your world view.

    I feel the same way about your columns as you do about thes polls: A grain of salt is more substantative.

  • 11

    I agree, Joe. But thyen you have to admit that fatique with both the wars is palpable and so maybe the public's current distaste for what we're doing in Afghanistan now needs to be taken into account before we commit more troops and money to it.

    A lot's changed since we invaded Afghanistan but three things strike me as plausible reasons why people might be fed up: 1) Lack of results (we didn't get Laden which is supposedly why we went in, this was not supposed to be about turning Afghanistan into a democracy 2) Corruption on the part of the leader we've supported for years undermines the worth of the whole endeavor and 3) the recession reminds us that every dollar not either saved or spent here is likely not being properly prioritized.

    I won't point to any one poll just because it's convenient and say "ah ha, the majority of Americans see things my way!" but I also think that it's not right for the government to pursue policies that are clearly out of step with the priorities of the American people. I'm sure we could write up a poll where Americans could find many uses for the billions of dollars an Afghan escalation would cost us.

  • 12

    "More Americans support creation of a new government-run health insurance plan to compete with the private insurance market, a new Associated Press poll finds, but the level of enthusiasm depends on how the question is asked. "

    But of course.

    • 12.1

      .."the level of enthusiasm depends on how the question is asked. "
      But of course."

      How else would a pollster report 80% of good, God-fearing, kindly, christian, even pro-life Americans supporting the invasion and slaughter of multitudes of innocent kids - God's creation - in Iraq if you aren't somewhat misleading, deceptive, insincere, conniving, devilish ..

      It is like the case of a "respected economist" who is paid $50,000 to specifically report that the health care bill is bad for jobs and the economy ...
      [Hold on! What would that same "respected economist" find for $600,000 from phRMA?]

  • 13

    [...] on issues is next to useless,” he blogged, “especially on issues as emotionally complicated as wars and as technically complicated as [...]

Add Your Comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Swampland Daily E-mail

Get e-mail updates from TIME's Swampland in your inbox and never miss a day.