Confederate Symbols and Polls

Confederate symbols have been in the news lately, for good reason. So my nearby major newspaper, the AJC, asked readers in a poll what should be done with the ones scattered around Atlanta. The South rises, the paper says, in defense of Confederate art.

Preliminary results show that those voting are hot to keep the collection as is. Of the 19,500 votes cast, 81 percent voted to keep the statues and paintings with no further historical context. Fewer than 14 percent wanted them moved and just 5 percent wanted more information placed alongside them.

Wow, 81 percent. That's a helluva result. Given the hed, given these number, this must truly represent the feelings of all the folks out there. Or perhaps not.

Three graphs later, they tell us:

The poll is not scientific, but it has been popular, particularly with the Southern heritage movement online. Several Facebook pages posted the poll and urged its subscribers to vote to keep their heroes in the Capitol.

When you see "the poll is not scientific," that should come with a footnote or a caveat that says "this poll is meaningless bullshit, but we're gonna run it anyway because it's fun, and then we'll bury the graph that says it's meaningless bullshit deep in the story." In the public opinion biz we call this a SLOP, a self-selected opinion poll. In other words, those most pissed about something, those who get the word out best via social media, they're the ones over-represented in the results.

In other words, meaningless bullshit.

Don't get me wrong. I love an entertaining SLOP as much as the next guy. Usually you find them on web sites asking your favorite pick for the Oscars, or something else equally trivial. Harmless fun, especially if it's labeled as such. What I don't like, however, is when a SLOP finds its way into the news. Now this is a blog post, not a straight news story, so the AJC deserves a little leeway, but my URL shows it as investigations.blogs, ajc, etc etc. Makes me nervous to see a poll reported this way.

Sarah Palin -- Superstar (for now)

The book, the book tour, the cheering crowds, the praise of Sean Hannity and the derision of Jon Stewart.  It all adds up to Sarah Palin -- Superstar.

Is she peaking too soon?  Or is she solidifying her position early for 2012?  Dunno.  The tactics and strategy of political campaigning are not what this blog is about.  Rather, I'm interested in what people know about Palin and whether or not it matters. 

So let's do the numbers.

Among "independents" her favorable rating has climbed from 33 percent to 49 percent.  Her unfavorable rating has shrunk from 55 to 38 percent.  To be fair these numbers come from a poll generated by Palin-fawning Fox News, so take them with a grain of salt.  Overall, regardless of political affiliation (or lack thereof), Palin -- according to Fox -- has increased from 38 percent to 47 percent favorable.  A CBS poll over roughly the same period has her favorable rating at 23 percent.  Bias in polls?  Katie Couric playing with the numbers?  Well, ABC/Washington Post has her at 43 percent favorable, so you'd be right to wonder about those CBS numbers.

What's interesting is that Palin's numbers continue to climb as Obama's numbers continue to decline.  Soon they will meet, which demonstrates all the difference between governing and campaigning, at least as presented on television and as it plays in the public mind.

When Polls Mislead?

Some are suggesting that polls of everyday folks on really complicated or emotional issues are misleading at best, probably useless at worst.  Recent examples of this argument can be found by Mark Blumenthal and Joe Klein.  Some agreed with this position but focused more on how "the media" report the polls (or even the kinds of poll questions "the media" ask) rather than the polls themselves.  The topic is, of course, health care, and what the American public really thinks about a complicated piece of legislation that is longer than most Harry Potter novels, and a helluva lot less interesting to read.

Maybe most of us could just wait for something simpler, something a bit more cheesy.  A Twilight novel version?

We swerve awfully close to elitism when we ask how much the public really understands of the topics its polled on, but to be honest most research suggests the public offers answers to survey questions without really, truly, understanding what its being asked.  So elitism?  Yeah.  But also reality.

Polls and Policy

An excellent piece by Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, about the role of polls in making policy.  Strongly recommended for those interested in public opinion, what people think, and whether it matters. Shamelessly hotlinked to the right, one of the graphics from the article that shows the growth of mentions of polls in news stories.

People Know -- That They're Confused

A new CBS News poll finds that two-thirds of Americans are confused about the whole health care debate.  A pdf of the entire poll is here.

No doubt the screaming in town halls, the wailing of talk radio hosts, and the frothing by Fox News guys has generated some of the confusion -- as has the inability of the Obama Administration or Congress to explain this in a clear, coherent manner.  Still, more people (49 percent) think the town hall protesters do not reflect the views of most Americans.  Forty-one percent think they do.  The breakdown falls along unsurprising partisan lines, there are just more people identifying themselves as Dems today than GOPers. 

And folks kinda blame Obama.  Three out of five Americans think he's not done a good job explaining all health care reform.  His overall approval ratings have also dropped.  A lot.  He's gone from a high of 77 to 55 in approval, according to this site.  He's also as low as 51 percent, according to the same site, different page.

SLOPpy Polls

A SLOP is a "self-selected opinion poll," most often seen on TV where some talkinghead host asks you to vote via phone or online on some issue. As AAPOR points out, "there is no control over respondent selection because anyone can call in an opinion." So don't be surprised when watchers of Lou Dobbs, for example, all call in and skew the program's "poll" results to favor -- surprisingly -- what Dobbs "thinks."

So as a measure of what people think, it's a load of complete crap.

And that brings us to this bit seen below by funnyman Jon Stewart. Thanks to Nick Browning for pointing this one out to me. As often is the case, Stewart sums it all up and makes it funny to boot.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Poll Bearers
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Polls

Public opinion polls are obviously one key way to learn what people know or think about some subject. The Washington Post has tightened its rules on reporting about polls. The Post's new regs are now out yet, but they will be "especially wary of unproven new polling techniques," according to the story. We're saturated by polls. Many are excellent. Some are complete crap. News organizations need to tell us when a poll is crap, and why. It'd be nice if bloggers did the same, even when they like the results of a poll to prove some partisan nutjob point.

National Priorities

What do people name as the top national priority? You're thinking, "Aha! Trick question! It's so obvious!"

No trick. Just like you guessed, it's the economy. A CBS News/NYTimes poll had 60 percent of adults nationwide saying the economy is, to borrow from CNN, job #1.

In second place? Other.

I don't know what the hell other is, given the long list of topics scoring from 2 or 3 percent. In that list you've got stuff like war in Iraq, family values, education, health care, poverty, and the ever-popular "unsure." Given the margin of error, there is a huge tie for second among nine different topics.

Other recent surveys show largely the same thing -- economy first, a host of other issues tied at a distant second. What people know out there is that things are bad, getting worse, and there's not an overload of confidence in government's ability -- Democratic or Republican -- to fix the mess. Sometimes political knowledge comes down to direct experience, and I'm betting average people out there have a hell of a lot more direct experience with job loss and tough economic times than do the suits in D.C. of either party.

Secret Exit Poll

Interesting NYTimes piece today about a secret exit poll conducted in Kenya. Some argue that had the poll been publicized rather than kept secret, it might have forced the incumbent to not, ahem, swipe the election and also may not have resulted in riots that killed a thousand people. According to the story:

A year later, the poll’s fate remains a source of bitter contention, even as Kenya has moved to remake its electoral system. The failure to disclose it was raised at a Senate hearing in Washington last year and has been denounced by human rights advocates, who said it might have saved lives by nudging Mr. Kibaki to accept a negotiated settlement more quickly.

Polls play an important role. They give us a snapshot of public opinion outside what the pundits and politicians say (or wish) public opinion to be. Sometimes we don't like the results, but the things are uncanny in their accuracy -- if done well, by a pro.

When people argue about polls, it's usually because they don't like the results.

The federal government is probably the single largest polling operation, though most of it is non-political, such as the Census Bureau or other agencies measuring confidence in the economy and a million other topics, large and small. And even spooks do polling, though you don't hear anything about it. No doubt some NSA/CIA spook is reading this right now. Those polls are done to judge what people in another country think and to consider ways to shift opinion.

Two Schools of Thought

We have two schools of thought about tomorrow and how the election comes out versus what the polls have been telling us:

1. The Bradley Effect kicks in and all those people who said they would vote for Obama find they cannot vote for an African American. The election turns out closer than expected. Questions asked of the polls, the media, and democracy.
2. A effect opposite from #1 above is seen, that the polls underestimated a runaway Obama victory. Questions asked of the polls, the media, and democracy.

Or it could be your basic result similar to the one we see in the polls and electoral vote counts and all the rest. Then we can all move on.

Poll Numbers

The Magic Number

Despite polls showing a majority of Americans see Barack Obama as the likely presidential winner, quite a few analysts suspect otherwise. In other words, what people think is going to happen may not actually happen.

Why?

A WSJ article examines historical trends and the fact that Obama is not polling above 50 percent in key states. Undecideds, quite simply, may break for the given thing (John McCain) versus the new guy on the political block (Obama). It's not so much about race -- though that may play a small part. Lots of other things going on here, from Rep. John Murtha making an ass of himself with his "redneck" comments to traction from the "socialism" angle to, well, everything. We've become a partisan, volatile electorate.

As I blogged earlier, a huge expectation of an Obama win coupled with a close McCain victory could get ugly. Screams of voter fraud, aka 2000, will certainly be heard, as will the "they stopped him because he's black" foaming-at-the-mouth tirades, and the news media would then begin its every-4-year-tradition of questioning how it did its polling, its stories, its entire existence.

Get it wrong, guys, and that sound you hear is the final nail in our coffin.

Do I think we'll have a Truman moment? Nope, but I do think it'll be closer than the polls suggest. I simply can't see the math for a McCain win, but I'll sure as hell be staying up late next Tuesday night.

Socialistic Traction

Some political observers think the socialism and redistribution of the wealth arguments by McCain against Obama are gaining traction. I think so too, though probably not enough to save the GOP.

And now there's a little evidence, this from a recent Newsweek poll:

I'm going to read you a list of reasons some people say might keep them from voting for Barack Obama. As I read each one, please tell me if this is a major concern that might keep you from voting for Obama, a minor concern, or not a concern. What about [see below]?

Then follows several areas, including "socialism or redistribution of the wealth" and another that gets more at taxing small business. The results? For "socialism or redistribution of the wealth" some 35 percent view this as a "major concern." But -- taxing small business is a 40 percent "major concern," so it comes out as bigger than the socialism angle. Obviously they're related. If you look at all the results, these two stand out, and the "taxes" angle works much better in creating doubt about Obama and his proposed policies.

Tie them together in a speech, you probably have the McCain campaign's only chance late in this election season. Minds are mostly made up. What people know about these candidates is largely settled, but if McCain is lucky, he might be able to create just enough doubt in some minds and make this a closer election than it seems.

I don't see it working, but it seems the only way Republicans can keep it close. And give me a reason to stay up late.

Becoming Known

Sarah Palin went from nobody to somebody, at least on the national stage, in a fairly short time. In one poll, 20 percent had never heard of the Alaska governor and GOPVPer in August of this year. The latest poll shows 1 percent have never heard of her. How the heck do braindead people answer the phone and answer a survey? Amazing.

Poll differences are interesting. While the poll above by CNN has those numbers, one done by CBS/NYTimes has quite different numbers. In that one, Palin's "don't know" numbers have dropped from 59 percent to 10 percent. The same drop, just with different numbers. The questions are almost identical, but the pool is different. The CNN folks have their early number of just "registered voters" and their latter number of "likely voters." The CBS/NYT is just of "registered voters."




In other words, we're talking two very different pools here. That only 1 percent of likely voters haven't heard of Palin while 10 percent of registered voters haven't heard of Palin makes perfect sense. The "likely voter" screens look at people with a history of voting who say they'll vote this November -- a more politically active pool than anyone who happens to be registered.

The footnotes and fine print sometimes explain everything. And sometimes not.

Between appearances on SNL and being parodied on SNL, it's hard to imagine anyone -- voter or not -- hasn't heard of Palin. Sometimes you just wonder about what people don't know.

Debate Summary - Who Won

Who won the McCain-Obama debates? Summing up the USAToday/Gallup polls, the numbers for Obama were 46, 56, and 56 percent for debates 1, 2, and 3. McCain had 34, 23, and 30 percent, respectively.

So Obama improved from #1 to #2, then held his ground in #3. McCain's performance, even GOP loyalists have to admit, was far from inspired. He had flashes, his moments, but for a guy who is supposed to be a good debater he was a disappointment to many.

What's more interesting, from a what people know perspective, is responses across all three debates to a question asking if people's impressions were more or less favorable about the two candidates after the debates. For McCain, kinda a random walk, but Obama improved after each debate: 30 percent favorable, then 34 percent, and finally on the third debate, 37 percent.

Keep in mind that for about half of all respondents, nothing really changed despite the debates. The response to Obama is not unlike that to Reagan in the 1980s. At first people were suspicious of this former actor and California governor. Did he have the seriousness to be president? He did well in the debates and people grew more comfortable with him. Obama enjoys a similar debate effect.

Fox & Friends and Polls

I like to watch Fox & Friends in the morning. It's like picking at a scab: you know you shouldn't do it, you know it's bad for you, but you simply can't resist.

Over the last couple of weeks F&F spent a lot of time on public opinion polls, noting trends in John McCain's favor. Again, and again. Never mind the numbers didn't really support their bandwagon argument all that well, they were trying to create a sense of trend toward their favored guy -- McCain.

Transparent partisanship is okay, even by three smug faces who are journalistically clueless, but I noticed in the last few days they stopped mentioning polls. Why? Could it be that the momentum has all swung Barack Obama's way? Perhaps. Certainly the economy is a stronger issue for Obama, the war for McCain, and all the news about the economy gets worse and worse.

Is there really a bandwagon effect? Yes, the reporting of poll results can move a few people in the direction of the majority. But there's also an underdog effect, people shifting to support the candidate who is behind. Typically people who are predisposed to eventually vote one way or the other see or hear a poll and shift in the bandwagon or underdog direction, depending on their particular preferences. In other words, polls are often a wash when it comes to persuading people to move one way or the other.

So Fox & Friends probably won't be mentioning any more polls until their guy gets some momentum again. Assuming it's mostly McCain supporter watching these three lightweights, the poll reporting won't do all that much.

Knowing Sarah

The Pew Center folks asked an interesting survey question:

Apart from the WAY news organizations are reporting the story, do you think it is important that voters learn about the details of Sarah Palin's background in order to judge whether she would be a good vice president, or do you think the details of her background are not related to her ability to serve as vice president?

This gets at people's self-judgments as to whether they know enough, and whether it's important for them to know more about the GOPVP nominee's background. In other words, does her background matter?

A lot of people, 70 percent, said it is important to know these kind of details. Twenty-seven percent said it's not important. Three percent of respondents didn't have a clue. As an aside, there's almost an even split on whether people think news orgs have been fair to Palin, no doubt broken down nicely by partisan/ideological lines.

The full report, which is here, includes a fascinating comparison with Dan Quayle from 1988. More people in 2008 (70 percent) think it's important to know this stuff than back then (56 percent). I'm not sure what this means and the report doesn't break the numbers down into categories, but more people thought coverage of Quayle was unfair than of Palin today. This may represent the partisan breakdowns of the time, or that Quayle was at least a U.S. senator and had some experience at the national level. Or maybe it had to do with spelling potato. Impossible to say.

These will be fun data to play with some day, a comparison of the two Veep nominees.

Knowing the VPs

Vice presidents rarely matter -- even the awful choices. So I doubt Joe Biden and Sarah Palin matter all that much in electoral votes or how people learn about the campaign or the impressions they form of McCain and Obama.

If people could vote separately for vice president, who would they pick? Biden, it appears, at least according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll, by a 54% to 41% (4% undecided, 1% unsure). It's interesting that the margin of preference is a little greater for the VPs than it is for the presidential candidates. Latest poll has Obama with a 50-43 advantage, no doubt a post-convention bump. Pre-convention polls had it more or less even.

Palin is largely unknown, though news this weekend will change some of that. Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they haven't heard enough about her to have an opinion. So we have Joe Who and Sarah Who. For the GOP, at least she has only 11% negatives. In the mind of the U.S. electorate, she's a blank slate. The battle's already underway to fill in those blanks, either with positives or negatives depending on your political flavor.

But in the long run, it matters very little. It does, however, give the talking heads something to do with their time.

Joe Who?

Fifty-three percent of Democrats don't have enough of an opinion about VPstakes winner Joe Biden to have an opinion about the long-serving U.S. senator, according to one poll. Another poll of Americans has 23 percent who say they've never heard of him and another 28 percent don't have an opinion.

Joe Who?

Obviously anyone who has watched politics and policy closely know who Biden is, and to be honest it's not even Labor Day yet, so a huge chunk of Americans have other things to worry about -- like the cost of gas or kids starting school. Joe Who? is a perfectly reasonable response by many.

McCain's up next. Mitt Who?

Hillary and the Pollsters

Although my title sounds a little like the name of a mediocre rock band, and although it's misleading since this seems to be from a handful of Clintonaholics and not the senator herself, there is something going on. I'd mentioned in a post yesterday after hearing for a few days about some of these emails to pollsters wanting them to include Hillary Clinton in their presidential horserace polls.

Someone at the Huffington Post has picked up on this, which means if there is any gas in the tank it'll trickle to the big boys in a day or two.

I'd be tempted to blame this on a crazy or two out there, refusing to accept defeat. Or maybe Rush Limbaugh is behind it since he pushed Republicans to vote Hillary and keep things stirred up. There are rumors of Clinton's name being put in nomination at the convention, so this dovetails nicely with that, if you happen to be a conspiracy buff.

I'm not.

But it's fun as hell.