Lies, Damned Lies and Just Plain Silliness

MEMEorandum has picked up a release by something called the Campaign For America's Future, a self-identified "progressive" advocacy organization, founded by a panoply of big names on the left. These folks claim that all the polling data from ,"the most respected and non-partisan public opinion researchers", proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Americans are solidly in the "progressive" camp. Their hope is that wimpy liberal politicians will accept this and have the nerve to act accordingly and immediately install the full array of "progressive" remedies.

The notion is so self-serving that I don't intend to read the full report, but just look at two of the five highlights they emphasize:

On Energy Policy: 52 percent of Americans believe "the best way for the U.S. to reduce its reliance on foreign oil" is to "have the government invest in alternative energy sources"; 64 percent are willing to pay a higher energy tax to pay for renewable energy research; 68 percent of the public thinks U.S. energy policy is better solved by conservation than production.

This is a "progressive" issue? Do they truly believe that none of the people who want US energy independence are motivated by dislike of the Arab states' and Venezuela's ability to jerk America around by our gasoline hoses? Surely some of that feeling is good old fashioned America first xenophobia, even by a isolationist wish to cut off all ties with the middle east, come what may in Israel and Palestine.

And then there is this:

On Immigration: 62 percent of Americans believe undocumented immigrants should be given a chance to "keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status." 49 percent believe the best way to reduce illegal immigration from Mexico is to penalize employers, not more border control.

Aside from the obvious point that 49% is not quite a majority, the rest of the polling sounds suspiciously like the currently challenged grand immigration compromise, championed by such "progressives" as Sens. Kyl and McCain. Since when was this purely an idea of the left? You really need a set of large blinders (not to mention balls) to look at what has been happening in the Senate and only see Teddy Kennedy.

Of course there is also the tiny little problem of who people actually vote for in national elections. After all, Bush was the most recently re-elected President and Dennis Kucinich's chances still don't look so promising. Just look at the dancing around issues being done by Hillary and Obama. They must be reading a different set of polls in their misguided focus on trying to actually win one in '08.

Lies, Damned Lies and Polls

The newest CBS News/NY Times Poll was released today. As with all polls, its results are reported by its sponsors as the definitive expression of the opinions of the American people as of this moment in time.

In the spirit of informed cynicism, let us go beyond the reassuring summaries provided by the Times and CBS and actually look at the pdf file of the results for all questions asked of the 1,052 people chosen, presumably at random, to represent the American people in toto.

All the way down on page 16 of the survey, at the top of the page, is a question of fact, not opinion, that can easily be tested for the veracity of the response obtained. It is:

Some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you registered to vote in the precinct or election district where you now live, or aren't you?
Yes No
3/7-11/07 88 12

If 88 percent of these respondents assert that they are registered to vote, just how representative of the total population is this group? According to the Census Bureau, in the 2004 elections, the total number of persons eligible to vote was 215.7 million. Of those, only 142.1 million were registered to vote. That is 65.9%. Well short of the 88% who claim to be registered in the survey.

Are some of the respondents lying? Well, not to put too fine a point on it, yes. But it is a very human and understandable lie. A stranger calls you up and asks if you are, in essence, a good citizen as defined by the teachers and civic leaders of your childhood. The truth of the answer is unknowable to the questioner. Only a compulsively honest person would admit, or perhaps for some, gleefully acknowledge, their refusal to "go along" with the American civic expectation.

This kind of response bias is present in all random polling questions to one degree or another. It can be guaranteed to inflate the positive response to such a question. Here is another example from the current results:

68. How would you rate the financial situation in your household these days? Is it very good, fairly good, fairly bad or very bad?
Very good Fairly good Fairly bad Very bad DK/NA
11/10-16/88 12 69 13 5 2
10/8-10/90 14 70 11 4 1
7/21-25/06 12 64 17 5 1
4/20-24/06 (sic) 14 69 13 4 1

69. Think about your household income, would say that it is more than enough so that you can save and buy some extras, just enough to meet your bills and obligations, or it is not enough to meet your bills and obligations?
Can save and Just enough to pay Not enough to
buy extras bills and obligations pay bills etc. DK/NA
3/31-4/2/96 27 55 16 2
5/31-6/3/96 24 57 19 1
1/14-18/05 33 48 17 2
7/21-25/06 35 52 12 -
9/15-19/06 34 51 15 -
10/5-8/06 36 46 17 1
10/27-31/06 38 44 17 1
2/24-27/07 37 49 13 1
4/20-24/07 41 48 11 1

Although for April, 2007 in the first question a full 83% regard their financial situation as very good or fairly good, a large number in the second question, 48% claim to have just enough income to pay their bills, with no ability to purchase extras. I don't know about you, but for me, just meeting the cost of my bills does not define satisfaction. In such questions, the interpretation of the respondent is all important.

Here is a final example of the effect of the precise wording of any question:

56. In order to cut down on energy consumption and reduce global warming, would you favor or oppose an increased federal tax on gasoline?
Favor Oppose DK/NA
4/20-24/07 38 58 4

57. What if an increased tax on gasoline would reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil, then would you favor or oppose an increased federal tax on gasoline?
ASKED OF HALF THE SAMPLE N=512
Favor Oppose DK/NA
2/22-26/06 55 37 8
4/20-24/07 64 30 6

In these two questions, asked one after the other, the introduction by the questioner of the notion that an increase in taxes on gasoline would reduce dependence on foreign oil makes the number in favor of such taxes jump from 38% to 64%. That is a 68% increase in the positive response.

My general point is the following: Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we seek to govern ourselves based on such a tenuous array of "facts". Pity (or perhaps condemn mercilessly) the poor politician who attempts to tailor his or her policy choices by such ephemeral data. The more I think about it, let's reserve any pity for the constituents of such fools.

Should Gonzales Be Fired? No Support Found In Poll

Following up on the issue of the fired eight US Attorneys, Newsweek has released its weekly poll which includes the first measurement of public reaction to the calls for the resignation or dismissal of A.G. Gonzales over this brouhaha.

Although the headlines about the poll on the MSNBC website declare that the poll found "weak support for Gonzales," the numbers themselves tell another tale.

The Newsweek site shows the results, in question number 12, as:

35% - Gonzales should resign
32% - Gonzales should not resign
33% - Don't know

Since the margin of error in this poll is +/- 4%, the fairest thing that can be said about current public opinion is that it is massively undecided and split.

Health Care: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

The headline in the NY Times proclaims, "Most Support U.S. Support of Health Care". But if you look at the pdf document that details the findings the story is not so clear.

At the bottom of page 15 of the details are the following questions:

"27. Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn’t this the responsibility of the federal government?"

In the current weeks survey 64% think the government should guarantee health insurance for all. 27% think it is not the Federal government's responsibility and 9% did not respond.

The very next question asks:

"28. IF ANSWERED “SHOULD GUARANTEE”, ASK: What if that meant that the cost of your own health insurance would go up? Then, do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or not?"

If their own health insurance costs would go up only 48% continue to support Federal guarantees.

Later, on page 16 the survey asks:

"31. Would you be willing or not willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance that they can't lose no matter what?"

Answering this question, 60% say they are willing to pay higher taxes; 34% are not willing and 6% don't know or have no answer.

The next question provides a little more clarity:

"32. IF ANSWERED “WILLING” TO Q31, ASK: Would you be willing or not willing to pay $500 a year more in taxes so that all Americans have health insurance they can't lose, no matter what?"

Here we find that only 49% of the original 60% remain willing to shell out $500 in taxes to support their notion of universal health equality.

So, instead of a story that asserts "most" Americans are in favor of guaranteed health insurance for all, it really depends on how much it will cost. It turns out that only a minority (48% and 49%) are willing to dip into their own pockets to support the uninsured.

In health insurance, as in all government policies, the devil is in the details. The problem facing advocates of any form of universal insurance, single payer, private payers, whatever, is that the costs are so high. Once the details of any given plan are fleshed out, people realize that the only remaining advocates that will truly matter are the health provider organizations. Those groups will be the only ones with any real power over the future of the program and their interest lies only in maintaining the extraordinary costs of their drugs or services. Anyone who has been hospitalized knows how outrageous those costs are.

The drumbeat marching us forward toward the glories of universal health care are sounding. My prediction is that it is highly likely to end in Hillary Redux, a repeat of the health care efforts of the early Clinton years.