Showing posts with label opinion poll. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion poll. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Pushing the Panic Button
When I was a journalism student in college, one of my professors said something that remains with me today. "Use real quotes whenever you can," this professor said. "People like to read what other people have to say."
Unless the article is clearly a personal opinion piece, he continued, readers don't care what the reporter has to say about anything. They only want the reporter to give them an account that is as complete — and as completely neutral — as possible.
Readers are interested in opinions, of course — which goes a long way, I think, toward explaining the public's fascination with public opinion polling.
Public opinion polling is an emerging science, and I believe many (regretfully, not all, but many) of its practitioners do try to learn from mistakes, theirs and others'. Pollsters in the mid–1930s learned from the Literary Digest's mistakes when the Digest predicted that Franklin D. Roosevelt would lose his bid for re–election in 1936 (primarily car and/or home telephone owners were polled, and those were two things that only the affluent could afford during the Great Depression, so the poll was skewed ).
Pollsters learned from their experience in 1948 — when Dewey defeated Truman — that, if you decide a race is a foregone conclusion and stop polling two weeks before the election, you do so at your own peril.
That kind of stuff seems like common sense today, but there was a time when it was not obvious. I honestly believe most pollsters really do want to be right so they try to make adjustments that will improve the efficiency of their polling.
It is still important to remember that all polls are not conducted equally. You need to know who is behind a poll and whether that person or group has a reputation for leaning to one side or the other. You need to know how questions are worded — even the slightest variation can affect the results, and some pollsters do choose certain words that are likely to get the kind of response they want.
(For such people, I suppose, a good thesaurus is the most valuable professional investment they can make.)
Those are issues that have affected polling all along, but new issues always crop up. For example, American law prevents pollsters from calling phone owners who will be charged simply for answering the call so people whose only phone is a cell phone will be underrepresented — and that affects certain demographic groups (the young, the poor, etc.) more than others.
That's the thing about polling. It's a work in progress.
Personally, I tend to favor Gallup. Gallup has been around much longer, and it has more credibility than the others, more of a reputation for neutrality.
But I pay attention to the others as well. Even if they have a bias of some kind, they can still tell you things about the public mood.
Having said that, I think there are a lot of messages coming from two polls that have come out in recent days — particularly the Washington Post/ABC News poll but also the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
As usual, though, the two sides are only interested in hearing what they want to hear — or reacting (perhaps overreacting is the better word) to results that seem to jeopardize their agenda.
Well, here we are, six months before the midterm elections, and there is a lot in the Washington Post/ABC News poll to worry members of the president's party, especially those who will be on the ballot this year. After all, the Washington Post and ABC News have been friendly to the administration.
By and large, Barack Obama's agenda is the Democratic Party's agenda. That is usually the case with an incumbent president. His party is his army. It takes its marching orders from him. So, even though the president's name will not be on the ballot in the sixth year of his presidency, he still hovers over this election like a Shakespearean ghost. His approval will have a huge influence on the outcome — and, historically, sixth–year midterms have not been kind to presidents.
Dan Balz and Peyton Craighill of the Washington Post observe that Obama's current approval rating is the lowest it has been since the Post began measuring it early in his presidency — 41%. That was Harry Truman's approval rating in May 1950; that November, Truman's approval was unchanged, and his party lost 29 House seats and six Senate seats.
Truman's successor, Republican Dwight Eisenhower, is the only postwar president whose approval clearly went up between May and late October in his sixth year (from 52% to 57%), but his party lost 48 House seats and 13 Senate seats.
Since the end of World War II, there have been seven presidents (or presidential teams) who faced a sixth–year midterm. In almost every case, their approval in spring of the midterm year was higher than their approval shortly before the election in November.
And only Bill Clinton, whose approval ratings were in the 60s in his sixth–year midterm, avoided losing ground in Congress, thanks primarily to the backlash over the Republicans' attempt to remove him from office.
The Washington Post/ABC News poll indicates there are a number of areas where work needs to be done.
Balz and Craighill speculate that Obamacare will be a major issue, as it almost certainly will. A plurality in the Washington Post/ABC News poll opposes Obamacare. Nearly 60% of respondents say Obamacare is raising health care costs.
But that isn't the only thing that has Democrats pushing the panic button.
Balz and Craighill also write that "[p]essimism about the economy also persists, with more than seven in 10 describing the economy in negative terms. Public attitudes about the future of the economy are anything but rosy. Just 28 percent say they think the economy is getting better, while 36 percent say it is getting worse and 35 percent say it's staying the same."
Part of that, I am sure, has to do with the increased costs of health care, but it also has to do with the recovery, which has been as tepid as a recovery can be.
Two–thirds of the poll's respondents say the country is going in the wrong direction — an ominous conclusion for a sixth–year incumbent's constituents to reach.
Strategists for both parties are certainly keeping an eye on the 2016 races for the party nominations, which is addressed in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. That poll found that nearly 70% of respondents don't want either Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton to be the next president.
The news in that poll was slightly better for Obama — it showed his approval rating at 44%, but that isn't very encouraging. It is still lower than Obama's rating at this point in 2010.
Perhaps we'll get a better idea of how the recovery is coming along when the latest jobless report comes out on Friday.
Labels:
ABC,
Democrats,
Gallup,
midterms,
NBC News,
opinion poll,
Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The Thrill Is Gone
CNN/Opinion Research Corp. released the results of a survey today.
Its findings? More than nine in 10 black Americans approve of the job President Barack Obama is doing. By comparison, 42% of whites approve of the job he is doing.
But, apparently, the bloom is off the rose with blacks.
"[W]hen asked how they personally feel about Obama's presidency, only 42 percent of black respondents say they're thrilled, with nearly half of those questioned saying they are happy but not thrilled," reports CNN. "The 42 percent who are thrilled is down from 61 percent in January, when Obama was inaugurated."
What's the reason for the decline?
Well, my take on it is this: No president, no matter who he is, no matter how popular he may be, can meet high expectations on a constant basis. And expectations for Obama — whether because of his race or the wreckage of the economy that he was elected to repair — were artificially high.
No specific career path can prepare someone to be president, and America has had presidents who came from all walks of life. The best any president can do is hope he learns how to be a successful president in time to achieve something. Some people will argue that Obama has achieved something with the passage of health care reform, but it remains to be seen how much more will be sacrificed as the House and Senate seek to approve identical legislation.
And, in spite of the emphasis Obama has placed on it, health care reform was never the primary issue for all his supporters. Those who expected sweeping societal changes overlooked the incremental nature of Obama's record in public service. Or they believed — falsely — that he could, by sheer force of will, accomplish transformational feats. Maybe they didn't think he would continue trying to appease people who repeatedly demonstrated they could not be appeased.
Well, declines in popularity happen to every president sooner or later. It's one of the drawbacks of living in a democracy.
It's newsworthy now because this president is black, and CNN is focusing on the results from black respondents. But it's as old as the presidency itself.
And Obama's success or failure as a president will be decided, in large part, by how he responds to his reversal of fortune.
Its findings? More than nine in 10 black Americans approve of the job President Barack Obama is doing. By comparison, 42% of whites approve of the job he is doing.
But, apparently, the bloom is off the rose with blacks.
"[W]hen asked how they personally feel about Obama's presidency, only 42 percent of black respondents say they're thrilled, with nearly half of those questioned saying they are happy but not thrilled," reports CNN. "The 42 percent who are thrilled is down from 61 percent in January, when Obama was inaugurated."
What's the reason for the decline?
Well, my take on it is this: No president, no matter who he is, no matter how popular he may be, can meet high expectations on a constant basis. And expectations for Obama — whether because of his race or the wreckage of the economy that he was elected to repair — were artificially high.
No specific career path can prepare someone to be president, and America has had presidents who came from all walks of life. The best any president can do is hope he learns how to be a successful president in time to achieve something. Some people will argue that Obama has achieved something with the passage of health care reform, but it remains to be seen how much more will be sacrificed as the House and Senate seek to approve identical legislation.
And, in spite of the emphasis Obama has placed on it, health care reform was never the primary issue for all his supporters. Those who expected sweeping societal changes overlooked the incremental nature of Obama's record in public service. Or they believed — falsely — that he could, by sheer force of will, accomplish transformational feats. Maybe they didn't think he would continue trying to appease people who repeatedly demonstrated they could not be appeased.
Well, declines in popularity happen to every president sooner or later. It's one of the drawbacks of living in a democracy.
It's newsworthy now because this president is black, and CNN is focusing on the results from black respondents. But it's as old as the presidency itself.
And Obama's success or failure as a president will be decided, in large part, by how he responds to his reversal of fortune.
Labels:
CNN,
Obama,
opinion poll,
presidency
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Perceptions of Race, Politics
I don't suppose it will come as a surprise to anyone, but Adam Nagourney writes, in the New York Times, that a recent New York Times/CBS News poll finds that there are differences in the way that blacks and whites perceive racial relations in America.
And those differences are spilling over into the presidential race.
For example ...
"More than 80% of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama," writes Nagourney. "About 30% of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him."
Nagourney concedes that "[a]fter years of growing political polarization, much of the divide in American politics is partisan," but it also "underlined the racial discord that the poll found."
The respondents to the survey found some common ground but not much, Nagourney reports. "Black and white Americans agree that America is ready to elect a black president, but disagree on almost every other question about race in the poll."
One of the most interesting findings was this: "Whites were more likely than blacks to say that Mr. Obama says what he thinks people want to hear, rather than what he truly believes."
The flip side of that issue may be found in responses Nagourney received from white Democrats who tried to frame their differences with Obama in a non-racial light.
"This isn’t a black and white thing," a 69-year-old Pennsylvania Democrat said. "If a conservative African-American like former Congressman J. C. Watts was running, I’d have bumper stickers plastered all over my car supporting him."
Issues should decide the campaign, but it increasingly appears that only one issue — race — is going to be discussed in great detail.
Perhaps it was inevitable, with the first black presidential nominee.
But with all the problems our nation is facing in 2008, do we really want to spend the next three and a half months fighting the Civil War again — more than 140 years after it ended?
Is that the only way to finally exorcise our demons?
And those differences are spilling over into the presidential race.
For example ...
"More than 80% of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama," writes Nagourney. "About 30% of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him."
Nagourney concedes that "[a]fter years of growing political polarization, much of the divide in American politics is partisan," but it also "underlined the racial discord that the poll found."
The respondents to the survey found some common ground but not much, Nagourney reports. "Black and white Americans agree that America is ready to elect a black president, but disagree on almost every other question about race in the poll."
One of the most interesting findings was this: "Whites were more likely than blacks to say that Mr. Obama says what he thinks people want to hear, rather than what he truly believes."
The flip side of that issue may be found in responses Nagourney received from white Democrats who tried to frame their differences with Obama in a non-racial light.
"This isn’t a black and white thing," a 69-year-old Pennsylvania Democrat said. "If a conservative African-American like former Congressman J. C. Watts was running, I’d have bumper stickers plastered all over my car supporting him."
Issues should decide the campaign, but it increasingly appears that only one issue — race — is going to be discussed in great detail.
Perhaps it was inevitable, with the first black presidential nominee.
But with all the problems our nation is facing in 2008, do we really want to spend the next three and a half months fighting the Civil War again — more than 140 years after it ended?
Is that the only way to finally exorcise our demons?
Labels:
election,
McCain,
New York Times,
Obama,
opinion poll,
race relations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
