National Journal: Don’t Shoot The Pollsters

National Journal: Don’t Shoot The Pollsters
Reaction To NBC’s Polling On The Public Option Misses The Whole Story
by Mark Blumenthal
Monday, Aug. 31, 2009

(Click the link to read the entire article.  Below are some of the key paragraphs.)

Like predictions? Here’s an easy one: When the political winds shift and polls show bad news for a political candidate or cause, pollsters will become the object of partisan attack.

It happened just last week when a new NBC News poll found considerable public skepticism about Democratic proposals for health care reform. The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put out a statement condemning the poll under the headline, “Bad Analysis, Worse Question,” and the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein noted the “longstanding ties to the health insurance industry” of Bill McInturff, the Republican pollster who conducts the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll along with Democrat Peter Hart.

In June, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll devoted 14 questions to health reform, three to the proposed public option. The first question asked respondents to rate how “important” it is to “give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance.” More than three-quarters considered this choice “extremely important” (41 percent) or “quite important” (35 percent).

They followed up with a question that presented two sentences arguing for the public option and two sentences arguing against, and asked respondents which they agreed with more. A narrower plurality (47 percent to 42 percent) expressed support for the public plan.

According to McInturff, he argued at the time that first question “doesn’t measure support for the program, it simply measures Americans’ desire to have more options,” while the follow-up would better reflect the political “dialogue” that Americans would hear over the summer.

In their July poll, Hart and McInturff dropped the question about choice, opting instead to ask a simpler favor-or-oppose question about the public option that they intended to track, along with other more general measures, for the remainder of the debate. They found 46 percent of adults in favor and 44 percent opposed to “creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies.”

They repeated the same question two weeks ago and found 43 percent in favor and 47 percent opposed, which NBC News described as a “shift” from the July results. The critical firestorm ensued, focusing on two complaints: First, that the observed change since July was not big enough to attain statistical significance and second, as Stein put it, that “the pollsters dropped the word ‘choice’ in their July and August polls.”

Critics were right to question the characterization of the difference between the July and August results as a “shift,” since it was not large enough to attain statistical significance. Still, that conclusion was a very minor piece of NBC’s reporting, and other surveys have tracked significant increases in general opposition to reform proposals over the summer months. Also, the most recent ABC News/Washington Post survey showed a 10 percentage point drop (from 62 percent to 52 percent) in support for “having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans” between June and August.

But the fury over “dropping the word ‘choice'” has less merit. First, the pollsters did not so much drop one question as add another. They did not intend for their first question to serve as a measure of support for the public option. Their reporting never portrayed it as such, nor did it treat the new question as comparable to the old. Both ABC News polling director Gary Langer and blogger Nate Silver agree that the initial “importance” question was an inferior choice to measure support for the public option.

What I find unreasonable and unsupported are the attacks on McInturff’s character, and the insinuation that he “biased the results” to serve a client, America’s Health Insurance Plans, that opposes the public option. Among other things, this smear implies that Peter Hart — who, as Stein recounts, serves numerous labor clients that support the public option — was somehow asleep at the switch.

The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll works precisely because Hart and McInturff bring the experience of working on behalf of political campaigns and advocacy groups.

Similar Articles

  • Looking at ideology by party over the last thirty years
    read more

  • In NBC/WSJ Data, President Trump Has Solid Standing in Key Trump Counties
    read more

  • Record 2018 turnout is powered by an “easy” voting experience
    read more

  • A Year-to-Year Look At President Trump’s Approval Rating
    read more

  • Following the 2018 election, 60% of Democrat voters say U.S. political and economic systems are stacked against people like them
    read more

Public Opinion Strategies helped us to clarify what we wanted to learn and then conducted research and analysis that shed light even beyond the questions we set out to ask. They were very receptive to our suggestions, responsive to our queries, and flexible when we needed them to be.

Public Opinion Strategies has consistently offered unparalleled advice and spot-on polling that has shaped how and where we spent money and deploy key resources. Additionally, they have always been an excellent steward of limited campaign resources, ensuring we spend wisely and not a dollar more than necessary in order to get the information we need.

Robert Blizzard and Public Opinion Strategies did a great job for us throughout our successful campaign for Congress. Robert gave us accurate data, spot on analysis, and professional advice, all of which were essential to our victory.

Public Opinion Strategies is one of our go-to pollsters when it comes to testing public support for bond ballot measures and other initiative proposals. They are available to provide ongoing consultation with regard to crafting of ballot questions, public outreach messaging, and related efforts.

ACLI has worked with Public Opinion Strategies for decades, through several tough industry battles—often ones in which public opinion does not naturally fall on the side of insurers. Yet Bill and his team consistently provide invaluable strategic advice by refining our messages and helping us frame our issues in a way that makes them understandable and persuasive.

The data from Public Opinion Strategies provided important insight and informed our public awareness campaign. We sincerely appreciate their professionalism and expertise in this arena.

Nicole McCleskey and the team at Public Opinion Strategies have been invaluable to me, both during my campaigns and as Governor of the State of New Mexico. It’s not just the accuracy of their numbers, but guiding the overall strategy that makes them so valuable.

Public Opinion Strategies has been a part of our team in Missouri for more than a decade. With their data and guidance, Republicans here were able to attain a majority in the House in 2002 for the first time in fifty years, and we have been able to grow that majority to the point that we now have a record, veto-proof majority.

Lori Weigel from Public Opinion Strategies reviewed our needs and guided us toward asking the right questions. Her reporting was easy to follow and her interpretation of the data provided clear decision points.

In my tenure at two leading business associations, facing huge and complex consumer issues, I have benefitted enormously from the objective advisory skills of Bill and his team. They do their homework, they are rigorous, dispassionate and thoughtful. Turning questions into answers is a clever tag, but it’s also an apt description of the professional talents of the firm.

I consider Public Opinion Strategies to be a part of our team. That is the way we have always worked. They have helped us to understand our needs and fashioned research solutions to meet those needs. They have helped us to meet killer deadlines by being flexible, executing rapidly, and insuring quality. Teamwork is the best way to describe it.

Accuracy, speed, and deep knowledge of key issues and public sentiment are the hallmarks of quality opinion research, and on these measures Public Opinion Strategies consistently delivers. I have had the pleasure of working with Public Opinion Strategies for more than 15 years on dozens of issues, and they are undoubtedly the gold standard.

Public Opinion Strategies’ track record of success and wealth of experience in political campaigns and issue advocacy are why they are one of the most trusted and well respected public opinion firms in Washington, D.C. Their insights and perspectives have helped to inform a wide array of public affairs activities across multiple industries.