10.05.2009

Question Order May Bias Fox News Health Care Polling

There's a Vietnamese proverb, con sâu làm sầu nồi canh. This loosely translates to: a drop of poison spoils the whole glass of wine. Here is an analogous proverb in polling: a drop of bias can spoil your whole poll. Let me explain what I mean.

Fox News yesterday came out with a poll that suggested that just 33 percent of registered voters favor the Democrats' health care reform package, versus 55 percent opposed. These are not good numbers for Democrats, as they represent a backtrack from the improvement that other pollsters had shown in their health care polling recently.

The Fox News numbers on health care, however, have consistently been worse for Democrats than those shown by other pollsters. Since the health care debate began, the average non-Fox poll has shown 43 percent of the population supporting health care and 45 percent opposed -- producing a net score of -2. By contrast, the average of four Fox polls on health care has shown 35 percent in support of health care and 49 percent opposed -- an ugly -14. The differences in the net numbers statistically significant at the 99 percent threshold.

The first instinct that most of the liberals in the audience will have simply this: well, it's a Fox poll, so of course it's biased. The reality is a little bit more complicated, however. Fox News's pollster, Opinion Dynamics, generally hasn't shown much evidence of a Republican-leaning "house effect". Take a look, for example, at their Obama approval numbers. Since the beginning of Obama's term, they have shown, on average, 58 percent of registered voters approving the President versus 32 percent disapproval. This is, if anything, generous to Obama, as the average non-Fox polls has shown 57 percent approval and 37 percent disapproval over this interval.

The next suspect would ordinarily be the question wording. But Fox News's question is perfectly fine:

Based on what you know about the health care reform legislation being considered right now, do you favor or oppose the plan?
No bias that I can detect there. The question is slightly unusual in that it mentions neither "Congress" nor "Obama" nor "the Democrats", but it's not unusual in a biased way. If anything, the question is particularly unbiased -- it looks to me that support for health care improves slightly if Obama's name is mentioned, but goes down slightly if Congress is mentioned instead. Fox escapes this problem by simply phrasing things in the passive voice and not mentioning either institution.

So how can Fox News ask a seemingly unbiased question of a seemingly unbiased sample and come up with what seems to be a biased result?

The answer may have to do with the questions Fox asks before the question on health care. This weekend, for example, Fox News put out a separate release with their health care questions -- but the health care questions weren't asked separately. Instead, they were questions #27-35 of their larger, national poll, which you can find here. And what were some of those questions? Here are a few:
3. Do you think Barack Obama's travel and speaking schedule makes him look more like he is a candidate on the campaign trail or more like he is the president of the United States?

4. Do you think President Obama apologizes too much to the rest of the world for past U.S. policies?

5. Do you think the Obama administration is proposing more government spending than American taxpayers can afford, or not?

6. Do you think the size of the national debt is so large it is hurting the future of the country?

7. Would you rather: [ROTATE OPTIONS 1 and 2]
Cut spending now so future generations don't have to pay
Keep spending at current levels and let future generations pay

20. When Barack Obama was a candidate campaigning for the presidency, he spoke of the urgent need to finish the fight in Afghanistan, which he called the central front on the war on terrorism. Do you think that, as president, Obama is doing what it takes to win in Afghanistan?
These questions run the gamut slightly leading to full-frontal Republican talking points. Some of them, such as question #3, are almost literally rhetorical questions, which are never good things to have on a poll. And no, you can rest assured that Fox News was not asking questions formed from comparably biased Democratic talking points.

A respondent who hears these questions, particularly the series of questions on the national debt, is going to be primed to react somewhat unfavorably to the mention of another big Democratic spending program like health care. And evidently, an unusually high number of them do.

The reason Fox's Presidential approval numbers are not affected is because Obama approval is question #1 -- asked before the leading series of questions on spending and foreign policy or anything else. Likewise, when Fox was conducting its Presidential polling (which also did not have any discernible house effect), the horse race questions were asked before any of the policy ones.

But when you ask biased questions first, they are infectious, potentially poisoning everything that comes below. I don't particularly care if Fox News wants to ask leading or even outrightly biased questions -- but they have to ask them after any questions they expect the policymaking community to take seriously.

Another problem is that Fox tends to ask different sets of questions before they get to the health care ones -- sometimes, questions about Afghanistan, sometimes questions about deficits, etc. What seems, then, to be "movement" in the numbers may simply be an artifact of what sort of mood they've worked the respondent into before they get to the health care stuff.

To be clear, these question order effects can arise even when pollsters have the best of intentions, and even when they are asking unbiased questions. If, for instance, back during the Presidential campaign, you had asked a series of perfectly neutrally-worded questions on the economy before asking about the horse race, they could easily have tipped the numbers slightly in Obama's direction, since the economy was perceived to be the Democrats' strength. (The LA Times poll had this exact problem at various points). Pollsters have to grapple with these sorts of considerations all the time, and some do a better job of handling them than others.

But when you ask a series of biased questions before taking the voters' temperature on health care or the horse race, you have much less excuse. Going forward, Fox News should put its health care questions closer to the top of their survey or break them out into a separate poll; take their numbers with a grain of salt until they do.

139 comments

GayIthacan said...

I already take anything I hear from FOX NEws with massive mounds of salt. This shouldn't add much to the burden.

ytownMetz said...

Here we go again, when bad poll numbers come up, blame Fox News.

I love it. I really do.

Fox News Opinion Polls on the Obama's Approval Numbers have been in the >50 his entire Presidency. Their numbers have been awful similar to NBC and Gallup as well.

Go ahead and attack Fox News, but each day their power over cable television expands.

Maybe instead of attacking Fox News, embrace it, it could work for the left.

Matt said...

ytownMetz -

Did you even read this post? Nate explicitly addresses your concern.

Logan said...

If a pollster called me and asked the first 5 biased questions, I would hang up before they even got to the unbiased health care question. I suspect a few others may have done the same.

Jacob said...

Jebus Christ! Everyone should read the rest of the survey from Nate's link. Other than approval, every question is either a strawman, a false dichotemy, or a leading statement. This is basic push poll material (and no, I am not saying it is literally a push poll--it serves a slightly different purpose); it is entirely designed to to create a false impression of strong opposition to anything and everything Obama.

Rud said...

I am firmly in favor of health care reform, including a public option. But I might just answer the poll question no, because I don't like the legislation being proposed. I don't favor the Senate FC bill and since it has been the most mentioned recently I might respond 'no' based on it.

I would say the question is very poorly worded since it invites a 'no' answer from both progressives and conservatives who disagree with current legislation.

shiloh said...

Matt said...

ytownMetz -

Did you even read this post? Nate explicitly addresses your concern.
~~~~~~~~~~


If he/she is from Youngstown, doubtful, as winger trolls only need to see a negative fixednoise headline to trigger their braincells ...

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

And so it begins....

The take down of every dishonest pollster out there.

Don't let up Nate. You've got these frauds on the run.

Persuter said...

Heh, I like question 8 in the Fox poll:

In order to have enough money for government spending, the Congress must soon vote to raise the country's debt limit from $7 trillion dollars to $9
trillion dollars. Which of the following is closer to your opinion on this?

SCALE: 1. In times of recession and war, we have no choice--we have to raise the debt limit to fund necessary government spending; or 2. Federal spending is out of control and we must take a stand now and not raise the debt limit. 3. (Combination, depends) 4. (Don't know)


86% of Republicans said 2. I wonder how many of those 86% know that it was a Republican Congress and President who raised it from 7 to 9 trillion. :P

Indeed, not to get all VRWC-noid on us, but why exactly does this question describe a hypothetical without saying so, immediately after a question about whether Obama is spending too much and two questions about the current size of the debt? Is this intended to make people think that Bush left office with debt of 7 trillion?

David said...

Logan's point is an important one. Incompletion bias is likely to be rife here -- of those respondents that make it to the end of this poll, they are likely to be biased towards Republicans as Democrat-leaning respondents drop out. Do they show the response/nonresponse numbers for each question?

Bart DePalma said...

Nate:

3. Do you think Barack Obama's travel and speaking schedule makes him look more like he is a candidate on the campaign trail or more like he is the president of the United States?

4. Do you think President Obama apologizes too much to the rest of the world for past U.S. policies?

5. Do you think the Obama administration is proposing more government spending than American taxpayers can afford, or not?


These questions are indeed leading crap. Fair and balanced?

6. Do you think the size of the national debt is so large it is hurting the future of the country?

7. Would you rather: [ROTATE OPTIONS 1 and 2]
Cut spending now so future generations don't have to pay
Keep spending at current levels and let future generations pay

A respondent who hears these questions, particularly the series of questions on the national debt, is going to be primed to react somewhat unfavorably to the mention of another big Democratic spending program like health care.


So?

In fact, if you want a truly accurate measure of voter support, every question asking voters whether they support "another big Democratic spending program like health care" should go further and include a price tag.

Examples:

Do you support spending a trillion dollars over ten years to pay for government "public option" health insurance for the uninsured?

Do you support health insurance legislation which will raise the annual cost of average health insurance by $___ ?

Do you support health insurance legislation requiring that you purchase health insurance or pay $___ in additional taxes?

LPC said...

Instead of just asking the health care questions before the potentially biased questions that Nate singles out, it seems like it would be better to perhaps use a random ordering of questions to different respondents throughout the polling. That way, if asked of enough respondents, the possibility of word ordering biases could be better accounted for.

alan said...

What really jumps out to me in the FOX poll is that health care reform has only 60% support among self-identified Democrats!

justin32099 said...

Bart DePalma-

You really don't see a problem with fearmongering over the national debt shortly before asking a poll question about health care? Suppose I took a group of people and played a videotape of Obama's speech to Congress. Then I ask them whether they support the reform proposals or not. Surely the result would be heavily slanted in favor of reform. Would you have a problem with this? I'd imagine so...

Also, I would love to see the results of a Fox News poll in 2008 or before that asked whether the national debt was endangering the future of the country. I'd guess, if such a poll exists, that your average Republican was not so concerned.

Juris said...

LPC: randomizing the question order is generally a good idea. When you keep track of the order, then you can also test afterwards for the magnitude of the order effects.

I have seen some rather strong order effects in surveys, and this Fox one was clearly carelessly done. Nate is right to call them out on it.

Bart DePalma said...

justin32099 said...

Bart DePalma:You really don't see a problem with fearmongering over the national debt shortly before asking a poll question about health care?

How is reminding respondents about the enormous Obama deficit "fearmongering?"

Suppose I took a group of people and played a videotape of Obama's speech to Congress. Then I ask them whether they support the reform proposals or not.

I do not have much of a problem per se with the respondents hearing an Obama speech. The One is not nearly as convincing as he believes himself to be. Obama's speech to Congress did not move back the tide against Obamacare one iota.

I do have a problem with having Obama lie repeatedly to the respondents as he did during the speech to Congress. Then again, so long as we include the Wilson shout - "You lie!" - respondents will be reminded of those lies.

Gen Sherman said...

BDP the fool said...

How is reminding respondents about the enormous Obama deficit "fearmongering?


Really? Let's ignore the fact that it took a Democratic President to finally end the deficit spending of the so called "fiscal conservatives" better known as the Republican party.

Let's ignore the fact that under Bush 43 almost a trillion dollars was spent on needless warmongering.

Yes, and let's also ignore the fact that the Bush administration dropped the ball in the biggest financial debacle since the Great Depression, precipitating in a $700 billion no-holds-barred bailout to the culprits of the current recession.

Let's just ignore all those facts and concentrate on this dumb statement by you:

I do have a problem with having Obama lie repeatedly to the respondents as he did during the speech to Congress. Then again, so long as we include the Wilson shout - "You lie!" - respondents will be reminded of those lies.

Lies to Congress regarding illegal immigrants having access to medical treatments? No where in the numerous approved committee versions of the HCR bills do they grant access to illegal immigrants through a public option. So, you lie. Check your facts a$$.

BDP, you can ignore the facts, that doesn't make them go away. It just makes you delusional.

Robert said...

Nate:

Between SVLLC and Fox, I am starting to wonder if indeed there is a "vast right wing conspiracy" to pass off nakedly biased polling practices as public opinion. What you're doing is important, but why isn't this on the front page of the NYT? It's time to call them out and speak truth. Today's lesson: before you look at the poll, look at the pollster.

Tom Hamand said...

Question 3

Regardless of how you usually vote, who do you think has better ideas about reforming the health care system -- Barack Obama, or the Republicans in Congress?
52% Obama, 27% Republicans

Question 4

Do you mostly support or mostly oppose the changes to the health care system proposed by Barack Obama, or don't you know enough about them yet to say?
30% Mostly Support, 23% Mostly Oppose, 46% Not enough to say

These were questions in the CBS/ NY Times poll of September 24, 2009. Since President Obama has not presented or endorsed an health care plan, it seems a little biased to use his name in the poll instead of the Democrats in Congress. The question plays on his personal approval instead of the congressional approval. I have looked through your postings and there were none regarding that poll.

Question 5

Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?
65% Favor, 26% Oppose (chart)

It would also be informative if they had asked if the respondents would have been willing to pay additional taxes or to see the deficit rise to in order to make the offering.

Bob said...

I wonder what effect abandonment rate has on the poll numbers. I would assume that a lot of people would be so put off by the poll's obvious bias that they would just stop taking the poll, effectively weeding out a number of leftists, moderates, Democrats, and anti-Republicans.

It would be interesting to count the total responses for each question in the poll.

Gen Sherman said...

BDP,

The reason I chose to respond to your post before I was sidetracked by your lunacy...

How is reminding respondents about the enormous Obama deficit "fearmongering?"

The purpose for polls, my friend (tongue ticks out), is to try to get a snapshot of the mood of the electorate in a given point-in-time. In order to do so, my friend, the pollster requires a sample as pure and untainted as possible.

Thus, questions such as your hypothetical concerning "reminding" respondents to "Obama's deficit" serves to taint the pool. This was the whole purpose of Nate's post regarding Fox's tainting, and I totally agree.

Customers, from both parties, pay an exuberant amount of money for this information. They use it to determine what messages are working and which are not. This helps them decipher how to win.

Now, you suggest there is nothing wrong with tainting the pool. Be my guest. You and your Fox Friends can continue to do so and continue to loose for the next decade or so. I have NOOO problem with that.

It is not the polling company's place to insert propaganda, or worse, push for a certain answer. It is a science that requires certain prerequisites be met. One of them being objectivity.

I am not a statistician, and don't pretend to be one. I, however, understand the basics. Maybe, you should try too.

Rick said...

So I'm curious how this happened.

Why would a reputable pollster service basically soil (if not ruin) it's reputation as a fair and unbiased pollster?

Do you think Fox pressured them just to try to tank Healthcare? Insurance company money? Really what else could it be?

Dwight said...

Tom Hamand said...

These were questions in the CBS/ NY Times poll of September 24, 2009. Since President Obama has not presented or endorsed an health care plan, it seems a little biased to use his name in the poll instead of the Democrats in Congress. The question plays on his personal approval instead of the congressional approval. I have looked through your postings and there were none regarding that poll.


Tom, while Nate didn't mention that particular CBS/NYT poll he did specifically talk in this very post about the inheret lean using Obama's name gives a question, and praised the wording choice on that particular question in this poll.

Further the question does talk about the more nebulous "ideas" rather than specifics. Given the large billing speeches he's given his "ideas" aren't really an unknown. He has presented an outline of what he wants to see.

I'm not sure the Republican Congress has been even that specific (understandable since there isn't a single, authorative voice for them). They haven't done a great job of getting out a compelling plan, mostly they've been getting out the "No".

Tom Hamand said...

All polls have biases. The CBS/NY Times poll had President Obama approval at 56%. It was the only poll listed on Pollster.com between September 15th and September 30th that had his approval rate above 52%

That poll was an outlier. The questions were designed to get results. They got the results they wanted based upon the questions they asked.

Mike in Maryland said...

Off topic to Faux News polling, but on topic to Faux News:

As posted on the Washington Post's web site this afternoon, the AP is reporting:
"UK supermarket pulls ad from Fox News over Beck"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100501891.html

The article explains it is not just Beck's show on which the advertising was pulled, but the entire Faux News (UK) channel.

Mike in Maryland

Gen Sherman said...

Tom Hamand said..

All polls have biases [...] The questions were designed to get results. They got the results they wanted based upon the questions they asked.


Before you make such a statement, and give a bad name to every honest poster in the business, you should support it with some facts.

As for Obama's approval being over 50%... there is nothing outlier about that. All posters I have seen place it over 50%. Most in the 50%-54% range. What are you talking about?

Anthony said...

These were questions in the CBS/ NY Times poll of September 24, 2009. Since President Obama has not presented or endorsed an health care plan, it seems a little biased to use his name in the poll instead of the Democrats in Congress.

True, but aren't there at least three, if not more, proposals from "Democrats in Congress"? Which Democratic proposal would you be speaking of when you reference "Democrats in Congress"?

Tom Hamand said...

Pollster.com lists all major poll. In the last two weeks of September the poll with the highest approval rating for President Obama other than the CBS/NY Times poll was 52%. The CBS / NY Times approval rating was 56%. This is 7.6% higher than any other poll taken in that period. That is a significant difference.

Poll questions are written by individuals. All individual have biases. Nate states that the questions of the Fox poll with regard to health care were unbiased because they did not include President Obama's name or the words Democrats or Congress in the question, but were biased because of the questions leading up to that question. The CBS/NY Times poll questions used President Obama's name and the phrase Republicans in Congress in the health care questions. Therefore, according to Nate, both polls were biased.

The true test of a good poll is to remove as much bias as possible in presenting the poll and the results. Removing all bias is impossible. Comparing the results of the poll to norm is one way to determine if the poll did that.

Jacob said...

The analysis of what's wrong with BDP's argument has been good, but I think it's missed the biggest flaw in this quesion:

7. Would you rather: [ROTATE OPTIONS 1 and 2]
1. Cut spending now so future generations don't have to pay
2. Keep spending at current levels and let future generations pay

There is also the third rather obvious possibility of raising revenue to pay for necessary spending. This basically forces people into saying either health care isn't worth the cost or I don't care about the deficit.

It's the worst kind of false dichotomy in that it eliminates the possibility of a reasonable outlook on spending, i.e. raise revenue from whatever sources will be least impaired by it, cut as much less-necessary spending as possible (and let's face it--every spending cut will have some negative consequences), and leave as little debt as possible--only to recover from emergencies and to enact programs that will help future generations more than excess debt will hurt them (i.e. affordable, universal health care).

When the only responses are Obama is wrong or I don't care about the future you can be pretty sure the entire poll is bulls**t.

Dwight said...

@Tom Hamand

The problem with you asserting that the fix was in [via the wording of the questions, correct?] to give Obama a boost on the aprov/disaprov question is that approv/disaprov was the very first question in the poll.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_economy_092409.pdf

Now there might have been other reasons it was a little higher (I'm not sure where you get %7+?). Maybe chance had the sample interviewed pushed his way. But it doesn't appear that it was the questions or question order that gave him a 56/33 approv/disapprov in that poll.

I haven't gone through all the question (they are spread across a few releases, too) but I didn't notice any of the same, deeply flawed variety in the Fox poll.

Yes, all measuring will have at least a trace of bias. If only there are different ways to view things. But there are definitely degrees of this, too.

Dwight said...

...the highest approval rating for President Obama other than the CBS/NY Times poll was 52%. The CBS / NY Times approval rating was 56%. This is 7.6% higher than any other poll taken in that period....

OK, I looked at this again. It doesn't make sense. Was there a typo here? It's late, no problem. This just doesn't add up, literally, as written.

Tom Hamand said...

The CBS/NY Times poll was of adults, which typically is 2-3 points more than registered voters. The only poll that was close to the CBS / NY Times poll was 54% approval of registered voters taken a week earlier by Fox News. That poll was an outlier also. Good polls are a snapshot in time taken in good faith with methodology disclosed.

I believe the Fox News poll Nate discussed was flawed. I believe the Fox News poll taken September 13-16 was flawed. I believe the CBS/NYTimes poll was flawed.

All polls should be analyzed and taken in conjunctions with other polls.

Mike in Maryland said...

52 increased by 7.6% equals 55.952. And that is how the TROLL derived that 7.6% figure.

By the TROLL's reasoning, President Obama didn't defeat Senator McCain by a 7.27% margin (52.87% vs. 45.60%), but by a margin of more than 15.9% (45.6% increased by 15.9% equals 52.8504.

In other words, the TROLL is trying to spin the numbers to make them look worse.

And since we haven't seen pete kent lately, is this his newest guise? Or maybe nova(non)middle man? Or could it be nj(non)moderate? In any event, some of our usual TROLLs are missing in action, and we have new ones. The easiest explanation would be that they are the same old TROLLs under new disguises.

Mike in Maryland

Burt said...

The big question is, which Democratic health care reform bill are people being asked whether they support? The godawful Senate Finance bill, the barely acceptable Senate HELP bill, or the slightly better than barely acceptable House bill?

Since the Senate Finance bill is the one that's been most in the news lately, I'm sure that that's the bill that most people are thinking of when they answer the poll question. So it's not surprising that the numbers for that bill are so bad - the bill is a piece of shit. It's nothing more than a massive boondoggle for the greedy and dysfunctional private insurance industry that got us into this mess in the first place.

Remember, when asked if they support a government mandate to purchase insurance without a public option, only 37% of Americans say yes. When a public option is included, that number rises to 60%.

If the Democrats unite behind a single bill with a strong public option, you'll see solid majority support for it. The only question is whether they want to pass a bill like that. At this point, that seems to be an open question.

Tom Hamand said...

I have never posted on this site before and used my full name as opposed to Mike in Maryland. I did not call anyone names. I stated that I considered 2 Fox polls as flawed.

The 4 points that the CBS/NY Times poll exceeded the other highest poll in that period is 7.6% of the total approval poll figure. Sorry if that is difficult to comprehend. Seems that some on this blog do not appreciate honest discussions.

David said...

I agree with Tom that all polls are biased. Just as the definition of "dark" is "the absence of light", the definition of "liberal bias" is "the absence of conservative bias".

For the same reason, all the mainstream media except Fox News display liberal bias.

Think about it long enough, and the paranoia of the teabaggers starts to make sense.

Mike in Maryland said...

David said...
Just as the definition of "dark" is "the absence of light"

Typical swill from a Conservatard - define a word whether the Conservatard definition is correct or not (usually not), then use the Conservatard definition to try to bash anyone who disagrees.

From dictionary.com:

dark
–adjective
1. having very little or no light: a dark room.
2. radiating, admitting, or reflecting little light: a dark color.
3. approaching black in hue: a dark brown.
4. not pale or fair; swarthy: a dark complexion.
5. brunette; dark-colored: dark eyebrows.
6. having brunette hair: She's dark but her children are blond.
7. (of coffee) containing only a small amount of milk or cream.
8. gloomy; cheerless; dismal: the dark days of World War II.
9. sullen; frowning: a dark expression.
10. evil; iniquitous; wicked: a dark plot.
11. destitute of knowledge or culture; unenlightened.
12. hard to understand; obscure.
13. hidden; secret.
14. silent; reticent.
15. (of a theater) offering no performances; closed: The theaters in this town are dark on Sundays.

In all those definitions, I don't see a definition that says anything like a total absence of light.

Mike in Maryland

Mike in Maryland said...

Tom Hamand said...
I have never posted on this site before and used my full name

So we can presume that you have posted here before, but did not use your full name. (Not a question, but a statement that is based on an exact reading of what you wrote.)

Did you post under the pseudonym of pete kent? nj(non)moderate? nova(non)middleman? Or were your previous postings under some other pseudonym?

The 4 points that the CBS/NY Times poll exceeded the other highest poll in that period is 7.6% of the total approval poll figure.

So it can be presumed that you will, from now on if/when you post at 538.com, state that President Obama beat Senator McCain by a margin of more than 15.9%. Cook the books one way, you had better be TOTALLY consistent EVERY time you try to quote stats on this site.

You can start that consistency RIGHT NOW by posting that President Obama beat Senator McCain by a margin of more than 15.9%. Don't do it, and you immediately take yourself from heavily suspected TROLL to proven TROLL.

Mike in Maryland

Ken said...

This article makes it sound like Fox is the only one doing this. All polls are (are can be) biased depending oh the results desired by the pollster. That is why they are largely ignored by the general public.

Polls today are mainly used by news organizations to generate "news" and are nothing but someone's made up questions to report the answers and fill time.

Yawwwwwn.

Jeff said...

@Tom Hammd, leaving other factors aside. Once results have been phrased as percentages, organizations/people do not then do simple comparisons as percentages of percentages. It is confusing (as seen here) and overly abstract. Comparisons of 0-100% values are always assumed to be listed by 'percentage points', not by the relative percentage-of-percentages difference. Percentage-of-percentages would only be applicable if already in the context of a larger statistical analysis of the point values and even then one has to be very careful to distinguish relative comparative-percentages from the point-percentages.

Inferno said...

I know, I know, I shouldn't do this. But...

@Bart - 1 trillion over 10 years is certainly a better investment than - say - 3 or 4 billion over six years to blow up brown people. In a country that turned out to:

1) not be playing host to Al Qaeda (until, you know, we deposed the dictator and created a power vacuum)
2) not have weapons of mass destruction. Which would be important because, you know, that was the primary justification for going in there in the first place.

I don't know. I figure that if we're going to spend, we might as well spend at home.

GROG said...

@Tom Hammond:

It's best to ignore TROLLS like Mike in Maryland on this site. He brings nothing to discussions except hatred for differing viewpoints. He has so little confidence in his own arguments and ideology that he resorts to constant outrage and insults towards anyone who disagrees with him.

Rather than embrace those who are different and having respectful dialogue with them, he attempts (with failure) to shut them up with mean spirited derision.

This is not an uncommon reaction when one has nothing to bring to a discussion.

Earl said...

Nate is correct is saying the health-question answers would be more valid if Fox asked their biased questions later, but, even better, don't asked biased questions at all. It's unlikely that a faux-news outlet like Fox will ever reform, but their pollster should be ashamed for going along with dishonest polling.

Earl Babbie

cole said...

I'm not sure which is sadder, the conservatives who distort facts and have a false belief in Fox News or the liberals that are so offended by hearing the other side's opinion.

Both sides need to grow up.

Gyrate said...

"No, YOU'RE a troll!"

"No, YOU are!"

(BTW, the third paragraph in the article bugs me and needs the word "reform" added in a few places - surely *everyone* is in favor of healthcare?)

Bart DePalma said...

Gen. Sherman:

The point of my initial post was that a single subject poll simply asking the respondent wether they support Obamacare is not the most accurate way to a measure a multiple subject question like Obamacare. Obamacare also has a price tag which must be paid through debt or taxes or compelling the respondent to buy health insurance against their will. You cannot obtain an honest consideration of Obamacare from voters without addressing the price tag because, as Nate admitted, support for big spending Dem programs like healthcare plunges when people realize that they will have to pay for it.

Dwight said...

Mike in Maryland said...

In other words, the TROLL is trying to spin the numbers to make them look worse.


1) OK, that's what is going on. Tom, that's confusing and not particularly useful. Delta percentages of the percentages are prone to the problem that they grow and shrink as you go down and up the scale. There is a reason that the convention is to not express it that way.

2) Mike, for f*ck sake can you please stop with the "you are a TROLL" crap. :/


Tom Hamand said...

I believe the CBS/NYTimes poll was flawed.


You are doing a very poor job of explaining why you feel that way. Asking some slightly different questions than other polls at the time is actually a GOOD thing (as long as the question is taken into consideration when analyzing). However what Nate was talking about were questions written so poorly so as to damage the data following them enough to make it pretty much useless.

The CBS/NY Times poll was of adults, which typically is 2-3 points more than registered voters.

... aaaand?

Bart DePalma said...

Tom Hamand said...

The CBS/NY Times poll was of adults, which typically is 2-3 points more than registered voters.

... aaaand?


And anyone who cannot be bothered to vote does not count to our esteemed Congress critters seeking re-election.

Let us say for the sake of argument that all adults supported Obamacare by a 51% to 49% margin, but likely voters in 2010 opposed Obamacare by a 42% to 58% margin.

To which poll do you think your Congress critter is paying attention?

GROG said...

Bart, to follow up...

If a poll asked "in the case of unemployment should every American receive unemployment benefits equal to 100% of their income until they resume full time employment?", I bet people would overwhelmingly be in favor.

But if the question included facts about how much it would cost in taxes and what it would do to the defecit and the harm it may cause to the health of the economy, the support would dwindle significantly.

Dwight said...

And anyone who cannot be bothered to vote does not count to our esteemed Congress critters seeking re-election.

Sorting out who might and who might not vote is problematic at the best of times. Trying to predict a year before an election is a much worse proposition. Since the issues you are measuring can actually define who will vote.

P.S. Unlike some here I don't totally discount Ras for applying the filtering they do. There is room for both. But trying to claim that applying a LV filter, any LV filter, is the only valid way to report polling data is ludicrous. But then that's you, right? Bart "Ludicrous, Repetatively" DePalma. :P

Dwight said...

GROG,

As explained earlier, putting the argument into the questions means they aren't measuring the larger public's feelings anymore. They are measuring only the people that happen to have just been feed a few seconds prior a particular take on the issue.

About the best you could say is that it's a measurement of receptiveness to a particular talking point. But doesn't really say how that's going to react in the wild when faced with other information.

David said...

Mike in MD sez, "Typical swill from a Conservatard..."
From dictionary.com:

dark
–adjective
1. having very little or no light: a dark room.
2. radiating, admitting, or reflecting little light: a dark color.

Mornin' Mike. Seems like your insomnia is even worse than mine. We should get together some day for a cup of decaf.

OK, I'll grant that dark is not the "absence of light" but rather "little or no light".

By the same token, then, liberalism is not the total absence of conservatism, but characterized by "little or no conservatism".

You mock me, but think about it. Why is Obama, whose politics are moderate by any objective standards, called a socialist? Why are ALL the media other than Fox news and the Washington Times accused of liberal biased? Can you think of ANY politician or news organization that isn't either right wing or liberal?

It's as clear as light and dark, I tell you. Liberal bias is the absence of conservative bias. And therefore Tom is correct that all polls have a bias.

Bart DePalma said...

GROG said...

Bart, to follow up...

If a poll asked "in the case of unemployment should every American receive unemployment benefits equal to 100% of their income until they resume full time employment?", I bet people would overwhelmingly be in favor.

But if the question included facts about how much it would cost in taxes and what it would do to the defecit and the harm it may cause to the health of the economy, the support would dwindle significantly


Perhaps, perhaps not.

My point is that one cannot perform a cost benefit analysis without being informed of the cost. However, if the benefit outweighs the cost, I see no reason why a meritorious program like unemployment insurance could not gain majority support.

joel said...

Rasmussen should not use likely voters when polling job approval. This is done strictly to lower obama's approval plus even if you don't vote your opinion of the president matters.
I think he changed to likely voter approval when Obama was elected and bush approval was registered voters, not sure but I believe he changed his method when it was apparent obama was going to be the next president.
Also a lot of people may not support this bill because it is just a payoff to the health insurance companies. It would have been better to ask do you support a health care bill with a public option.

Dwight said...

Oh, I see what you were getting at GROG.

@Bart

You still hammer the crap out of the accuracy in measuring what information penetration is already out there. Especially when you put the "information" in false dichotomy terms.

Sometimes you'll see polls that ask questions about topics that aren't really widely known, and the poll is trying to get a sense of how an issue might pop if it came on the scene. That could be a little more arguable. Or there are polls that are trying to measure people's priorities (would you buy a red car or a blue car), those have a bit more validity in putting in some info. But it's a risky proposition, you still need to be careful you don't stomp all over what you are trying to measure.

Brian said...

"Let us say for the sake of argument that all adults supported Obamacare by a 51% to 49% margin, but likely voters in 2010 opposed Obamacare by a 42% to 58% margin.

To which poll do you think your Congress critter is paying attention?"


Mine? Neither. Incumbency for life!

Mule said...

....even if you don't vote your opinion of the president matters.

I'm going to remember this statement and throw it back in yours or someone else's face the next time I'm lambasted for criticizing the President but am forced to admit that I didn't vote in this past election or have scarcely ever voted in my life.

I smell a double-standard, which isn't anything new in this far left echo chamber.

Pragmatus said...

A poll conducted by Fox Noise Nutwork was biased?

Is nothing sacred???

We no longer have real news outlets in this country, instead we have “infotainment” organs, whose purpose is to drive, rather than report, the news. Polls are the worst symptom of this malady. As Nate shows here, it doesn’t require much imagination to cook up a poll that will return the results you set out to find.

Mule said...

The more I think about joel's statement, the more steamed I am that I've gotten even a hint of angst and grief over the fact that I've been very passive since turning 18 when it comes to voting.

This is especially true knowing several of you other liberals share joel's view about Rasmussen on the whole 'likely voter' thing. If it makes Obama look good, you are adamant in making sure we know the opinion of unlikely voters counts. I freely admit I have been and am currently 'unlikely' to vote, yet I share an opinion of Obama (usually negative, of course), and I get flayed. How does that work?


Again, more hypocrisy from the left. That's how it works.

Mule said...

The Left:

"Your opinion of the President matters....as long as it's not a negative one!"

California Girl said...

I had the good fortune to receive stats training while working in house for a nat'l co that did the bulk of their own research, marketing etc. using top flight consultants and trainers. Since that time, my awareness of bias in most polls has been heightened. It often occurs in the answer choices. For ex., if the only answer options are "yes" or "no" it leaves out the uncertainty option and forces a response from the respondent.

I've been the recipient of many telephone polls and online polls and I often have to decide whether or not to finish the poll once I feel it is biased. I usually don't. That being said, I realize I can influence, if only a teensy bit, my side of things by knowing how to answer. I can't be alone in this.

To me, the majority of polls are unreliable, biased and designed to underscore the POV of the organization/biz/etc who commissioned it.

Bart DePalma said...

joel said...

[E]ven if you don't vote your opinion of the president matters.

Seriously, why?

Only voters choose policy positions through representatives and thus our representatives' policy positions are logically responsive to the voters.

If an American cannot be bothered to vote for policy positions through representatives, why should representatives elected by others adjust their policy provisions to the non-voter?

The vote is both a right and a responsibility.

Pragmatus said...

Latest polls show that…

♦ Poodles tend to get 57% more steamed over having gotten hints of angst and/or grief than other breeds of dogs.
♦ Poodles are 37% more likely to “act out” their frustrations in arenas where their complaints are 83% more likely to be laughed at or dismissed.

Jayme said...

Ok, so this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I have to get this off my chest before I explode.

From Wikipedia: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community . . . with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

A troll is not someone who disagrees with you. A troll isn't even someone who gets their facts wrong. It's someone who intentionally derails a topic by using false attacks to illicit an emotional response. Please stop calling people trolls just because they don't agree with you.

Also, if you truly believe that someone is a troll, just ignore them. There is nothing that a troll wants more than your response. Responding to them, even just to call them a troll, feeds their need for attention and fuels future trolling. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS

Ben said...

Oh my, those questions you picked out of the Fox poll are hilarious, especially 3 and 4. I would never be able to ask those with a straight face.

Statler N Waldorf said...

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/43818

This is a greasemonkey script that allows firefox users to auto-ignore users they doN,t want to see comments from on 538

Its a two-step process. First, you need to download the Greasemonkey extension, and then you need to download this script. Then, you click 'add ons' => 'greasemonkey' => '538 Troll Remnover' => Edit => scroll down to where it says 'trollList [1]= '';

Add a name. Save the file. Close greasemoneky.

End result? No more trolls. Your screen will read 'Redacted comment by Jayme' instead of the troll in question's comments.

Have fun!

Persuter said...

MiM: And since we haven't seen pete kent lately, is this his newest guise? Or maybe nova(non)middle man? Or could it be nj(non)moderate? In any event, some of our usual TROLLs are missing in action, and we have new ones. The easiest explanation would be that they are the same old TROLLs under new disguises.

:facepalm: Mike, shut it.


GROG: It's best to ignore TROLLS like Mike in Maryland on this site. He brings nothing to discussions except hatred for differing viewpoints.

Agreed. We're all doing pretty well at ignoring the sterile horse/donkey mix - it'd be nice to see Mr. Apoplexy himself get the same treatment.


Tom: These were questions in the CBS/ NY Times poll...

Tom, you're missing something important in your comparison. It's easy to compare the CBS/NYTimes poll to another poll and say, "Well, when you ask 'Barack Obama', it's X approval, but if you ask 'Democratic Congress', it's Y approval." Small changes in the wording of questions have disproportionate effects on the answers, this is a well-known effect in polls. Any question is OK as long as it's comparable to other questions. Indeed, that's exactly what you're doing - pointing out that the use of "Barack Obama" brings "Yes" up from "Democratic Congress".

What Fox has done here, however, is to ask a reasonable question but precede it by a number of ludicrously leading questions, thus skewing the response. That's a big difference.

You guys are comparing it, for example, to a question in which they talk about Obama's debt, for example. If they asked the question and reported the results faithfully, that would be fine. Imagine, however, that they talked at length about Obama's debt and then did not mention that when reporting the poll results. That is essentially what they have done here.


A question on one poll getting different results from others because of different wording is perfectly expected. It is not evidence of "bias" at all. A question on one poll getting different results from others because of the other questions on the poll, however, is evidence of a very poor poll at best.

Rudy said...

Let us not for get that ALL of the polls that show support for the various plans gloss over cost or other negative implications, and imply that reform plans provide something for nothing. The ill-informed are particularly prone to buy into such nice-sounding initiatives, so those question formations also produce erroneous data. People are always in favor of free lunch.

Agreed that it is bad form to try to swing opinion via question design, but it is fair game to formulate questions insuch a way to gauge people's opinions of the necessary tradeoffs. This can be done by mixing and matching various permutations of order ad phraseology, but I'm not sure there's any possibility of ever developing value-judgment-free questions.

So, let's not pretend that the free-lunch type of questions produce a more valid response.

Persuter said...

Let us not for get that ALL of the polls that show support for the various plans gloss over cost or other negative implications, and imply that reform plans provide something for nothing.

Can you provide an example of this?

bob gardner said...

It sounds like a push poll.

MysteryJ said...

thanks for once again synthesizing my thoughts. I read through the poll yesterday and basically two conclusions. 1) I personally would have dropped off this poll well before the health care question 2) the ancillary questions would certainly push uncertain respondents in a negative direction.

Mule said...

We're all doing pretty well at ignoring the sterile horse/donkey mix...

And that doesn't bother me at all. Your casual dismissal of me and Pragmatus' bland sarcasm that invokes fake sarcasm about poodles (to take another swipe at me while showing us what a bitter asshole he is while deflecting the issue I raised, which is hypocrisy on the Left), shows me you don't have a logical answer to the point I raised.

Usually when someone - or a group of people - has lost an argument, they resort to tactics like you all have employed. This reaffirms to me that you don't have the slightest clue how ridiculous you sound in this echo chamber.

I'll summarize the point again. Maybe this time it'll sink into your dense skull, regardless of whether or not you feel the need to reply. The commenter, joel, said that he didn't agree with how Rasmussen polls and tries to hone in on the opinions of only 'likely voters.' He felt that unfairly raises the negatives of Barack Obama and that the opinions of non-voters do in fact count.

My response was that I've been lambasted in the past for sharing my opinion of the President - and vehemently told it doesn't count or doesn't matter because I didn't vote (and had done so only sparingly in my life) - so I was admonishing joel and anyone else who has made that argument against me in the past that I would throw his words back in their face should they tell me my opinions of the President don't matter in the future if I say I'm a 'non-voter.'


You can go ahead and bury your head in the sand now, because you know you lost.

Mule said...

should be 'fake statistics' and not 'fake sarcasm'

Rudy said...

Yes, Persuter, the oft-cited Survey USA poll, for one, ostensibly showing 77% support for the so-called public option.

Survey USA August 2009 Poll

In particular, Question 2, the one that produced the 77% support for the public option, was phrased as follows: In any health care proposal, how important do you feel 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--extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?

By providing such an innocuous hypothetical question without any meat about the implications or costs, opinion is steered.

This phrasing benignly packaged the public option in terms of just another choice, implying that it helped competition and ignoring whether there were any costs attached to such a plan, eliciting the desired knee-jerk response from the poorly informed.

77% of respondents took extremely or quite, including 71% of self-identified Republicans and 66% of conservatives. Obviously, this is way outside reality, or else this wouldn't be such a viscerally controversial topic.

Once people are educated re the implications, especially cost and anti-competitiveness, support for a government plan drops precipitously, a la the Rasmussen polling.

David said...

Rudy sez, "By providing such an innocuous hypothetical question without any meat about the implications or costs, opinion is steered."

But what ARE the costs? Since government run plans are less expensive than private plans, if it were mandated that the public option would be priced at market rates, it would bring in HUGE revenues to the government. On the other hand, if the public option were free, it would cost a lot.

Bottom line is people like knowing they have a choice. If I had the option of buying into Medicare a few years early, I might do it ... or I might just stick with my current insurance. But I want the choice, and polls that show most other people do too do not surprise me.

Persuter said...

In any health care proposal, how important do you feel 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

This simply asks how important a public option is to the pollee. It does not "gloss over costs" since there is no particular plan associated with the question. Indeed, this does not show support for any particular plan, as you claimed, it simply shows support for an abstract idea.

Now, you said "ALL of the polls that show support for the various plans gloss over cost". Question 6 from your own cited survey is:

"Now I am going to tell you more about the health care plan that President Obama supports and please tell me whether you would favor or oppose it. The plan requires that health insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. It also requires all but the smallest employers to provide health coverage for their employees, or pay a percentage of their payroll to help fund coverage for the uninsured. Families and individuals with lower- and middle-incomes would receive tax credits to help them afford insurance coverage. Some of the funding for this plan would come from raising taxes on wealthier Americans. Do you favor or oppose this plan?"

And the respondents support the plan. Since this mentions raising taxes and requiring employers to provide insurance, clearly "something for nothing" does not apply. As such, your assertion is clearly incorrect by your own cited survey.

Persuter said...

77% of respondents took extremely or quite, including 71% of self-identified Republicans and 66% of conservatives. Obviously, this is way outside reality, or else this wouldn't be such a viscerally controversial topic.

Yes, because obviously government-run health care options such as Medicare are incredibly unpopular.

Once people are educated re the implications, especially cost and anti-competitiveness, support for a government plan drops precipitously, a la the Rasmussen polling.

lol, "especially cost and anti-competitiveness". What if they are educated about the massive cost of the current healthcare system, the potential savings of health care reform, and the benefit to the millions of people who cannot afford insurance currently? How can you possibly even think that a person can be truly "educated" about something as complex as health care reform in a poll question?

This is precisely why pollsters should tell the people as little as possible - it's not useful to find out what people think based on what they have been told by a pollster. The question is what people think right now, in the world, not what they think after they've been "educated" by a pollster.

Mr. Universe said...

I freely admit I have been and am currently 'unlikely' to vote, yet I share an opinion of Obama (usually negative, of course), and I get flayed. How does that work?

Possibly because your opinions are well documented to be the incoherent ramblings of a mad man? Maybe because you ask for it? Quit playing the victim card. If you can't stand the echo, echo...echo chamber, then why do you keep coming here? It was so nice during the recent geekfest to see an absence of trolls. Even nicer to see that when you finally showed up you were completely ignored. As I will do, starting, now.

Bart your constant repeating of the term Obamacare is offensive and is not going to work. Please go somewhere else.

All of you need to stop pretending that you're engaging in useful discourse here. You're simply trying to convince everyone that your sad, crumbling illusion of existence is justifiable. It's kind of tragic to watch.

shrinkers said...

@Tom Hamand
Nate states that the questions of the Fox poll with regard to health care were unbiased because they did not include President Obama's name or the words Democrats or Congress in the question, but were biased because of the questions leading up to that question. The CBS/NY Times poll questions used President Obama's name and the phrase Republicans in Congress in the health care questions. Therefore, according to Nate, both polls were biased.

This is many hours late, but I just got up.

I haven't seen the real problem with Tom's statement pointed out, so I'll do it.

The FOX poll was biased, and Nate showed us why and how. The question about health care was alleged to provide us with information about whether people wanted health care reform, but the poll was intentionally set up to to push answers into a particular direction.

The CBS/NYT question was about whether people prefer the ideas Obama has presented, or the ideas the Republicans have presented. It provided exactly that information, in an unbiased way. It was not about whether people want reform. It was about whose ideas the public prefers.

The two questions had different purposes - different overt and covert purposes. FOX was biased. CBS/NYT was not.

Let me also point out - with the right wing media telling us that Obama's popularity is tanking, a question that asked about Obama's ideas, and that named him specifically, should have polled the approval of his ideas lower than the ideas of the Republicans, right? Naming Obama should have hurt those ideas, if the right-wing media talking points were correct. The fact that the CBS/NYT poll showed such overwhelming approval of "Obama's ideas" over "Republcians ideas" is incredibly significant.

ThePegster71 said...

For the record, I would have hung up on the pollster after question #4, and I'm decently open-minded.

MarkinIL said...

A more generalized version of what Persuter is suggesting is that polls are not the place to educate people, just as an exam at the end of a college semester is not the time to educate students.

While polls and exams differ on several dimensions (e.g. objectively correct answers) their purpose is similar. That is, to assess the current knowledge of a population. The knowledge differs and the populations differ, but the purpose is the same.

Anytime a poll attempts to educate someone it is an attempt to push people in one direction or another.

To be clear, "educating" people within a poll could be instructive for political strategists, but these polls are not the true gauge of public opinion--assuming anyone wants a true measure of anything.

GROG said...

@Mr. Universe:

Bart your constant repeating of the term Obamacare is offensive

Really? The term Obamacare really offends you?

Mule said...

Bart your constant repeating of the term Obamacare is offensive and is not going to work. Please go somewhere else.

First of all, I share GROG's shock that this actually offends you (or anyone, for that matter).

Secondly, I can't think of a time I've everused that term. You can check and see, but it's not oen in my vocabulary. I haven't gotten into the semantics of the health care debate as that's not my strong suit.

I just love how some of you seem to be an expert on everything and are more than heppy to tell us all that you know. Only in the blogosphere can you get lectured on what the finer points of climate change and energy legislation should be and all of the things that need to be done for health care reform by people who likely clean up feces in public restrooms or work in a ticket booth at the local movie theater and have them expect to take you seriously.

shrinkers said...

@David
But what ARE the costs? Since government run plans are less expensive than private plan ...

This is a vital point.

Since some of the conservatives here are insistent that a) a question about heathcare reform should include information about costs, and b) a poll should educate, perhaps the question should be worded like this -

"Heath care costs more when there is a middleman such as a for-profit insurance company standing between you and your doctor. Would you prefer to have health care that is mediated and rationed by companies set up to maximize their profits - or by a program such as the highly successful, poplar, and efficient not-for-profit Medicare system?"

Such a question as this includes information on costs - comparative costs is a far more useful bit of information than stressing only the costs for one side of the alternatives. It provides even more information than the conservatives in this forum have requested (such as, for example, that Medicare is popular and efficient, and that the current insurance companies ration care) - and all of the information provided is accurate.

Surely, a question such as the above would be acceptable to the conservatives here, right?

Bart DePalma said...

Mr. Universe said...

Bart your constant repeating of the term Obamacare is offensive and is not going to work.

What is "offensive" about the term Obamacare? The fact that Obama is being linked with his plan or that the plan is being linked to Obama?

shrinkers said...

perhaps the question should be worded like this -

"Heath care costs more when there is a middleman such as a for-profit insurance company standing between you and your doctor. Would you prefer to have health care that is mediated and rationed by companies set up to maximize their profits - or by a program such as the highly successful, poplar, and efficient not-for-profit Medicare system?"

Surely, a question such as the above would be acceptable to the conservatives here, right?


You are making Fox look like a push polling amateur. Not only is your question improperly leading like some in the Fox poll, the facts are incorrect.

Try instead stropping away the propaganda and simply ask:

Would you prefer to have your health care insurer or the government decide what health care your insurance will cover?

I would be interested in the response to that question because it correctly assumes that someone will ration your healthcare.

mike3k said...

If they called me with that poll, after hearing question #3 I'd tell them to go f*** themselves and hang up on them.

Pragmatus said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Pragmatus said...

Fifi said, referring to commenters becoming unhinged…

“Usually when someone - or a group of people - has lost an argument, they resort to [certain] tactics.”

These comments were sprinkled throughout the same post of Fifi’s (and elsewhere)—

♦ “…showing us what a bitter asshole he is…”
♦ “Maybe this time it’ll sink into your dense skull…”
♦ “…and all of the things that need to be done for health care reform by people who likely clean up feces in public restrooms or work in a ticket booth at the local movie theater and have them expect to take you seriously…”

Sounds to me like Fifi’s calling the kettle black. Nobody else gets so rabid (anyone remember “I will gut you like a fish!!!”?) simply because they run out of cogent arguments.

Calm down, Fifi. They make dog tranquilizers now. They even work on breeds as high-strung and empty-headed as poodles.

Pragmatus said...

Bart, I sure hope the GOP is paying you for all your work on their behalf, although none of the shit you are flinging for them is sticking to the wall.

mike3k…

If you hang up on a push-poll like that they turn to a dart board to find your answers.

shrinkers said...

@BDP
You are making Fox look like a push polling amateur. Not only is your question improperly leading like some in the Fox poll,

Yup. That was intentional. Push polling, by anyone, is unethical. An attempt to "inform" during a poll is equally unethical.

By the way, I take as a compliment your statement that I am "making Fox look like a push polling amateur." If FOX wants to hire me, I'm available.

... the facts are incorrect.

No, they were absolutely correct.

Try instead stropping away the propaganda and simply ask:

Would you prefer to have your health care insurer or the government decide what health care your insurance will cover?


Your question is still biased. In either option, there is a "health care insurer" - your wording implies there is a "health care insurer" in only one option. Further, the right wing has striven mightily for decades to cast a negative light on anything done by the gummint. The question is better worded:

"Wuold you prefer your health care insurer to be a for-profit corporation, or a not-for-profit system comparable to Medicare?"

shrinkers said...

@me
"Would you prefer your health care insurer to be a for-profit corporation, or a not-for-profit system comparable to Medicare?"

But thinking about it more, that is also an inappropriate question, because none of the current proposals offer anything anywhere near a universal single-payer system - which is what the second option in the question implies (and what we really need).

Maybe more like -

"Do you prefer the current system of for-profit corporations that control your health care, or a proposed system that would allow you to chose a not-for-profit public insurer?"

PaulK said...

I agree with others that many will hang up when they hear such leading questions (I do).

The other point is that when asking a generic question about the Healthcare reform "legislation" (sounds like Congress to me), you immediately will get a negative response from left and right given the ugliness of the Bachus bill (or should I say the "everything the insurance companies asked for bill").

To be fair, they should have asked about what Obama has said the bill would look like or even the House bill as a separate question.

Persuter said...

Fifi said...

DNFTT. He's all angry in the first place because no one's responding to him. :)

Pragmatus said...

shrinkers…

I’d say your suggested question of 2:13 pm is closest to objective, although I have to say I don’t think it’s possible to word these poll questions entirely dispassionately.

I really do think that what used to be the “art” of polling, i.e. the striving to gather and present information that reflected the public mood as closely as possible, has been entirely subsumed in the “business” of polling, where it has become a mere adjunct to public relations. If a polling outfit isn’t deliberately skewing its numbers either left or right then they are trying to find some oddball result that will gain them a headline or two.

What I’d really like to see are polls conducted by PBS’s News Hour. If they can do such an objective, balanced job reporting the news, I suspect their polls would be equally reliable and even definitive.

shrinkers said...

On the FOX poll -
6. Do you think the size of the national debt is so large it is hurting the future of the country?

Yes, it's hurting the future of our country.

Of course, roughly 85% of the current debt is due to Republican overspending, greed, and mismanagement. And projected deficits are due to trying to clean up the Republican messes. And health care reform is being structured to add not one dollar to the debt over the next ten years.

Thank the Republicants once again for the fiscal problems we've got.

Bart DePalma said...

shrinkers said...

Try instead stropping away the propaganda and simply ask:

Would you prefer to have your health care insurer or the government decide what health care your insurance will cover?

Your question is still biased. In either option, there is a "health care insurer" - your wording implies there is a "health care insurer" in only one option. Further, the right wing has striven mightily for decades to cast a negative light on anything done by the gummint.


OK, try:

Would you prefer to have your private health care insurer or a government health care insurer decide what health care your insurance will cover?

The question is better worded:

"Wuold you prefer your health care insurer to be a for-profit corporation, or a not-for-profit system comparable to Medicare?"


Different question entirely and you are making inaccurate comparisons to Medicare because Obamacare will have cost controls and therefore health care rationing not present in Medicare.

Try:

Would you prefer a private for profit insurer or a non-profit government insurer to pay for your health care?

Pragmatus said...

I sent off some cash to Consumers Union in reponse to an email directing me to this ad they have put together and are trying to run in as many markets as possible.

The only really effective weapon against lies is the truth, although as some writer said “A lie will make it halfway around the world while the truth is still getting its boots on.” I think the right has squandered a lot of public goodwill with their performance over the last couple months with their “teabaggers” and town hall screamers. People are pretty fed up with that kind of crap, and the right doesn’t have a backup act, so now’s the time for the progressives to make a steady, reasoned push toward success.

shrinkers said...

@BDP

Different question entirely and you are making inaccurate comparisons to Medicare because Obamacare will have cost controls and therefore health care rationing not present in Medicare.

There is no such thing as "Obamacare", so I don't know what you're referring to here.

Would you prefer a private for profit insurer or a non-profit government insurer to pay for your health care?

Let me tweak it a little more, to give equally knee-jerk-laden terms on both sides (since there may be no way to do away with them entirely) - and to inclujde the idea of a option (which is, after all, what the House bills are talking about):

Would you prefer to have only a private for-profit corporate insurer, or have the choice of a non-profit government insurer, to pay for your health care?

IL_Grimacѐ said...

"My response was that I've been lambasted in the past for sharing my opinion of the President - and vehemently told it doesn't count or doesn't matter because I didn't vote (and had done so only sparingly in my life)"

I'm sorry but if you're not interested in exerting so much as a basic level of participation and civic involvement then your opinions don't matter. If you aren't willing to invest the miniscule amount of time and energy it takes vote then your opinions have no consequence.

Who cares what you have to say if all you are is someone who just likes to rant and rave and complain? Whatever political opinions you have are inert and weightless. There is nothing behind them, just empty words with no possible effect but some vague satisfaction from venting your views.

You're no better than the liberals who annoy me by talking about the evils of corporations, environmental problems or some tragedy over seas but have no inclination, motivation or aility to actually learn about the realities of the given problem and actually do something about it.

As I say to them talking abotu the Sudanese does nothing for the Sudanese, so either do something, contribute to something or shut up about it. I'll say the same to you, either participate to very easy basic degree of involvement or shut up about it. As of now your opinions do not matter in the least.

Pragmatus said...

shrinkers…

The problem is that you are phrasing the question as either/or, which drags the discussion off into the weeds.

Nobody is proposing giving Americans a stark choice between all private insurers or all public option.

That we are even discussing such an irrelevancy is a victory for the people trying to defeat the public option. Remember that the public option is only a proposal to add to the choices people currently have, sort of like adding a green color option to a car already available in red, blue, white and black.

shrinkers said...

@Pragmatus
The problem is that you are phrasing the question as either/or, which drags the discussion off into the weeds.

Quite right, which is why in some forms of the question I'm trying to include the notion of the public option being optional. Your observation is spot on.

In the end, the question will come down to an either/or - do you support the bill that finally gets assembled, or not? - but interestingly, a bill with a public option will create choices far more varied than a simple either/or - which is one of the many reasons it is such a good idea.

For me, I'm comfortable with the either/or - propaganda aside, a government-run universal single payer system is clearly preferable, in every possible way, to what we've got now. But just as clearly, polling on that either/or question is meaningless, since it's not being proposed anywhere.

Do you favor the dysfunctional system we have now, that leaves tens of millions uninsured, encourages insurers to deny coverage for life-saving procedures, results in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths each year, and delivers the most expensive heathcare - with some of the least efficient and ineffective results - of any industrialized nation on the planet? Or you do want to try something new, something that has already been proven to work everywhere else?

If there is an either/or, that's it.

Pragmatus said...

shrinkers…

Now you’re talking—

“Do you favor the dysfunctional system we have now, that leaves tens of millions uninsured, encourages insurers to deny coverage for life-saving procedures, results in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths each year, and delivers the most expensive heathcare - with some of the least efficient and ineffective results - of any industrialized nation on the planet? Or you do want to try something new, something that has already been proven to work everywhere else?”

The perfect question to ask, but the trouble is the eyes of the average American would glaze over starting at the word “dysfunctional”.

Mule said...

I'm sorry but if you're not interested in exerting so much as a basic level of participation and civic involvement then your opinions don't matter. If you aren't willing to invest the miniscule amount of time and energy it takes vote then your opinions have no consequence.

...

...As of now your opinions do not matter in the least.



I was waiting on somebody to take the bait so I could pounce on them like a lion on a wildebeest on the plains of Africa...

For starters, I'm fine if you take that position. Let me be clear. I'm perfectly fine with you thinking my opinions don't matter because I'm not actively involved in voting or the political process.

Now that we have that out of the air, you need to go back and re-read the origins of that discussion. Another liberal dipshit like yourself was bitching because Rasmussen only targets likely voters' opinions of Barack Obama and ignores those with a more passive attitude towards voting, like myself. According to the poster (joel), their exclusion of the opinions of "unlikely" voters unfairly drives up Obama's negatives. According to him:

"Rasmussen should not use likely voters when polling job approval. This is done strictly to lower obama's approval plus even if you don't vote your opinion of the president matters"

What's that again? According to joel, even though someone may not vote, their opinion does indeed matter. Holy shit! How 'bout that?! Now we've got a liberal telling me mine doesn't matter?

So which is it, IL_Grimace? Do opinions of the President by non-voters matter? If so, then by all means feel free to condemn Rasmussen's polling methodology, but I admonish you to quickly apologize to me and tell me that my opinions indeed do matter for something. Or you can stay with your original thinking that opinions from people like me don't matter, and that's fine, but be sure to defend Rasmussen's methodology to your fellow liberals.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. How's that sound?!

I await your response to see which side of the fence you fall on.

Rudy said...

@David, you make assumptions that aren't necessarily so in your comments. The only thing that makes a public option cheaper owuld be its ability to use predatory provider payment rates that other competitors could not use. It is the implications of such an unlevel playing field that are an anathema to its workability without destroying the current system.

That is essentially the choice we face, which is where the discussion should be focused. Without the understanding of the implications, any polling results are suspect. Which is why Obama is so intent on speed and platitudes instead of honest dissection.

@Persuter:

You post a straw man by suggesting that since Medicare is popular, that more of the same would also be popular. It's already established that single payor has low popularity, which is essentially the same as Medicare for all. A public option is a more complex issue, which is why information is important, and why polling results have the same issues as I previously outlined.

By portending such straw men to justify polling methods that indicate support, you've biased the poll. Asking people if they like free lunch is different than asking if they are willing to have the taxpayers pay for someone else's free lunch.

I didn't suggest that pollsters try to educate in the questions, and any effort to do so necessarily taints the poll, whether it be the rightful criticism of the Fox poll or the more subtle taint in the Survey USA poll. I fully understand the logic for trying to be completely vanilla in questioning, but you seem not to understand that putting a benign face on the public option using words like choice and implying competition is itself a push. At the very least there needs to be follow-on questions about the level of knowledge of the issues or opinion of the implications. Only then can one calibrate the poll response validity.

There are many facets to this debate, and it is by no means straightforward. Simplistic analysis is always misleading, and on this topic, more depth of knowledge seems to mean less favoring of such a drastic solution as is being proffered.

That's why the grandiose scheme is going to die of its own weight.

Mule said...

DNFTT. He's all angry in the first place because no one's responding to him. :)

1) I'm not angry. I get a kick out of annoying the shit out of some of you. Don't confuse my confrontational language and polemical style with anger. It takes such coarse language and crude behavior to dig in deep and expose some of you for the frauds, liars, and hypocrites that you are.

2) You can ignore me all you want. Doesn't matter. Somebody always responds. Always. They just can't help themselves.

3) Building on point 2, I'm perfectly fine with you ignoring me (i.e. not "feeding" me). You are one of the most cynical and narrow-minded sophists and perpetrators of illogical arguments that infest this site, although there are several others who fit that description to a tee.

Your mind is closed to anything that doesn't fit your narrow world view and you go to great lengths to deflect arguments or use circular reasoning to make illogical statements that refuse to address the problem at hand. You also demand evidence for the other side of an argument when you are unable or unwilling to provide it from your point of view.

Case in point, your disagreement with Rudy over a poll giving a cost implication before asking for support. You asked and he gave you an example - and there are several others that ask such broad questions and don't give the slightest hint of cost - and you immediately twist the argument and argue a totally different set of points.

You're not nearly as smart as you think you are, and you're probably every bit as dumb or dumber than I think you are. That's the bottom line here.

Mule said...

Rudy,

You might as well not even try with these sophists. They'll just argue with you till you're both blue in the face. Anything they don't have a good answer for (which is almost every basic fact or piece of evidence that shows them how sick and twisted they are), they'll just deflect the question and make up some other illogical statement to divert attention from the original argument.

I would say it's a brilliant tactic, but it's not. Anyone with any common sense can see them for the fools they are.

shrinkers said...

Any discussion of the "cost" of health care reform needs to also include the "cost" not doing health care reform.

We are already paying costs far beyond what we should be paying. A public option allows not only economies of scale, but removes the obscene profits that pad our premiums today.

There is also the "cost" in terms of health, lives, and well-being. For-profit insurance companies are not set up to supply health care. They are set up to maximize proits for shareholders and salaries for corporate officers - and that requires denial of health care. We are paying for the current systems in tens of thousands of lives per year, thousands (tens of thousands?) of bankruptcies, and quality of care that is inferior to most other industrialized nations.

We also need to look at future costs. If we do nothing, our health care costs will exceed half of the average wage-earner's income in about 10 years - with no improvement in outcomes.

If we are going to talk about costs, we have to also talk about the cost of the alternative. The cost of not doing reform is far worse, and is absolutely unconscionable.

Persuter said...

You post a straw man by suggesting that since Medicare is popular, that more of the same would also be popular.

lol, are you kidding me? You respond to one sentence out of six paragraphs and you're chiding me for strawmen?


By portending such straw men to justify polling methods that indicate support, you've biased the poll.

You are the only one with a straw man here, buddy - you're making up an argument and responding to it.

I made quite clear that that question did NOT show support for any particular plan, as you claimed. I further pointed out a question within the same survey, specifically asking about "the health care plan that President Obama supports", did in fact clearly enumerate costs of a plan.

Since you deliberately chose not to respond to those points, I can only assume that you have no response whatsoever to them. Thus, until you can defend your initial assertion that all of the polls which show support for the various plans gloss over cost, it has clearly been debunked.

Asking somebody whether they think something is important is not, repeat, NOT the same as asking whether they support any of a number of legislative plans which may or may not include it.

Dwight said...

Persuter said...
Fifi said...

DNFTT. He's all angry in the first place because no one's responding to him. :)


I assumed he's seething mad because by now even he recognizes the hopelessness of his dreams and prognostications of Johnson suing Nate, of Nate getting his comeuppance for suggesting bad things about SV, LLC "polling" practices. :)

shiloh said...

IL_Grimacѐ said...

As I say to them talking about the Sudanese does nothing for the Sudanese, so either do something, contribute to something or shut up about it.


In high school "we" sarcastically said, people are dying in Bangladesh/Biafra etc. so let's form a discussion group!.

over the past 30/40/50 years one of the biggest waste of govt. time/money has been presidential commissions ...

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Pan said...

Mule:

So you're calling out Person A because their statement about you is inconsistent with Person B's opinions?

Does this mean everything you've said that disagrees with every other conservative is counted as you, personally, being inconsistent?

The "logic" at work here is utterly bizarre.

shrinkers said...
This post has been removed by the author.
shrinkers said...

Current health care system -

You pay me thousands of dollars every year. If you lose your job, or change your employer, you'll never see a dime of it.

At some future date, you may get sick or injured. If I can avoid paying for part or all of your medical care, I will.

Meanwhile, the money you pay me goes into my swimming pool and private yacht.

And next year, I'll charge you more, and increase the amounts you have to pay your doctor out of your own pocket. And I'll come up with more ways to avoid paying your claims. And you don't have a thing to say about it.

All of which explains why we have the best health care system in the world, and why federal regulation would be a bad idea....

... because I make lots of money the way things are.

Mule said...

So you're calling out Person A because their statement about you is inconsistent with Person B's opinions?

Does this mean everything you've said that disagrees with every other conservative is counted as you, personally, being inconsistent?

The "logic" at work here is utterly bizarre.



If you'll read what I said, I gave IL_Grimace the opportunity to clarify their statement. I pointed out, however, that if they have that opinion of me, they must differ with joel's opinion and how it relates to Rasmussen's methodology. Nothing bizarre about the logic.

I'm simply trying to get people to make their feelings public and point out their inconsistencies, if and when they exist.

Mule said...

I assumed he's seething mad because by now even he recognizes the hopelessness of his dreams and prognostications of Johnson suing Nate, of Nate getting his comeuppance for suggesting bad things about SV, LLC "polling" practices. :)

@Sophist Asshole,

Hey, as far as I can tell, the Nate v. SV LLC is still a draw. They may not have sued yet nor has he officially gotten a comeuppance, but he certainly hasn't done much to "bring them down." He's made some suggestions that fraud is possible, SV LLC has ducked and dodged (which admittedly is cowardly), but there is no indication that either side has had the upper hand in really doing any damage to the other.

You might want to simmer down and not be such a cocky piece of shit.

Mr. Universe said...

@Dwight, Persuter, etc.

I loved it the other day when we were all having a substantive discussion about SV LLC's methodology and he barged in like the brat on the playground. He couldn't contribute anything in room full of people with brains so he set about trying to kick over sand castles and everyone ignored him.

"LOOK AT ME. LOOK AT ME, DAMMINT! I'M BETTER THAN ALL OF YOU!"

Priceless.

Dwight said...

Priceless.

Yes, yet really, really sad.


Moving on....

Mule said...

Wow, a guy who calls himself "Mr. Universe" is condemning me for my ego...

Dwight, the only thing sad is your pathetic existence on this planet as a bitter, disgusting human being.

You are full of hate and ill-will. That's what's sad...

shrinkers said...

Rudy said...
Without the understanding of the implications, any polling results are suspect.

An excellent point. So let's concentrate on implications rather than mechanism. The talking points, the propaganda, the slanted push-polls - all are irrelevant. Arguments about cost are irrelevant, unless you also describe costs for the current system. Here's a question, an expansion of what I asked earlier, that concentrates on comparing the implications without reference to mechanisms:

"Do you favor the system we have now, that leaves tens of millions uninsured, encourages insurers to deny coverage for life-saving procedures, results in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths each year, and delivers the most expensive heathcare - with some of the least efficient and most ineffective results - of any industrialized nation on the planet? Or you do want a different system, something that has already been proven to work everywhere else - an approach with 100% of the population covered, lower per-capita costs, nearly all medical expenses paid, preventative medicine totally covered, and all prescription drugs free or very inexpensive?"

There's the choice.

Pan said...

Mule:

You took it far beyond joel and Il Grimace and decided to apply their posts to the entire userbase. It's especially bizarre given that they're not even two of the posters that tend to ride you in every thread.

Bart DePalma said...

shrinkers said...

Let me tweak it a little more, to give equally knee-jerk-laden terms on both sides (since there may be no way to do away with them entirely) - and to inclujde the idea of a option (which is, after all, what the House bills are talking about):

Would you prefer to have only a private for-profit corporate insurer, or have the choice of a non-profit government insurer, to pay for your health care?


:::chuckle:::

OK, we have come to an agreeable compromise. Who says libs and conservatives cannot work together and compromise.

shrinkers said...

@Bart DePalma said...
OK, we have come to an agreeable compromise. Who says libs and conservatives cannot work together and compromise.

Damn. Write down the date.

PeteKent said...

Who cares about Fox Noise? Cast it out as an outlier, whatever, regress it to the mean!

Me, I'll take my comfort from last weeks NYTs/CBS Poll that was a disaster for the President who since then has had another bad, bad week.

He and Madame Mao.

petekent01 (on twitter)

Namson Ngo-Le said...

Hey Nate, just a clarification on your Vietnamese proverb - it best translates to "a worm can spoil the whole cup of sup." Doesn't change the underlying meaning, but hey, err on the side of exactness.

Tim R said...

And you have to love the GOP solution for the health care crisis, which is their old stand by tax cuts for the rich and more guns on the streets. The rich's tax cuts will provide them with health care coverage and more guns mean more citizens will die, which means you won't have to provide any health care for them. This solution comes with the full endorsement of Fixed News.....

Tim R said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Stephen Daugherty said...

For my part, Republicans should realize this when they do this kind of polling:

1) The effect will be strongest among the very people who are least likely to be convinced anyways.

2) They will be raising false hopes among their own as to how well they are doing. Given the overall skepticism of the party, this can be a problem.

3) Nearly every other poll is going to suggest something different than their conclusion, making them the outlier.

They're so busy trying to do this advocacy stuff, that they end up complicating their realm of communications. And of course, in this day and age, the BS has a shorter half-life of being unchallenged.

You got to start from the truth, start with what holds up as a matter of substance. The rules of how to do a good survey aren't just there to protect the public from fraudulent appeals to popularity, they are also there to protect the value of the surveys as a way of measuring real public opinion.

The Republicans have not benefited so far from being out of touch with what most people think.

Rudy said...

Excellent example of Gallup shading the questions in health care polling, and the effect of changing question wording.

href:http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/pollsters_push_people_to_accep.html>Pollsters push people to accept Obamacare

Ryan said...

Nate,

Just thought you'd be interested to know that my professor in a course at Northeastern referenced this article in class today. It must feel good to know that you're work is being recognized in the academic community.

Kenneth Ranson said...

Nate

One source of bias that you don't consider is the hang-up effect.

When someone asks me to participate in a poll, and then asks questions that show it is really a push poll and not an attempt at information gathering, I hang up. I feel sure that many people do this with a poll like the one's Fox has been running and so they end up purging any liberals, or anyone with a sense of fairness, from their sample.

hasurershnesdashito said...

An honest poll from Fox "News" ? Forget it !
Fox "News" engages only in misinformation, vicious harangues, hate mongeringpacto, targeting of its imagined enemies, contrived polls, and the largest contribution to the abandonment of civil discourse ever seen or heard in this century and the last.

Roberto said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Roberto said...

Rachel Maddow had Joe Trippi on and I'm surprised that she didn't call him out on how the poll reports Obama's approval rating at a normal level. It's because the approval rating question was before the push poll questions. That was their sly way of making it look like a normal poll and not a bizarre outlier push poll.

Masked Righty said...

@Davy,
I don't know who "Mule" is, but he and I, are not one in the same...
The initials are coincidental...
But what else would I expect from someone who probably believes that George Bush planned 9/11 so that he could get Saddam and make a bunch of money for his Texas friends.....

By the way, I'm really just trying to be obnoxious and have a little fun. I love you liberal types; you all provide me with much amusement...

In the words of Peter Frampton:

THANGUUUU.....

Masked Righty said...

@shrinkers

Hah !!

I was wondering how long it would take until the Obama Love fest turned into a Fox News bash fest...

Hmmmm...
Fox news... # 1 in the ratings over all other cable news channels...

More viewers for Sean Hannity in one night than CNN gets all day?
Maybe...

More viewers for one episode of O'Reilly, than MSNBC gets in a year?

Possibly...

Boy there sure are a lot of us right wingnuts out there...
And thank god, we have finally woken up...

Hold onto your seats boys and girls....

I'm talking about your congressional seats....

As I wickedly say:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
!!

Have a right day !!

Masked Righty said...

Hey, if you tune over to Fox News now, there is a really cool low speed car chase going on....

Oh crap, they are saying that Obama is driving and that Rahm Emanuel is in the back seat!!!

The Anchor just reported that the driver is demanding a trip to Oslow....

Oh no, what can this be?
It must be a vast right wing conspiracy..

yuripup said...

I wonder how much of a self selection thing is going on too.

I would be very tempted, as very left person, to hang up on those mid questions.

I suspect that also would energize the right to stay on through the call.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,

J2 said...

I recently received a Republican National Committee poll - I get one every month or two, for reasons unknown to me.

It asked the question "Do you oppose Democratic plans to offer full, unconditional pardon to illegal immigrants?"

How does one even go about answering such a question? Yes, or No, when there is no such Democratic Plan. WOW!!

I called my local house rep (Frelinghuysen, R. NJ) to ask him if he agreed that this represented the Democratic position, and the office refused to answer.