Adventures in poll questions

September 23, 2007

The Washington Post reports today on a recent Democratic poll gauging support for Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 31 “swing” House districts currently represented by Democrats. It’s not an unworthy exercise — Dems obviously want to do well in those districts, and if the top of the ticket might hurt candidates down-ballot, it’s something for voters to consider during the primaries.

The bad news for Dems is that the results showed Clinton and Obama underperforming in these districts. The good news is, the wording of the question brings the survey into question.

While the average lead of Democratic House members stands at 19 percentage points in the 31 vulnerable districts — all but two of which are part of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s incumbent-protection program known as Frontline — that number sinks considerably when the lawmakers are linked to either front-runner.

“Some people say [your Democratic incumbent] is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton and will support her liberal agenda of big government and higher taxes if she becomes president,” the poll stated, before asking respondents whether they would still vote for their incumbent or choose a Republican candidate.

Whether the question named Clinton or Obama, the Democratic incumbent’s lead shrank to an average of six points: 47 percent to 41 percent with Clinton leading the ticket, 44 percent to 38 percent with Obama as the nominee.

“The images of the two early favorites are part of the problem,” Lake and Gotoff wrote.

Really? I’m inclined to think a poll that tells the respondent that the presidential candidate wants “big government and higher taxes” might skew the results a bit. In fact, given the wording, it’s kind of encouraging for Dems that Clinton and Obama performed as well as they did in the survey.

This is where MSM cross the line between reporting the news and making the news. These types of poll with dubious wording are news makers, and are definetely slanted to make news and thus can be highly politicized.

  • In defense of the question, I’ll just note that these sorts of GOP buzzwords are precisely what will be thrown at Clinton or Obama once the general campaign starts. We all know how meaningless these talking points are, but it’s the frame the Wurlitzer will place around these races.

    This isn’t a call to replace one or the other of the Dem frontrunners; what it does do is point out how important it’ll be to have something to counter the most obvious line of attack.

  • From the WaPo article (emphasis mine):

    A recent survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, however, showed Clinton and Obama trailing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008, and even potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers’ reelection chances.

    There’s a disconnect there that I’m not sure I understood – until I poked around a little and found this, also from the WaPo, here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/bidens_hiring_continues.html

    While the announcements of Clinton and Obama have dominated the news over the past week, Biden continues to soldier on — slowly building a national political team. The latest addition to the team is Celinda Lake, who will handle polling for Biden’s presidential effort. Lake, a well-known pollster among the chattering class, had a very good 2006 as the lead pollster for Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) as well as Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) and Tim Walz (D-Minn.). All three beat Republican incumbents.

    Assuming she is still on Biden’s payroll, it makes more sense – because until I found this tidbit, it seemed like the poll was designed more to help Republican candidates than Democratic ones. But, knowing Lake is on Biden’s campaign staff, it’s easier to see that the psychology is – “Clinton and Obama can hurt your chances – I can help them” – and it’s a message to the DCCC that maybe they should think seriously about how a Clinton or Obama candidacy affects the chances for holding or increasing the Democratic majority.

    But, in the end, the fact that the questions are driving the results of the poll is irrelevant because it is the numbers that will make the news.

  • And to drive home that last point, I just heard EJ Dionne reference this very poll, and Cokie Roberts extrapolate from it that Clinton and Obama are a drag on the Democrats’ chances – without ever mentioning the questions that were asked.

    So, it appears that the poll will make some inroads – although I suspect if there is a boost in poll numbers, it won’t go to Biden.

  • Who exactly paid for this so-called “Democratic” poll? It smells so much like a thinly disguised Republican smear job, trying to insert tiny wedges of fear and uncertainty into the public mind. Follow the money, folks, and the truth will make all things plain.

  • The survey inadvertently promotes candidates also. For instance here’s a leading survey question: Considering that Kucinich voted against the AUMF, MAC, FISA, the Patriot act, already introduced not for profit single payer national health care ins and articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney, and is the only candidate to state he would end NAFTA and withdraw us from the WTO, besides being the only candidate to promise to end the war and bring all troops home, the only one speaking out against the WH’s rhetoric of attacking Iran and has a clear initiative to combat global warming, would you as a voter be more inclined to support a candidate based on their record or on their intentions and promises regardless of “tier” placement? Are you more inclined to support someone because of name recognition or their standing on the issues?
    After taking a survey about how you would want a candidate to vote on all the major issues and then finding out your selected candidate does not vote that way would you be more inclined to support the candidate that does best vote your way on all the major issues? (This survey was administered and Kucinich far surpassed the other top tier candidates as being most representative of voting the way most voters claimed they wanted their candidate to vote).
    But Obama’s and Clinton’s names keep getting throw out there when neither represent what voters claim they want. It’s name recognition all over again.

    Pollsters call my house asking who I would most vote for of the Democratic candidates and then read a list of names…Kucinich is not even on the list and they won’t record a vote for him. That’s why he’s not registering in the polls and why when it comes to the presidential race I think the polls are Biased. Kucinich is the only real change out there and both parties are doing everything they can to exclude him. Sad, ‘cause this is the only presidential race where electability is not an issue and we don’t have to compromise on candidates.

  • Only Democrats would be ignorant enough to ask Republican questions. My big fear is these bozos will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory next year with the goddmaned D.C. castrato morons they turn to as “consultants.”

  • Thnaks Anne for the catch on Biden’s pinstriped madam being the pollster who asked the questions. Further proof of why I wouldn’t vote for the Senator from MasterCard for dogcatcher, let alone President.

  • The bottom line is the pollsters are not looking for the truth… they are only looking for ways to back up their foregone conclusions.

  • Maybe I’m biased here because I’m entirely certain that Lady Triangula would be a drag on Democrats’ chances to retain or expand their House advantage. But I would guess the thinking here is, as a commenter said above, that this is the exact smear that the Republicans will throw at them–so you might as well see how bad the damage might be.

    It’s fun to hyperventilate and accuse the Democrats of apostasy or hypocrisy or fifth-columnism, but you have to figure these guys do want to win.

  • Disgusting. The Republicans are going to be doing enough push-polling for everyone – why start dragging down Democratic Congress critters in tough districts by doing their work for them.

    The Dems really haven’t learned anything over the last few decades of Republican dominance, have they? Even when they decide to roll in the mud with the Republicans and do a push poll, they do one that pushes against their OWN DAMN CAUCUS.

    Sometimes I wonder how these people remember to breathe.

  • dajafi –

    They may WANT to win, but that doesn’t mean that they’re doing anything to reach that goal.

    Hell, Bush apparently wanted to win in Iraq. That worked out well for him, didn’t it?

  • Wow, Cillizza and Murray should be fired for writing something that bad. Pollsters don’t work for free, someone pays them, so attributing the results to Lake is dishonest and can only have been intended to hide the real source of the poll. It doesn’t get much worse than this, their collective journalism professors must be hiding their heads in shame..

  • I can’t believe anyone still buys into the whole “LIBERAL = BIG GOVERNMENT” bullshit anymore after seeing the huge expansions in the federal government while under republican “conservative” rule the last 7 years or so…

    • Comments are closed.