Rational Arguments

As many of you know, I have more than a passing interest in surveys and polls, especially when it comes to health care reform.  I’m especially interested in the science behind polling, and how different groups can poll the same topics and get different answers.  I noticed this post some time ago from Nate Silver, but didn’t comment on it.  I probably should have:

Both critics and defenders of Rasmussen Reports’ polling have frequently cited Rasmussen‘s use of a likely voter model to explain why their polls have tended to show substantially more favorable results for Republican candidates than the average of other surveys. I have often mentioned this myself, for that matter.

The argument goes like this: those people who vote most reliably in midterm elections tend to be older, whiter, and to have higher social status — which are also characteristics of voters that generally lean toward the Republican candidate. When coupled with what also appears to be a Republican enthusiasm advantage this cycle, it is quite reasonable to believe that a poll of likely voters (like Rasmussen‘s) should show more favorable results for the Republicans than one of registered voters or adults (like most others).

But here’s the thing.  At some point, you get to check and see how valid the different models are.  Those points are called elections.  As elections approach, polling firms usually do a fair amount of predicting how the race will develop.  Then, when the election occurs, we can all see which firm was correct.  You can’t say Rasmussen has a Republican bent if they get the election right.  They are just correct; and others have a Democratic bent.

Which is why this is not very comforting:

Rasmussen has been this cycle’s most prolific pollster, by far. As of February:

Yes, Rasmussen Reports has fielded far more polls so far this cycle, both in absolute terms (45 vs. 13) and as a percentage of the total (28% vs 18%).

Rasmussen’s volume hasn’t decreased since then. If you want to see how spammy they are, check out this link.

Yesterday the nation had several hot races, including the House special election in PA-12, primaries in both parties in Kentucky and Arkansas, and the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania.

And somehow, Rasmussen was nowhere to be found. Yet this past week, Rasmussen found time to poll Colorado, California, and those burning Idaho senate and governor races. He even polled the general election in Arkansas, ignoring the imminent primaries — the better to show Arkansas Republican primary voters who their strongest candidate was.

Turns out Rasmussen also did a lot of polling leading up tot he Massachusetts special election back in January, but stopped two weeks before the election.  Why?  Some claim it’s because Rasmussen is more interested in setting a narrative than reporting the facts, but I don’t know if that’s true.

What I do know is that Rasmussen seems to be avoiding opportunities to prove that their results are more accurate than others.  And, in doing so, they seem to be avoiding current important political races in order to comment on far-off and unverifiable races.  Why?

A couple of polls appeared on how the public views health care reform.  The first was from the Kaiser Family Foundation:

The first Kaiser Health Tracking Poll fielded since the passage of health reform last month finds that 8 in 10 Americans know that President Obama signed the legislation into law. But 55 percent say they are confused about the law and more than half (56%) say they don’t yet have enough information to understand how it will affect them personally.

The poll finds that the public supports many of the provisions of health reform that are set to be implemented in the short term.  When asked about 11 specific provisions scheduled to take effect this year, in each case a majority of Americans viewed them favorably, often with bipartisan support.

Still, the public remains divided on the law overall, with 46 percent viewing it favorably, 40 percent unfavorably and 14 percent undecided. Similarly, 31 percent of Americans say they expect personally to be better off because of the law, while 32 percent say they will be worse off and 30 percent say they don’t expect to be affected.

OK, I find it hard to get past the fact that 2 in 10 Americans might not know that the law was passed.  But if you can, you still see that so many are confused by health care reform.  That’s not good.

Where are people getting their information?

It saddens me that so few are getting their info from my blog, of course.  No one is doing a good job, though, if so many are uninformed.

The second survey was released by my group, the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research.  I try not to comment on my own work.  It feels too much like spinning.  But I encourage you to go read it.

If I had any artistic ability, I might have tried this:

(h/t Ezra Klein)

Sometimes I worry that the 24-hour-news cycle’s insistence on focusing on whatever will get the biggest rise out of people makes rational debate impossible.  Then I saw the results of this Pew poll at Pollster.com (emphasis mine):

How much if anything, have you heard about each of the following?

Senator Max Baucus unveiling his health care reform proposal:
19% A lot, 36% A little, 45% Nothing at all

Employees of the community organizing group “ACORN” appearing to give advice to a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute:
31% A lot, 25% A little, 43% Nothing at all

…

A September 12th rally in Washington to protest government spending and policies:
23% A lot, 37% A little, 40% Nothing at all

That’s 45% of people who know nothing at all about the Baucus bill.  Maybe I’m overemphasizing the importance of the media to drive the story. Turns out we’re not even reaching half the American public.