Once again, I have allowed myself to be interviewed for a political poll—on Right to Work: a very pushy push poll, to say the least. The polling company is American Viewpoint.  The client list posted on the company’s website includes many right-wing Congressional Republicans, corporate lobbies, and other conservative organizations. So, I wasn’t surprised to learn that the topic of this evening’s lengthy interrogation was the Right To Work [for less, of course] ballot initiative that Missourians will vote on in the state primary on  August 7.

I felt bad for the young woman tasked with getting people to stay on the line for the nearly 30 minutes it takes to get through all of the questions.  I hope she isn’t getting paid per completed survey, because I have a hard time imagining  that a lot of people  would be willing to get all the way through this tedious, repetitive exercise.

Here’s how this poll went: [As usual, I scrambled for pen and paper, and took rushed notes.]

First, the preliminaries: I’m not active in a current campaign. I’m absolutely certain that I’m going to vote in the August primary–not just somewhat certain. I’ll vote in the Democratic primary–not probably, but definitely. On an enthusiasm scale of 1 to 10 for voting in the August 7 primary, I’m a 9 [very enthusiastic]. I strongly–not somewhat–believe that Missouri is going in the wrong direction.

On the political awareness questions: I’m aware of Donald Trump and have a very [not somewhat] unfavorable view of him; I’m aware of Hillary Clinton and have a favorable [not somewhat] view of her; I’m aware of right-wing bugaboo Nancy Pelosi [a dead giveaway, right there, that this is a poll from the right]; and I’m aware of Eric Greitens and have a very unfavorable view of him. [The pollster was a day late on this one–Greitens announced his resignation as MO Governor two day ago.]

I already know, from these questions, that my opinions are not where this poll’s sponsors want them to be. I’m, essentially, a lost cause. And yet, she persisted.

Now, we get to the meat of the poll: Am I aware of the Right to Work referendum that is on the August 7 ballot? Oh, yeah. The pollster describes the referendum as [paraphrasing from my notes] “Senate Bill 19, passed by the Missouri legislature, that prohibits forced membership in labor unions, which does not apply to current union members, and which the legislature has determined has no associated costs or savings.” How do I intend to vote on this referendum?  I’m voting No.

“What is your main hesitation?” asks the pollster.  “It’s bad for workers,” I reply.

Now comes a follow-up question:  “Do you favor or oppose a law that prohibits employees from being forced to join a union?” Now we are into push-poll territory for sure. I have to think about that question, because it is a double negative. And, by the way, I have just told her–in response to the previous question–that I’m voting no. But I understand the logic behind this question: They’re trying to get beyond the blanket slogan “No on A” by stating the content of the proposal, rather than just its name. [An approach akin to asking people who hate “Obamacare” whether they’d support a law that made sure that everyone could get health insurance–to which many Obamacare opponents said, “Yes.”]

I get it. But I’m still voting no.

Now, the pollster presents a list of arguments against the referendum, and asks me how convincing each statement is: “Right to Work offers no protections for workers.” [Very convincing–not somewhat]. “Right to Work drives down wages–in Right to Work states, workers earn an average of $1,000 less per year than in non-Right-to-Work states.” [Somewhat convincing.] “Right to Work will make income inequality worse.” [I tend to believe that.] By the way, every time a rate a statement, the pollster asks me to reconfirm my answer or rating. I’m getting impatient quickly.

And now, for the push question: “Knowing what you now know, [from her statements], how would you vote on Right to Work if the election were held today?”  “No.” “Is that a definite ‘no’?”  “Yes.”

Next, the [much longer] list of arguments in favor of the referendum. I couldn’t quite keep up with this portion, but I certainly learned a lot about the pro-Right-to-Work talking points. Here’s what I was able to get into my notes:

• “Special interest union bosses who oppose Right to Work are supporting criminal immigrants taking away jobs from American workers.”
• “Special interest union bosses are dining on fine wine in expensive restaurants while middle-class workers struggle.”
• “Right to Work will create more jobs and opportunities for workers.”
• “Right to Work will give Missouri a competitive advantage over neighboring Illinois, which does not have Right to Work laws.”
• “Union dues are used as political slush funds to promote liberal candidates, like Nancy Pelosi.”
• “Right to Work will prevent jobs from moving to other states where Right to Work has already been enacted.”

Of course, I rate all of those talking points as “not at all convincing.”  So,” asks the pollster, once again re-confirming the pushiness of this push poll, “Knowing what you now know, how would you vote on Right to Work if the election were held today?”

Geez, I’ve already told you multiple times, in multiple ways, that I’m voting no. Of course, that really doesn’t matter. The poll did its job of pushing out the talking points. And I managed to waste another pollster’s time giving answers the sponsors don’t want to hear. [Of course, she managed to soak up a half-hour of my life that I’ll never get back.]

But, I’ll continue to answer these calls, because they give me an inside look into how polls actually work, and that insight helps me evaluate the meaningfulness of poll results when they are published. [Often, not very meaningful. It often depends on how the questions are phrased, as well as how the polling company jiggers its sample.]

And, I figure, if I take the call, you might not have to.

The post A very pushy push poll on Right to Work [for less] appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Missouri’s incumbent U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill faces a challenge in November from Republican Josh Hawley, and things are heating up, as I learned today in a phone call from a polling company. A nice young man [clearly needing a megadose of Dayquil], who identified himself as representing a polling outfit known as SSI Research, asked the questions. Curious, as always, I stayed on the phone, even though I had to say “Hello” three times before he picked up [a dead giveaway that it’s a boiler room call]. Still, I persisted. And I’m glad I did, because this “poll” was clearly about message-testing—and the messages they’re contemplating are nasty.

Here’s my walk-through of the survey, as accurately as I can recount it, based on the fast and furious notes I was trying to take. Don’t take the quotes literally, they’re transcribed as best as I could get them in the moment. [I had him repeat several of the questions so I could get them down.] The questions are in bold. My responses are in brackets, in case you care.

It started with the typical, “How likely are you to vote?” [Very likely]

“Which of these individuals are you aware of? And do you view them favorably or unfavorably?”

Donald Trump [Unfavorably. Very unfavorably]

Josh Hawley [Unfavorably. Don’t know quite enough to be “very unfavorable,” but somewhat unfave.]

Claire McCaskill [Very favorably. Well, I’m a bit less enthusiastic than that, but I’m not telling that to a Republican pollster.]

“In the U.S. Senate race, are you set on voting for Claire McCaskill, or is there still room for you to change your mind?”  [Definitely voting for Claire. Not changing my mind.]

Here’s where it got good. This is obviously the message-testing portion of the program. I’m sending this post to Claire McCaskill’s campaign, so in case they haven’t seen it yet, they can fact check it and be ready to counter the bullshit.

“Now I’m going to read you a list of statements about Claire McCaskill. Please rate them on a 100-point scale, with 100 meaning that this statement makes you very angry, upset or concerned. You can use any number from 0 to 100.”

“Claire McCaskill voted for an energy bill that would kill 76,000 jobs in Missouri.”  [I ranked that 0. Hope I did that right. I’m trying to send the message that I support what Claire does. I would have to give that statement itself a 100, because it makes me angry when polls use push questions, exaggerate, and distort the facts.]

“Claire McCaskill’s husband’s company invested in low-income housing that has received 100 million dollars in government funding. Receiving these taxpayer-funded handouts didn’t prevent the company from displacing thousands of disabled veterans.”  [I ranked that one a 0, too. Again, it’s a 100 for negative messaging. Fact-check, please.]

“Claire McCaskill voted against tax relief for middle-class Missourians, while personally taking advantage of complicated tax schemes to avoid paying her fair share of taxes.”  [0, for the same reasons as above.]

“Claire MCaskill has failed as a champion of veterans. She missed 50 percent of votes in the Senate Armed Services Committee.” [0]

“Claire McCaskill is out of touch with her Missouri constituents. She billed the government for use of private jets, and she said that ‘normal people’ can afford private jets.’ [0.]

Was my rating strategy correct? Was the rating system confusing? Did I overthink it and outgame myself? Maybe someone can help me figure that out. Whatever the case, Claire needs to prepare for some negative messaging—assuming, of course, that this was a Hawley-sponsored poll.

In the final portion of the survey, my sniffly pollster reads me a series of statements, to which I am asked to respond on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 meaning I completely agree, and 1 meaning I do not at all agree. Here it is:

“We should prevent sanctuary cities from protecting illegal immigrants and defying immigration authorities.”  [1. I actually understand this rating scale.]

“Congress should include funding for more immigration enforcement and building a wall along the Mexico border.”  [1. Nope.]

“We should find a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers—immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents.”  [Trick question, to see if I’m paying attention? I’m paying attention: 9.]

“The United States should decrease immigration and prevent refugees from entering the country.” [Give me your tired, your poor… 1]

Mr. Sniffles told me that, had I answered that I was probably going to vote for Josh Hawley, I would have gotten a list of statements about him instead. In a way, I wish I had gone for Hawley, just to see what the questions would be. Silly me. I was honest.

The post McCaskill vs. Hawley: What the pollster asked appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I filled out the U.S. Department of Commerce’s American Community Survey today, and I’m wondering: Does this thing yield anything useful, and do I trust it?

The survey arrived in my mailbox two weeks ago. Having not returned it immediately, I received a second notice—a message from the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau. “This survey is so important that a Census Bureau representative may attempt to contact you by telephone or personal visit if we do not receive your response,” said the letter. I definitely didn’t want that, so I sat down and began filling in the blanks.

What’s the American Community Survey [ACS]? It’s not the 2020 Census. The Census Bureaus conducts the ACS every year. In censuses before 2010, most households received a short-form questionnaire, while one household in every six received a long form that contained additional questions and provided more detailed socio-economic information about the population. In 2010, everyone got the short-form, and the long form was replaced with the ACS. ACS forms go out every year, rather than once every 10 years. They are sent to a small percentage of the population on a rotating basis throughout the decade. [No household is supposed to receive the ACS more often than once very five years. Good to know.]

As to how I was chosen to participate in the Community Survey, and why I have to fill it out, the Department of Commerce informs me that…

The Census Bureau chose your address, not you personally, as part of a randomly selected sample. You are required by U.S. law to respond to the survey. The U.S. Census Bureau is required by law to keep your information confidential. The Census Bureau is not permitted to publicly release you responses in a way that could identify you. Per the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, your data are protected from cybersecurity risks through screening of the systems that transmit your data.

Also, according to the US Census Bureau, “Every Census Bureau employee takes a lifetime oath to protect your personal identification. Disclosing ANY information that could identify you or your family means 5 years in prison, or  $250,000 in fines, or both.”

Nevertheless, I remain skeptical. Given recent revelations about Facebook, Russian trolls, and the Trump campaign’s links to the downright-dirty Cambridge Analytica group, plus the Trump administration’s pervasive corruption and growing track record of self-dealing, I am rapidly losing trust in our current government’s commitment to privacy and data security. I suspect that I am not alone in that skepticism, and that’s one of my concerns about the accuracy and usefulness of information being collected in the Community Survey.

It took me about 30 minutes to fill out the paper form. If there were more people in my household, it would have taken longer, because you have to answer the same questions for everybody who lives in your house.

The ACS includes questions that go beyond the decennial [big word for every ten years] Census: It asks who’s in school, who’s finished school and at what level, who’s working [where, how often, and the nature of the job], what kind of transportation you use, whether anyone in your household is deaf, blind, receiving benefits for a disability, unable to climb a flight of stairs, or having difficulty focusing on tasks. And more.

I don’t have a problem with these questions. I believe the Census Department’s brochure when it says :

“Communities need data about the well-being of children, families and the older population to provide services to them. The ACS …[helps to] establish goals, identify problems and solutions, and measure the performance of programs. The data are also used to decide where to locate new highways, schools, hospitals and community centers.”

That actually sounds to me like a well-intentioned, good-government program aimed at the common good.

Of course, I also believe that this information would probably be better used by a government led by people who actually care about the well-being of people, rather than the financial health of their corporate cronies.

Nevertheless, I persisted, and  I dutifully plodded through.

And yes, the ACS does ask about your citizenship status. But, as an aside, that’s not new. That question was included in the every-ten-year census from 1890 through 1950. According to snopes.com:

Beginning in 1970 and continuing through 2000, The Census Bureau used two different questionnaires to gather information—a short form sent to more than 80 percent of American households, which did not inquire about citizenship, and a long form distributed to fewer than 20 percent of American households, which did [include the citizenship question.]

The long form was discontinued after 2000, so in 2010, every household received the short form—meaning, in effect, that no one was asked for citizenship data in the big 2010 Census. But households who received the ACS were …Technically, the Census Bureau never actually stopped asking the citizenship question, although since the 2000 census, they have only asked it of around 3.5 million households [2.6 percent of the population] per year.

[Whether it is being added back in to the overall census for 2020 for political reasons is another issue.]

But I digress.

Here are some problems I have with the ACS:

Working your way through it is a bit like stumbling through a maze. Depending on how you answer, say, Question 12a, you are instructed either to skip to Question 15a, or answer Question 12b. [Not real question numbers, in case you’re checking me for accuracy.] There’s a lot of that. You have to repeat the procedure for every member of the household, and I can imagine people getting frustrated and bailing out. [I can just hear the complaints of “ridiculous government bureaucracy” now.]

Then, when you get to the part about household income and expenses, you’re really in the weeds. You’re sitting on the couch with your spouse, filling out the form, and you come to the questions about how much you earned in the past 12 months [not the same period as you’re filing for with the IRS, by the way], how much of that was interest and/or dividends, how much was Social Security, or pension, how much you pay per month for natural gas, electricity, sewer, water, personal property taxes and real estate taxes, and homeowners’ or rental insurance.

I’m a homeowner. I pay bills. But I don’t have those numbers at my fingertips. And, let’s face it, after page after page of questions, I’m just too lazy to go to my files to figure out those numbers.  So I estimate. Or guess. Or just pull a number out of the air, just to fill in the blank. And I’m certain that I’m not alone in short-cutting the process. So, how good is the information going to be?

Also, the ACS asked me to indicate my ethnic background or national origin. They offer suggestions, such as Japanese, Polish, etc. But, really, what am I supposed to say? Where my parents and grandparents came from? There’s just one blank, but my family was from several different countries. I didn’t know what to say. That’s why I left it blank. Maybe the government doesn’t really need to know that, anyway.

And I think that that others may not answer that question, as well, because they fear that ethnic information could be used for nefarious purposes—especially by an administration that is so openly anti-immigrant. [Personally, I’m not yet at the stage of paranoia that I worry that ethnic information will be used to send us to internment camps –although there’s some evidence that pre-World-War-II census information was used precisely for that purpose].

In the end, I did my duty as a citizen and mailed it in—in the conveniently supplied pre-paid envelope. But I have my doubts about the usefulness and privacy of the information I’ve supplied. In today’s prevailing political atmosphere, I’m guessing that many others share my suspicions, and that there will be a lot of spaces left blank and surveys tossed in the trash. That’s a sad development for our country.

The post American Community Survey: Is it useful? Is it safe? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

This year pre-Brexit, polls in Britain were equivocal. Would Britain continue as a member of the European Community? Nobody knew. However, in the weeks before the referendum, the late polls indicated Remain winning. The polls seduced voters into believing that the country would continue as a member of the EU. Many voters just didn’t feel the need to vote.

The results of the referendum were shocking for many of voters and non-voters alike.The morning after the British population voted for separation from the EU disorientated millions of Brits. Many woke up and went about their day in a dazed state. Months later, many still do. What happened?

Seemingly contrary to common logic, the majority of British voters decided to opt out of the European Community. And many didn’t feel the need to vote. Brexit won the day.

In the US, at a distance, we wondered what was going on. But in the U.S., we are far away. We shrugged. We moved on. The other side of the pond! The polls? Who knows what gives, what gave with that?

On our side of the world, the government of Colombia, a country convulsed by guerrilla violence for more than 50 years, spent the last 4 of those years negotiating the nitty-gritty details of a peace agreement with the country’s largest guerrilla group, the FARC. The going was tough – to put it mildly, but an accord was agreed upon.

The deal needed the approval by plebiscite of the people of Colombia. The question proposed to Colombians on October 2, 2016 was this: “Do you support the Final Agreement to end the conflict and build a stable and long-lasting peace? Citizens were offered a simplified Yes or No vote as their contribution to the process of peace in their country.

In Colombia, the polls resoundingly predicted the majority of Colombians voting Yes. Many, perhaps again seduced by polls, didn’t feel the need to vote. For those who did vote, the question of justice came to the fore at the moment of casting their ballot. Many felt that the peace accords did not offer due process for their suffering.The majority of Colombians voted No to the plebiscite. The polls again proved an uncertain guide.

In the US, at a distance again, many Americans may have shrugged and thought, those South Americans. What’s with them? Get it together!

Here in the US, we have Trump versus Hillary. We have our own stuff going on. Indeed we do.We have our sides. And this year, Hillary was ahead.  Until this past weekend, the polls were showing a pretty good margin of victory for Hillary.

Enter the unknowable. Enter Weiner from New York. Enter Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s long-time personal aide. Enter the F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey. Enter uncertainty.Enter, again, the definition of honesty in politics. Enter, again, the definition of honesty in politics. Trump, in a poll released this week, is now seen as more trustworthy than Clinton.

What?

And yet, suddenly “Hillary wins!” is not quite as convincing as it seemed only a week ago.

The question arises: what comes to the fore at our moment of voting. Are we willing to put democracy at risk and put pwer in the hands of a would-be dictator, setting the US on a dangerous and unprecedented course, with an unknowable and perhaps disastrous end? Or do we decide to vote at all?

28% of eligible voters in Britain and 62% of eligible Colombians chose for reasons of their own not to vote on  matters essential to their nation’s future. In recent presidential elections here in the US, about 40% of eligible Americans have decided that voting wasn’t worth the bother.

Are we willing to be shocked when we wake up on the morning of November 9th to this headline: “Polls upended. Trump Wins by a Stunning Majority!’

The unexpected has happened before–twice this year, in fact, in Britain and Colombia.

Let’s go out and vote! Everybody’s  vote counts. And let’s cast our vote based on our convictions.

Later on, for the rest of our lives, nobody can rattle us, question us on what happened in the presidential race of 2016 – not even ourselves – no matter what the morning headlines say on November 9^th.

The post Brexit, Colombia, Trump, and the threat of the unexpected appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Last night, Rachel Maddow reported that a just-released national poll by liberal-leaning PPP gives Hilllary Clinton the edge against Donald Trump. At first glance, for a Hillary supporter like me, that was comforting news. Unfortunately, in addition to asking likely voters for their Presidential preference, the pollsters also asked a bunch of inane questions.

Salon reports that…

The liberal-leaning pollsters also asked African-American voters to compare their preference for a Trump presidency to a list of awful things such as bedbugs, junk mail, carnies, bubonic plague and middle airplane seat.

“I can now report, this year’s Republican presidential nominee is less popular than middle seats on airplanes,” Maddow announced,

Maddow made that pronouncement with the snarky, yuck-yuck glee that can turn her hour of pirme- time into something more like a late-night comedy show than the serious, fact-based program that, at its best, it can be.

Maddow’s attitude was unfortunate. But the true culprit here is the poll itself. Somebody at the otherwise well-respected PPP [Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com gives it a B+], thought it would be cute to ask a bunch of sophomoric questions.

All I can say is that including those questions, and reporting the corresponding answers as a way of trying to be hip, taints the seriousness of PPP,  throws doubt into their methodology, and ultimately makes me feel less confident in the value of their results.

Here’s the clip:

The post Inane questions undermine poll results appeared first on Occasional Planet.