Applesauce
Pat Cunningham offers an unabashedly liberal perspective on national politics. A note of caution: The language gets a litttle salty on some of the sites to which this blog links. So, don’t say you weren’t warned. By the way, this blog’s name is inspired by the Will Rogers quote, “All politics is applesauce.”

War hawks cite poll that says most Americans favor military strike against North Korea

April 6th, 2009 at 09:15am Pat Cunningham

_usr_local_y_samba_data_repository__1052167255491_ghaurikimjongil.jpg 

 For weeks now, I’ve been compiling notes to make a case here that polls conducted by Rasmussen Reports generally are not to be trusted.

 The latest piece of evidence in this regard emerged Sunday in the form of a Rasmussen poll purporting to SHOW that 57 percent of American voters favor a U.S. “military response to eliminate North Korea’s missile launching capability.”

 The survey’s findings, if you can call them that, are highly dubious in several respects.

 First of all, the poll was conducted before North Korea unsuccessfully tested a long-range missile on Sunday and before the ensuing international fuss over the test.

   I’m sorry, but it strikes me as unlikely that most Americans had become so bellicose even before the matter had made headlines on a Sunday morning.

 But that’s not the most suspicious aspect of the survey. Far worse is this report from Rasmussen: “Overall, 75 percent of voters say they’ve been closely following news stories about the possible launch. That figure includes 40 percent who’ve followed the news very closely.”

 Yeah, sure. In a country where most people can’t name both of their U.S. senators, three-fourths of them have been closely following stories about a possible missile test by North Korea? And four in ten have been following those stories very closely? Please.

 Americans are pre-occupied these days by the nation’s economic troubles. Our government currently is winding down its unpopular war in Iraq while it’s also sending more troops to Afghanistan. And we’re supposed to believe that most of us are in such a hawkish mood that we want a military response to an unsuccessful missile test by North Korea? Come on.

 But, of course, this Rasmussen poll has delighted certain right-wing elements who are always itching for an American military adventure. (See HERE and HERE and HERE.)

 The problem with this poll, beyond the preposterousness of its results, is hard to pinpoint. Maybe it’s a matter of methodology. Rasmussen uses automated telephone surveys — robocalls, as they’re known — rather than live phone interviews. Or maybe it’s the questions asked, or the modeling of the survey sample.

 Critics generally are mixed in their assessment of Rasmussen. Some give the firm high marks for accuracy, some don’t. And some say there’s a not-so-subtle conservative bent to Rasmussen’s approach. Matt Yglesias of The Atlantic put it this way a few months ago:

Rasmussen is a pretty good pollster whose results are within the range of accuracy one wants from a pollster. But polling is a crowded business. And Rasmussen doesn’t also have a daily newspaper or a television network to tout his results. His business, however, requires attention. So how does he get that attention? Well, in part he gets it with issue polling that, while basically methodologically sound, has question-wording that’s designed to lead to conservative-friendly results.

Then the results come out and conservatives tout the results as vindicating their position. It’s free PR for Rasmussen, it’s a morale booster and message-driver for the right.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo also finds a whiff of bias in Rasmussen polls:

On the question of the quality of Rasmussen polls in general, I’ve been watching them closely now through at least two cycles. The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls.

Personally, I’m not so charitable about Rasmussen’s methodology – for several reasons.

 Exhibit No. 1 is the methodology used in Rasmussen’s latest polls on President Obama’s approval ratings. The firm’s sample is comprised of “likely voters,” meaning  the respondents are selected by a process in which Rasmussen endeavors to determine the likelihood that they’ll be voting in the next election. The model is based on the person’s record of having voted in the past and on certain other factors.  It’s an iffy proposition at best, especially in tumultuous times like these.

 But what sense is there in limiting a poll on a president’s approval rating to so-called likely voters when the next presidential election is almost four years away? Some of the folks who will vote in the next presidential election are still in high school. The whole concept is ridiculous.

 And the result is that Rasmussen’s measure of Obama’s approval rating is at variance with the numbers produced by all of the other major polling organizations — especially with respect to the president’s disapproval numbers.

 Consider this: The most recent Fox News poll on the matter has Obama’s disapproval rating at 32 percent. Gallup and Newsweek both have it at 27 percent. ABC News has it at 29 percent. But Rasmussen puts it at a relatively whopping 43 percent! Something in all of that simply doesn’t compute.

 Another example of a Rasmussen poll not making sense arose last month when the firm came out with a SURVEY suggesting that 53 percent of Americans think it’s at least somewhat likely that the United States will enter a 1930s-like economic depression.

 The problem was that the same poll showed a plurality expecting the economy to improve within a year and a solid majority expecting it to improve within five years. How, then, could a majority thinks it likely that we’ll see a ’30s-like depression? That doesn’t add up, especially when you consider that the depression of the ’30s lasted a decade.

 Looking at that same poll from a negative angle, you get this:  Only 37 percent of respondents, barely one-third, expect the economy to be weaker next year, and only 17 percent expect it to be weaker five years from now. But a majority expect a full-blown depression??

 Perhaps the greatest example of Rasmussen skewing a poll by asking a loaded question came up last month amid the controversy over radio blabber Rush Limbaugh’s influence on the Republican Party.

 Rasmussen asked respondents whether they agreed with this statement: “Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party — he says jump and they say how high.”

 Not surprisingly, only 11 percent of Republican respondents agreed with that leading statement. And predictably, the right-wing blogosphere trumpeted the results as proof that GOPers are not subservient to a talk-show host.

 That episode was enough to make me suspicious of Rasmussen polls in general.

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized

4 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Scott Lucas (Enduring America)  |  April 6th, 2009 at 12:25 pm

    Thank you for the mention, but it may be the first time we’ve been called a “right-wing site”.

    I’m glad to confirm that 1) our tongues were firmly in our cheeks when we cited the results of the Rasmussen poll 2) in no way do we advocate the nuclear obliteration of North Korea 3) we think John Bolton is a global irrelevance.

  • 2. Pat Cunningham  |  April 6th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    Sorry, Scott. My bad. If it’ll make you feel better, you can link to my blog as a neo-Nazi site. (Just kidding. Please don’t.)

  • 3. snuss  |  April 6th, 2009 at 3:41 pm

    Sadly, in this case, the UN is about as useful in getting tough with N.Korea, as they are portrayed in “Team America, World Police”.

    So, if we can’t get China, and other countries, to enforce meaningful sanctions against then, what are the alternatives? Do we wait for them to actually hit some country with a nuke, before we do anything?

  • 4. Scott Lucas (Enduring America)  |  April 6th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    Pat,

    No “bad” at all. Good to meet up this way.

    We’re thinking through the dynamics re the NK launch, but I think the Obama Admin response was very clever. Knowing that this was imminent, he made the Sunday speech laying out (generally) a path of negotiation and discussion to draw down nuclear stocks and prevent proliferation. Briefly put, this appears to be more of an approach to deal with the political circumstances that press countries to pursue a big Nuclear Weapon to wave, rather than ceaselessly making threats which are unlikely to be carried out and/or effective.

    Early days, of course, but to answer “snuss”: NK’s pursuit of a nuke is for show, given its isolation (part of it self-imposed) in East Asia, rather than a serious offensive threat, even to neighbouring countries. This is the position that China has been taking (as well as expressing concern over Japan’s possible pursuit of a nuke, again more for political reasons than as a meaningful weapon in a military arsenal). Cooler heads in the Bush Admin realised this — which is why John Bolton went even crazier in his unique way — and the Obama crew seem to be looking for a productive path on and beyond North Korea.

    Scott

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Search

Latest Posts

Calendar

April 2009
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Posts by Month


Most Recent Posts

Posts by Category

Syndication


Marketplace
Classifieds
Jobs
Cars
Homes
Coupons
Your Town
Rockford
Rockton
Roscoe
South Beloit
Winnebago County