Patrick Ruffini and TNE rock ass!

Ace: You linked to Ruffini's site, but theneweditor's in the comments. You might want to put the links separately, since they both add their own spin to the numbers.

Someone should tell Filet O'Fish. He's under the impression he's won this battle with the awesome power of his "Brand Democrat."

Thanks, KC. TNE sent me the link, but weirdly, they sent me the link to Ruffini's site. Usually bloggers send me links to their own site.

Because we're all selfish curs.

Jay Cost -- as usual -- is the man with, you know, factual background.

Here's the shitty-ass way Gallup asked the questions. Bias? Did someone say bias?

From the Press Release:

"Bush's Approach" to Social Security Sparks Negative Reaction

One measure of support for Bush's plan simply asks respondents whether they "approve or disapprove of George W. Bush's approach to addressing the Social Security system," without providing any specific details of what that approach entails. By a 53% to 40% margin, the current results show net opposition.

These results are similar to the 50% disapproval and 44% approval ratings recorded in early February. The 4-percentage point drop in approval between February and March is within the margin of sampling error for this survey.

My Comments:
Maximum impact headline to chum the media sharks.

Support for Private Investment Limited, but Varies

A second question asks about the concept of private investment accounts, without associating the concept with President Bush, and without mentioning any specific pros and cons. The question simply describes the proposal as one "that would allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in the Social Security system."

Americans are divided in their reaction to this question, with 45% favoring the proposal and 47% opposing it. This question was previously asked in December 2004, with similar results.

My Comments:
Here, they ask if the public supports Bush's plan, without explaining what it is. That's supposed to make them seem neutral, but it's not. It only measures people's perceptions of Bush's plan. Fine, that's meaningful, but it only measures the success of the PR campaign, not the merits of the plan.

Most of this question that is well-worded and neutral, with the exception of the fact that they did not explain what this mysterious, pyramid-scheme "Social Security system" is. Here's the question that generated that summary:

"As you may know, a proposal has been made that would allow worker's to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in the Social Security system. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?"

December 17-19, 2004 (Favor/Oppose/No Opinion):
48%, 48%, 4%
March 18-20, 2005: 45%, 47%, 8%

Onward from Gallup:

A third question -- asking Americans whether they think private investment accounts are a good idea or a bad idea -- provides more information about the plan. Most notably, it specifies that the plan is intended to "address concerns with the Social Security system," that it "would allow people who retire in future decades to invest some of their Social Security taxes in the stock market and bonds," and that it "would reduce the guaranteed benefits" of those future retirees.

This wording generates the least support for Bush's plan of the three questions. Only 33% of Americans consider the plan as described a good idea, while 59% call it a bad idea. Support for the idea dropped 7 percentage points since the first week of February.

This is the only question of the three that detects any significant change in attitudes about the proposal in recent months.

My Comments:
This other measure is the loaded/leading question. I couldn't make steamier shit if I were a PHD hack trolling for more crazy research government grant money.

"As you may know, one idea to address concerns with the Social Security system would allow people who retire in future decades to invest some of their Social Security taxes in the stock market and bonds, but would reduce the guaranteed benefits they get when they retire. Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea?"

Bolded part shows the bias. What a bunch of hacks. That's cool, that question. Sort of like a robber holding a gun to your head and saying "stand and deliver."

Oh fuck, why bother with the rest. The next question ask the retard respondents to self-rate their understanding of the debate (which, of course, most say they do, 81%). Then they pull the dagger out and shove it up Bush's ass. The public from here on disapproves of Bush's approach.

Well, they didn't fucking explain Bush's approach.

The problem with polls like this is that they drive public debate in two ways: 1) The poll gets paid for by a biased media; and, 2) It gets reported by a biased media. The Dem's think they can sit back and twiddle their thumbs because this loaded shit poll tells them that it's a swimmingly fine way to move forward.

What this poll tells me is that Bush better go on a fucking Anka integrity kick and talk to the people and not the media, or his plan really will be roasted.

speaking of FOX, the Big Fat Obnoxious boss turned out to be a monkey spinning a roulette wheel (the show is on fox.com)

what a motherfucking waste of fucking time.

bastards.

Rasmussen Rocks Ass!

Is there any wonder why this guy got the goods on the day of the election while Zogby stunk like a pile of steaming shit?

This is how you do a poll. You measure people's understanding, then ask good, neutral questions, not larded with shit.

1) How closely have you followed recent news stories about efforts to reform Social Security?
42%/Very closely
38%/Somewhat closely
14%/Not very closely
5%/ Not at all closely
1%/ Not sure

2) Which is riskier, relying on the federal government to pay promised Social Security benefits or allowing workers to invest for their own retirement?
52%/Relying on the federal government
37%/Allowing workers to invest
11%/Not sure

3) A proposal has been made that would allow workers to invest Social Security payroll taxes into personal accounts so that they could help provide for their own retirement needs. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?
53%/Favor
36%/Oppose
11%/Not sure

4) Another proposal has been made that would fully protect all retirees and anyone else who wants to remain in the current Social Security Program. All promised benefits would be guaranteed. The proposal would also let individual workers decide for themselves if they wanted to stay in the current program or open a personal retirement account. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?
65%/Favor
23%/Oppose
12%/Not sure

5) A third proposal would raise the Social Security taxes paid by all workers so that the government would be able to keep paying promised benefits. Workers would be prohibited from investing any of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?
27%/Favor
56%/Oppose
17%/Not sure

There's more, so much more. But this is not a fucked up poll, it's guidance on what Bush must do to sell his plan on a willing, educated public.

KC, do you have a blog? If so, what's the URL? If not, why not? Excellent comments.

No Blog, just a job. Though I really do appreciate your kind remarks.

I've thought about it, and will probably do so in the next few months.

Just got to figure out how to pull it off without ending up in the dog house.

I'm not seeing the poll on the Fox News site. Where is it?

Jeff K:

Here's the only link I can find. Ruffini links to it, but he also links to the full tabulated results (in pdf format).

I hope this helps. I like polling companies that give their methodologies. And even though Rasmussen doesn't publish his, he conducts so many fucking polls every week that it really doesn't matter to me in the concrete sense. Horserace Blogger blasted Rasmussen on this, but I still like Rasmussen because he's got good questions, a good history of getting it right and fields lots of surveys.

So, which family member of our political society has the judicial authority to just remove the damn feeding tube from the Democratic Party? I think most experts have proclaimed it brain-dead. Now we sit around and divide up the Republican Party into two diverse groups, and have pretty much pushed the Dems into the hospice.

The Dems told us they'd never want to live in a world where Bush was President, I just remembered that...yeah. But, they're such a nuisance that if you keep feeding them government programs, the damn bitches will never die and leave us to our personal savings accounts.

/sarcasm

"What's wrong with how other polls ask the question? Their results are skewed because they go out of the way to mention a cut in guaranteed benefits -- which is interpreted as a cut in benefits."

well, by the same token, fox's results are equally skewed by how THEY ask the question. you should never listen to polls or statistics, because they can be skewed any way you want them to lean.

you should never listen to polls or statistics, because they can be skewed any way you want them to lean.

Nice self-sealing observation, mysterious poster. So we can't trust any statistics of any kind because they can be skewed by someone. That's a rather far stretch, wouldn't you say?

I will grant that people harbor this belief because there are too many charlatans out there that do just what you said. But to toss all statistics overboard is rather like saying let's get rid of money and start bartering chickens.

Statistics fuel your life, they are everywhere. From the insurance rates you pay for your home, auto, health, life, whatever you have.

They're also used to determine if industry should be allowed to continue using a material in their manufacturing process due to deaths associated with the material. Yep. If the known deaths per year are low compared with the economic cost of removing the material, the material stays.

So you can ignore statistics all you want, but they permeate your every waking hour, in everything you do. Just ignore them. But think of them next time you see your auto insurance rates go up. There's an army of actuaries behind that decision. Tell them, "I am not paying this rate increase, because I think your statistics are skewed." I wish you luck.

Which brings us to polls. The honorable Mr. Roper knew a thing or two about polling. And it's a science. Wording questions, stratifying your market, knowing your intended purpose (what you are trying to measure), and removing as much bias as possible from the study. There used to be a firm called Roper Starch Worldwide, now owned by United Business Media. They probably have the same ethical standards upon which they were founded. Ethics? Try this. If you approached Roper Starch with a request for them to do a poll, they own every piece of the process.

They control how the questions are worded, how the study is conducted, and how you may use the results. If you are some spin artist and want to hire this firm for your poll, you'll turn around in about 5 seconds. If you were to have them conduct your study, they'd have final say on any press release written, all documented information that sourced the poll, and you have no say. And if the media so much as picks up the phone and asks about the poll, Roper gives them the entire database, survey and methodology.

That's what it's all about. If you care about polls, then look for the good ones. Look at how the question is worded, look at the n-size, methodology, and look at the interpretation of the poll. But to toss aside all polls and all statistics for all things is not an exercise in which some would want to engage.

But if you are saying that you are tired of this poll and that poll revealing conflicting results, then that's a cynical thought to which I can relate. But don't piss on the industry because of the mistakes made by the messenger and the source.

Isn't it nice that you can look at the study and draw your own conclusions? And it's also nice if you choose to ignore them. But remember this: polls are everywhere, and you cannot get away from them, even if you ignore them. Unless you turn off your radio, TV, stop reading the news, ignore Blogs and go live in a small hut in the wilderness. But then, the US Forrestry Service would be out there with you. Counting squirrels.

KCTio, that is probably the best response to questions about the value of polling that I have ever heard. I am currently writing some course material for business types on how to interpret statistics. May I use your comments in that course? This is an informal course that will be (hopefully) used in-house only. Please respond to my e-mail address. Thanks

Rabidfox:

First of all, thank you very so much for those kind words. You've made my day. I would have responded sooner, but this looked to me like a dead thread so I hadn't bothered checking it.

Check your inbox; since I just read your request, I didn't respond until now.

Kind regards.

Oh, KCTrio, everyone knows that 4/3 of all statistics are made up on the spot

Good point Hob.

Also, did you know that the Illuminati control the very foundations of our society? I mean, they control the numbers 2 and 3, and with those you can make the evil number 7. And, aside from 0 and 1, you can make every fucking positive integer in the world with 2 and 3.

At least 4 out of 5 dentist believe that shit.

massivepitchedslides

http://owner.anotheruniversesucks.org/0535152/ engines loathingneithershapeless

http://online.imoney555.com/trades/ calmlyloadsated

http://ephedrine.pills4order.com formshostagethankfull

http://www.hogwatchmanitoba.org/wwwboard/messages/9547.html beckonframedrotating

http://voyeurism.op-dhs.org/froject.html sightstickysubmit

http://freak.quesaudade.net/ufcs/weinster.html clubdenvergrudgingly

http://mywife.com/wwwboard/messages/2442.html complimentwhosewondered