Hardcover
-
PICK UP IN STORE
Your local store may have stock of this item.
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780367316167 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Taylor & Francis |
| Publication date: | 08/28/2019 |
| Pages: | 388 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.00(w) x 9.00(h) x (d) |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Chapter One
Why Americans Hate Pollsters
Polling may need a shot in the arm, but it certainly does not rate a
shot in the back. The snipers on all sides are having a field day.
—Archibald M. Crossley, pollster, 1949,
after the pollsters blew the 1948
presidential election predictions
Let me be frank. I am a pollster and it sometimes seems that everyone hates me, or at least what I do for a living. Over the course of a few decades I have served as a political analyst for television and radio stations in the United States and abroad; done talk radio; taught political polling as a professor of political science at St. Louis University; testified often as a pollster in state and federal courts; and given many guest talks to educational institutions (high schools and universities), professional groups, and civic organizations. Overall, the message that has been conveyed back to me has been loud, clear, and persistent. An enormous percentage of Americans hate pollsters and their irritating, pervasive, "stupid" polls.
At least my extensive research for this book has convinced me that I have not become simply paranoid, although driving behind cars with bumper stickers reading "Lie To Pollsters," "Nobody Has Polled Me," or "Pollsters Are Witch Doctors" has not helped to alleviate any paranoia that I may have. It appears that the attacks on pollsters and their polls come from all sorts of people for a large variety of reasons. Most journalists, especially the columnists and editorial writers, really love to trash pollsters, even though their news departments, somewhat ironically, use and rely on them heavily. The prominent columnist William Safire, who is highly critical of pollsters, argues that pollsters are often mistaken and their polls warp politics; journalist Daniel Greenberg contends that pollsters damage the electoral process through the "voodoo output of polling"; while another journalist, Steve Neal, refers to pollsters and politicians as "partners in slime."
Of course, the editorial cartoonists have great fun taking potshots at pollsters. In fact, spotting a positive editorial cartoon on pollsters is about as rare as spotting Dan Quayle spelling potato correctly. As Herbert Asher notes in his book Polling and the Public, "The nation's political cartoonists, many of whom are syndicated in newspapers that themselves conduct polls, have had a field day attacking the polls." Asher even cites a 1987 study in which 61% of the comics and cartoons depicted polls negatively. (Note: This does not mean that the remaining 39% treated polls positively.) Without the benefit of a follow-up study, my guess would be, given the fact that I have almost never seen a positive comic or cartoon on pollsters and polls, that the negative percentage has increased.
Politicians also love to throw stones at pollsters. But, just like journalists, the irony is that politicians rely extensively on pollsters for their political survival. Actually, as expected, politicians don't seem to mind the polls when polls favor them or the positions that they support, but when the polls show them in an unfavorable light or fail to provide statistical support to their position on the issues, they are quick to blast the pollsters and their polls. For example, reacting to his feeble showing in the polls among Republican contenders for the presidential nomination in the 2000 presidential race, Dan Quayle, in frustration, charged that Republicans were making a "colossal mistake" in placing polls before principle while stampeding to the George W. Bush camp. Still plummeting in the polls two weeks later, Quayle said, "These polls are totally irrelevant right now."
People who call in to talk shows, send letters to the editor, write commentary articles, or who speak out at all sorts of public gatherings make clear that they are not fond of pollsters. It does appear that attacks on pollsters come from those of all political persuasions, although at least a cursory examination of the complaints indicates that conservatives are somewhat more likely to ream pollsters than are liberals, probably because often pollsters are linked to the so-called liberal media. For example, Casey Meyers of St. Joseph, Missouri, responding to the controversy surrounding Juanita Broaddrick's rape allegation against President Clinton, wrote to The Wall Street Journal: "Like many, I have always believed that most of the political polls are manipulated to achieve desired results. Certainly, the Broaddrick poll lacked any pretense of objectivity.... This confirms my suspicion that liberal pollsters were attempting to protect Mr. Clinton, discredit Broaddrick and stifle any action on this ugly matter."
My experience has been that even judges, reflecting the suspicious and cynical attitude of countless Americans, tend to look at poll data with disfavor. In State of Missouri v. Dennis N. Rabbit, Circuit Judge Henry Autry, in light of pretrial publicity poll data presented by me for a change of venue motion by the defense, wrote: "The only evidence that he [Rabbit] asserts ... is the dubious statistical data presented by the testimony of Dr. Warren." Rejecting polling data as "dubious" is easy for judges because it is, in many respects, politically correct to do so since poll data are so unpopular with many Americans.
This case is mentioned here to make a larger point that needs to be understood if the theme of this book is to be appreciated. Judge Autry called the polling data "dubious" without any discussion as to why. Well, critics of polls from all backgrounds and with various agendas do the same thing because they can easily get away with it. Why? Because all poll data are inherently dubious, or according to a dictionary definition of "dubious," they are "fraught with uncertainty or doubt" or "questionable." It must be understood that it is the inherent dubious character of poll data that makes attacking pollsters and their polls so attractive. Even the most accurate polls are dubious in nature because they all are contaminated by various forms of bias, design problems, and technical flaws. However, as will be discussed at length in Chapter 2, all of these problems that make poll data suspect or dubious do not necessarily mean that poll results are inaccurate. In the words of Humphrey Taylor, chairman of the polling firm Louis Harris and Associates, Inc.: "I re-word Winston Churchill's famous remarks about democracy and say, 'Polls are the worst way of measuring public opinion and public behavior, or predicting elections—except for all others.'"
Although pollsters and their proponents can talk about the accuracy of polls, it is nonetheless true that pollsters have angered and frustrated many Americans, as well as many elsewhere in the world, as we shall see in Chapter 9 when the focus turns to "Polling in Other Countries." The focus in this chapter, however, is on the many criticisms Americans have of pollsters and their polls, whether the criticisms are legitimate or not. Possibly, the theme of this chapter is summarized best by a column that appeared in The Houston Chronicle entitled, "Why Do I Hate Opinion Polls? Let Me Count The Ways."
POLLS ARE UN-AMERICAN
Many Americans dislike, distrust, and even hate polls for a large number of reasons. Many of those reasons, as we shall see, have been articulated and made painfully clear in feedback to pollsters and to those who use and tout their polls. However, there seems to prevail among the American public a deeply embedded attitude toward pollsters that somehow their polls are simply un-American. That is, numerous Americans just seem to feel that pollsters have come on to the American scene and assaulted traditional American customs, institutions, and values. To many, pollsters, not just in politics but in business, entertainment, sports, and just about everywhere else, have taken over and corrupted our American way of life. It seems that no institution, no issue position, no candidate for public office, no public official, no television or radio personality, no celebrity can survive, at least in the same manner, unless they have sufficient support in the public opinion polls.
So, just how do polls appear so un-American? Take, for example, the old American notion that our country was founded and built by "rugged individuals," people of integrity who fought for what was right, not just for what was popular. Whether more fantasy than real, many Americans like to think that back in the "old days" our political and business leaders bit the bullet and made tough decisions based on principle, not on the basis of poll data. In those days, as the thinking goes, our great leaders consulted their "inner spirit" and trusted their instincts, and were guided by a righteous value system when they made their decisions, certainly not by poll numbers.
But the prevalent feeling is that things have changed for the worse and now our country is run by pollsters and their followers, not by leaders with principle and integrity. As Allan Rivlin commented in The National Journal, "We are a poll-driven nation. Every night of the week, Americans answer questions about politics and policy for scores of opinion surveys. Poll statistics accompany news coverage, political commentators throw them around like water balloons, and policymakers use them to support favored approaches and undercut opposing ideas. In all, we treat public opinion surveys as if they were precise scientific instruments.... Actually, public opinion surveys are like bulldozers at an archeological excavation."
Once more, the American people have become aware that some of these pollsters, as well as their clients, seem to be scoundrels with very questionable morals and integrity. Consider, for instance, Dick Morris, who became the driving force behind the Clinton administration as Clinton's pollster and spin doctor. Morris is credited with getting Clinton to endure as president by convincing him to abandon his commitment to any principle and unpopular programs (e.g., health care reform) and instead "follow the polls, spin your way out of trouble and win the next news cycle, whatever the long-term effect." Of course, Morris had to leave the Clinton administration abruptly when it was revealed that he loved frequenting prostitutes as much as he loved giving Clinton advice. But as a Wall Street Journal editorial made vivid, reflecting the sentiments of many Americans, Clinton's obsession with polls reveals "a cautionary tale for all modern politicians: Spend too much time following the polls and you simply forget how to lead, especially when it matters."
As felt by many Americans, the dominance of the new "poll culture" has had the impact of discouraging various noble ideas and worthwhile ventures, although not very popular, while encouraging and even killing ideas and projects that have less genuine merit and worth, yet are popular in the opinion polls. Of course, the legendary American public opinion philosopher Walter Lippmann noted often in his works that what is popular is often not a good idea. He maintained that public policy decisions should be rooted in sound principles and reasoning, not popular will.
In the eyes of many Americans, because the new "poll culture" has been largely responsible for crushing traditional American beliefs and practices, it has along the way been partly responsible for eroding and undermining some fundamental constitutional ideals, minorities and minority viewpoints, and even whole subcultures as well. For example, because public opinion polls have shown that the public favors tough law and order measures, in recent years our state legislatures and Congress have toughened laws to almost a silly extent in some areas, criminalized and federalized more offenses as crimes (irritating many federal judges who say they can't handle all the new cases), eroded due process protections for the accused so prosecutions can be made easier, implemented questionable mandatory sentences that have angered many judges by severely reducing their judicial discretion in sentencing, and, in states where the death sentence is legal, encouraged state officials to execute inmates at a record rate because the death sentence is so popular in the opinion polls (even when it is clearly appropriate, governors, knowing the popularity of the death sentence, almost never dare to take the political risk of commuting the sentence). Lack of sensitivity by the general public to certain other fundamental constitutional rights and protections, especially pertaining to First Amendment freedoms and Fourth and Fifth Amendment privacy protections, has caused public officials to permit these freedoms and protections to be undermined by dubious new laws and sometimes outrageous court decisions. Legislators and judges cannot resist being somewhat influenced by the "statistical precision" and tyranny of the poll numbers, even though they may often condemn them.
Minorities and entire subcultures in the United States have for decades now felt the almost tyrannical force of public opinion polls. Because there seems to be something magic about majority opinion (that 51% plus), it is often difficult for minority opinion to be given much weight. Of course, this becomes even more true as support for the position slips in the polls. Consequently, minority opinion, as expressed by African Americans, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, divorced fathers, and the like, receives inadequate representation and respect in American society because the poll numbers are simply not there for them. But not only have minority interests been deemphasized and devalued because of the dominance of opinion polls, whole American subcultures have lost out as well. Ask any southerner about the impact opinion polls have had on southern customs and values. It is difficult for southern customs and values to survive the pressures of national public opinion polls that generate poll data that overall reject so mightily so many of the customs and values of the South. It seems that public opinion polling tends to have a rather un-American "mainstreaming effect" by grossly overemphasizing majority will and opinion at the expense of minority viewpoints and rights.
But maybe what bothers Americans the most about the new "poll culture" is that they feel left out. As the popular bumper sticker reads, "Nobody Polled Me." In frustration, Harry DeWese wrote: "I have never been polled by anybody. Not 'CNN,' Time, Newsweek, USA Today—nary any national media pollster or political party pollster has called me. Hey, I'm in the phone book. I've even got an e-mail address.... The pollsters can damn sure find me!"
Of course, as will be discussed in Chapter 5, the statistical odds of a person being called by a pollster, particularly a national pollster, are very low, but the average citizen does not understand this and certainly cannot understand how 500 to 1500 respondents, a typical number in a national poll, can represent accurately national public opinion. But citizens understand one thing—they were not interviewed—and in their minds, the poll numbers certainly do not speak for them.
The problem is that they really feel left out of the debate. They resent the elitist community of politicians and their spinmeisters, including the pollsters, who make decisions while apparently ignoring them. Frustrated Americans hate pollsters because poll numbers tend to assume this authoritative, scientific persona that appears to command enormous respect among the "elitist" decisionmakers who rely heavily on this "authoritative" poll data to make all sorts of decisions that the disenfranchised general public is forced to accept. Political party elites, for example, determine what candidates they will support or not support based on the poll numbers. In fact, many partisans have become disillusioned with their parties in recent years, asserting that their parties have abandoned some core party principles just because these principles played poorly in the polls. Meanwhile, politicians, as mentioned, are fearful of backing any issues that aren't popular in the polls. Americans are also frustrated with the way poll numbers have determined what they can watch on television since ratings determine what is shown. Numerous educators and social critics have commented recently that the obsession with poll numbers or only with what's popular has had the unfortunate impact of lowering American standards, corrupting America's youth, and generally "dumbing down" Americans. They rest their case by pointing to such mindless, sex-crazed, crude, and tasteless television and radio shows as Melrose Place, Howard Stern, and Jerry Springer.
It seems that even the "sacred" institution of American football has not escaped the nefarious reach of the pollsters. One irate Nebraska Cornhusker fan lashed out at the poll that ranked Penn State's Nittany Lions over Nebraska, claiming that the poll voters were hypocritical: "Considering the Nittany Lion schedule is 51 times easier than the Husker schedule, poll voters revel in hypocrisy." Sports polls even anger the sportswriters. One sports columnist, Bryan Burwell, argued that a bowl game for the national collegiate football title had been corrupted by the pollsters. He wrote bitterly: "If you think for a minute that this little party in the desert was for a legitimate national title, you're really fooling yourself, because even if the game were decided on the field, it was set up by bogus polls and biased pollsters."
Because of what they see as the "tyranny of polls," some Americans have just had enough! A few years ago Arnold J. Oliver captured this feeling in a newspaper piece entitled "End the Pollsters' Tyranny—Don't Play Along." Focusing on the negative aspects of polling for political life, Oliver argued that "too often it [polling] has been perverted to trivialize public life, to turn Americans against one another and to make of us the objects, rather than the subjects, of politics." Oliver would like the government to regulate public opinion polling in America, but because of the polling industry's enormous power and the legal obstacles to governmental regulation of polling, he concludes that "there is little immediate hope for government regulation." But he warns, "It's time to wake up.... In the short run, only the people themselves can end the tyranny. Do yourself and the nation a favor; when the pollsters call, don't play along."
POLLS ARE ILLEGAL, IF NOT EVEN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Arnold Oliver made the astute observation that various political and legal obstacles would inevitably prevent the government from regulating or even banning public opinion polling, but this does not mean that certain zealous public officials, over the years, have not tried to pass antipolling legislation and win lawsuits against pollsters and their clients. Realizing that ultimately it would be virtually impossible to restrict or ban polling under the free speech and press guarantees of our Constitution's First Amendment, public officials, inspired by outraged citizens and encouraged by the prospects of getting the pollsters and the "unpopular" media at the same time, focused their sights on exit polling. Exit polls, which are discussed at length in Chapter 5, appeared to be easy targets because exit interviews must only be conducted very near voting places on election day as voters leave the voting sites. Consequently, eager governmental officials believed that they could pass legislation and administrative rules, as well as successfully defend these laws and rules in court, by arguing essentially that exit interviewing must be banned or severely restricted because it is disruptive to the voting process.
Television projections of election contests have irked many public officials, political candidates, and citizens for at least four decades now. The late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona), aggravated over the networks' early projections in the 1960 presidential election, introduced a bill soon after the election that would prohibit any radio broadcasts of presidential election returns and projections until the day after election day. Early network projections, based mostly on inferences from early returns, of Goldwater's lopsided loss to Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and George McGovern's devastating defeat by Richard Nixon in 1972 inspired several Senate bills to be introduced during those years to muffle early calls of presidential races. Simultaneously, local TV and radio stations were also feeling the pressure from state officials for projecting winners before the polls had closed on election day.
But it was the networks' use of sophisticated exit poll methodology in the 1980 presidential election that really caused an uproar against their projections and their exit pollsters. Further refinements in exit polling techniques and rapid advancements in technology, especially computer hardware and software, allowed networks to make astoundingly accurate projections on state races and the presidential election before a single vote had actually been counted. Not being able to resist employing the new darling of the media, exit polling, the networks stunned election watchers and voters by calling Ronald Reagan the winner over President Jimmy Carter almost three hours before the polling places closed on the West Coast or before tens of millions of voters got home from work. Upset citizens, angry politicians, and some political scientists claimed that the "inappropriate" early call of Reagan's victory caused many citizens not to vote, thus changing the outcome of certain close elections on the West Coast. Two Democratic U.S. congressmen, Al Ullman of Oregon and James Corman of California, specifically blamed their razor-thin losses on the networks' early prediction. According to electoral studies at the University of California at Berkeley, the early call decreased voter turnout in California by more than 2%.
Excerpted from In Defense of Public Opinion Polling by Kenneth F. Warren. Copyright © 2001 by Westview Press, A Member of the Perseus Books Group. Excerpted by permission. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Table of Contents
1 Why Americans Hate Pollsters, 2 In Defense of Pollsters, 3 The Giant Polling Industry, 4 Reputable Pollsters Hate Bad Polls, 5 But There Are Plenty of Good Polls, 6 Why the Media Love (But Sometimes Hate) Polls, 7 Today's Politicians Live and Die by Polls, 8 Polls, the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal, and Democracy, 9 Polling in Other Countries, 10 Testing the Pollsters: How Accurate Were the Pollsters' Predictions in the 2000 Presidential, U.S. Senate, and Gubernatorial Races?, 11 Epilogue: Public Opinion Polling Can and Should Be DefendedWhat People are Saying About This
A useful, and much needed, guide to understanding how public opinion polling has become an essential part of American democracy. (John B. Judis, Senior Editor, The New Republic and author of The Paradox of American Democracy)
No study of opinion polling in American politics is as complete, as up-to-date and as engrossing as this one. (David Halton, Senior Washington Correspondent, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)
At a time when many are criticizing polls in the wake of the 2000 election, Warren expertly defends them. (Jim Salter, St. Louis correspondent, The Associated Press)
The most lucid argument I have ever read defending the work of pollsters and attacking those who denigrate polls. (Charles Jaco Correspondent, CBS Radio/ Author)
Ken Warren knows polls—how to run them, how to interpret them, how to explain them. (Kevin Horrigan, Editorial Columnist, St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
Kenneth Warren sets the record straight....His points are on target, plus or minus zero. (William Schneider, Senior Political Analyst, CNN)