I voted many times but this was the first time I’ve ever seen an exit poll outside my polling place. It was also the first time I was chosen to participate in an exit poll. Apparently AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN and one other so-called news organization (Fox) have joined their collective forces to pay for the poll I took and share the data. Edison Research was the name of the polling company.
The interesting thing (to me anyway) about the exit poll was that it asked a number of question that had nothing to do with for whom I voted. It asked for my approval rating of Barack Obama (strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, strongly disapprove and no opinion were the choices. I selected somewhat approve because, well, that’s the truth for me.
The poll also asked what was the most important issue facing the country: 1) the War in Afghanistan, 2) the economy or 3) health care reform. That was it. Three choices only.
Noticeably absent were the issues of climate change, the environment, energy policy, gay rights and immigration reform, which I would have thought would be there in light of the fact that we already passed health care reform, and all of these other issues received a great deal of attention over the last two years. Hell, I wasn’t even offered the choice of “international terrorism” as the biggest concern facing America, an issue which I assume some people still believe is pretty damned important. I can only surmise that the exclusion of these other issues tells us something significant about the narrative the media wants to talk about tonight when they pontificate about this election and, more importantly, what they don’t want to talk about.
When you exclude many of the most important issues facing the nation (and in the case of climate change facing the world) it tells me the networks paying for this poll want to limit the discussion about what the electorate cares about and provide a simplified story, one that can fit within a preconceived narrative. Why was health care reform chosen, for example, over the others?
It’s clearly an issue in my mind that can only refer to the Republicans who campaigned to repeal the health care reform legislation. But they also campaigned hard in many states on the issue of immigration. So why choose one and not the other? Could it be they don’t want to make voters who might have picked immigration reform appear racist?
In addition, health care reform was the single largest accomplishment touted by the Democrats. I have little doubt that they wish to tie in the approval ratings of Obama with the campaign promise of many in the GOP to repeal “Obamacare” as they like to call it.
Yet, as many of us know, a lot of people on the left and independents disapprove of the President for reasons that have little if anything to do with health care reform.
Many of us are disappointed that so little action was taken to dismantle the intrusive national security state of widespread warrantless electronic surveillance, secret prisons, indefinite detention, the use of “state secrets” as a means to limit lawsuits against the government for violating civil liberties, etc. that Bush and Cheney created.
The LGBT community is rightly disappointed that not much was done to eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation in the military and society at large. And frankly I’m disappointed as well.
Others are angry that Congress and the President did not do more to install stricter oversight of the financial institutions that created this “Great Recession.” As for the issue of climate change, I for one was sorely disappointed that nothing was done to provide federal legislation to limit carbon emissions.
In short, there are a number of reason that people might have for disapproving of Obama’s performance as President that have nothing to do with the two main choices offered me in the exit poll. Instead those issues that I, and I suspect you as well feel are equally important concerns facing our nation, were excluded and I was forced to choose between these two issues only: health care reform and “the economy.”*
And what about that option “the economy?” Its a very vague description for a whole host of concerns people may have. Some may be concerned about unemployment or the threat of losing their jobs or their homes. Some may be concerned because they think their taxes are too high. Some might think that the disparity in wealth is too extreme. Some might think the deficits are too high. And others (like myself) are very worried that not enough is being done by the government to stimulate the economy.
How do you tease out all the many varied factors that would cause a voter to choose “the economy” (as I did) as the biggest concern facing America from among the three choices offered? You can’t if you’re being honest, but the way the poll asks the question allows for the media to essentially write their own narrative.
A better poll would have asked us to rank a list of issues from most critical to less critical. A better poll would have asked what aspects of the economy was I most concerned about? But the networks paying for the poll don’t want to know that information. They want to leave room for interpretation. They want to be able to spin the narrative any way they choose rather than provide a more substantial factual basis for the story they want to tell. In short, they want to dumb down the reporting and limit what they have to talk about to the American people.
Finally, let me address three other questions the poll asked me about which I believe supports my hypothesis regarding why this exit poll was so limited in the questions it asked. The first one was a question that asked how concerned I was about the direction of the country (I chose extremely concerned, by the way). A fairly standard question, I know, but one whose answer can easily be misinterpreted in the context of a midterm election results if that is the only question you’re going to ask.
Another question asked me to choose between whether I thought government should be doing more to help people or if I thought government was doing too much and more should be left to individuals and private enterprise (paraphrasing here but that was the gist of it). Again this is a loaded question. We already know how its going to be answered. Democratic voters are more likely to choose more government help and Republican voters are more likely to go with less government? So why bother to ask it? Because it fits the preordained media narrative, that’s why.
If there are no followup questions to help the media understand the various reasons different groups of people might have for answering that question as they did, the pundits are essentially provided free rein to interpret the results however the wish, and draw conclusions that might very well not be supported by even a slightly a more in depth poll. It allows both sides to invent their own conclusions.
The final question I answered was clearly intended to shape the narrative about the debate tonight as the election results come in. What was that question? It was one that asked me how strongly I approved or disapproved of “the Tea Party.”
I was not questioned regarding how strongly I approved or disapproved of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party or even Congress as a whole. Instead I was asked to give an approval rating for this amorphous, astro-turf created and financed “grass roots movement” which is not even a registered political party in any state to my knowledge. One would think that, at the least, I would have been asked to rate my approval of the two major parties and not just President Obama and the “Tea Party” but I wasn’t.
Why was this question asked and not those others? Well, I suggest you simply have to read between the lines. Two questions on a short survey asked me to rate my approval of the President and the Tea Party. I don’t think I need to work very hard to connect those dots, nor do you.
The major media outlets who commissioned this exit poll obviously want to limit their discussion of the election results to the rise of the angry anti-government Tea Party movement vs. the failure of the President and “Big Guvmint” to solve our problems. They want to make that oversimplified but easy to digest story the main focus of their election coverage tonight, in my opinion, and to hell with any little details that might muddy the picture they have already neatly framed and are ready to display to the great unwashed American Public.
That’s my analysis of this exit poll in any event. I can’t wait to hear yours in the comments.
* I saw the choice of the War in Afghanistan as just an afterthought, a throwaway option chosen because they probably don’t expect many Americans to choose the war as the biggest concern (though it clearly is a concern). I suspect few will choose the war as the biggest issue facing America in large part because the media has done such limited reporting on Afghanistan except for the few times when a major event forced thm to provide coverage (i.e., the replacement of General McChrystal as commander of American forces following his ill advised Rolling Stone interview). In short I believe the War in Afghanistan was added to round out the 3 issue field by having a “foreign policy” issue in the mix, and probably also to serve the broader narrative that Americans no longer care all that much about the war.
I personally believe many Americans are deeply concerned about the war, both in terms of the human and economic costs to our country, and the question of whether or not it is enhancing our national security, but if forced to choose only one answer concerns about the war are likely to poll far lower than the other two choices. Again, a better question would have asked me to rank a number of issues (including ones excluded from consideration) from most important to least important, but that wasn’t the information the media wanted to receive from this flawed exit poll.
No exit pollers here. Hell, no line to vote, either. I walked to the polling station and back to my apartment in 30 minutes. No excuses for the lot of you carbon emitters and drivers. Also, vote no on question 1 and 2, and yes on 3 (if you live in Virginia). Property taxes fund education, so no, exempting old people and veterans is not a solution; and I like rainy day funds now that the Federal government has proven that it can’t pump stimulus funds to states properly. Get excited:
Steven:
Thanks for posting this. I couldn’t agree with you more. You are right about the TradMed and their “narratives.” It is a double-edged sword. The less those assholes on the idiot box pontificate about, the better. So while I wish there was a deeper discussion of the issues, I’d prefer the current crop on TV(KO & Maddow aside) to go Galt before I listen to them.
This would make an EXCELLENT opinion piece! Really. Please consider it.
Rate your approval of the President or the Teabaggers? They couldn’t even bother asking you your opinion of the Minority Leader, not to mention the Speaker–you know, actual people who are elected and chosen by their peers in office for the Constitutional offices they hold and not a billionaire front group. It shows how limited the thinking is, here. I know they can’t have a laundry list of subjects, but folks are creative and intelligent enough to get an accurate picture of concerns, and not pre-packaged crap meant to be regurgitated for Faux/Morning Jughead/Sunday yak-yak shows.
On my way into work today, I noticed that ALL the 4 largest nationally syndicated urban radio programs (Tom Joyner, Micheal Baisden, Rickey Smiley, Steve Harvey) were doing Election Day coverage. At least one of them has all of their usual morning crew personalities calling in from different cities and states to let listeners know what’s going on.
Like I’ve been saying for a while, Af Am are engaged this for this midterm election. The DNC/OfA strategy of concentrating on Af Am voters will work I believe. It’s really all up to the “average” white voter to GOTV. Of course, we won’t know til maybe early Wednesday exact nubmers, but I’m just saying don’t be surprised to hear that Af Am voting numbers for midterm elections increased!
The news media have had a narrative all year. It is the same one they had in 1998: the Democrats are going to get hammered at the polls this year. They have been repeating it and trying hard to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Please believe they have a follow-on narrative for the next two years: Obama has been too liberal, tried to do too much; ordinary voters are fed up with the Democrats.
It’s time we stopped rediscovering every day that these people work for the opposition and take concrete steps to get our democracy and its watchdogs back. Having Democrats who are in alliance with the voters instead of the corporations would be a big help. As it is now, we are able to anger and depress our base without winning many new voters unless the Republicans have messed up very badly for the preceding several years.
Remember how “moral values” in exit polls was used to explain Bush’s vote in 2004; now it’s been officially disappeared since the Tea Party is not supopsed to be religious.
2004 and moral values.
I was exit polled, too, for the first time.
I was asked who I voted for: Straight Dem
I was asked what issues were most important to me: the candidates
I was asked if I approved or did not approve of the Tea Party: I do not approve.
Seems like a similar but not exactly the same line of questioning as you received.
Because mostly they are written by idiots. And I know from idiots.
Here is the point. When you are asked “Do you approve of X?”, you can disapprove FROM THE LEFT or FROM THE RIGHT. Unless you know WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL STANDS, you cannot interpret the opinion.
Here’s a simple example, which is simplistic:
Com Soc VLeft MLeft Cent MRight VRight Birch Nazi Teabag
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
If you are a 2 and Obama is a 4, you disapprove of him. If you are a 6 and Obama is a 4, you disapprove of him.
But disapproval is for very different reasons, and this is important.
Unless we know where someone comes from, we cannot understand their statement.
We can assess their position by 1) getting them to make several statements or 2) asking them directly. BUT NO POLLS EVER DO THIS!!!!
That’s because they understand little or nothing about opinion.
This view of opinion is common in psychology and marketing, but apparently not in polling. Using a technique called “unfolding”, we can generate data to get both the position of objects and persons within a space. But getting the data is difficult.
As someone whose background is in newsrooms, not data, I respectfully disagree. It’s not that they don’t know how to elicit accurate opinions, it’s that they don’t care to. I think Steven’s post is closer to the mark.
The phenomenon is fairly simple: media consistenly limit us to either/or choices because they are the easiest to tell and the simplest to understand. This most clearly manifests as framing everything through the two-party system. If your preferred policy is not being advocated by either Democratic or Republican leadership–eg withdrawal from Afghanistan or single-payer health insurance–it does not register, no matter how popular. Thus, though polls show twice as many people disapprove of Obama’s health care reform because it “didn’t go far enough” than because it went “too far,” the latter is the only perspective we hear about.
These polls aren’t designed to measure opinion; they’re designed to test hypotheses concocted in the newsroom. And those hypotheses are created by people who are only interested in testing how popular with people the opinions of those in power are–not how popular with those in power the opinions of ordinary people are. The latter is called representative democracy; the former is called American legacy media, circa 2010.
you need to understand my point. Democratic party is about 4.5. The Republicans used to be 5.5, but now they are 7.5 or higher.
The notion of “perspective and opinion” is well-understood by many political scientists, and could be well-understood by newspapers. After all, everyone knows where they stand.
Of course, there is more than 1 Dimension, certainly 2 (economic lib vs conservative, social lib vs conservative). That is the point of “What the matter with Kansas?” More complexity could make the narrative more interesting as well.
Statistics! Understanding! Who do you think these people are? Real journalists?
We live in hope.
I’m not saying your analysis is wrong – quite the contrary. Obviously, your approach would do a much better job of eliciting the public’s opinions. I’m not sold on the idea of politics being a continuum, but clearly it’s closer to that than to poorly defined either/or propositions.
What I’m saying is that the media isn’t interested in measuring the public’s opinions in these polls. Instead, they’re looking for some sort of statistical validation for their proposed narratives, which are mostly based on a combination of perceived elite priorities and the need to drive audience ratings. Very different agenda, and so the approach is also very different.
Agree with everything except ‘drive audience ratings.’ Media control and resultant narrative has always been about economic control, not profitability.
One observation is that no matter what the final results are today one side, and possibly both, will have a large number of people convinced that massive vote fraud distorted the results.
Case 1: If the GOP vote matches the typical “likely voter” poll results — and especially if they take the Senate by winning 50 seats + Lieberman — we on the left will look long an hard at those computer voting systems which are about as secure as a first-generation ATM.
Case 2: If the vote more closely aligns with the “registered voter” poll results, and the Dems somehow manage to cling to the House majority as well as the Senate, then the teabaggers will go berserk screaming about n*ggers and sp*cs voting illegally.
In case 1 we can be sure that there will be lots of detailed research, number crunching, long blog posts, maybe a DVD report or two, and possibly a lawsuit or two that is thrown out on technical grounds. Virtually no media coverage, of course, and those on the left will eventually get over it and resolve to try harder in 2012 — just like we did after 2000, 2002, and 2004.
In case 2 the rage and fury will be directed by Fox and the mass of right wing websites and talk radio, will get lots of national press coverage, and probably some violent outbreaks that the press will frame as “both sides do it”. There will be virtually no real evidence, but that which is provided will be widely disseminated until it is proven to have been faked and/or taken out of context. But by then it will be part of the national narrative, like Al Gore’s non-claim to have invented the internet, so everyone will believe it is true. In capitulation, the Democrats will compromise on some sort of reform that hurts their own chances in the next election but it won’t do anything to quell the rage the right wing has for them.
The real problem is that the system is not trusted by anyone, which is in very stark contrast to the situation in 1950s America. This is partly because the system has been thoroughly gamed, especially since the 1980s, and in part because there now exists the largest informal propaganda organization in history convincing a subset of the population that the system is rigged against them and for dark-skinned people.
This is not a stable situation.
Excellent post, Booman- I linked to it on my Facebook page.
I voted for all the Democratic candidates here in my small town in upstate NY, but did so on the Working Families Party line.
As someone knowledgeable I am compelled to reply that you don’t understand exit polling and methodology. Polling is a science and while it can and is used for partisan political purposes, and exit poll is.
The purpose of an exit poll is to find trends and get early indications of how an election turned out. It has nothing to do with creating a narrative, real or otherwise. The media pays a LOT of money to get exit polling data so that they can then plug it into their models and project winners as soon as possible.
The key thing to remember here is that it’s not a public opinion poll.
The questions asked are carefully selected, as part of the scientific process of polling, based on what is believed to be the key groups and demographics that will assist in projecting how the electorate voted. The questions help determine what places your votes fall in the sample group and who your vote represents when extrapolated to the electorate at large.
They did not ask about climate change, the environment, energy policy, gay rights and immigration reform because their research suggested these would not be sizable enough groups to help segment you and others into the proper places in sample in groups that are usable for the purpose of projecting vote outcomes.
Don’t believe me? I’d suggest sending this to Nate Silver and see if he will comment on it.
This is absolutely correct, so far as it goes. But the polls are also used in justifying the inevitable narrative that will get spun as to why the results occurred. This is where the selection of shorthand questions becomes highly subjective, based on pre-determined narratives. And we already know what they are. If the Dems do better than expected tonight, it will be validation for Obama. If the Republicans surge, we’ll get an analysis of Tea Party priorities. Reality is much more complicated, of course, which is why these questions mask as much as they reveal.
Yes. While all of your objections and interventions and wants regarding the exit poll are fair enough, Steven, you are not the nation. Most people wouldn’t understand the questions you want answered. The data we’re getting from exit polling already today has been interesting.
Full disclosure: I’ve been paid to administer these polls in the past (not this year though).