Can Policy Polling Be Trusted?

Non-horserace polling is facing increased skepticism. The filibuster is drawing increasingly polarized responses. And the Affordable Care Act is more popular than it ever was during Barack Obama’s presidency. This is HuffPollster for Friday, April 7, 2017.

ISSUE POLLING IS UNDER NEW SCRUTINY IN THE WAKE OF LAST YEAR’S ELECTION – HuffPollster, Natalie Jackson and Janie Velencia, in an excerpt from Trumped: The 2016 Election That Broke All the Rules: “The debate over what factors caused pollsters to err in 2016 is likely to continue for some time, as is the argument as to what extent the miss represents either a critical failure for the industry or simply a demonstration of overcertainty by pundits and forecasters. But regardless of the magnitude of the error, polling systematically overstated the likelihood of a Clinton win.That’s something pollsters will have to grapple with in the next election. It’s also something that, as the country settles down to the business of governing, raises a more immediate question: how much can polls be trusted to measure the public’s support for policies? That question is more than academic. While horse-race surveys may command the bulk of attention, polls that gauge the national mood on issues of policy serve at least as important a role in the democratic process. Writing off their results as intrinsically unreliable would potentially leave much of the nation voiceless in the years between elections.” [Sabato’s Crystal Ball]

A different set of challenges from election polling – More from the Pollster team: “Fortunately, some of the major pitfalls faced by campaign polling are inherently less problematic for policy surveys. Likely voter models — pollsters’ methods for determining which Americans will turn out in the election — were probably a significant source of inaccuracy….[E]ven polling errors large enough to put horse-race surveys at odds with the results of an election may have less meaningful consequences when it comes to interpreting public opinion. Differences of two points in election surveys can change the outcome, but a two-point difference in opinion on an issue isn’t usually substantial….While policy polling may be spared from some of the problems afflicting horse-race polls, they’re also potentially subject to a number of serious issues whose presence should inform the way their results are interpreted….[M]any people never adopt strong positions on current events or policy issues, especially those that are complicated or receive limited news coverage….Issue polling may also be deeply affected by how pollsters choose to word their questions. That problem is virtually nonexistent in horse-race polls, where wording generally reflects the questions people will see on their ballot, allowing for relatively uniform phrasing.”

ADDING DONALD TRUMP’S NAME TO A POLL AFFECTS THE RESPONSES – Chris Kahn and James Oliphant: “Republicans generally agree that politicians should not enrich themselves while running the country. Yet most think it is okay for President Donald Trump to do so. Democrats largely support the idea of government-run healthcare. But their support plummets when they learn that Trump once backed the idea. At a time of already deep fissures among American voters on political, cultural and economic issues, Trump further polarizes the public as soon as he wades into the debate, according to the results of a Reuters/Ipsos poll. The poll suggests any effort to reach a consensus on key policy issues could be complicated simply by Trump’s involvement. The survey from Feb. 1 to March 15 of nearly 14,000 people asked respondents to consider a series of statements Trump has made on taxes, crime and the news media, among other issues. In many cases, the data showed that people will orient their opinions according to what they think of Trump.” [Reuters, interactive results]

OPINIONS ON THE FILIBUSTER ARE INCREASINGLY POLARIZED Kathy Frankovic, on a poll taken before the Senate deployed the “nuclear option” Thursday: “As they have said in previous polls, Americans this week say the filibuster is generally a good thing and they don’t want to see it eliminated. But opinion on the filibuster has become increasingly politicized in the last few weeks. Just a few weeks ago, Republicans were divided when it came to whether the filibuster was a good idea. Now, by 43% to 31%, they say it is not. In the same period, Democrats have become more supportive of the filibuster, and say it is a good thing by more than four to one. Democrats reject the nuclear option. By more than three to one, they don’t think the filibuster should be eliminated. They would keep it. Republicans, however, who three weeks ago were divided closely on whether or not the filibuster should be eliminated, now say they would get rid of it by nearly two to one.” [YouGov]

ACA POPULARITY HITS A RECORD HIGH – HuffPollster: “Republicans are trying to pick up the pieces of their plan to repeal Obamacare, nearly two weeks after their last effort failed. But now they face a new problem: The law has become more popular than ever. Americans’ views of the current health care law are more positive than they’ve been since the bill was signed in 2010. On average, nearly half of the public now favors Obamacare, according to HuffPost Pollster’s aggregate, with only about 42 percent opposed. According to a new Gallup survey, Obamacare approval has jumped 13 percentage points in the last five months, thanks to increased backing from both Democrats and Republicans, as well as a notable 17-point swing among political independents….In the Kaiser Family Foundation’s latest tracking poll, views of the current health care law are evenly split, with 46 percent in favor and 46 percent opposed. But 64 percent of Americans say it’s a good thing that the GOP health care plan failed ― 31 percent because they oppose an Obamacare repeal, and 29 percent because they had concerns about replacing it with the Republicans’ American Health Care Act.” [HuffPost, Pollster health care chart, more from KFF and Gallup]

PAUL RYAN TAKES A BIG DIP IN FAVORABILITY RATINGS – HuffPollster: “Speaker Paul Ryan’s ratings keep falling in a new Quinnipiac poll released Tuesday. Only 28 percent of American voters said they feel favorably toward the Wisconsin Republican. Fifty-two percent said they view him unfavorably, an 18-point increase from May 2016. Ryan’s unfavorable ratings have been rising since December. Even Rasmussen Reports, whose numbers are often more conservative than those of other pollsters, found him with lower ratings in its March 27 poll. Ryan is most well-liked among Republicans, although only 57 percent of them viewed him favorably in Quinnipiac’s latest poll. Even among demographic groups that have most strongly supported President Donald  Trump ― such as white voters without a college degree, people over the age of 65, and men ― Ryan doesn’t come close to a net positive approval rating.” [HuffPost, more from Quinnipiac]

TRUMP ADVISOR STEVE BANNON IS ALSO WIDELY DISLIKED – Mark Blumenthal: “As pundits and Washington insiders ponder President Trump’s removal of chief strategist Stephen Bannon from the National Security Council, one thing is clear: Bannon has become a familiar name to many and is unpopular among Americans who known him. A SurveyMonkey poll of adults nationwide shows twice as many rate Bannon unfavorably (42 percent) as favorably (20 percent), although more than a third say they don’t know him well enough to rate him (34 percent) or do not answer the question (3 percent). The percentage who have a strongly unfavorable rating of Bannon (34 percent) is four times the number with a strongly favorable rating (8 percent). Bannon’s profile is similar to that of other well known Trump advisers, such as Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Senior Adviser Kellyanne Conway and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. All have favorable ratings of between 19 and 26 percent, and unfavorables in the mid-40s.” [HuffPost]

LITTLE PAST SUPPORT FOR MILITARY ACTION IN SYRIA – The United States launched a direct military attack at the Syrian government on Thursday. While it’s too early to know how the American public will greet the move, such intervention was unpopular when it was considered by then-president Barack Obama in 2013. HuffPollster, from September of that year: “Americans are far less likely to support military action in Syria than they have been in the past 20 years to endorse other interventions, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a Gallup poll released Friday finds. Asked whether they favored or opposed the United States taking military action against Syria in order to reduce that country’s ability to use chemical weapons, just 36 percent said they favored doing so, while 51 percent were in opposition. In comparison, a majority of the public supported action during the run-up to engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf in 1991. Views on military intervention in Kosovo and the Balkans were about evenly split. In many of those cases, support rose once military action had started, according to Gallup, something known as a rally effect.” [HuffPost]

HUFFPOLLSTER VIA EMAIL! – You can receive this daily update every weekday morning via email! Just click here, enter your email address, and click “sign up.” That’s all there is to it (and you can unsubscribe anytime).

FRIDAY’S ‘OUTLIERS’ – Links to the best of news at the intersection of polling, politics and political data:

-Trump voters overwhelmingly say they’d side with him over their own member of Congress. [HuffPollster]

-Most Americans say tensions between the Trump administration and the media is unhealthy. [Pew]

-The majority of the nation opposes funding a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. [AP]

-Nate Cohn sees reason for Democrats to expect robust midterm turnout next year. [NYT]

-David Wasserman introduces 2017’s Partisan Voter Index. [Cook Political]

-Nate Silver argues that nuking the filibuster could eventually hurt Republicans. [538]

-Amanda Clayton, Diana Z. O’Brien and Jennifer M. Piscopo find that Americans don’t like all-male panels, especially when it comes to women’s rights. [WashPost]

-Eli Yokley writes that most people don’t want a government shutdown…unless it comes to certain hot-button issues. [Morning Consult]

-Drew DeSilver breaks down how the federal government spent tax dollars in 2016. [Pew]

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Pussy Hats Making Way For Resistor Beanies In Science March

Vivid pink, magenta, rouge, even purple “pussy hats” were a huge hit at the massive Women’s March on Washington in January. Now scientists are designing their own brand of “resistor” beanies for the upcoming March for Science on Earth Day.

Two friends, screenwriter Krista Suh and architect Jayna Zweiman, designed a “pussy power hat” pattern that was so simple, any amateur knitter could make it for themselves or other marchers

San Francisco Bay Area researcher and knitter Heidi Arjes has followed that up with designs for a turquoise resistor hat for scientists, and she’s posted the pattern for free online

The Stanford University microbiologist said she had never cared much about politics. That changed, Arjes told KQED, when she was complaining about the 2016 presidential election to her mom, who said to her, “You can’t change the world, Heidi.” 

Now she’s trying to do just that, one hat at a time.

Arjes’ hats feature a circuit design pattern of battery and three resistors. Resistors slow down electrical current in an actual circuit ― and she’s hoping the upcoming marches will help slow down federal cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health and funding for other scientific research, Arjes told KQED this week.

“I wanted something that, on its own, could be a really good science hat that represents physics and engineering,” Arjes told The Stanford Daily. “I also really like the double-entendre with the resistor.”

The knitting pattern for the hat is available online at Craftimism. Arjes has also come up with patterns for double helix, wind turbine and space shuttle hats. And groups can design their own hats with help on her website through Project Thinking Cap. Hats should be blue and green to honor the earth, she notes.

She’s hoping her hats will make their mark, particularly at her home Earth Day rally on April 22 in San Francisco ― one of more than 425 satellite rallies, with the main march in Washington, D.C. 

“The current administration’s disregard for scientific facts is troubling and, quite frankly, very frightening,” Arjes notes on her website.

“Scientists need to stand up and demand evidence-based policy and facts. Science is not partisan. Protecting our world and the people in it is not a partisan issue. This is why I will march.”

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=589cadf3e4b02bbb1816c3fc

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

FCC Chairman Plans Fast-Track Repeal Of Net Neutrality, Sources Say

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is moving quickly to replace the Obama administration’s landmark net neutrality rules and wants internet service providers to voluntarily agree to maintain an open internet, three sources briefed on the meeting said Thursday.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican appointed by President Donald Trump, met on Tuesday with major telecommunications trade groups to discuss his preliminary plan to reverse the rules, the sources said.

The FCC declined to comment but Pai previously said he is committed to ensuring an open internet but feels net neutrality was a mistake.

The rules approved by the FCC under Democratic President Barack Obama in early 2015 prohibited broadband providers from giving or selling access to speedy internet, essentially a “fast lane”, to certain internet services over others. As part of that change, the FCC reclassified internet service providers much like utilities.

Pai wants to overturn that reclassification, but wants internet providers to voluntarily agree to not obstruct or slow consumer access to web content, two officials said late Tuesday.

The officials briefed on the meeting said Pai suggested companies commit in writing to open internet principles and including them in their terms of service, which would make them binding.

It is unclear if regulators could legally compel internet providers to adopt open internet principles without existing net neutrality rules.

As part of that move, the Federal Trade Commission would assume oversight of ensuring compliance.

Three sources said Pai plans to unveil his proposal to overturn the rules as early as late April and it could face an initial vote in May or June.

Internet providers like AT&T Inc, Verizon Communications Inc and Comcast Corp have argued net neutrality rules would make it harder to manage internet traffic and investment in additional capacity less likely. Websites worry that without the rules they might lose access to customers.

AT&T and major trade groups sued the FCC in 2015 over the net neutrality rules.

Democrats and privacy advocates say net neutrality is crucial to keeping the internet open.

Pai in December predicted that net neutrality’s days were numbered. He told Reuters in February he believes “in a free and open internet and the only question is what regulatory framework best secures that.”

Pai and congressional Republicans have moved quickly to dismantle Obama-era telecommunications rules.

Trump on Monday signed a repeal of Obama-era broadband privacy rules a victory for internet service providers and a blow to privacy advocates.

Politico Pro reported some details of the meeting with trade groups on Thursday.

 

 

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Liberal And Conservative Tastes In Books Reveals Deep Partisan Divide

If you want to know what someone’s political leanings are, look no further than their bookshelf. 

New research from Yale, Cornell and the University of Chicago finds that readers’ preferences for liberal or conservative political literature attracts them to different types of science books. 

The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Human Behavior, showed that while both left and right-leaning readers consumed science books, they tended to focus on different areas of science. 

Liberals tended to prefer topics within the “life” and physical sciences, such as physics and astronomy. Conservatives, meanwhile, preferred commercial science subjects including medicine, criminology and geophysics. Certain topics like psychology and climate science attracted both liberal and conservative readers. 

“Within science, there are clear differences in readership of specific topics and books, suggesting that science is not immune to partisanship.”
Dr. James Evans

“Within science, there are clear differences in readership of specific topics and books, suggesting that science is not immune to partisanship and the ‘echochambers’ of modern political discourse,” said study co-author James Evans, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, in a statement

For the study, the researchers tracked millions of online book purchases from Barnes & Noble and Amazon. They also collected data from the “Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought” recommendations, analyzing the science titles that readers who purchased liberal or conservative books had chosen.

Readers of liberal and conservative political books were more likely to read science books than consumers who did not choose political books, but their taste in science books differently significantly. When readers of different political persuasions chose other non-fiction subject areas, however, their tastes were not nearly as polarized. 

And features like Amazon’s “related titles” could be deepening partisan divides by unwittingly reinforcing political “echo chamber,” researchers found

“Books on science are more likely than novels or books on religion, sports or the arts to be co-purchased with political books, but left and right rarely purchase the same books,” the study’s authors wrote. 

Liberals gravitated toward basic science, while conservatives chose commercial science. This may reflect an interest from liberals in learning about science out of their own curiosity and desire to learn, while conservatives took more of an interest in science’s profit-oriented and economic applications. 

“‘Blue’ readers prefer fields driven by curiosity and basic scientific concerns, such as zoology or anthropology, while ‘red’ readers prefer applied disciplines such as law and medicine, and with disciplines that patent more intensively,” said lead study author Dr. Feng Shi, a postdoctoral scholar in sociology formerly at the University of Chicago, in the statement

When it came to topics like environmental or political science, in which readers of both persuasions took an interest, liberals tended to choose from a diverse group of titles ― mostly ones that were popular and central to the disciple ― while conservatives were more likely to go for books at the fringes of the field. 

While the findings highlight the escalating politicization of science, the good news here is still worth celebrating: People are reading, and they’re looking at books about science. In an age where science denial seems to be winning against overwhelming scientific consensus, that’s something to be grateful for. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Google will flag fake news stories in search results

Google is taking a stand against dubious and outright ‘fake news’ by introducing a Fact Check tag in search results. If you ask for information about a highly contested subject, Google will serve a page from a fact-checker site at the top of your res…

Microsoft Translator turns your words into spoken Japanese

You may want to install Microsoft Translator if you’re going to Japan and your vocabulary is limited to “Konnichiwa,” “Ohayou” and “Notice me senpai.” The app can now turn your spoken words into Nihongo to help you get around the country. Translator…

One of Michael Crichton's Final Weird Science Stories Has Landed a Director

Iconic writer Michael Crichton passed away in 2008 while working on another adventure novel in the mold of his best-known work, Jurassic Park. Another author finished that story based on his notes, and the result was Micro, published in 2011. Last year, Dreamworks purchased the film rights and today, that film now…

Read more…

A New Ghost In The Shell Anime Announced!

With the beleaguered Hollywood movie out the door, Production I.G has revealed it’s working on a new Ghost in the Shell anime project.

Read more…

The Cold War Officially Gets Renewed For a Second Season

The US military launched a missile attack on a Syrian airbase last night, and the President of the United States announced it by uncharacteristically invoking God three times in his three-minute speech. The baby known as Cold War II was conceived long ago. But last night, President Trump helped give birth.…

Read more…

Choose From Three Powerful Waste King Garbage Disposals For All-Time Low Prices

Every so often, we see deals on individual Waste King garbage disposal models, and our readers always buy a ton of them. Today though, you’ve got three different choices in Amazon’s Gold Box.

Read more…