Patterico's Pontifications

5/18/2005

Why Polls About Filibusters Are Worthless

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:29 am



The battle over judicial filibusters begins today in earnest. I urge Republicans to stand on principle and ignore the polls. The main reason is that the polls are misleading.

As I have told you many times before, poll results have everything to do with the wording of a question, especially when the public is uninformed about the issue. And the public is woefully uninformed about judicial filibusters.

Polls (and the media) consistently portray the battle over the nuclear option as a question of minority rights to oppose controversial nominees, rather than a question of whether nominees can obtain an up-or-down vote. This is seen clearly in the most recent authoritative poll on the nuclear option: the Gallup poll, which supposedly shows that the public is opposed to the Republicans’ approach. But listen to the way Gallup posed the question:

As you may know, the filibuster is a Senate procedure which has been used to prevent the Senate from passing controversial legislation or confirming controversial appointments by the president, even if a majority of senators support that action. A vote of at least 60 senators out of 100 is needed to end a filibuster. Do you favor or oppose the use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate?

Well, we certainly don’t want anything controversial happening. I guess we’d better oppose the filibuster!

This sort of misleading wording is critical to the outcome, since only 12 percent of respondents claim to be following this seemingly arcane issue “very closely.” In addition, this analysis of the poll notes:

Gallup and other polls also confuse voters by simply asking whether Americans “favor or oppose” the filibuster. It is well-known by researchers that many poll respondents get confused whenever they are asked to react to negative concepts such as filibuster, recall, rescission, veto, etc. This confusion is why you see so many Republicans favoring the filibuster rule (43 percent in Gallup’s poll) and Democrats opposing it (31 percent). This is the most solid, data-based evidence that the filibuster polls are not to be taken seriously.

If the pollster really wanted accurate results, he would ask people a simple and straightforward question, which describes the filibuster in more neutral terms, like this:

As you may know, Republicans are seeking to end the use of the filibuster as it applies to President Bush’s judicial nominees. This would mean a simple majority vote (rather than the current 60 votes) would end floor debate on a nominee, clearing the way for an up-or-down vote to confirm or reject the nominee. Do you favor or oppose the Republicans’ plan to allow an up-or-down vote on all judicial nominees in the U.S. Senate?

There is nothing biased about this language. Indeed, the bolded portion is the pollster’s own description of the Republicans’ plan, as set forth in his report about the poll. But instead of using this straightforward language in asking the question, the pollster felt obligated to describe the President’s nominees as “controversial” — a frightening word for uninformed voters not following the issue closely.

These poll results are not to be trusted. Unfortunately, everything is riding on something just as shaky as the poll numbers: Republicans’ ability to communicate to voters what this issue is really about. We’ll see today how effectively they do that.

(Link to The Hill article via Betsy’s Page. Link to Washington Times article via Captain Ed.)

P.S. If Republicans really want to communicate effectively, they should do what I have repeatedly encouraged them to do: start with Owen, and make the issue about parental notification for abortions — a topic that polls very well, the pollsters’ biases notwithstanding.

11 Responses to “Why Polls About Filibusters Are Worthless”

  1. so we go from “controversial” to “clearing the way”.

    I can tell what the results are going to be.

    actus (3be069)

  2. There was some Republican Senator talking on Sunday about how this is the Byrd Option. Byrd option this, Byrd option that, Byrd, Byrd, Byrd. The Byrd Option I want to see is Byrd and Boxer talking on the Senate floor during their filibuster. This will be a political home run for conservatives.

    Consider this Poll Question: Should Congress deal with its own archane voting rules, or bring this up for national debate? The party that appears to be actively causing the firestorm of controversy is the party that loses. Bring on the filibuster, and let that party be the Democrats.

    I oppose the Nuclear Option. It would be amazingly stupid to filibuster the vote on reasonable judges, and the Democrats are not going to do that for very long. The Republicans don’t gain much from the Nuclear Option, and there’s a big downside with the public.

    Ladainian (91b3b2)

  3. Or more simply:

    “Do you think it should take a 60% vote in the Senate to confirm judges, or just the simple majority that the Consitution requires?”

    Kevin Murphy (9982dd)

  4. “Do you think it should take a 60% vote in the Senate to confirm judges, or just the simple majority that the Consitution requires?”

    Does the constitution mention a number?

    actus (3be069)

  5. I think that shuting down the Senate commitees will be bad for the Democrats nubmers.

    Neo (f1f21a)

  6. Actus —

    Does the constitution mention a number?
    No, default conditions usually aren’t stated. Besides it’s a lot fairer statement than talking about the filibuster as a “constitutional check and balance.”

    Kevin Murphy (9982dd)

  7. Senator Boxer says that only 10 of Bush’s 218 nominees have been rejected. I’m pretty sure this is false because nearly everything Boxer claims is false. I’ve heard Republicans say that only 57% of them have been confirmed. So what’s up?

    Ladainian (91b3b2)

  8. “Does the constitution mention a number?”

    The Constitution lists a number only for those items requiring more than a majority. Treaties, Vetos, etc.

    Madison’s notes from the constitutional convention indicate that a motion was made that the Senate could VETO a judicial appointment from the president with 2/3’s vote. This motion failed.

    Terry (9cb187)

  9. She’s counting lower court judges, too

    Kevin Murphy (9982dd)

  10. The fillibuster–keeping minorities in their place since 1789. [/byrd]

    Christopher Cross (828170)

  11. I think both parties are trying to bore us to death. Don’t underestimate the public backlash from being forced to deal with the truly arcane. Polls really are asking the wrong question. They should start with ‘do you care’ about filibuster vs. nuclear option?

    Ruth (c46b12)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0799 secs.