Rove obscures Wash. Post/ABC News poll question on public option to suggest "the wording of the question" skewed results
On Fox News' Hannity, Karl Rove suggested that a Washington Post/ABC News poll that showed broad support for a public option was skewed because "the wording of the question" didn't make clear that the public option would include government involvement. In fact, the Washington Post/ABC News poll question asked about support for "having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans," and its results mirrored those of other recent public opinion polls that asked about support for a government-administrated public option.
Rove falsely suggested the poll didn't specify that "new health insurance plan" would involve the government
From the October 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
ROVE: Well, real quick. Look, I think you made a good point about the ABC/Washington Post poll. It was Friday and Sat -- it included Friday night and Saturday night polling, which is more Democrat in leaning. It was adults, non-voters. Party ID is very volatile in polling, and you need to control for it.
But one of the other things is asking the question. In the Washington Post/ABC poll, they got 57 percent of the people who said that they agreed with the proposition that we ought to have a new health insurance plan to compete with private insurance. Fifty-seven percent of the people agreed with that. Gallup, out in the field at roughly the same time, said, do you believe in a public, government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurance. That got 50 percent. So, sometimes the wording of the question is important.
During the segment, Rove displayed a whiteboard on which he had written that the Washington Post/ABC poll asked about a "new health insurance plan to compete ... ":
In fact, the poll asked about "having the government create a new health insurance plan"
Wash. Post/ABC poll: "Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?" From the Washington Post/ABC News poll, conducted October 15-18:
Other recent polls specifically noting plan would be "government administered" also found widespread support
CNN/Opinion Research: 61 percent favor creating public option "administered by the federal government." When respondents were asked in an October 16-18 CNN/Opinion Research poll whether they "favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies," 61 percent said they favored the plan.
CBS News: 62 percent favor government offering "a government administered health insurance plan." When respondents were asked in an October 5-8 CBS News poll whether they would "favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans," 62 percent said they would support the plan.
Still in denial about popularity of
public option, conservative media won't accept polling
results
Media conservatives baselessly declare poll finding majority support for public option "fraudulent," "rigged." Numerous conservative media figures have attacked the Washington Post/ABC News poll, with Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich reportedly claiming that "this poll was deliberately rigged and produced a result that's fundamentally false" and that "[i]t's a typical Washington Post effort to slant the world in favor of liberal Democrats" and Rush Limbaugh calling the poll "totally fraudulent." However, the Washington Post/ABC News poll results on the public option are in line with several other polls. Additionally, Fox News' Gretchen Carlson suggested that the poll should have referred to a "government-run option," and Fox News' Steve Doocy suggested the poll should have instead asked about the "government taking over the health care situation in this nation" -- terms similar to the preferred language Republican pollster Frank Luntz has identified for the use of opponents of the public option and health care reform.
I'm curious. Living in the EVIDENCE-BASED, FACT-BASED world myself, I have no idea what it must feel like to be you.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please let me know.
The failure of the Dems to have the legislation passed yet is not the topic or anywhere close to on topic. The only way it relates to the post he tied to at the top of the thread is that both posts use the word "reality". The first post actually addresses reality, and the tag-on post doesn't.
Note to Tommy - Obama's been in office for only 10 months.
The Dem's stumbling, if it is actually stumbling, is off topic. This topic is about how Karl Rove misleads listeners about this poll.
Your post was about Rove. Rove is the topic of this posting by MMFA.
RightON's post, however, had nothing to do with the topic.
My post was attached to his post.
And I hope everyone notices that Wesley came in and tried to help get that derailment restarted. When one comes in and stops a troll from derailing a thread by pointing out that troll post, they kick and scream about it, but they stop. But others often start it back up again.
Gee Sue, I guess your influence and scoldings around here are pretty impotent and people laugh at them as I do. The thread derailers are really the fly in your ointment, aren't they? Too bad nobody takes you seriously, the MMfA court jester that you are.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, you know that, don't you?
You think that Wesley trying to help you? Wesley, who gets called "weaselly"?
That's a real good question.
The issue is not about polling the public and acting accordingly...that's why we have a republican form of democracy...our elected officials are expected to use their "own" judgment...which limits mob rule.
The claimed support for a govt. run public option is really a house of cards. There is a small segment that strongly support the public option...36%. That leaves 64% that aren't all that enthused about legislation that would promote a huge bureaucracy that we can't afford...and members of congress know it.
The claimed opposition to a government run public option is really a house of cards. There is a small segment that strongly opposes the public option...31%. That leaves 69% that realize that a public option will probably be necessary to achieve meaningful health care reform, ensuring care is available and bringing costs in line.
Democratic lawmakers drive me nuts. They take a strong majority and legislate as though they have 51%. Republicans take a 51% majority and legislate as though they have a supermajority and an electoral mandate. If I didn't believe that Democratic policies are much better for our country I could see myself leaving the party.
Legislators aren't just looking at public support. They're looking at electoral public support. They're afraid that the minority who oppose health care reform will be the activist group who will go to the polls and are afraid that the majority supporters won't. Remember that 1994, when the republicans swept into power, was actually a very low turnout election. An activist minority exerted disproportionate influence at the polls. There's fear of a repeat of that.
Aside from that is the fact that Democratic lawmakers as a whole are more conservative than are Democratic party members as a whole. The number of true liberals in Congress is very low. Those more conservative Democrats need strong public pressure to move to the left. Some of them aren't seeing that pressure enough.
I knew the 60 vote majority in the Senate wouldn't mean that much. The Democrats have never been a cohesive party, marching in lockstep. The republicans are much better at that.
I have no idea what any of that means except that your current crop of elected Democrats are much more concerned with politics and retaining power than actually doing what they said they would do during the election. Which makes them loose with the truth spineless, inefficient ninnies. And if they expect respect of electoral victories acting like that, they deserve to be beaten. Vocal minorities are no reason to disband your principles or your legislative priorities to purport to help the people you are always telling they need you in office to do the "people's work". Or is that just rhetoric with no meat behind it just to get elected.
I guess, according to you, it is. That is why I don't need politicians to tell me what they are going to do for me. And by your very own strategic electoral playbook, they don't mean any of it anyway.
Yes, you make that very clear. Especially when you go on to spin what I said off into nonsense-land. What I described is true of virtually all politicians in general.
On this topic in particular, you seem to be invested in some fantasy in which all Democrats were singing the same tune during the election with regard to HCR. They weren't. Not even close. That's where the hard work of legislating comes in. They have to take that wide variety of positions within the party, work out compromises and still hope to win over some republicans.
And guess what? Many of those different opinions are based on strongly held principles. One of those principles is the desire to reflect the wishes of their constituents, balanced with the idea that they need to be reelected in order to keep representing those constituents.
And that is the end of this brief, much needed, edition of Civics 101 for right ON.
Please don't try to tell me what I'm really saying. It's obvious you don't have a clue. The alternative is that you're simply lying in an effort to misrepresent my words.
And they need nor do they care about Republican support, just as the Republicans didn't care about Democratic support unless it was necessary. And now, it's not necessary, the Dems have the votes without it.
Politicians need to do the right thing, and let the politics of that be damned. But that much missing quality is not reserved for Democrats that is for sure. I don't reward nor condone any of it, from any of them.
Amen brother Ben...I agree. Those are the one's with their moist fingers in the air.
Instead, they should be focusing on the now, like people that are dying NOW because the insurance companies are screwing them, or because they lack that dubious privilege. People are struggling to find work and keep their homes NOW.
I heard lots of pretty speeches from Democrats in 2006 and they rolled over and did next to nothing. I heard Obama give plenty of pretty speeches too, and I gave him my vote because I wanted to believe the rhetoric, but I've seen pretty much the same thing from him.
The time to act is NOW, and positive results are all I want to see going forward.
That's a cute try but your bucket is pretty leaky.
The question posed by RO cuts right to the heart of the matter. About 1/3 strongly support the public option...about 1/3 strongly oppose...and about 1/3 that are saying whoa nelson, not so fast.
That's why many democrats are reluctant to goose-step to orders from the democrat party leadership.
Actually, I was simply showing the porousness of your bucket.
Or is Mr. Rove like Scooter Libby a Man soon to be Busted?
Under Mr. Rove if you wanted to work at the Department of Justice you first had to Pledge your Allegence to George W. Bush.
No wonder the former Bush Administration is giving the stopage of any Torture Probe such a big Push.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
By far the 2 largest %'s in the poll were "strongly support" and "strongly oppose", which is atypical if you're used to looking at polls...usually the "somewhat" options are more heavily favored.
And what the hell does it matter if the participants were non-voters? Is Rove trying to reassure the holdouts that, despite this poll, there won't be any repurcussions if they vote in favor of their campaign donors over the interests and explicit wishes of their constituents? I think it just might be....
He is suggesting that you will only have access to these rights if you are a voter...if you are not registered, you don't matter.
If that's a new iteration of conservative propaganda, that's just disgusting.
But what I do know is that if one starts splitting hairs over the validity of a poll due to non-registered voters. Then that is exactly like saying that the voices and concerns of non-registered voters don't matter in any discussion.
Why do you think the Republicans really went after ACORN? It's the voter registration drives! Republicans hate it when people vote, so they disenfranchise people in every way possible, from intimidation to fraud. That's been in their playbook since the late 70s, and it's worked pretty well for them.
And what are those reasons?
Poor people suffer from a whole host of disparities, from access to transportation, a culture of apathy and despair, a general lack of education, disproportionately low rates of adult literacy, which leads to a great susceptibility to misinformation, the list goes on and on. You don't have to denigrate the poor to make political points. They've got it bad enough just trying to get by, day by day.
If anyone is suffering from a "culture of apathy", rich or poor, that is their own issue. If they choose not to vote then they have nobody to blame but themselves, least of all the political party you claim works against them and that they have no reason to support. If that doesn't reverse their apathy, nothing will. Stop blaming someone else.
You're kidding, right?
I, on the other hand, made no distinction in poor or rich people's intellect or their level of apathy of any of the other reasons you gave. Because none of them have to do with one's income level, it has to do with their desire or non-desire to become involved enough to vote.
Typical liberal pandering and in your typical condescending pat-on-the-head fashion to poor people by telling them they aren't educated enough to vote. How insulting.
Yeah, I'm right.
As to my "liberal pandering," I know that adult literacy rates are lowest among the poorest. I know this because it's part of my job to know this. According to the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, the average literacy rate consistently decreases with each successive lower income bracket. The study also found that people who don't or can't read much get their information from television and radio. As this site has repeatedly and admirably demonstrated, people who get their information only from television and radio are susceptible to misinformation.
Ergo, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong.
What motivates people to vote is their interest in politics and/or their desire to exercise their freedom to choose our elected leaders, as they should. I also know people who don't make very much money but they damn well never forget to vote and take their duty seriously. For you to suggest that one's bank account determines their voting desires is ridiculous.
Lastly, and off topic, if you treat people differently based on their race you'd better examine why. I would say not only do you disrespect people of lesser means, but obviously some races as well.
Really, though, "I treat everyone the same," is code for "I'm a stealth bigot."
Yeah, I'm a racist. We all are. It's hardwired into our DNA. But my ability to identify, acknowledge and constantly guard against that universal trait within myself means I'm less of a racist than some jackass who claims to treat everyone equally while indulging in the worst sort of color-blind racism.
Ever wonder why Republican bogeymen are always black or brown? Willy Horton, the Welfare Queen, undocumented immigrants, Barack Hussein Obama, ad nauseum, these are the faces that keep whiteys...I mean, righties, up at night.
Not yet, anyway.
And they only sample 'likely voters'. They have discovered that limiting it to likely voters helps their side. So Rove is trying to manhandle the pollsters to poll in a way that benefits his side.