Looking Behind the Numbers2009-10-28

 As the 2009 national health care debate heads into its final act, there have been no shortage of polling numbers to support whatever you happen to believe.

Happy with your current insurance coverage? So are 78 percent of adults.

Want a public option? You agree with 61 percent of Americans, even though by a 48-45 margin, our fellow countrymen oppose the broad outlines of the plan in the U.S. Senate containing a public option.

Outside observers might be tempted to label us as having multiple personality disorder as a society, but the contradictory results have far more to do with the people paying for the surveys than those answering them.

This isn’t a criticism of the many fine pollsters working today, who can back up their results with advanced statistical degrees from some of our finest universities and decades of experience in the field, but rather putting a fine point on the difference between polling questions used to drive an agenda versus those used to gauge the true public support for an idea.

It’s been a timeworn tactic of interest groups across the political spectrum to ask meaningful questions like, “Do you like ice cream?” and then trumpeting those results as proof of the righteousness and inevitable triumph of their cause. Unfortunately, those results are as useless a barometer as watching the Chicago Cubs during Spring Training before pronouncing their imminent triumph in October.

If you really want to understand how the public perceives your ideas and how it will play in the public policy arena, you have to pit competing ideas against each other with real-world consequences.

On the subject of climate change for example, that there are overwhelming majorities for reducing American reliance on foreign oil consumption, and increasing homegrown renewable energy is not in doubt; however, asking those specific questions on a poll to prove support for policies like cap-and-trade ring hollow. On the other hand, the Pew Research Center asked the right question of 1,500 adults earlier this month and found by a 50% to 39% margin that Americans favor “setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if it might lead to higher energy prices (i.e. cap-and-trade).”

Another way of gauging support is by measuring intensity, forcing respondents to choose among a series of important issues. Unfortunately, Pew found earlier this year that dealing with global warming fell last on a list of 20 priorities for Americans that included topics like the economy, education, health care and crime—a very different result than if a question was worded “Should Congress and the President tackle global warming?”--which would have undoubtedly shown a large majority in favor.

While the numbers aren’t likely to be skewed quite so dramatically in your direction, it’s always better to begin a communications campaign knowing the true depth of your support rather than trying to secure one misleading but favorable headline. Ultimately, savvy elected officials and the media will see through the flaw in your logic anyway, while opponents of your idea will use the naked agenda ploy to undermine your credibility in the long run.