General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe statistical mistake behind the myth of the moderates
...The only problem is moderates are largely a statistical myth. When you dig into their policy positions, the people who show up as moderates in polls are actually pretty damn extreme and efforts to empower them may, accidentally, lead to the rise of more extreme candidates.
The statistical mistake behind the myth of the moderates
What happens, explains David Broockman, a political scientist at the University of California at Berkeley, is that surveys mistake people with diverse political opinions for people with moderate political opinions. The way it works is that a pollster will ask people for their position on a wide range of issues: marijuana legalization, the war in Iraq, universal health care, gay marriage, taxes, climate change, and so on. The answers will then be coded as to whether they're left or right. People who have a mix of answers on the left and the right average out to the middle and so they're labeled as moderate.
...
The result is that voters who hold gentle opinions that are all on the left or the right end up looking a lot more extreme than voters who hold intense opinions that fall all over the political spectrum. Broockman offers this table as illustration:
...
The deeper point here is that the idea of the moderate middle is bullshit: it's a rhetorical device meant to marginalize some policy positions at the expense of others. There's no actual way to measure it, or consistent definition animating it, and it doesn't spontaneously emerge in any of the data.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)A lot of them are useless other than for reinforcing whatever those polling want to believe, because they don't ask good questions. I was polled just yesterday, spent almost half an hour on the phone with the guy, answering all sorts of questions, and my guess is all of that data was pretty much useless in identifying what I'm really thinking, because they never really asked. They just wanted to slot my answers into things like 'strongly approve/somewhat approve/etc/etc' without ever asking for the reasoning. So all they get is one more set of datapoints on 'approve/disapprove' with absolutely no indication as to WHY I might disapprove of something or approve of it. So when I say I somewhat disapprove of action 'X' by Democratic officeholder 'Y', they're just going to lump in my response with the RWers, without ever showing that in reality, I disapprove because action 'X' was actually too far right for my tastes. And based on the questions they asked, there's no way to know if all of the people who disapproved of 'X' did so because they felt it 'went too far' or if they felt it 'didn't go far enough', or any mix in between.
The only real conclusion I think anyone could reasonably draw out of the entire set of data was that I'm fairly disgruntled with the actions of most politicians of either major party. But they don't know WHY, so it's a useless bunch of data collection.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)Designing crappy surveys works in the favor of keeping the plutocracy in power, so I wouldn't expect it to change.
As the late, great Bartcop always said: "When somebody makes a mistake that turns out to benefit them, expect them to make that mistake over and over again."
old guy
(3,283 posts)The DU polls that offer pie as a choice however should be strictly adhered to.