96% of MoveOn Members Did Not Show Support for the Pelosi Bill

[babylonsister]

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0321-34.htm

96% of MoveOn Members Did Not Show Support for the Pelosi Bill
by John Stauber

On Sunday, March 18, Sheldon Rampton and I wrote "Iraq: Why Won't MoveOn Move Forward?", an article now widely circulated online. It has helped to focus debate on whether the Democratic Party is really attempting to end the war in Iraq, or is content to simply manage the war for supposed electoral advantage in 2008.

The liberal advocacy group MoveOn has 3.2 million members. Yesterday MoveOn misleadingly claimed that the results from their recent member survey showed overwhelming support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill on Iraq. "The results are in from our poll on whether to support Speaker Pelosi's proposal on Iraq: 84.6% of MoveOn members voted to support the bill," according to MoveOn. However, this claim flunks the smell test and is far far from accurate.

MoveOn is engaging that oldest of PR games known as 'lies, damned lies and statistics." The truth is that 96% of MoveOn's 3.2 million members did not even bother to vote in their member survey. Most of MoveOn's members probably ignored and failed to open the email, since nothing in the subject line indicated it was particularly important. MoveOn informed this reporter that about 126,000 people voted in what I pointed out to them was a very biased pro-Pelosi poll. The MoveOn question essentially provided a choice of Pelosi and peace (Yes), or Republicans and war (No). Gee, guess how that one gets answered?

The real news is that 96% of MoveOn's huge list did not vote with them to support the Pelosi bill. When MoveOn says 84.6% of their members chose Pelosi's bill, they mean 86.4% of the measly four percent of their members who bothered to open their email and respond. A polling of members in which 96% do not vote is no polling at all. Unfortunately MoveOn, while claiming to represent their overwhelmingly anti-war membership, is being unaccountable and anti-democratic.

An article in Politico.com makes clear the crucial role MoveOn has played by supporting the Democratic leadership over the large caucus of pro-peace progressive Democrats. Here's a description of how the MoveOn survey was used inside the Capitol: "A jovial Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger went up to fellow Maryland Rep. Albert Wynn as he sat off the floor with a reporter and told Wynn that a vote against the bill was a vote for Republican victory. He waved a copy of the MoveOn.org press release backing the measure. 'Have you seen this?' Ruppersberger asked. 'Yeah, who did that?' replied Wynn, a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus."

The biased "poll" that MoveOn emaiied to its 3.2 million subscribers reads like a Soviet ballot. Many liberal strategists inside the Beltway believe that that what the House leadership is doing is smart and practical politics. In fact, this is back room power politics of the worst sort, a cynical 'Let It Bleed' strategy that abandons efforts to halt the war and is geared toward getting Democrats elected in 2008 by blaming the continuing quagmire of the Iraq occupation on the Republicans.

The American people deserve leadership and honesty from their political representatives and from groups that claim to be representing them. A choice between Republican or Democratic gamesmanship on Iraq is no choice at all when it allows the dying and suffering of tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to go on, all for some campaign leverage down the road in 2008. As confused as the American public has been by the Bush propaganda that sold the war, and the failure of the mainstream media to confront and expose it, there is now a solid majority of Americans who want the US out now or in the very immediate future. They are not being served by partisan gamesmanship, nor is their country.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. 128,000 Is Still A Pretty Damn Good Sample Size No?

Is there any reason to believe that when extrapolated out the ratios would monumentally change?

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Since it offered no choice of which approach to peace the membership preferred,

it's useless anyway.

It's a rigged poll, and when they use it to lobby, then it becomes even more suspect.

Or do you see the poll as representative of Move on members opinions?


I am a move on member. I got the poll e-mailed to me and didn't vote on it because there was no choice included that reflected my opinion. It was insulting, to say the least.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. I Would Think It Is.

I would absolutely believe that the majority of rational thinking people would be in support. I personally don't understand why that would be alarming.

[EFerrari]

31. Because "belief" is not evidence. n/t

[EFerrari]

29. I met with Nancy's senior staffer today with Code Pink and shur 'nuf

that poll got cited.

This isn't a good thing. It's a handle.

[John Q. Citizen]

34. Yes, and it's totally dishonest. I'm surprised they have to go to such

lengths to justify a weak bill.

Did you two question the use of that poll?

Edited to add...

I can understand the "baby step" approach and I can understand triangulation, and while I disagree, I can still respect a difference of opinion on how far is far enough. What I can't abide is the dishonesty of using bogus poll numbers to support a postition. It's insulting and it's slimey.

[EFerrari]

39. I met with him during a Code Pink action. When he cited the poll

the whole room winced. :shrug:

Nothing else was said about this poll as we were trying to keep a good Q&A going.

[endarkenment]

7. never took statistics for the social sciences 101 I see.

There is no reason to believe that a non random sample can be extrapolated at all. Only random samples have that characteristic.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. I'm Talking Theoretically. I.E. If All 3.2m Did Vote.

If every member voted, are there reasons to believe that the breakdown would significantly change? Sure, the original poll is not scientifically done whatsoever but when dealing with over 100,000 one would think that the sample size would've been large enough to be somewhat representative of what we'd expect to see if everyone voted. Might not have been random, but I'd still think that a majority that high from over a hundred thousand people would be a pretty strong indication that a majority of the rest would agree.

Not scientific though, so who knows. But whenever you have any anonymous group of over 100,000 that support something in that much of a number, the result has to be at least somewhat significant.

[endarkenment]

9. No you are talking pretty much out of ignorance.

Self selected samples don't allow for extrapolation to the entire set, they do not allow one to say anything about how the set in general would act. You would have to have a large enough sample to make the rest of the set irrelevant, or a different result hugely unlikely, and the small sample (100,000 out of 3.2 million) doesn't do that for you. Besides the question was a bogus push poll question anyway.

All one can reasonably say here is that 100,000 moveon members voted for the pelosi bill. End of story.

edit to add some wiki for you:

"Even studies intended to be probability studies sometimes end up being non-probability studies due to unintentional or unavoidable characteristics of the sampling method. In public opinion polling by private companies (or other organizations unable to require response), the sample can be self-selected rather than random. This often introduces an important type of error: self-selection error. This error sometimes makes it unlikely that the sample will accurately represent the broader population. Volunteering for the sample may be determined by characteristics such as submissiveness or availability. The samples in such surveys should be treated as non-probability samples of the population, and the validity of the estimates of parameters based on them unknown."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprobability_sampling

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. No, I'm Not. Furthermore, If I See Any Ignorant Assumption At All It's Your 'Self Selected' Sample

reference. Nothing was self selected. The poll was sent, over 100,000 random members replied. I would find it to be an amazingly ignorant deduction to claim that a sampling of that size is not representative of anything.

Furthermore, whether the poll was a push poll or not is irrelevant to this discussion, as we weren't discussing the merits of the poll itself but instead what could be deduced from the responses that were received. As far as it being a push poll, it very well may have been. But that doesn't change the premise regarding if the rest of members voted how the results would likely have been broken out.

I also find it a bit perplexing how you are attempting to challenge with two conflicting premises. On one hand, you are saying the 86% is false because the other 96% if they had voted could've significantly swayed it the other way based on lack of scientific sampling methods. On the other hand, you are now changing your angle to say that the 86% did so because the poll was worded in such a way as to manipulate them into doing so. But the latter seems to indicate that the 86% was representative but that the representation is unfair due to flaws in the poll itself. Well which is it?

I think the end results even if all members voted would've been pretty damn close give or take a few % to the 86%. But I also think the poll itself may have been constructed in a way to gather such a split. I think you would've been far better served having attacked it from that angle to begin with.

[endarkenment]

12. You are making an idiot out of yourself.

You do not understand what a random sample is nor what self selection is. Please, for your own sake, stop.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. I think you are wasting your time. Some people don't understand polling methodology and

some of those have no desire to.

Have you voted in my "MoveOn" methodology poll yet? It proves that 80% of the memebership of DU support Dennis Kucinich for President
(preliminary findings)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3174788

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. I Just Don't Agree With Your Deduction Of It Being A Self-Selected Sample

I also never said it was a technical random sample either. I've said it was technically non-scientifically done.

But I also don't consider it to technically be a self selected sample either. If this was a poll just sent to anyone and everyone, whether move on members or not, then I would agree with the self selected premise and that because of such the numbers could be immensely skewed. However, because there is inherently already a limited group with appropriate parameters to begin with, inherent in being a moveon member, I don't consider the wild probabilities that can be seen from self selected samples to be all that valid here or accurate in their use. The fact they were all move on members is extremely significant in deciding if the results carry any merit. The whole problem with self selected samples is that too many people can be included from one type of viewpoint than others, just based on their motivation or circumstances in which they reply. But we don't really have that issue here. The major majority of those the email went to hold similar enough political viewpoints and interests in general to deem them a worthy group without significant risk to contaminating the pool of responses.

Because of this limited parameter group, the fact of over 100,00 of them replying in such a way is absolutely relevant in its use here and I still find it to be astounding that you want to pull out a claim of self selected sample to try and refute the results cast from that many members.

See, there are logical reasons as to why self selected samples carry risks in the assumptions to be made from the results. There are solid scientific and social reasons. Just calling it a self selected sample is not a valid reason. If someone actually has the ability to think and deduce, one could weed out the majority of legitimate reasons that normally plague the results of a self selected sample. They just simply don't come into play here, which is why I don't for a second technically consider this to be a self selected sample, which if I did would inherently call into question the results based on a plethora of reasons that are normally inherent in calling a poll such.

So let me ask you: If you want to claim this scientifically to be a self selected sample, thereby having the significant risks associated with it being such, what do you consider those factors to be? What are the factors that would've contaminated the selection pool to such a degree to skew the results so greatly? You can't just say 'just because', as that requires no logic nor no thinking ability. You have to have some reasons for dismissing it so readily right? Well what are they? What are the factors here that caused those favoring yes to reply that much more readily than those who would choose no?

[John Q. Citizen]

16. So you agree that over 80% of DU memebers support Kucinich for President

then?

I've only included DU members in my sample.

By extrapolation, if proves that Dennis Kucinich is the overwhelming choice of DU members for President, right?

See the poll here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3174788

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. You Just Totally Exposed Your Inability To Argue This In An Intellectual Manner.

If you can't see the unbelievable flaws in your comparison, then I just don't know what to tell ya.

I'm hoping you actually do know how flawed your analogy is and just want to put it forth anyway just to try and deceive on the surface as actually carrying any legitimacy; i.e. hoping those reading it won't think about it and you could put one past em. But if you truly believe your analogy is sound, then, well, geez. Don't know what to tell ya.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. I just ran a poll that was modeled after the poll that Move-On ran.

Their poll offered their members a choice between the Pulosi Iraq bill and the Republican bill.

My poll offered DU members two choices just like theirs did, between a Democrat, Kucinich and a Repo, Newt.

By extrapolation, it's clear that over 84% of Move On's members support the Pulosi bill,
And that over 84% of DU members support Dennis Kucinich for President in 2008.

If you don't like the methodology or the conclusions, don't blame me. I'm just doing what Move-On did.

Since you apparently see the value of their poll, I can't understand why you fail to see the value of my poll. Or is it that you like the results they got better than you like the results I got?

Why is my poll flawed but the Move-On poll valid?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. Listen, Seriously: If You Can't Figure This Out For Yourself Then I Don't Know What To Tell Ya.

But until you do, I'm not going to waste my time discussing this with you any further.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Listen, Seriously: Neither poll is valid, neither poll means a damn thing. If you

can't see that, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate someone who embraces a double standard.

[EFerrari]

43. On another board, someone brought up a good point.

If MoveOn wanted the anti-war left to weigh in, they wouldn't have conducted their poll when we were all out demonstrating. :shrug:

[rinsd]

2. Over 100,000 is quite alot of people voting

"MoveOn is engaging that oldest of PR games known as 'lies, damned lies and statistics." "

And this guy is enagaging in another, pick a big target, write some scathing making a mountain out of a molehill. Already its lead to a 2nd article. Could a 3rd be on the way?

[helderheid]

5. I supported the Lee amendment which MoveOn wouldn't TOUCH.

[rinsd]

6. Not according to this letter

And we got this note to MoveOn members from Congressman John Murtha, who has been one of the strongest voices against the war:

"Thank you for helping make this bill the strongest it could be—your voices helped us get a plan that will end the war. All of us want to bring our brave men and women home from Iraq as soon as possible. While the bill may not go as far as some of us would prefer, it is a necessary step toward a safe and responsible end to the war. Bush is threatening to veto and the Republicans unanimously voted 'NO' in full committee. Let's join together and take the necessary step forward."

But most important, here is what some of you said about why you voted to support the plan yesterday:

It will be a huge step forward to pass legislation opposed to the war in Iraq. Those who want more still need to back this important step. The Bush administration is counting on the wide spectrum of opinion on the war among Democrats to prevent passage of such legislation. We need to prove that Democrats can unite on core principles.—Jeanetta M., Connecticut

We have got to be very careful about dividing and self destructing. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.—Sheila C., New Mexico


I voted for the plan, somewhat reluctantly. I'd like to see a resolution for strengthening diplomatic engagement along with diminishing military efforts.—Frank B., California

Getting out now would be even better, but we need a large consensus vote from all opponents, not a symbolic minority vote. Bush is going to veto the resolution anyway, but we will have marked an important milestone if this resolution passes. It will be a precedent, and that's highly important.—Stephen F., Indiana

Reading through thousands of the comments, it was amazing how much most of us are on the same page. MoveOn members are clear—this is about whether we set a timeline to withdraw or whether the President succeeds in waging a war without end. Now we have to make sure the media understands that, too.

The opinion pages are the most popular pages in the newspaper, and if thousands of us write, we can help shape public opinion. Even if your letter isn't published, it shows editors how folks really feel and influences the way they cover stories. It only takes a few minutes, and we've included some points to help you put it together at the link below.

Click here to get started on a letter to the editor:


http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=72&id=10048-...

Thanks for all you do.

–Eli, Nita, Tom, Carrie and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007

P.S. Some of you have asked whether we support the Lee Amendment, a proposal that would accelerate the end of the war. Of course we do—we'd love for the proposal to bring our troops home sooner, and MoveOn members are pretty clear on that point. We've been fighting for as strong a bill as possible. Right now, the Lee Amendment is not being offered, but if it comes up, we'll definitely encourage Congress to vote for it.

Emphasis mine.

[bigtree]

10. this can't be right. it's too rational

allows for strategic thinking, takes political realities into account.

It contradicts the instinct to blame Democrats for republican obstruction and advocates doing something other than just saying no and leaving it at that.

Can't be right . . .

[bigtree]

13. is it clear that amendments will be allowed when the Pelosi bill reaches the House floor

It's hard to get amendments to standing legislation once the bill reaches the floor because it opens the door to phony republican amendments and the potential for scuttling the original legislation. I'm not sure if they decided on bringing the Pelosi bill to the floor under an open-rule which would allow amendments like Lee's.

[Orangepeel]

18. how is that different than any other election? If you don't vote, don't complain about the vote.

The question as described here does read a bit like a push poll. But if the wording is presented with the results, then people can judge for themselves.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. If you read the OP, you would see that they tried to pretend that

84% of their memebers are supporting the Pulosi bill over all others.

That's the problem. I got the poll in my inbox and didn't vote because I support other competing Democratic bills over the Pulosi bill. None of those were included as options.

[EFerrari]

20. I don't support top - down "grassroots" organizations who are

uninterested in feedback but very interested in my time and money.

I don't support MoveOn.

edit for clarity

[John Q. Citizen]

24. I'm a member of MoveOn, but I find their poll to be dishonest and

manipulative.

They have done many good things, but this leaves a bad taste.

[Morgana LaFey]

38. and wouldn't you be hard-pressed to let them know that?

Really -- is there some way to communicate directly with them? That was another source of frustration I had with them. I know they have a LOT of members, but there should be some way to actually receive communications from members. Maybe they do nowadays.

I think they're a victim (and a captive) of too much success, personally.

[EFerrari]

40. One of their close advisors told me in Dec 2004 "They are

completely uninterested in feedback". And, he put his considerable energy and brains to work for another org.

[Morgana LaFey]

44. Good for that advisor.

I have to confess -- you made my mouth drop open with this. I knew they were bad, I never suspected THAT bad. Thanks for sharing it, though.

[EFerrari]

45. I keep trying to remind myself that they are a young org

and have a number of mistakes to make which hopefully they will learn from. :)

[Morgana LaFey]

46. Really, though,. they aren't that young anymore

although I could accept such an excuse if I saw them learning, perhaps.

Instead I fear it's the arrogance of power. Truly. And think of it: there's no accountability, just like with our current administration.

[Swamp Rat]

27. know what you mean jelly bean

;)

We may have more than a few of them carpetbagging in and around post-Katrina affected areas.

[EFerrari]

30. I bet you do.

:hug:

[AnnInLa]

23. Anecdotal: My friends/family and I all read Kos

and were prompted to be on the lookout for the email. We rec'd it, and voted for MoveOn to support the "Pelosi bill." We have to start somewhere, and we can't cut off our noses to spite our faces.

[EFerrari]

32. No, the project would seem to be to remnd Nancy where her nose is. n/t

[marlakay]

25. I voted NO

I like Nancy but her bill doesn't go far enough for me. So I voted No. I want them out right away!

[porphyrian]

28. MoveOn is Clinton's baby, right?

The Clintons aren't exactly that far left of center, especially when it comes to corporate pandering and opposing war, so I'm not really that surprised at all.

[EFerrari]

33. I stopped being surprised by MoveOn when they went dark

after the stolen 2004 election.

They are a young organization. Maybe they will learn to do better. They didn't do better this week, imho.

/oops

[Morgana LaFey]

37. No, the only connection to the Clintons is that MoveOn was formed

when Clinton was in the process of being investigated/impeached and the whole point was a big ole petition to Congress to just censure him and "Move ON!!"

THey're not owned by the Clintons, weren't started by the Clintons, etc.

[roody]

35. I deleted it and next email, I will unsubscribe.

[Morgana LaFey]

36. I quit a lot of years ago when they refused to listen

re stolen elections. They just put their hands over their ears and eyes, and totally ignored their members who were lobbying for them to do something.

[roody]

42. I only gave $40 one time and got a t shirt.

Since the invasion of Iraq, when Moveon did not call for immediate withdrawal, I have been deleting most of their emails. About time to unsuscribe.

[Synnical]

41. I think I deleted it also

They send me so damn many e-mails. I did note their latest, claiming support of Pelosi.

K&R - let's keep them honest!