Shocking Results

NYT polls the gas tax issue. How remarkable. It's almost as if the press' unusual decision to make some effort to cover the issue in a substantive way led to a better-informed electorate. Weird, wild stuff.

It's strange to me how media types can simultaneously keep in their heads the idea that voters are very concerned about things like high gas prices and the rising costs of health care, but wouldn't be interested in political news that focused on which candidates have good ideas for addressing those problems. Oh well, hopefully we can get back to all freakshow all the time soon.

Comments

Ugh, that's a terrible question to ask.

How about this:

"Is a federal gax tax holiday a good idae or a bad idea?" The margins would be far different.

Posted by JFD | May 5, 2008 11:49 AM

Actually, from a survey-design perspective, it's a well-developed question.

I'd like to see the cross tab with voter ID.

Posted by SavageView | May 5, 2008 12:05 PM

I agree it's a terrible question to ask. America's dependence on foreign oil isn't a problem for the average American, anymore than another country's dependence on Boeing jets, John Deere tractors, or Monsanto seeds is a problem for that country's citizens. The problem for Americans is high gas prices. We were still dependent on imports of foreign oil during the last oil bust when oil was trading for less than $20 per barrel, but when gas was $1.50 a gallon, that dependency wasn't a problem. It still isn't: the problem is the cost.

Posted by Fred | May 5, 2008 12:06 PM

I agree that the substantive media coverage has probably led to a better-informed electorate on this issue. But what does it say about our electorate when at least 44% believe it is still a good idea - given that most voters are cynical about politicians' motives in the first place, and that not a single economist or commentator has supported the plan?

Posted by Ready for change | May 5, 2008 12:08 PM

Elites are almost invariably oversampled in modern polls. That explains why Democrats, especially Obama, often do so much better in exit polls than in the actual vote count.

That's all we're seeing in this poll -- oversampling of elites.

Posted by DougJ | May 5, 2008 12:10 PM

Elites= smart people who actually read and understand complex facts.

I'm down with that.

Posted by swarty | May 5, 2008 12:15 PM

Matt, this is not a deviation from freakshow coverage. This is part of the freakshow. Because Hillary Clinton is in favor of it, and it can be beat to death on the merits, it will be beat to death on the merits. If she were in favor of it and it was a good idea, it would get beat to death as being self-serving, etc, etc.

Hillary's continuing coverage as a viable candidate is based on the same freakshow mentality. If she's out of the race, they won't have Hillary to kick around any more, so she will remain 'viable' until the convention.

Posted by Chuck | May 5, 2008 12:15 PM

Elites are almost invariably oversampled in modern polls. That explains why Democrats, especially Obama, often do so much better in exit polls than in the actual vote count.

It's quite clear that there a big problems with class and age issues getting fouled up in exit polling.

Exit polling is not meaningfully similar to traditional polling. The process of creating a sample for phone-banking, and of training those who take the polls, is far different, and far more effectively worked out, than the process of creating an exit-poll sample.

If you have any evidence that regular polls have been "oversampling elites", I guess I'd be interested, but I've seen no such evidence presented.

Posted by DivGuy | May 5, 2008 12:20 PM

99% of respondents say DougJ is pulling stuff from his rear.

I don't like the question's phrasing: an alternative 'bad idea' would be 'because there's no guarantee it will make a difference in pump prices'.

The problem for Americans is high gas prices.

Or, alternatively, stagnant wages, a dollar as weak as an inbred racehorse's ankles, and several years of Detroit betting the farm on gas guzzlers.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 5, 2008 12:21 PM

I, too, think the coverage has been part of the freakshow, but not for the reason Chuck says. The fact that the two Dem candidates have different positions on this idea allows the media to take their usual conflict narrative perspective on the issue, which they love. If both of them were supporting the idea, nobody would be citing the contrary views of economists. They'd be ignoring the whole issue.

Posted by THS | May 5, 2008 12:29 PM

I have to agree with other comments about the slickness and sleaziness of pollsters' formulations of questions. Any question of the form "Is X an good idea because of Y, or a bad idea because of Z" clearly poses a gross false dilemma. Voters who think that X is a good idea because of something other than Y or a bad idea because of something other than Z should, logically speaking, answer "neither". But pollsters use false dilemmas intentionally because they seek to undermine these respondents' logical faculties and push them toward grabbing one of the pre=selected horms of the dilemma.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 5, 2008 12:49 PM

It is nice to see that the media's focus on the substance of the issue translating into a reasonably better-informed electroate. It's too bad, however, that we are unlikely to see something like this event replicated very often -- the media's focus on the 'substance' of this issue being coincidental with the ongoing effort to prove Clinton to be a pandering say-whatever-it-takes-to-win politician.

Posted by yeah, but | May 5, 2008 12:52 PM

It is nice to see the media's focus on the substance of the issue translating into a reasonably better-informed electroate. It's too bad, however, that we are unlikely to see something like this replicated very often -- the media's focus on the 'substance' of this issue being coincidental with the ongoing effort to prove Clinton to be a pandering say-whatever-it-takes-to-win politician.

Posted by yeah, but | May 5, 2008 12:55 PM

If anything, the question is skewed in favor of the gas tax holiday and Clinton's "elitism" framing. The most reasonable conclusion from the question is that the holiday would lower the cost of gas, but opponents don't think that would be a "real benefit for Americans."

Posted by Led | May 5, 2008 1:25 PM

It's really quite ironic: a bunch of elites defending elite opinion and its overrepresentation.

Posted by DougJ | May 5, 2008 1:35 PM

Luckily we have a tribune of the common man here to set us straight.

Posted by southpaw | May 5, 2008 1:59 PM

Actually, from a survey-design perspective, it's a well-developed question.

If the purpose is to find out the proportions of the sampled population that favor/oppose a gas tax holiday, it's a terrible question, for the reasons explained by Dan Kervick and others.

Posted by Mixner | May 5, 2008 2:26 PM

The question looks like the work of Mark Penn.

ABC's Good Morning America went so far this morning as to report 44% of the respondents thought it was a good idea without even mentioning whether or not that was a majority or mentioning that 51% percent thought it was a bad idea.

Just more evidence that the media is more interested in protecting their profits this quarter than reporting objectively.

Posted by JL | May 5, 2008 2:46 PM

Ahem, Mr. DougJ, I'd ask to refrain from wiping your nose on your sleeve while you post. Us elites can always tell booger laden posts.

Thanks.

Posted by weinerdog43 | May 5, 2008 4:10 PM

If the purpose is to find out the proportions of the sampled population that favor/oppose a gas tax holiday, it's a terrible question, for the reasons explained by Dan Kervick and others.

Yours are typically content-free comments, so I usually ignore them. In this case, I won't. Fer/agin questions about policies (as opposed to politicians or celebrities) typically yield useless results without context, especially without detailed cross tabulations against other questions to filter out non-sensical responses. (You might want to consult the basics on willingness to pay studies, for example.)

Indeed, as noted, this question is slightly biased toward obtaining a favorable response because it contains an explicit mention of tangeable cost savings, as opposed to the vague mention of benefits associated with reduced dependence on foreign oil. Given its structure, I'm rather surprised to see it not garner more support.

But, then, Mixner, you probably don't understand the elite opinion regarding tax incidence, either. Perhaps you ought to stay over a 2X4's site with your other security-state libertarians.

Posted by SavageView | May 5, 2008 4:32 PM

Agreed with Savageview that this is more or less a properly constructed question. However, my first impulse was to think it was (modestly) weighted toward the against answer because two distinct reasons to oppose it, as opposed to only one to support, were included.

I guess I was reading "not create real benefits" as essentially a negation of the empirical claim contained in the reason "for" in the first section.

Posted by djw | May 5, 2008 5:15 PM

Fer/agin questions about policies (as opposed to politicians or celebrities) typically yield useless results without context,

They do? You can of course support this extravagant claim with evidence, right?

Of course, this new claim does nothing to support your previous one, anyway.

Posted by Mixner | May 5, 2008 7:46 PM

Wait, Hillbots, I thought that Clinton was the brilliant panderer in touch with the common man, downing Canadian whiskey and all. You're telling me she has no idea what's she's doing? Get out of here!

Posted by Reality Man | May 5, 2008 10:13 PM