New Polling Data....

[tricky]

Who would do better on terrorism, R's or D's? (For exact wording, click on name of poll)
Republicans Democrats Difference (D minus R)
CNN/USA Today/Gallup 2002 57 22 -35
NBC/WSJ (RV) 2002 49 13 -36
Fox 2003 53 19 -34
ABC/WaPo (Obama v GOP) 2009 34 55 +21
Seems obvious to me the reason Republicans lost their edge is Iraq. The day Bush claimed that we invaded Iraq because they had WMDs, and tried to link Al Queda and Saddam, was the day the Republican advantage on terrorism began to disappear.
Regardless of whether you agree about why, that's quite a shift in the numbers... more than 50 points in seven years. Make a note of it. You may need it one day to correct some conventional wisdom.
Added: yes, the question of a sitting president v another party is different than generic R v D, and previous data exists on the economy for the last three presidents v congress, but not for terrorism (at least in the ABC/WaPo poll). The point remains, however, that assuming the GOP always has an edge on terrorism no matter what is out the window.

The times, they are a changin'

[jaesun]

New York Times Poll Showing 72% Support for Obama's Health Care Plan Was Stacked With Obama Supporters

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

A New York Times/CBS News poll released Saturday that showed broad bipartisan support for President Obama’s health care reform, over-sampled Obama voters compared to McCain voters, critics say.

The poll, administered June 12-16, found that 72 percent of respondents favored the creation of a government health-insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.

It also said 50 percent of respondents thought the government would do a better job providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in 2007; and that 59 percent thought the government would be better at holding down costs, up from 47 percent two years ago.

But critics including pollster Kellyanne Conway say the results are inaccurate because they are heavily skewed toward those who voted for Obama in the 2008 presidential election.

In addition, other indicators point toward a repeat of the defeat Hillary Clinton's proposed government-run faced in the early ‘90’s.

Out of 895 respondents, 24 percent were Republicans, 38 percent Democrats, and 38 percent were independents, according to a June 20 release from CBS News. While the release says the sampling was conducted at random, those numbers are significantly below the 32.6 percent who identify themselves as Republican according to a May survey from the nonpartisan Rasmussen Reports.

Similarly, the Times/CBS poll said 48 percent of respondents had voted for Obama, versus 25 percent for McCain, a nearly two-to-one advantage for Obama supporters.

Had those results been reflected in the November presidential election, Obama would have garnered 66 percent of the vote to McCain’s 34 percent, Conway, president & CEO of “the polling company,” told CNSNews.com.

“Was the vote 66-34? You tell me,” Conway said.

In 2008, Obama won 53 percent of the vote, McCain won 46 percent.

Conway said that the poll was skewed toward Democrats and Obama supporters because the Times and CBS made it so.

“Their original result was more in line (with other non-partisan polling for party identification) but they weighted those numbers,” Conway charged.

The random information gathered by the two media outlets originally saw fewer independents and Democrats, but their polling methodology saw those numbers shift at the expense of Republican representation. Conway called this a case of “a conclusion in search of evidence.”

Janet Elder, editor for news surveys and election analysis at The New York Times, defended the poll’s methodology.

“Although some polling organizations do, The New York Times/CBS News poll does not weight by party ID,” she told CNSNews.com. “We weight by characteristics that are known from census data.”

Scott Rasmussen, founder and CEO of Rasmussen Reports, a nonpartisan pollster, defended the veracity of the Times/CBS News poll -- but found it difficult.

“We have absolutely no idea what their weighting process is and what their technique is,” he told CNSNews.com. “I believe that they did not make adjustments based on party (identification). I believe they go on other factors and simply report what comes out of that.”

Elder said in 19 out of every 20 cases, the results using their technique “will differ by no more than 3 percentage points in either direction” of the outcome they would have had if they’d sought to interview “all American adults.”

But Conway says the over-sampling of Democrats was consistent throughout the poll.

“Show me the other polls that are that low," she said. "If you look at the way Scott (Rasmussen) reports things, they’re very different from The New York Times. The Census is taken every 10 years, so what are they looking at? The 2000 Census?”

“Almost nobody ever takes them to task for this, because they are CBS and the New York Times,” Conway added. “It is true that more Americans are identifying themselves as Independents, but everyone is doing polling; no one (else) is getting these numbers,” Conway said.

The Times ran an accompanying story on the front page of the Sunday edition with the headline “In Poll, Wide Support for Government Run Health.” The findings were also reported by most other major outlets.

The Times article interpreted the poll results as indicating broad, bipartisan support for government involvement in health care.

“Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system,” the article began, “and (they) are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.”

But other key findings in the poll suggest, on the other hand, that Americans have not significantly changed their positions since the last time health-care reform was seriously considered by Congress, according to Conway.

“We are identical to where we were in 1993-94,” she told CNSNews.com, “with only 51 percent of respondents even in the Democrat-skewing poll saying the health-care system needs fundamental changes, versus 52 percent in January 1994. When the question becomes whether the system needs to be completely rebuilt, 34 percent say yes in the NYT/CBS poll, versus 38 percent in 1994.

Additionally, the vast majority of Americans are satisfied with their own insurance coverage, as they were at the beginning of the Clinton administration. Approximately 77 percent in the current poll say they are at least somewhat satisfied.

Rasmussen points out that, in these areas, the Times/CBS poll was consistent with other polls.

“CBS, like everybody else, found that most people are satisfied with their health-care coverage,” he said. “But they have qualms about the overall system. And that is the biggest single obstacle to reform: people do not want to change their own coverage.”

Conway agreed. Because of their satisfaction with their own coverage, Americans are unlikely to rock the boat.

“The difference this year could be that Barack Obama is a more compelling messenger than Hillary Clinton.” But, she added: “Americans can do the math.”

They are hesitant to support the record expenditure it would take to pass sweeping health-care reform. Conway says.

"As they are deciding whether to take a vacation this summer or keep their child in private elementary school . . . they are asking to take a look at the ledger book now,” she added.

Americans like the words “change” and “reform,” she says, “but then they find out that you can’t define those.” When they see the possibility of their own healthcare options changing, “(T)hey discover that their reform is not someone else’s reform.”

Conway’s “the polling company,” in conjunction with Americans for Tax Reform, is performing an audit of all numbers released on health-care reform, to be issued on Wednesday.

The Times/CBS poll reports a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. CBS did not return calls for comment.

[Sinner]

that polling data shows exactly what happened during the last election.

obama beat mccain.

[DataBass]

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

that polling data shows exactly what happened during the last election.

obama beat mccain.

Bah, the election was stacked with obama supporters.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by DataBass

Bah, the election was stacked with obama supporters.

yeah, that's true... the election was full of Americans.

This NEW poll data shows the feelings of ppl living in the US.

totally different.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

yeah, that's true... the election was full of Americans.

This NEW poll data shows the feelings of ppl living in the US.

totally different.

you think you health care will be better under Obama's plan?

if the bill doesn't collpase under its own weight prior to passage (will imo) and if people don't object to the unsustainability in terms of cost (requiring rationing) you'll see a two teired American medical regime. There will be expensive health care (which I can afford) and everybody else will get the same standard of gov't care. Which do you think will be better?

What do you think big business thinks about this? Do you think they'll be happy to shed hundreds of billions in benenfits costs? Meaning they'll quit providing insurance for most employees. Or, do you think they'll say, "Hey, we're going to keep spending dough on your insurance anyway"? Again, the Dems are now the party of big business.

Keep asking for gov't health care and you might get it...

did you get the funny cartoon about the Feds seizing a brothel in NV for back taxes. They couldn't run a business selling booze and pussy without fucking it up. How do you think they'll do with your medical care?

Oh, if I asked 75 gay people if same sex marriage should be legal and 25 strict catholics and came up with a 75/25 split on the issue would you think the poll valid?

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Oh, if I asked 75 gay people if same sex marriage should be legal and 25 strict catholics and came up with a 75/25 split on the issue would you think the poll valid?

apparently you missed my sarcasm, old man.

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

you think you health care will be better under Obama's plan?

I have no idea. All I know is that insurance companies are all evil fucks and should be regulated harder than banks are. I don't know if they currently are regulated more than banks, but if they are, then the regulations should be stepped up even more.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

apparently you missed my sarcasm, old man.

yeah? I do that sometimes. I'm old. Slow too.

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

I have no idea. All I know is that insurance companies are all evil fucks and should be regulated harder than banks are.

no argument from me on that

[HomoSexualPredator]

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

apparently you missed my sarcasm, old man.



I have no idea. All I know is that insurance companies are all evil fucks and should be regulated harder than banks are. I don't know if they currently are regulated more than banks, but if they are, then the regulations should be stepped up even more.

it's a perfect cluster f*ck.

pharmas, insurance, hospitals, and doctors all blame each other for the unregulated and rising costs. everyone but pharmas also blame the patients, because pharmas like to keep selling the drugs.

[Sinner]

mother fucking LOL @ "My peepee is 2 big 2 fail"

[HomoSexualPredator]

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

mother fucking LOL @ "My peepee is 2 big 2 fail"

if the state of cali can claim it, so can my pee pee.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

you think you health care will be better under Obama's plan?

if the bill doesn't collpase under its own weight prior to passage (will imo) and if people don't object to the unsustainability in terms of cost (requiring rationing) you'll see a two teired American medical regime. There will be expensive health care (which I can afford) and everybody else will get the same standard of gov't care. Which do you think will be better?

What do you think big business thinks about this? Do you think they'll be happy to shed hundreds of billions in benenfits costs? Meaning they'll quit providing insurance for most employees. Or, do you think they'll say, "Hey, we're going to keep spending dough on your insurance anyway"? Again, the Dems are now the party of big business.

Keep asking for gov't health care and you might get it...

did you get the funny cartoon about the Feds seizing a brothel in NV for back taxes. They couldn't run a business selling booze and pussy without fucking it up. How do you think they'll do with your medical care?

Oh, if I asked 75 gay people if same sex marriage should be legal and 25 strict catholics and came up with a 75/25 split on the issue would you think the poll valid?

Bahahhaha

There are 3 tiers right (but it's cute you think otherwise)

People like yourself that can afford everything and the kitchen sink insurance and still not be bankrupt when something bad happens, middle class with insurance that consistently get into bankruptcy when something major happens, and those like myself who have only the ER to go to.

Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias both catch President Obama making sense on the public option:

QUESTION: Wouldn’t that drive private insurance out of business?
OBAMA: Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.

I will say, however, that young Matt appears to be suffering from Vulcan

Via Andrew Gelman, Greg Mankiw describes the use of international comparisons of life expectancy as part of the argument for reform as “schlocky.”
Grrr. Not many serious advocates of reform use the life expectancy differences to argue that health care is clearly better in other advanced countries than it is in the United States; when it comes to care, the general assessment seems to be that it’s comparable, with no advanced country having a clear advantage. The reform argument actually goes like this:
1. Every other advanced country has universal coverage, protecting its citizens from the financial risks of uninsurance as well as ensuring that everyone gets basic care.
2. They do this while spending far less on health care than we do.
3. Yet they don’t seem to do worse in overall health results.
So Greg suggests that maybe it’s all because we have an unhealthier lifestyle — what Ezra Klein calls the well-we-eat-more-cheeseburgers argument.
Three things. First, surely the burden of proof here is on Greg. I mean, we’re spending 6 or 7 percent of GDP more on health care than other countries — call it a trillion dollars a year — without any clear advantage. That’s not the sort of thing you wave away with a casual suggestion that maybe we have bad habits.
Second: you know, people have thought about this — and tried hard to measure it. For example, the huge McKinsey Research Institute study on the cost of US healthcare tried to quantify the costs of lifestyle-related issues — and found that it didn’t explain much.
Third, read Atul Gawande!
Bottom line: this is the most important domestic policy issue we face. It deserves more than casual just-so stories about how the kids American health care might, despite all appearances, be alright.

both from Krugman's blog

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

Bahahhaha

There are 3 tiers right (but it's cute you think otherwise)

People like yourself that can afford everything and the kitchen sink insurance and still not be bankrupt when something bad happens, middle class with insurance that consistently get into bankruptcy when something major happens, and those like myself who have only the ER to go to.


both from Krugman's blog

I said there will be... not is. Do try to keep up.

People like me... and everybody else.

Krugman... lol

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by tricky

those like myself who have only the ER to go to.

why don't you have insurance?

I went a year w/o having insurance from my job, but I still had insurance.

granted, I have asthma, so it was tricky, and I never had that covered, but I still have insurance for when I'd get a cold or gonorrhea from homosexpred.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by NoKegger4U

why don't you have insurance?

I went a year w/o having insurance from my job, but I still had insurance.

granted, I have asthma, so it was tricky, and I never had that covered, but I still have insurance for when I'd get a cold or gonorrhea from homosexpred.

Hey, he want health insurance... badly. Just not badly enough to pay for it himself.