Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

President Barack Obama bowed down on bended knee when meeting the King of Saudi Arabia at the G-20 Summit recently. The incident is on video and was widely reported except in the U.S. mainstream media. The White House spin machine has been eerily silent on the issue, which is not like them.

Many critics of Obama have spun the incident as a sign of Obama's subservience to the nation which provides so much of our oil, or worse, bring back the lingering doubts about who Barack Obama really is. But was the bow a sign of fealty, or something else?

Obama's European trip has been characterized by Obama's frequent apologies for alleged American arrogance and transgressions. This is part of Obama seeking to heal the world by bringing the U.S. down; or as some have said, signalling an end to the concept of American exceptionalism.

I have not seen any reports, however, of Obama apologizing to anyone other than Europeans. Perhaps the bowing down was a form of apology, a physical manifestation to the Saudis of what Obama expressed in words to the Europeans. The concept of bowing down as a form of apology is not new. When Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen was accused of insulting Islam, clerics and government officials demanded that she bow down in apology (emphasis mine):

Union Information and Broadcasting Minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi Sunday said controversial Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen should apologise with "folded hands" for hurting the sentiments of Muslims of the country, and hinted that her book "Dwikhandito" could be banned.

Talking to reporters in Malda in West Bengal, he said: "We are a pluralistic nation and we respect all religions. I love literature and I have nothing against her writing. But that does not mean she can use her pen to insult and hurt the religious belief of the Muslims or for that matter any religion."

"The comments made by her in the book in question were uncalled for. She should bow down before the people whose sentiments she has hurt and apologise with folded hands, and expunge those pages from her book," Dasmunsi said.

Until Obama explains, we won't have his side of the story. Maybe this is all about nothing.

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs thinks this whole "bowing" incident is nonsense, and to prove his point, has posted a video of President George W. Bush bowing to a Saudi monarch under the title Bush Bowed Too. Now I like reading LGF, and it has done great work exposing the Paliwood industry of staged Palestinian massacre videos and photographs.

But in this instance, the post is misleading. The screen shot in the post shows Bush appearing to bow, with the King's hands slightly raised. But if you watch the video link, it is clear that Bush was not bowing, but merely bending down so the King could put a medal attached to a ribbon over Bush's head. [The screen shot upper right shows the medal on Bush immediately after the supposed "bow"] Given Bush's height, there is no way the King could have put the medal on him without Bush slightly bending.

Obama bowing on bended knee as a form of greeting, and Bush bending to receive a medal, are nothing alike. And the videos prove it.

--------------------------------------------
UPDATE: Not surprisingly, the misleading LGF screenshot is getting a lot of play on the blogosphere, including at the liberal blogs Liberal Values and The Moderate Voice (and probably more to come - the screen shot is just too good for Bush haters to pass up). The screen shot will take on a life of its own, and like so many other misleading images, become reality. I really can't understand what LGF was thinking.

UPDATE No. 2: Now wait a second. LGF has added a sentence to its post, "And just imagine how much screaming there would be if Obama had let Abdullah hang a medal around his neck." I don't think that was not in the original, and it contradicts the image created by the screen shot of Bush "bowing." The original post did not say that Bush got a medal as the title "Bush Bowed Too" reflects that the post intended to equate Bush's actions to Obama. Not good procedure considering that the screen shot will be spread far and wide. Further update: Can't determine if that sentence was in the original, but if it was, why do the post at all? Why not just make the case that the Obama "bowing" is nonsense without the misleading screenshot and title.

UPDATE No. 3: Unfortunately, this is how images get into the public consciousness, in automated links such as this one at Boston.com. Interestingly, the left-wing blogosphere has been relatively quiet on this (perhaps they realize the screenshot and title do not match the actual video), but the automated links will spread the photo and title far an wide.

UPDATE No. 4: Doesn't anybody actually watch the videos they link? Or don't they care. First it was the LGF screen shot of George Bush "bowing" to the Saudi King, which he clearly did not do as the actual video shows. Now it is a post titled Obama Bowed, Bush Danced at Politics and Critical Thinking, which links to a video of Bush "dancing." But the video shows no "dance," just Bush holding a traditional Arab sword with the slightest of sways presumably to some music (hard to tell because the video is a newscast with the announcer speaking in Arabic). Exaggeration, hyperbole, you name it; but the Obama video is crystal clear. We are still waiting for the explanation of why Obama did what he did.

UPDATE No. 5: Hot Air comes in with this point (and thanks for the link!):

Claiming this to be a bow would mean that recipients of the Medal of Honor have a requirement to show submission to the person who gives it to them, when in reality it’s the only way to get the ribbon over the head. The same thing is true for Olympic athletes who win medals. They’re not “bowing” and showing submission to the judges; they’re bending to allow the ribbon to go around their neck.

-------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Law Professor Continues His Personal Intifada
Abid Katib - Palestinian Shoe Fauxtographer?
J Street: Liberal Bloggers Need To Study History, Not Memory
Unnamed Source Says MSM Still Hoping for Defeat
The American Left Outsources The Spanish Inquisition

---------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

This is the fourth in a series of GUEST POSTS by Matthew Knee, a Ph.D. candidate at Yale University specializing in campaigns and elections, ethnic voting patterns, public opinion, and quantitative and experimental approaches to political science.
___________________

Today I will provide an overview of the polling situation in the national battle against the public employee unions (PEU’s). This will not be a cheery post, as the battle is not going all that well on the public opinion front. (It seems the moratorium on martial language in politics has been lifted). Tomorrow I will discuss what reformers can do to turn things around.

As I explained on Monday, most persuadable voters lack set opinions on most issues, but do have various values and considerations floating around in their minds. Answering a polling question is an active task. The polling question and the answers provided activate considerations, which are then weighed and integrated into an answer.

Depending on which poll and what question you look at, the reformers are anywhere from about even to facing a two to one disadvantage. The wording and sampled population tend to determine how the landscape looks, but a number of patterns emerge.

As with many issues, from 40,000 feet fiscal conservatives are doing acceptably well, but the closer in we get, the more people shy away from specific forms of austerity and fall into the demogogues’ traps.

1. Which Public Employees Do We Mean?

It seems that mentioning specific kinds of public employees increases support for PEU’s. Previous Gallup polls show that school teachers, firefighters, and policemen – who are usually cited as examples of PEU members in polls, are among the most trusted professions in the country. In fact, a recent Bloomberg poll shows that people overwhelmingly support these groups unionizing, but are divided on the unionization of janitors and office workers.

Preferring unionization of public safety and high-status occupations over lower-status, commoditized occupations is highly illogical from almost any serious policy point of view, but makes sense if respondents simply hear these questions as “blah blah firemen blah” and the answers as “pro or con.” (This phenomenon happens more than you might think.)

2. Polls On Collective Bargaining

The worst results come from questions on eliminating collective bargaining for public employees. This is a tricky question to ask. First of all, I doubt that most people actually know what collective bargaining is, so they are going to rely on the pollsters’ description of it, or just the fact that the words sound good.

There are other issues as well. Proposing a revocation of a sympathetic group’s privileges is inherently unpopular, and describing collective bargaining as a right is not only false but highly prejudicial.

On the other hand, mentioning the budget, pay levels, strikes, or pensions, in the question or previous questions, might bias a poll against the PEU’s. As always, polls that sample adults will skew a bit more liberal than those composed of registered or likely voters.

Results from polls that display most of the pro-PEU features (Gallup, NYT/CBS) show support for collective bargaining in the 60%-30% range. Bloomberg’s just-released poll shows a 64%-32% pro-collective bargaining split on a mostly-neutrally-worded question (despite following questions about public employees making more money) but this could represent voters supporting “rights” when provided with no context whatsoever. Polls that prime negative feelings towards PEU’s with previous questions and/or mention the budget (Quinnipiac, Rasmussen), show the anti-PEU camp ahead by a few points.

This puts reformers in a tough situation. They ARE trying to take collective bargaining away from PEU’s, which does in fact make them fairly useless. Of course, such moves are intended to weaken PEU’s (as is necessary for budget balancing), but that is not the discussion we are having. As usual, conservatives can win – though only barely – when discussing austerity in the abstract, but once spending cuts are portrayed as harming those who would otherwise benefit from them, the American people get cold feet.

3. Polls On Walker vs. The PEU’s

Although this fight looks to be mostly over legislatively, we still can learn from how people respond to this formulation. Rasmussen, whose samples tend to have a rightward skew and whose previous questions, shows a small advantage for Walker, though it decreased from 10 percentage points to 5 between their two polls. Pew, with an overly-Democratic adults sample (D+10) and a mention of collective bargaining, has the PEU’s up by 11 percentage points. Bloomberg’s poll, asking respondents to choose between statements biased each way, went 49%-46% for the PEU’s, but I greatly disfavor this methodology since it is difficult to come up with equally-biased statements.

Still, again, PEU opponents do alright in the most generalized formulations. It is a good sign that the enormous PEU leads in some polls do not materialize usually in polls that provide little information of their own. That could indicate that people are only retaining moderately pro-PEU views of the conflict, even though more descriptive discussions can provoke highly pro-PEU views. This limits the long-term damage, PEU’s will still be able to bring out these very negative views, with some effort and lots of cash, when an election or recall comes around.

4. Balancing the Budget vs. Union Busting

Here the news is somewhat good. In both the Quinnipiac and NYT/CBS polls, which could not be more different on other results, as well as the Bloomberg poll, more Americans believe these attacks on PEU’s are motivated by balancing budgets than hurting PEU’s. This suggests that some of the opposition to taking privileges from public employees may be fairly shallow, since even when most disagree, more attribute the actions of PEU opponents to noble goals than political gain.

5. Generic Feelings Towards Unions

Since this too is a general question, so PEU opponents fare better here than in other areas. The D+10 NYT/CBS poll have union support at 33%-25% favorable-unfavorable, but the rest show better news. Gallup has Americans disapproving of PEU’s by 47%-46%. Rasmussen has Americans supporting PEU’s by a 50%-44% margin, although 54% of independents oppose them. This has become worse, however, over the course of the conflict, with an earlier poll showing a 45%-45% split.

6. Assorted Policies

Opinion is mixed on other policies. More people generally believe that government employees (without mentioning specific types) are overpaid than underpaid, but never constitute a majority. Rasmussen finds overwhelming support for public employees paying the same for their health care as private sector workers (though that is a very loaded question). Strong pluralities against teachers and public safety workers striking, and 50% support for cutting state payrolls by 10% over 10 years. The NYT/CBS poll shows only slight advantages for allowing public employees (with teachers, police, and firefighters mentioned specifically) to retire and earn pensions early, without even mentioning the size of these pensions, which are the main problem, and with a somewhat liberal sample. The same poll has Americans supporting cuts to pay and benefits of public employees to reduce budget deficits by a 47%-46% margin.

7. Partisan Breakdown

On union issues, polls show that Democrats are usually more united than Republicans, especially in the scenarios in which Dems have big leads. This means that big labor is probably closer to their support ceiling than its opponents. This also demonstrates the need for reformers to inoculate Republicans against pro-PEU framing. There is evidence that knowledge can inoculate people against framing, and that this effect is particularly strong when it is in accordance with one’s overall ideological system. This is to be expected, since groups are more likely to be enthusiastic about issues that affect them directly.

So what can reformers do about this? How can they limit the drop-offs in support from general budget-cutting to forcing PEU’s to make major concessions? I will provide some suggestions tomorrow.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

by Matthew Knee

I have generally believed that Obama did not release his birth certificate because he thought that the birther issue made some of his opponents look foolish. So long as the birther issue was politically beneficial, there was no reason to put it to rest.

But, true conspiracy theorists notwithstanding, now he has. Why? That is the question of the day. Does he fear Trump qua Trump? Doubtful. Trump's polling is pretty dismal at this juncture. It's Palin dismal (Don't get me wrong, I like Sarah Palin, but bad numbers are bad numbers). Did he think the public was starting to buy the birther line in a way that was particularly harmful to him? Perhaps.

If so, he may have been driven to a political blunder by a collection of basic errors in polling interpretation. As Nate Silver points out, while Gallup found that only 38% of Americans believe Obama was definitely born in the US, only 43% of Americans think Trump (about whom there is no active birther movement) was definitely born in the US.

A number of issues may be artificially inflating this high degree of uncertainty. First of all, when people are asked questions about political figures, the act of asking the question is itself a suggestion that a meaningful controversy exists about the subject. Second, people are hesitant to express absolute certainty, especially about matters they know little about or do not regularly concern themselves with. Finally, people also don't always answer the question the pollster thinks they are asking, especially when they know few actual facts about the issue in question. Polling non-obvious facts about controversial people will often result in respondents simply taking the opportunity to express positive or negative affect towards the person in question.

The number of Americans who think Obama was definitely born abroad (24%) is significantly greater than the number who think Trump was born abroad (7%), but it seems unlikely that once the sources of inflation are removed, there are all that many Americans left who are serious birthers and are the sort of people who would ever consider voting for Obama anyway.

Taken together, these theoretical flaws and Gallup's "Trump birther" pseudo-control question raise significant doubts as to the threat posed to Obama by birtherism. Had Obama waited until the election, he may have been able to strike a serious blow against his opponent and other Republicans by shooting down this conspiracy in a spectacular fashion, but instead, he did us a great favor by squandering this advantage.



--------------------------------------------

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube

Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

(by Matthew Knee)

As the mainstream media strained its resources and even brought on amateurs to power through Sarah Palin's old emails for the scandal that wasn't there, a slow-motion constitutional crisis has been unfolding.

The War Powers Resolution clearly states that president can authorize military action for 60 days without seeking congressional approval. In the absence of congressional approval, the war in question must be wrapped up by the 90 day mark. For the war in Libya, that deadline is Friday.

The Obama administration claims that the war in Libya is too small to count as a war, and that it is not an US action but a NATO action. Congress disagrees. Speaker Boehner informed Obama yesterday of the upcoming deadline, and today 10 congressmen announced their intention to file a lawsuit.

That there is so little coverage of the fact that the president quite likely ignoring both the law and Congress to fight a war of choice is a testament to how far professional journalism has fallen. That the so much of the left is suddenly not that interested in the legality of wars or checking out-of-control presidential power is a testament to the hollowness of their ideals.

--------------------------------------------

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube

Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

(by Matthew Knee)

You might think so, from the "at least we aren't hypocrites" defense that comes up every time a Democrat is caught with his pants down where they shouldn't be.

When liberals and the MSM (…but I repeat myself) amplify Republican sex scandals and minimize Democratic ones by playing the hypocrisy card, they are implying that the specific behaviors involved are ones that Democrats tolerate and Republicans condemn.

Hypocrites are those who present themselves as holding a particular set of values, but who act contrary to them. For the Democrats' assertion that these scandals demonstrate Republican hypocrisy but not Democratic hypocrisy to be true, not only must Democrats not present themselves as the sort who oppose - independent of their political context - the scandalous sexcapades of their own members, but the scandalous sexcapades of Republicans as well. After all, Republicans could not be blamed for particular hypocrisy if the parties did not differ on these issues.

But do they? If a scandal concerns simple homosexuality, promiscuity, or some association with abortion, then there might be a difference between the parties. But how many scandals fit into those categories? Democrats might protest that Republicans talk about family values more, especially in the abstract, but Republicans have nothing resembling a monopoly on family values talk. Generic appeals to the virtues of family (including using family values talk to argue FOR gay marriage) have become universal in American political rhetoric, even if the parties use them to make very different points.

If the Democrats are to not be hypocrites, they must at minimum claim not to stand against the immoral actions of America's randy representatives. What must the Democrats not oppose to keep their hypocrisy card valid? Let's take a look at some major political sex scandals:

Bill Clinton: adultery, possible sexual harassment (…by some feminist definitions, due to the workplace power imbalance)
Anthony Weiner: adultery, predation of much younger, less powerful individuals, possibly sending unsolicited dick pics.
James McGreevey: adultery (with another man and employee)
Gary Condit: adultery, possible sexual harassment (…by some feminist definitions, due to the workplace power imbalance)
Mark Foley: sexually harassing teenagers (of the same sex)
Larry Craig :adultery, illegally trolling for gay sex in an airport bathroom
David Vitter: adultery, prostitution
Gavin Newsom: adultery, being a terrible friend (He had an affair with his chief of staff/campaign manager/very close friend's wife.)
Elliot Spitzer: adultery, prostitution
Ted Kennedy : adultery, drunk driving, manslaughter

What patterns do we see here? For one, none of the major sex scandals of this era were about abortion, promiscuous singles, or simple homosexuality. Scandals that did relate to homosexuality involved homosexual acts that would be objectionable to approximately as many people had they been heterosexual but otherwise identical. At most, in a few cases some on the right might find the homosexual nature of these acts to be an aggravating circumstance where others might not.

The incidents that become political sex scandals are not the sort that are disputed in public discourse. These are consensus issues. There is ordinarily little reason for politicians to speak on topics such as 'Don't cheat on your wife" or "Don't troll for anonymous sex in airport bathrooms."

When a politician is caught doing such things, however, other politicians get to stake their positions. In all nearly all of these cases, there was a consensus among the political class that the politician's actions were wrong, and most dissenters can be explained by factors such as partisanship or friendship. Thus, the history of political sex scandals proves that Democrats and Republicans similarly judge and condemn the sorts of sexual transgressions politicians commit. When these specific matters come up, Republicans and Democrats stake their claims and make their judgements, on average, quite similarly.

The Democrats need to either cut their hypocrisy talk or make it clear that they do not oppose general skeeziness and adultery with aggravating circumstances (low-ranking subordinate, underage or creepily young, prostitution, public lewdness, close friend's wife, kills girl while driving drunk, etc.). There is a word for those who present themselves as virtuous when it is useful to condemn others, but set aside those virtues when necessary to defend their own misdeeds: Hypocrites.

--------------------------------------------

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube

Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

by Matthew Knee

In a closed door meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz asked Netanyahu to demand a pledge from the Republican Jewish Coalition not to make Israel a campaign issue in 2012. He did not.

To the uninitiated, Wasserman Schultz's bizarre request seems almost too chutzpadik to be believed, as much blogospheric mocking shows. However, Wasserman Schultz was in a sense parroting AIPAC’s bipartisan party line, albeit in an ironically partisan way. AIPAC works to ensure that Israel-related bills in Congress pass with crushing bipartisan majorities, and that American presidents pursue pro-Israel policies. To do this, they must establish that Israel is not a partisan issue, allowing pro-Israel activists and donors of both parties to use their clout to ensure that elected officials – especially otherwise indifferent ones – remain influenced by pro-Israel supporters.

Ideally, Israel should not be a partisan matter, and AIPAC works hard to prevent it from becoming one - they need to win votes no matter who is in power, and they do, by enormous bipartisan margins. Obama's backpedaling at AIPAC shows that they still are quite good at this. He might have been dissembling, but the fact that he felt the need to do so says a lot about AIPAC's power and success.

However, the partisan divide on Israel stems directly from many Democrats becoming less pro-Israel. Wasserman Schultz manages to turn the principle that pro-Israel policies should be bipartisan upside down, using it to provide cover for some Democrats to defect to the anti-Israel side of the fence. If one is to "erase the aisle" on Israel issues, as Wasserman Schultz suggests, one must ensure that the parties are equally supportive of Israel - not simply stop talking about the fact that they are not.

Democrats are not becoming anti-Israel because Republicans are calling them anti-Israel. Republicans claiming to be more pro-Israel won't make pro-Israel Democrats defensive about anti-Israel positions they do not hold, and considering the high level of Democratic partisanship in the pro-Israel community, Republicans expressing invalid criticisms of Democrats' Israel views is unlikely to leave Democratic politicians without influential pro-Israel supporters any time soon.

The problem is that these criticisms have merit. Democrats are becoming less supportive of Israel because American liberalism, influenced by Postcolonialism, anti-anti-Islamist sentiment, cultural relativism, and the decline of nationalism (and the attendant affinity for nations like ours), is no longer as compatible with support for Israel as it once was. While 85% of Republicans sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians, only 48% of Democrats do. Last year, when Gallup polled Americans about their views on 20 different countries, the partisan favorability gap on Israel - 27 points - was the highest of any country. I encourage everyone to read Jennifer Rubin's more detailed rundown of the numbers.

While Democrats may be becoming less pro-Israel in absolute terms, the spectrum itself has shifted to the right. As Palestinian rejectionism has moved Israel’s own positions rightward, far more Democrats than Republicans have suddenly found themselves on the not-pro-Israel side of the shifting divide. This also increases the gap between the very pro-Israel and the go-along-to-get-along types, potentially complicating bipartisan legislation.

If the Democratic Party had no Israel problem, they would respond to Republican challenges by matching or beating their bids. They would take offense at the implication that they are any less pro-Israel and fight to prove their critics wrong. Some are trying. Many Democrats have taken the side of Israel (not to mention American values and commitments) in the recent Obama-Netanyahu dust-up. But as party chair, Wasserman Schultz is stuck slathering lipstick on the Obama's not-so-kosher Israel policies, and faces the reality that on average, Democrats are simply not as pro-Israel as Republicans. She doesn't have the hand to match the GOP's on the issues, so all she can do is bluff them into folding.

Ironically, by rudely forcing a direct confrontation between the RJC and the National Jewish Democratic Council on this issue, Wasserman Schultz likely exacerbated problems of partisanship in the pro-Israel community. Republicans can hardly be expected to ignore their policy differences with the administration, nor abandon Israel as the facts on the ground push it rightward. They especially can't do these things because the Democrats demand it. I hope that the trend of Democrats turning against Israel is reversed, but in the mean time, pro-Israel Republicans need to continue fighting for what is right and holding the Obama administration responsible for their actions – with or without Democratic support.


--------------------------------------------

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube

Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

by Matthew Knee

Yesterday was a good day for the reformers. Prosser seems to have won, and Tuesday’s election holds promising signs for the recalls. However, the fight in Wisconsin is far from over, and is likely to repeat itself in other states. While all professional campaign messages should be properly polled or focus-grouped, this post will examine some existing evidence for how best to approach public sector union reform. Going forward, reformers must learn to counter the psychological advantages that large, sympathetic special interest groups such as professional public sector unions have in shaping public opinion. Like many reformers such as the National Right To Work Committee and Chris Christie, it is important to support the workers while opposing the unions. Additionally, it is important to properly gauge the local political climate and calibrate aggressiveness accordingly.

While Americans pay lip service to fiscal conservatism in theory, they are reluctant to be the “bad guy” when it comes to actual cuts. Liberal policies tend to benefit sympathetic constituencies, and the left knows how to take advantage of this good will, not only by highlighting the plight of their underdog beneficiaries, but by defining their opponents as members of unsympathetic groups such as "the rich" or "big business."

Identification, affinity, and disaffinity are important aspects of public opinion. One of the better theories of partisanship is that individuals identify with the party whose members they identify with. People are Democrats or Republicans because they look at who belongs to each party and see themselves as Democrat or Republican kinds of people. People also have strong emotional associations with groups, especially those that they associate with themselves. Mentioning a group as a victim or beneficiary of a policy can prime these emotional responses or associate them with certain viewpoints.

While Americans generally hold mixed to mildly supportive views of public employee unions in general, they tend to hold unionized government professions such as policemen and teachers in very high regard. In a recent poll, Americans supported unionization of government employees in well-regarded, high-status professions such as firefighters, police officers, and teachers by a 2-1 or greater margin, but were about evenly divided on office workers and janitors. Practically, this is illogical - lower-skilled, commoditized labor is more suitable for unionization, and public safety employees are especially poorly-suited for unionization. The same series of polls showed that labor union leaders are regarded as not demonstrating much honesty and ethics (even lawyers fair better!), and another found that organized labor is about as trusted as big business. This suggests that people do not always make the distinction between the public service professionals most commonly associated with government workers and the union bosses that represent them, and thus public opinion on public sector unions tends to represent a confused mix of the two. Reformers must hammer home these distinctions if they are to garner public sympathy.

In hindsight, attacking collective bargaining was among the riskiest ways of counteracting the budgetary effects of powerful public sector unions. It polls much worse than many other reformist ideas and affinities, in part because it difficult to portray collective bargaining limitations as in the interests of the workers. One can argue that union bosses use their collective bargaining power to enact unjust work rules or unsustainable policies that can lead to layoffs and unfunded pensions in the long run, but true as this may be, it is not intuitive and raises questions of budget priorities. Thus, major limitations on collective bargaining might be out of reach in some states in which significant reforms are nevertheless achievable.

Instead (or, additionally), reformers may want to focus on policies that can be shown to enhance workers rights and uphold American values. This is not just because they sound better, but because such policies really do protect workers from being exploited by political machines that both take and spend their money without proper consent.

The power of public sector unions is built on a network of coercive laws and policies beyond collusive collective bargaining, many of which were also implemented in Wisconsin, though discussed less in the media. Reformers could focus on passing Right To Work laws ensuring individual government workers the right to choose not only to decline to join a union, but the right not to pay fees to workplace unions they refuse to join. Failing that, reformers could pass laws creating the right not to have money taken automatically from government workers' hard-earned paychecks and given to politicians and causes not of their choosing without their consent. Reformers should promote more democracy in the workplace, forcing union re-certification elections more regularly and ensuring a secret ballot to prevent intimidation of workers. Public sector union reform should carry the banners of freedom of association, of freedom of speech, of democracy, of freedom of choice, and of good governance. Reformers can win by giving workers more rights, not by taking them away.

Reformers should also fight for just and fair workplace rules, not those based on the power of the established over younger workers. Seniority works for the unions because it promotes solidarity rather than competition among union members, but seniority is neither fair to quality employees nor an effective way to encourage good work. Merit should play a large role in pay, promotion, and retention. For instance, good, dynamic young teachers must not be fired to protect incompetent, clock-punching lifers. Reformers should make examples of government employees, especially teachers, who are good at their jobs but get pink slipped due to a lack of seniority. Reformers should also find more “rubber rooms” and other collections of incompetent but unfireable tenured public employees to demonstrate who gets to keep their jobs instead.

The left portrays unions as the opponents and counterparts of big, evil corporations, which while false, fits the commonly-held but simplistic narrative of business and labor as naturally opposing forces. Unlike public service professionals, the reputations of businessmen, the rich, and big corporations are very weak. The left will portray reformers’ efforts as scapegoating teachers and other sympathetic professions while cutting taxes on the rich.

One solution is to only target public sector unions. Leave corporations out of the equation. Our state and local budget deficits largely stem from public sector unions, not private sector unions. Targeting only public sector unions creates a powerful case that this is about balancing budgets and reining in out of control government, rather than destroying an opposing set of interest groups. It also allows reformers to argue that public sector unions are especially problematic due to their collusive, rather than adversarial, relationship with many of those they negotiate with, and could dampen enthusiasm for retaliation among the nearly half of union members who work in the private sector.

We know from Wisconsin, however, that public sector unions will make the case that big corporations and the rich are behind their opposition anyway. Reformers in the most precarious of political positions might consider bundling systemic changes that solve the public sector union problem with some amount of pain for corporations and/or "the rich," so as to show that they are making everyone share in the sacrifices budget balancing requires. There is plenty of anti-market, winner-picking crony capitalism worth targeting. This could neutralize the left's emotional attacks with a powerful appeal to intuitive perceptions of fairness.

This is not to say that reformers should not stand strong or that collective bargaining is a third rail. It looks like the reformers in Wisconsin may yet prove that it is not, and unwillingness to spend political capital on important issues misses the point of good representative government. Nor am I saying that reformers should not raise awareness of shady union bosses or overly-generous labor agreements. However, it is important to connect with voters' emotions and identities in such a way that they know the reformers are the good guys.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the fifth in a series of GUEST POSTS by Matthew Knee, a Ph.D. candidate at Yale University specializing in campaigns and elections, ethnic voting patterns, public opinion, and quantitative and experimental approaches to political science.  While this is the last post in the Polling 101 series, Matt will continue to do guest posts on polling issues in the future.
___________________

You Can’t Learn Much From Asking People Their Ideology

I get frustrated every time someone on the right declares that we are winning the ideological war or an extreme candidate can win, just because some poll showed that many more people in the country/state/congressional district call themselves conservative than liberal.

First of all, many people do not know enough about themselves or the political spectrum to have a consistent ideological system. As I explained elsewhere in the primer, individual views on specific issues are usually assembled on the spot from values and considerations activated by questions. People’s answers often vary across question wording or even multiple askings of the same question. If views on individual issues are so unstable, how can one expect individuals to be ideologically consistent? Those not on the higher end of the political knowledge spectrum are thought by many not to have consistent ideological systems, even if they may identify consistently with an ideological group.

Truly, purely, ideological Americans are firmly in the minority. Relatively few of those who report that they are conservative are True Conservatives in the sense that purists mean it. More methodologically rigorous surveys ask many questions and construct an ideological scale by combining that information. There is a good deal of ideology to be found beneath the surface, but it is found through data-mining the responses of those who are far from ideologically pure.

Those who believe that conservatives consistently outnumber liberals by a wide margin should ask themselves why the parties are so evenly matched in the average election.

It is not because there are all these conservatives who do not turn out because a candidate is not conservative enough. In 2008, Gallup had the national ideological breakdown at 37% conservative to 22% liberal. The exit polls showed a basically identical 34% - 22% in a race where the right was about as demoralized as possible.

Moderates often rival conservatives in number, and more conservatives still vote Democrat than liberals vote Republican. Twice as many did so in the 2008 presidential race, and a year later Gallup found that 4% of Republicans were liberal but 21% of Democrats were conservative (numbers that have remained very similar since at least 2000).

We must be realistic about our prospects. We live in a closely-divided country with a non-ideological, often low-knowledge center whose swings largely dictate the balance of power. Conservatives can rejoice that the label “conservative” is in a lot better shape that the label “liberal,” but we should not confuse that information with the prevalence of actual conservatives and liberals in the country. We certainly should not confuse that with the prevalence of “pure” conservatives and liberals, who are rarer still.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

MSNBC just cannot stop covering and cheering for the Obama administration. Either they don't understand their own news biases, or they don't care, or both. This blog post by several of MSNBC's news staff, including reporter Chuck Todd, says it all:

*** Remind us again how the media is biased…: Finally, here’s one more thought about the entire controversy over Obama’s education speech on Tuesday: Since the White House has said the text of the speech will be available for 24 hours before he delivers it and since they altered the lesson plan language, why is this still a controversy? The ability of the conservative media machine to generate a controversy for this White House is amazing. In fact, this is an example of a story that percolates where it becomes harder and harder for some to claim there's some knee-jerk liberal media bias. (Does anyone remember these kinds of controversies in the summer of 2001?) The ability of some conservatives to create media firestorms is still much greater than liberals these days. How effective is the conservative media machine? Just ask Van Jones…

The reporters at MSNBC are not stupid. They know that the speech was controversial precisely because of the accompanying materials for use in the classroom, which were creepy in asking school children to serve and help Obama. Telling school children to work hard and stay off drugs is one thing, pulling them into a cult of personality is another. The fact that the White House changed the script after the controversy proves the protests were legitimate, not the other way around.

And Van Jones being the victim of a faux conservative media storm? Is it not worthy of controversy that a White House adviser signed a 9/11 Truther petition, and had other ties to Truther organizations? And called Congressmen "assholes." And called George Bush a "crackhead."

Had this been a Republican administration and the roles reversed, we all would have been treated to a Keith Olbermann "how dare you, sir" speech, and NBC news would have run the story every day for a week in its nightly news. As to Van Jones, however, not a peep from any of the GE news entities. In fact, MSNBC felt the need in its post to link to a Politico article about Jones; that says it all.

MSNBC is so ideologically corrupt, that it's news reporters and news staff not only cannot recognize their own biases, they feel the need to make excuses for their own failure to cover issues by falling back on the "vast right wing conspiracy" meme.

I can picture Chris Matthew's report on Obama's speech to school children now:

"Listening to the speech sent a thrill up my leg. Now to Van Jones, to keep the feeling going."

(Go to 6:45 for Matthew's comment that Truthers are the "erogenous zone of insanity")

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Ask Not What Your President Can Do For You
Media Not Doing What Is Asked Of It
Van Jones Not A Truther, He Just Played One In Real Life

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

GUEST POST by Matthew Knee:

Professor Jacobson asked me to comment on the DKos/PPP poll regarding big labor's recall efforts in Wisconsin. The questions are mostly fine, but I have a few thoughts on the results that might be helpful.

Wisconsin recalls do not work like the famous California recall that replaced Gray Davis with Arnold Schwarzenegger. A recall in Wisconsin is just a new election, rather than a referendum on whether the officeholder should be recalled with a new election bolted on. David Nir, who presents these polls on behalf of DKos, seems to think the Wisconsin situation is worse for the Democrats, because a successful recall also might require good Democratic candidates.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure. There are many ways to slice the data, but by almost any measure the DKos/PPP poll shows less support for recalling Republican incumbents than support for electing Democrats or general disapproval of the Republican incumbents.

Why? Recalls are NOT regular elections. There is a sense among some that they are an extreme measure in response to serious derelictions of duty or other crimes. While big labor considers it a heinous crime to take away their hard-bought privileges, there are people out there who, whether or not they agree, consider the legislature’s actions to be within the bounds of normal political activity. There is a small but potentially pivotal number of people who will oppose any given politician in an ordinary election, but also oppose a recall. Thus, if there was a separate recall question, which renders the election question moot if not passed, there would be a risk of the recall failing even if the Democrat could win a regular election question. It would also require big labor to win two campaigns per recall instead of just one.

Nir correctly implies that it is less challenging to garner support for generic candidates than actual people, but at best that could make the difference between the California and Wisconsin systems a wash. Either way, more likely than not, these polls slightly overstate Democratic support.

DKos find three Republicans trailing generic Democrats: Olsen (47-49, recall support at 40-39), Hopper (44-49, recall at 44-33), and Kapanke (41-55, recall support at 52-44). Two Republicans (Cowles and Harsdorf) also lead generic Democrats and lead against the recall, but have negative (32-40) and even (43-43) approval, respectively.

Here is a chart which accompanied the DKos blog post:

















Here is an alternative chart I prepared which provides additional context for the data:

















Can the Dems steal 3 seats they need to take the Senate? Yes. This is probably going to be quite a battle. There can be little doubt that big labor will get enough signatures for recall elections in the areas they have a chance of winning – not only are they strong on the ground, but they will be willing and able to hire as many petition-gatherers as it takes.

Kapanke's numbers are extremely worrying. He and Walker are down double digits, and Obama up just as much. This might be a hard seat to hold.

Hopper is behind 5 to a generic Dem and 11 on the recall, which is almost as scary, although oddly enough his approval rating is 5 points higher than opposition to the recall, so there is an outside chance there is something seriously wrong with that poll. On the bright side, Walker is only down 4 in the district, Obama is down 7, the fugitive senators down 7, and Walker and the state Senate Democrats are tied when respondents’ are asked whom they back in the current conflict (I worry about these numbers, as this was asked right after the fugitive senators question. Also, calling the other side the Senate Democrats rather than the unions might exaggerate Walker's support).

The other races will be tight, but the Democrats need only to win 1 if they unseat Kapanke and Hopper. I am less worried about Cowles than his mere 2-point lead against a generic Democrat indicates. While Cowles' approval is 8 points negative, Walker's approval in the district is 6 points positive, Obama's 8 points negative, the fugitive senators 11 points negative, and in the Walker vs. the Senate Democrats question, Walker leads by 8.

Similarly, Olsen is less popular than the major issues and figures at stake in the recall. While Olsen’s popularity is 10 points negative and he is two points down on a generic Democrat, in his district Walker is even, Obama is 6 points negative, and Walker leads the Senate Democrats by 3 points.

Harsdorf's district is fairly split on both her and Walker, though she is up 4 on a generic Democrat, Walker is up 4 on the Senate Democrats, the fugitive senators are down 12, and Obama is down 10.

How will it all turn out? No one can be sure how this ball will bounce. Will the anger big labor has whipped up calm down between now and the recalls? Will the sky not falling make the budget more popular? Will recall opponents be able to match the intensity of union members who have tangible interests at stake? Will Republicans be able to compete with the Wisconsin unions' money, manpower, and out-of-state backing?

Only time will tell. One seat will be extremely hard to keep, and another quite challenging. I am very worried about Republicans’ ability to bring their supporters out to not only vote but to volunteer in these often low-turnout special elections, especially when they are motivated by general principles and the unions are motivated by personal gain. Concentrated interests are far easier to mobilize than diffuse ones.

Fortunately, the simplest, most accurate narrative favors the GOP. While they should focus-group and poll on their own, and specific qualities of the incumbent, the challenger, and the district must be considered, this data suggests that Republicans should go on the offensive. In most districts, the idea of a recall is itself unsettling compared to the general political landscape, Obama and the fugitive senators are underwater, and more voters side with Walker than the Democrats in the Senate. With union anger probably at its peak, it is unlikely that this will change much for the worse, so long as the GOP is not swamped by big labor’s big money or massive mobilization campaigns. Incumbents can portray themselves as loyal public servants making difficult but necessary calls, but beset by White House-based D.C special interests with massive war chests filled with government money diverted without consent from workers’ pay.

These recalls will pose a challenge, but if Republicans are aggressive and able to mobilize the necessary resources, big labor can be stopped from taking back the majority.

--------------------------------------------
Related Post:
Polling 101 Recap

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the first in a series GUEST POSTS by Matthew Knee, a Ph.D. candidate at Yale University specializing in campaigns and elections, ethnic voting patterns, public opinion, and quantitative and experimental approaches to political science.

____________________

Analyzing polls with only what polling companies release is a tricky business. Near-ideal poll analysis requires a database of actual, person-by-person responses, expensive software, and advanced mathematics. Ideal poll analysis requires actually being the pollster and having an overstuffed budget. However, there are a number of rules, tips, and tricks that anyone - with a bit of logic and a calculator - can use to draw meaningful conclusions from flawed polls and incomplete information.

I will be addressing these issues in three stages. In the first section, I will talk a bit about how people answer polling questions. In the second, I will discuss samples and biases. In the third, I will discuss techniques for evaluating the seriousness of bias.

All-purpose disclaimer: This series will include approximations and simplifications. It is for understanding media polls, not for writing articles for scholarly journals. It is also not exhaustive. The list of specific problems that can arise, especially in poll wording, is, obviously, enormously long.

How People Answer Polls

1. Most People Probably Don’t Think About Politics Like You Do

Most people do not think like bloggers and blog readers. We tend to have more set views on issues and are generally less susceptible (but not immune) to manipulation by bad polls or information. Most people, however, do not have a big chart in their heads listing most significant issues and a set view on each. They probably do have set answers to questions such as “which presidential candidate will you vote for next Tuesday,” but are more likely to provide inconsistent answers about say, cap and trade or even abortion.

Polling is not data retrieval. Rather, it is a process of activating associations and considerations to produce a response. People do have opinions and emotions about particular figures or values, but often do not have consistent views on specific policies. This means that, frustratingly, there is no one correct answer to what certain people think about certain topics – only how answering specific questions about them illuminates the complexities and contradictions within.

This view of polling, pioneered by UCLA’s John Zaller and others, explains the importance of wording and ordering polls correctly.

2. Question Wording And Order Can Significantly Impact Responses Through Priming and Framing

There are many ways questionnaires can be manipulated. Priming is the act of reminding a respondent of an association you want them to consider. For instance, using the phrase "Bush tax cuts" rather than "2005 tax cuts" will likely trigger whatever feelings a respondent has about Bush. An example of priming in popular culture is the beginning of South Park’s “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson” episode. The episode begins with a character about to solve a Wheel of Fortune puzzle for which the N-word is a possible (but incorrect) answer. While he thinks, the African-American cameraman peeks out from behind the camera, filling the screen with an African-American face and priming the audience to, as the character is about to, conclude that the N-word is the answer to the puzzle. (A better implementation would have shown the face before the puzzle)

Framing is the act of telling respondents how to contextualize a question. In one classic framing experiment, researchers found significant differences in college students' willingness to allow a Klan rally on their campus based on whether it was presented as a free speech issue or a public safety issue.

These effects can carry over into later questions. For instance, people respond differently to questions on abortion when they are preceded by questions about women's rights than when they are preceded by questions about religion.

Similarly, question order can force respondents to commit to certain positions at certain times, potentially affecting later responses by those who do not want to look like hypocrites. A Cold War era study found that 37% of respondents were willing to allow Soviet journalists in the United States, but 73% gave that answer when first asked if American journalists should be allowed in Russia.

3. Many Wording Effects Relate To Talking In Terms Of Gains Or Losses

There are a number of consistent patterns in the effects of wording. One important pattern is the difference between gains or positives and losses or negatives. People prefer beef that is 80% lean to beef that is 20% fat, or medical treatments that will save 80% to those that would let 20% die.

People are also more reluctant to take things away than to not begin giving them in the first place. People often don't like being the bad guy. Thus, asking about taking away collective bargaining rights is in some ways a biased wording (and not just because of the loaded word “rights”) compared to asking whether or not public employees should negotiate their salaries. On the other hand, there is a real challenge to producing a media narrative that words the situation any other way.

4. There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch – But As Long As It’s On The Menu, People Will Order It

When not forced to prioritize, people tend to prefer cutting taxes and increasing or retaining individual spending items. Combined with the inclination not to assent to negative proposals, this will lead to opposing specific cuts to government even while at the same time supporting smaller government in theory.

This also means that the tough decisions required to rein in runaway spending will usually be unpopular, at least without political cover from a severe crisis paired with bipartisan consensus or extremely unpopular scapegoats. The question facing Republicans is not necessarily “How can we balance the budget in a way that does not cost public support,” but “Given that the Democrats are unwilling to forgo political advantage for the sake of the country, how can we save our fiscal future at the lowest political cost.”

5. Options Provided Sometimes Matter

Pollsters usually provide options for respondents’ answers to each question. Sometimes the manner in which the policy space is divided can influence results. For instance, the recent NYT/CBS poll on public sector unions asks if people prefer balancing the budget by raising taxes, cutting public employee benefits, cutting roads, or cutting education. The pollsters note that a plurality prefer to raise taxes. In dividing spending cuts into multiple options, while only having one tax increase option, the poll creates the illusion that more people back tax increases than spending cuts, when in fact more people opted for the latter.

*   *   *   *

I hope you enjoyed the first part of my polling primer. Come back tomorrow for a discussion of sampling issues.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

As of this writing, Joanne Kloppenburg clings to a tiny lead over David Prosser, with the result not to be known for weeks or months until after a likely recount.  As we know from Minnesota, recounts are not to be taken lightly, and need to be fought tooth and nail.

But regardless of how the result turns out, there are some clear takeaways:

1. Every vote counts.  There were approximately 1.5 million votes cast, and the gap is about 200 votes.  Republicans need to push hard on voter integrity legislation and practices.  One can only imagine how many U. Wisconsin - Madison students who are registered to vote elsewhere, and whose parents probably claim them as residents of other states for tax purposes, voted in the election.  It probably made the difference.  Laws that ensure that only those entitled to vote can and do vote are hated by Democrats for this and similar reasons.
2. Don't believe the spin being put out by PPP Polling and others that Republicans are doomed, and that the world changed after the November elections.  Gov. Scott Walker received 52% of the vote in November, so Prosser -- who was slow out of the gate to respond to attack ads -- did only 2% worse.  And that in an emotional atmosphere in which Democrats staked everything, but Republicans only became motivated in the final couple of weeks.  As Matthew Knee pointed out this morning, big labor proved much less formidable than expected.
3. The courts matter, including trial courts.  This was an election for the Supreme Court, but trial court Judge Sumi's extraordinary interference in the legislative process provided solace and encouragement to anti-Prosser forces.  By making what was a legislative issue a judicial issue, Judge Sumi -- whether she intended to or not -- made the Supreme Court race the key event in the political war over collective bargaining.
4. Keep in mind the courts when thinking about the 2012 presidential election.  Six more years of Barack Obama likely will result in a change in the character of the U.S. Supreme Court.
5. We have to police the police.  Who could have imagined that police unions would join protesters and engage in acts of political intimidation?  Who could have imagined that a county Sheriff would declare that his officers would not act as "palace guards" when protecting the State Capitol?  Public sector unions are more than economic issues, they are central players in whether voters or unions control government.
6. Conservatives were complacent, but are motivated now. Consider the Wisconsin Supreme Court election the wake up call for the majority which grew complacent after November. Conservatives around the country need to understand that nothing can be taken for granted.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is the second in a series of GUEST POSTS by Matthew Knee, a Ph.D. candidate at Yale University specializing in campaigns and elections, ethnic voting patterns, public opinion, and quantitative and experimental approaches to political science.
___________________

Samples & Margin of Error

1. Sampling Error Will Always Be There – No Matter What The Sample Breakdown Looks Like

Bloggers love to look at sample breakdowns. They say that there are too many of this party, not enough of that ethnicity, etc. in a polling sample. However, samples will always vary somewhat compared to the general population. An unbiased sampling procedure will match the population if you perform it an infinite number of times and average the results, but any given sample will always vary in one direction or another in a variety of ways. Even if a pollster were to weight their results so that all reported subgroups were "perfectly" represented, they would merely be creating the illusion of a perfect sample, since the actual results will still contain a degree of error inherent in the random sampling process.

2. The Margin Of Error Is Bigger – And Smaller – Than You Think

Most people do not realize two vital facts about the margin of error. First, it applies to each individual number. When you are looking at the difference between support for two candidates or issue positions, the actual margin of error is twice what is reported (Approximately – certain complicated mathematical considerations can throw this off slightly, and it is wrong in many-way races).

Second, there is not an even chance of reality falling anywhere within the margin of error. The margin of error describes part of a bell curve representing possible outcomes, typically the range in which there is a 95% chance of containing the “real” number. The number given is the center of the curve. Here is a chart showing what these curves look like at various sample sizes:


Why 95%? It’s a tradition, but an arbitrary one. Cutting the margin of error in half changes the 95% to over 67%. If you are only interested in the margin of error in one direction, that number increases to 84%. Thus, the probability of a candidate's actual current position being half the margin of error better than their polling number is only 16%.

Calculating the probability that one candidate is ahead of another is a bit more complicated. Fortunately, the polling firm American Research Group has a handy web calculator that does the math for you here.
This calculation will also show that polls which many journalists and campaign spin doctors portray as indicating a statistical tie show nothing of the sort. A poll in which the candidates are separated by exactly twice the margin of error actually indicates a near certainty that the candidate who appears to be ahead is actually ahead.

3. The Margin of Error of Subsamples Is Usually Quite High – Often Unusably High

The stated margin of error for a poll is the margin of error for the entire poll, and is primarily driven by sample size. However, if you are only looking at subsamples (women, Hispanics, Evangelical Christians, etc.), the margin of error is equivalent to a poll in which the sample size is equal to the number in that group. This means that there is typically inadequate data about many or most subgroups to say very much about what they think. Even larger subgroups such as the two parties and independents are often in the ballpark of 300 (which is still acceptable, but getting close to not) in a large 1000-person national poll. More polls are smaller than that than larger.

The views of most minority groups such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, and Asians cannot be measured accurately by a standard national poll, although there do exist very large polls or polls specifically designed to properly sample these groups.

4. Adjusting The Composition Of The Sample Often Helps Less Than Many Expect

Those who re-weight based on selected demographics tend to overestimate the impact of doing so. Many assume an approximately 1-to-1 relationship between party and some particular view, but moving a percentage point of the sample from one demographic to another will often get you a lot less since few groups are near unanimity in either direction. Each percentage point of the sample is allocated to one side or another (or undecided/other/declined/etc.). Even replacing members of a highly skewed demographic with members of another (say, a 75-25 group and a 25-75 group) only moves half a point from one side to the other per point moved from one demographic to the other – and most demographic changes are a lot less extreme than that 3-to-1 ratio. On a close question, replacing a relatively representative group (say, 50-50) with a highly skewed group (say 75-25) only shifts a quarter of a point. Even if you double all this when discussing differences between sides, small biases in a sample often will not make an enormous difference.

Less importantly, adjusting for a selected demographics in this relatively crude fashion creates a small risk of introducing more inaccuracies by falsely assuming that other demographic balances are not inadvertently altered in the process.

This is of course a simple approximation, and as such there are a number of factors that can throw the results off somewhat, but it is quite useful as a back-of-the-napkin estimate of the effects of a skewed sample.

Tomorrow, I will further discuss how to deal with bias in polls.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

As my readers know, I have taken an interest in polling, primarily because it seems so many polls are agenda driven. 

In a post last week, I pointed to a PPP poll on Wisconsin which used sample data which underweighted Walker voters from 2010 and overweighted union households.  I also have focused in the past on health care polling and other pollling used for political purposes.

I'm pleased to announce that next week Legal Insurrection will have a special guest series of posts on pollling, written by Matthew Knee, a Ph.D. candidate at Yale (don't hold it against him) specializing in campaigns and elections, ethnic voting patterns, public opinion, and quantitative and experimental approaches to political science.

The posts will run starting Monday, and will focus on polling issues which arise in the political context, such as weighting of samples, framing and sequencing of questions, and other factors.

Matt also will evaluate various public polling on the issue of public employee unions, as that issue has been in the news quite a bit and the various polling results are being used by each side for political advantage.

I hope you will enjoy the series. 

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

(by Matthew Knee)

I recently managed to get a few parking tickets dismissed. My parking permit fell off my mirror, resulting in about 4 tickets overnight. The parking office told me there was no rule against duplicate citations, and so did whomever processed my written appeal, which was rejected. When I went to me in-person appeal, however, I was told that there are in fact rules against repeated tickets within an 8 hour period for the same violation in the same place.

What relevance does this story have (Other than emphasizing that one should be persistent in appealing parking tickets)? It says a lot about bureaucracy and policy implementation. Bureaucrats are people doing jobs. They have a role to play and people to answer to, and like most office workers are generally concerned with clearing their in-boxes or to-do lists and avoiding the wrath of an angry boss, usually by complying with organizational goals or pressures and trying the succeed at whatever part of their job is being measured. In my case, the people who work in the parking office are there to collect payments and keep complainers from complicating things. The people who process written appeals are tasked with clearing huge numbers of mostly-frivolous parking appeals. The people who conduct in-person appeals are in the business of talking one-on-one with individuals who on average have better cases (because they haven't given up yet), and occasionally granting mercy. All behaved as expected.

Bureaucratic behavior has implications for a variety of policies. The two I will discuss today are affirmative action in state university admissions, and K-12 teaching.

Several states have passed bans on affirmative action, but many public universities theoretically banned from using racial preferences continue to do so by other means, particularly by considering variables known to correlate with race, systems that combine racial signals with subjectivity, or using other methods to facilitate a desired racial balance. This can be explained in part by the behavior of bureaucrats. There do not exist compliance officers whose role it is to ensure that these laws are followed, but there do exist federal affirmative action compliance officers who focus on non-preference federal policies beyond state control, and run offices of affirmative action with varying powers, scopes, and budgets. These are people that must be answered to.

Similarly, academic senates, admissions officers, and administrators have liberal pressure groups, each other, sometimes government officials, and their own often-liberal ideology telling them that they need to achieve some desired racial balance. Many don't want to comply with racial preference bans anyway, and even if they were not so inclined, doing so could complicate their jobs significantly.

There are rarely internal controls to counter these forces. At UCLA in 2008, a professor on the academic senate committee charged with admissions oversight asked to conduct a study to determine whether their new admissions policy was being used for racial discrimination. He was unceremoniously denied the right to do so and run off the committee, despite support from the committee's undergraduate representatives.

All opponents of racial preferences have is the slow and unwieldy legal system - and generally the laws aren't properly worded to rule out current tactics anyway.

K-12 education faces similar, more straightforward, problems. Teachers in a union-based seniority system are simply incentivized to stick around, not do anything utterly egregious, and demand their contractual rights. This has the dangerous side-effect of making teachers dependent on the union for their livelihood rather than their skill at their work. Solidarity and union rights are the way to success, not performance and internal competition. Some have varying incentives to raise very specific test scores (which can lead to its own problematic "teaching to the test" incentives), but in stronger union areas merit pay is far from the norm.

What are we to learn from this? When seeking the correct policies, conventional wisdom emphasizes the importance of examining at how the public will respond to changes in incentives. However, it is also important to examine how government officials will respond to a change in incentives. Good government policy requires building functioning systems that resist being undermined or swept aside by circumstance or bureaucratic resistance. Good laws and policies must go beyond mere declarations.


--------------------------------------------

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube

Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!