« Shifting dental care to the ER a costly political maneuver | kstone's Blog | Getting smokers at both ends. Health insurers and tobacco industry »

Gallup's "pro-life" poll deserved greater scrutiny


The strategically timed release of a poll showing a sudden 10-point flip in American views on abortion should raise a few eyebrows.

 

Gallup's press release claimed, "More Americans "Pro-Life" Than "Pro-Choice" for First Time."

 

While partisan mainstream editorial writers openly gloated about the "stunning" and "shocking" poll released in May, few traditional media looked critically and honestly at what the poll actually revealed, and reported the findings with the same slant as the news release. Rather than spending a minute exploring why it was stunning or shocking, the media simply reported it as fact.

 

First off, polls should be suspect. While they may have been reliable in a more innocent age, Gallup, like many other polling companies, is a for-profit corporation. They are commissioned to conduct polls. Unfortunately, polling companies are not required to disclose the name of the commissioning organization, even though it's the ethically responsible thing to do.

 

The Gallup poll was released on the day anti-abortion groups planned protests against President Obama's commencement address at Notre Dame and just as there's a new seat to fill on the U.S. Supreme Court. It certainly smells of partisan efforts to create a buzz and revitalize controversy.

 

Here's what the watchdogs said about the Gallup poll as well as a Pew poll that also re-interpreted long-standing findings about America's stand on abortion choice:

 

Newshounds: "The truth is that while the Gallup poll showed that a greater number of those polled identified themselves as "pro-life" (51%) than "pro-choice" (42%), the majority (76%) responded that abortion should be legal in either all or limited circumstances. Only 23% responded that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances."  

 

Media Matters: "...Gallup hypes a poll that finds a majority of Americans self-identify as "pro-life" for the first time ever, even though that finding is based on the implausible premise that the two parties are tied in Party ID -- a premise that Gallup itself contradicts elsewhere. And, get this, Gallup didn't mention the tie in Party ID in its release touting the abortion findings. Had it done so, the findings would have (appropriately) been greeted with much more skepticism.

 

"That's pretty dishonest -- Gallup withheld information about its own poll that undermined the sensational claim it was making about that poll's findings.  And it's a useful reminder that broad announcements like "More Americans 'Pro-Life' Than 'Pro-Choice' for First Time" shouldn't be taken particularly seriously unless they are accompanied by the complete poll."

 

The Monkey Cage:  "Simply put, the Pew and Gallup findings obscure far more than they reveal. They purport to show shifts in opinion that are not evident in other data. There is no consistent evidence for a "conservative turn," as Pew puts it.

 

"Moreover, both Pew and Gallup employ vague questions that do not easily map onto actual policy debates. Once more precise data are employed, it becomes clear that opinion strongly depends on the circumstances under which the abortion would occur. While people who are favor a legal abortion under any of the circumstances mentioned outnumber those who unequivocally oppose abortion by a factor of abut 3, most people are in the middle. In the GSS data, 58% favor a legal abortion under some circumstances, but not others."

 

Finally, here's a comment from a participant in an abortion poll published in a letter-to-the-editor of the Seattle Times:

 

Biased method could impact results

"I was polled during the time frame that Gallup did its polling on the "pro-life" issue, although I do not know definitively if it was the Gallup poll who called me because the polling organization did not identify itself.

 

The poll was recorded. I was first asked if I was a registered voter. When I responded "yes," I was asked if I was "pro-life" (not "pro-life" or "pro-choice," which is the more appropriate question). I was a bit disconcerted at the question because it was not framed in terms of abortion -- just "are you pro-life?" I gave my answer and the recording thanked me and hung up.

 

I hung up feeling angry because there was no nuance allowed in the answers and I was not given the option of declaring myself pro-choice. I had to answer no to being "pro-life" because I assumed, correctly, that the opposite answer would register me as being anti-abortion.

However, believing that abortion should be legal does not make someone "anti-life" or "pro-death." I would like to know who polled me in this very biased manner. If this poll was not conducted by Pew or Gallup, it would be nice to know who is trying to confuse the issue.

 

I suggest the press delve a little more deeply into this issue." -- Deanna Nelson, Seattle

 

Much of the problem can be boiled down to what Ms. Nelson says in her letter.

 

Doesn't a complex issue like abortion deserve more than black and white thinking and a narrowly interpreted poll?

 


16 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

One would hope. I believe the dumbing down of America enables the MSM to propogate BS and too amny people are unskilled when it comes to listening/reading critically.

user-pic

Remember Colbert's comment about the beltway press being stenographers? That certainly applies here.

user-pic

I agree that all polls require more scrutiny including the one suggesting that half of americans think torture is sometimes acceptable. It was an AP-GK poll? Who owns these companies?

user-pic

The USA Today-Gallup poll released yesterday said Americans opposed Gitmo closure by 2 to 1. Wow. Americans sure are fickle. Who is commissioning these very issue-oriented polls?

user-pic

You might be interested in Nate Silver's work on this, as shown and linked in my May 14 blog post -- http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/eds/2009/05/guns-germs-babies-fun-with-pol.php

I don't understand the Media Matters point about "implausible premise" -- can you explain how Gallup messed up on that? I think it's supposedly about how they may have had a biased sample, but the MM article isn't at all clear to me on this.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx


user-pic

My take is that MM was referring to Gallup's summary claim that more Americans now oppose all forms of abortion. But that's odd and misleading since their own data chart shows the opposite. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx
If you scroll down to the second chart, American views are within 1 point of what they were in 1975. Now that's interesting since the recent poll was biased toward Republicans!

user-pic

" Gallup's summary claim "

That is not a premise, it is a conclusion.

user-pic

Good points kstone. I was asked several years ago if I would like to be a permanent member of the pool of Americans Gallop draws on to take its polls. I agreed and now take an online poll every month or two. I can confirm that the questions seem to be designed to elicit specific responses, at least sometimes. When I am aware of such questions, I usually don't respond to them.

user-pic

That's what Ms. Nelson suggested, too. I'd be interested in seeing one of their survey tools if you saved any.

user-pic

I have not. I suppose it could be saved as a web page. I'll consider doing that next time I observe something that seems biased or limiting in the possible responses.

user-pic

.

Related to that Gallup poll bunkum ...

From Ed Kilgore's post at 538.com on 5/17/09 :

First up, the partisan composition of the Gallup poll sample drew some attention--not surprisingly, since Gallup itself suggested that the "big shift" on abortion was occurring almost entirely among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

Charles Franklin at Pollster.com made this discovery and observation:
The latest Gallup (5/7-10/09) poll has party identification tied at 32-32 and caused an immediate howl of "outlier!" in the comments at Pollster.com. In this case, the howl is justified. Compared to all recent Gallup polls (so we compare apples to apples) this latest stands out quite a bit from the rest.
Incorrect Party ID weighting caused the outlier.

A slanted snapshot in time that all the media glommed onto .

Gallup has been doing this type of bull for some time now.

All based on BS!

Read Kilgore's entire post at the link above. Plus there is a link to Franklin's entire post including graphs at Pollster at Kilgore's comment..

~OGD~

user-pic

Thanks, enjoyed the post and the discussion there, too.

user-pic

But is 32-32-34 (DRI) sufficient to explain the overall numbers? The spread showed something like a 15 point net swing. Would 32-25-41 account for the "outlier" result to first order?

Also note that from Silver's data (see my earlier comment) the Gallup poll is not way out of line with historical polling levels on this.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SgxClNgVgJI/AAAAAAAABI8/wRBA64eFLOs/s400/abort2.PNG is the most relevant graph as I see it.

user-pic

.

Geez . . .

Whatever your calculator says and the graphs and spreadsheets say, to get you through your day.

Gallup's polls aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell.

~OGD~

user-pic

Understanding how polls work (honest work or not) is valuable.

Making dumb fun of serious stuff is your cheap-shot method, over and over again.

user-pic

Good stuff KStone. Lies, damn lies, and polling.

How is the gd thing framed? What is the exact language used in framing the issue?

Good post.

Leave a comment

kstone

user-pic

Following: 19
Followers: 11

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Website: www.fleshandstone.net/
  • Location St. Paul, Minn.
  • Party not so much since I became self-employed
  • Politics Political convulsions, like geological upheavings, usher in new epochs of the world's progress. - Wendell Phillips

Favorites

  • Favorite Books I have fave authors rather than books. Right now I'm reading everything by Jhumpa Lahiri, and by J. Maarten Troost and Christopher Buckley because they cheer me up. "Supreme Courtship" by CB is hilarious but I have to pause sometimes. Didn't that all really happen?
  • Favorite Quotes there's that Howard Zinn one about not giving up....

Bio

Freelance writer and reluctant trouble-maker

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address