Skip to main content

I have griped in the past about how pollsters manipulated the phrasing of questions or the range of choices to get the answers that they seek.  However, I'd like to address a different concern: how media outlets report on the results of such polls.

This morning, Politico featured an article entitled "Poll: 54 percent against Obamacare."

Upon seeing that, you probably immediately thought about how many conservatives oppose the law despite their support of individual provisions and got yourself ready for a refreshing political rant. But, wait, the results leave a different impression than the headline creates.

The CNN/ORC International poll cited presented respondents with three options: (a) they support the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), (b) they oppose it because it is "too liberal" (I would call them the "repeal" crowd), or (c) they oppose it because it "isn't liberal enough" (I would call them the "strengthen" crowd).

A 43% plurality expressed support for the health care bill.  35% opposed the bill because it was "too liberal."  16% opposed the bill because it "isn't liberal enough."

The "not liberal enough" crowd would, I would infer, include those upset about the rejection of the public option, the inherent conservatism of the ACA (I mean, come on, the individual mandate came from the Heritage Foundation, the dismissal of single-payer as even an option despite its effectiveness in Canada, or its failure to achieve fully universal coverage.  This group wanted a stronger health care bill, one that enshrines the right to health found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  Even though I (obviously) oppose the Republican efforts of repeal, if interviewed for such a poll, I would have put myself in the "not liberal enough" category because I think the bill doesn't go far enough, and I would want that view properly represented.

Rather than look at the results in the reductionist framework of support/oppose, I would suggest combining the "support" and "strengthen" categories together because those two groups represent the constituency for universal health care.  Together, then, you have 59%--nearly a super-majority--saying that they think Obamacare should be kept or strengthened. Joining "support" and "strengthen" reminds me of Senator Tom Harkin's description of ACA as a "starter home" for health care reform, noting, "This bill is the beginning of health reform, not the end."

This reminds me of a statistic I read recently about the public's view of health care as a right. Back in 1991, for the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, the American Bar Association commissioned a poll to test public knowledge and opinion about the Bill of Rights. Although most people couldn't identify the purpose of the Bill of Rights, almost 3 out of 4 said that they would like the Constitution to guarantee adequate health care for all Americans.  

I would love to go into more detail about the demographics of support, but the link to the PDF of poll results on CNN doesn't work for me.  Unsurprisingly, however, the demographics that support the ACA are those who voted for Obama:

A majority of younger Americans favor the new health care law; support among other age groups falls as low as 31% among senior citizens. Only a third of whites support the law, compared to six in 10 non-whites. Obamacare also wins majority support in urban areas and in the Northeast, the bluest region of the country.
I would be curious to see the demographics of the "strengthen" crowd.  If the link works for you, feel free to post the info!

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site