PolitiFact and playing the percentages (Updated)

American Journalism Review's editor and senior vice president Rem Rieder is back at it again, writing about PolitiFact in a way that demands a response.

Last time, Rieder argued in effect that journalists' role as truth-tellers compelled them to call out lies.  Rieder blurred the line between a "lie" as an inaccurate statement and a "lie" as an attempt to deceive and wound up catching himself in his own criticism.  In my response I argued that objective journalism doesn't permit reporting motives based on misstatements of fact.

This time, Rieder broadcasts his disappointment with PolitiFact's ruling of "Mostly True" on Sen. Marco Rubio's claim that a majority of Americans are conservative.

As it assessed the Florida Republican's assertion, PolitiFact turned to the findings of the Gallup Poll, which regularly asks Americans about their political orientation. In 2011, Gallup found that 40 percent considered themselves conservative, 35 percent moderate and 21 percent liberal. It also found that the number calling themselves conservative has never been above 50 percent.

So this one should be easy. According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, a majority is "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total." Not even close. The number of conservatives would have to be more than 25 percent higher to be a majority. The verdict on the PolitiFact Truth-O-Meter is "Pants on Fire," right?

Can we blame Rieder for ignoring the context of Rubio's statement if PolitiFact did the same thing?  Of course we can, kids!  As I pointed out in an analysis over at the associated blog "PolitiFact Bias," Rubio spoke in the context of preferring conservative over liberal.  Here's part of the quotation, via PolitiFact:

"You know, somebody asked me: ‘How do you know that? How do you know Americans are majority conservative?’ Here’s why: How come liberals never admit that they are liberals? They never admit it. They’ve now come up with a new word called progressive, which I thought was an insurance company, but apparently it’s a label."

PolitiFact nearly hit on an approach to the fact check that might have tested what Rubio was claiming.  PolitiFact took into consideration the political leaning of Independents, reporting that "45 percent of Americans identified as Republicans or leaned that way."

Adding the conservative lean of moderates to the percentage of self-identified conservatives probably represents the best method of testing Rubio's claim.

A short illustration will help show why.

Suppose we used a self-identification poll with 50 choices.  Conservatives, for the sake of argument, represent only 4 percent of the total, with the other 36 percent who chose "conservative" out of only three choices picking some other label.

Do conservatives make up 40 percent of the total or just 4 percent?

The number of choices matters.

For that reason, limiting the choices to match the nature of Rubio's claim constitutes the best method of testing the claim.  Calculating the conservative lean of moderates added to self-identified conservatives is a fair measurement.  Gallup doesn't ask that question of moderates, so we can't use that stat to test Rubio's claim.  As a result we don't really know the answer.  My guess is that the conservative lean of moderates would exceed 10 percent of the total and put conservatives over the 50 percent bar.  Therefore I think PolitiFact's rating is reasonably accurate but flawed in its reasoning.  But worse still is the reasoning coming from critics on the left.  Can the statement be reasonably termed "False" based on self-identification surveys with three choices?

Rieder clearly thinks so.  And maybe he'd just as willingly accept a self-identification survey with 50 choices in deciding the question.

Oops, did I lump Rieder in with critics on the left?  But he's an objective journalist, isn't he?

I don't think so.  If Rieder was objective he might have taken the opportunity to criticize PolitiFact's "Mostly True" rating for White House representative Cecilia Muñoz's claim that 98 percent of Catholic women have used contraception.  That claim is off by at least the 10 percentage points representing women who have never had sex at all; it simply couldn't be a true claim at all in contrast to Rubio's, and the degree of error is at least similar to that Rieder finds an obvious "Pants on Fire" for Rubio.

So where's Rieder's objection?

I'm not holding my breath.


Update 3:40 p.m.

Kevin Drum of the liberal rag Mother Jones points to survey data supportive of Marco Rubio's statement:

In this poll, 61% of the country identified as conservative. That's a majority!

Now, this is a poll of "likely" voters. It forces a choice between liberal and conservative. And even though we all know that "independent" voters mostly lean left or right pretty reliably, I imagine this poll still understates the number of true centrists.

Nonetheless, it's a poll. And Rubio could quite reasonably point to it as evidence that a majority of the country is conservative.

The Politico/George Washington University survey samples likely voters, so it isn't quite the perfect support for Rubio.  Of significance, however, Democrats and Democrat-leaners constitute a plurality in the sample population.  Drum fails to emphasize that key point while mentioning a few less significant complications.

The Predict Robyn Blumner's Next Move poll

Robyn "Blumnata" Blumner, editorial columnist for the St. Petersburg Times, periodically recommends socialist solutions from other nations as models for the United States.  Columns over the past few years, for example, have extolled the wonders of the Spanish economy and, more recently, the model in Germany.  The latter, of course, ignored that nation's recent leaning toward market-based economic reform.

In a blog post dedicated to that most recent Blumner column, I promised a poll to allow reader(s) to predict the next Western European socialist nation she would offer as a model for the U.S.

There's probably something liberal enough to call "socialist" in every Western European nation, as least enough to make Blumner think it would be good for America, so I've listed every nation of Western Europe among the selections.  If a new country forms in Western Europe I'll add it to the list.

The poll will remain open until Jan. 2011 unless Blumner tips her hand before that.  Good luck!

Look for the poll in the sidebar, lower right near the bottom.

Would liberals welcome a more animated "Living Constitution"?

Via Rasmussen Reports:

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree.

That number surprises even me.

I wonder if any of those people stop to think about how their view of the judicial branch insults the Constitution at least as much as George W. Bush's supposed constitutional depredations.

At least Bush has Article II to go on. What is the justification for interpretation of the law above and beyond the law?

Michael J. Totten on Iraqi opinion

A recent Iraqi public opinion poll by ABC/BBC contained plenty of good news for "stay the course" conservatives. Ed Morrissey, who jumped ship at his own Captain's Quarters blog to join Michelle Malkin's enterprise at Hot Air, already noted that Sunnis were overrepresented in the poll sample and that may have made the poll seem a bit worse than it was in actuality.

Freelance reporter Michael J. Totten offers an additional caution regarding Middle East opinion polls:

Two days ago ABC News released a new poll of Iraqi public opinion, and John Burns at the New York Times made a very perceptive observation that should be taken into account when looking it over.

Opinion polls, including those commissioned by the American command, have long suggested that a majority of Iraqis would like American troops withdrawn, but another lesson to be drawn from Saddam Hussein’s years is that any attempt to measure opinion in Iraq is fatally skewed by intimidation. More often than not, people tell pollsters and reporters what they think is safe, not necessarily what they believe. My own experience, invariably, was that Iraqis I met who felt secure enough to speak with candor had an overwhelming desire to see American troops remain long enough to restore stability.

This feels right to me, not only thanks to my experience in Iraq, but also in places like totalitarian Libya where no one dared criticize the regime in public, and where everyone I spoke to did so in private where they were safe. Saddam Hussein commanded a murder and intimidation regime in Iraq, and today’s insurgents wage a murder and intimidation campaign in the streets. In Fallujah and Ramadi, Iraqi civilians were murdered just for waving hello to Americans, and for accepting bags of rice as charity. Fear should not be ignored when gauging Iraqi public opinion, and that includes fear of American guns as well as fear of insurgents.

(commentarymagazine.com)

I'll add my own two cents. Poll questions are often worthless because of their ambiguity. I'm not convinced that the problem disappears in Arabic.

32. As you may know, British forces have mainly left Basra province in recent
months. Since the British left, do you think the security in Basra has become
better, become worse, or remained the same?

We don't care if you've never ever been near Basra. We want your opinion anyway.

*****

NYT opinions just as bankrupt via video format (Updated)

Another ironic hat-tip to hapless Duane, who pointed me to a worthless video op-ed in the New York Times produced by Steve Connors and Molly Bingham.



Isn't that something?

Let's assess the key claims in the op-ed.

On October 12th, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, made news when he joined the ranks of American politicians and pundits who once supported the war in Iraq but who now say the Bush Administration's incompetence turned the venture into a failure.

If Connors and Bingham had bothered to check, they would see that Sanchez supports the war in Iraq but faults pretty much the entire country for its conduct of the war effort. As with most in the mainstream media, Connors and Bingham stayed mum regarding Sanchez's condemnation of the media's role in the war.

Gen. Sanchez:

AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS IN IRAQ. A PRECIPITOUS WITHDRAWAL WILL UNQUESTIONABLY LEAD TO CHAOS THAT WOULD ENDANGER THE STABILITY OF THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST. IF THIS OCCURS IT WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. COALITION AND AMERICAN FORCE PRESENCE WILL BE REQUIRED AT SOME LEVEL FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVERIEGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.

AT NO TIME IN AMERICA'S HISTORY HAS THERE BEEN A GREATER NEED FOR BIPARTISAN COOPERATION.
(militaryreporters.org)

Connors and Bingham (paraphrased): Hang bipartisan cooperation! It's Bush's fault! Game over, man! Let's get out of there now!

Is it ethical to co-opt Sanchez like that? Taking words that plainly mean one thing and presenting them as though they put Sanchez in your corner? To wit: Sanchez puts the blame on the entire government and on the press. The press reports Sanchez putting the blame on Bush. Convenient, isn't it?

Connors and Bingham continue by evaluating Sanchez's claims.

There are limits to this contention (Bush incompetence leading to failure--ed.)

The power of the insurgency doomed the occupation from the start.

Quite an optimistic duo, aren't they?

This conclusion is based on recent Iraqi public opinion surveys and the World Public Opinion poll--and interviews we conducted with Iraqis for Meeting Resistance.

If you're wondering how recent public opinion surveys can possibly indicate how the occupation was doomed "from the start" then join the club.

The insurgency is mainly composed of ordinary Iraqis, not Qaeda operatives or former regime members.

Source of that datum unknown, but hardly relevant anyway so long as they're getting their butts kicked.

Not only do most Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq--they also approve killing them.

92% of Sunnis, 62% of Shiites, and 15% of Kurds approve of attacks on U.S.-led coalition forces.

Again, no source provided for the poll data--but certainly the above figures are less favorable than these (pages 29, 30) from this past summer via ABC/BBC.

Let's just say I'm very suspicious of the term "approve" as used by Connors and Bingham.

From April 2004 through May 2007 an average of 74% of significant attacks in Iraq were aimed at the U.S.--led coalition forces.

16% of attacks were directed at Iraqi forces and 10% at civilian targets.

And here the key term is obviously "significant attacks."

Many incidents “that most Americans would regard as terrorist attacks” were not reported because they didn’t meet “the strict State Department definitions of an international” event, including insurgent attacks resulting in only Iraqi fatalities.
(The Iraq Quagmire)

See the problem? If only Connors and Bingham had specifically identified the source of their data ...

78% of Iraqis believe the U.S. military is provoking more conflict than it is preventing.

Again no source offered, and the number figure is worse than the one from the ABC/BBC poll.

Iraqis told us that holding elections and meeting "benchmarks" would make no difference.

There's nothing quite like anecdotal evidence using no identifiable sources, is there?

71% of Iraqis demand a withdrawal of U.S. forces within 1 year.

65% think it is unlikely that an American departure will lead to a broader civil war

Source?

A majority of Iraqis disagree with the separation of people along sectarian lines in their country.

Still no source from the bumbling filmmakers, but this is one I've been pointing out for some time. It's an encouraging sign that the Iraqis will stick with a relatively strong national government, which is exactly the best outcome for the United States in this instance. Though of course I cited a reputable poll when I referred to the data.

Their point seems to be that there is no civil war in Iraq at all. It's just the mostly united Iraqis against the imperialistic United States. That must explain the suicide bombers who go to schools and markets to blow up their countrymen.

100% of those polled disapprove of attacks on Iraqi civilians.

Yet the video op-ed features a guy justifying attacks on interpreters and presumably others who "cooperate" with the Americans. Perhaps he doesn't count. Or maybe if an Iraqi cooperates with Americans it revokes his civilian status?

By listening to the people of Iraq, you can easily discern the root cause of the conflict: Occupation.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Connors and Bingham are stupid. Even Duane will try to explain falling civilian casualties in terms of successful ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods. But they're only doing the ethnic cleansing because of the presence of American troops?

Sorry, but their analysis is far too simplistic to be taken seriously. It gives every evidence of cherry-picked numbers chosen to support the editorialist's agenda while ignoring any data that would upset the apple cart.

Their op-ed is ethically reprehensible, even if by some miracle they obtained their poll data through a reputable source.



Update:
Judith Weiss at Kesher Talk wrote a review of the Connors and Bingham op-ed. Here's a representative sample:

In addition to inserting tendentious quotes from unidentified 2007 polls into footage from 2004, these PR flacks for terrorists take the opportunity to fit in this week's wide misquoting of General Sanchez, demonstrating that - like the NYTimes - they didn't bother to read what Sanchez actually said.
(read the whole thing)

Hat tip to the Belmont Club for leading to the update.
*****

A foundation for political change in Iraq?

clipped from hughhewitt.townhall.com

A poll from the University of Michigan suggests that political reconciliation is possible in Iraq.

So far, the surveys show a decline in popular support for religious government in Iraq and an increase in support for secular political rule, said sociologist Mansoor Moaddel, who is affiliated with Eastern Michigan University and the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (ISR).

"Iraqis have a strong sense of national identity that transcends religious and political lines," Moaddel said. "The recent out-pouring of national pride at the Asian Cup victory of the Iraqi soccer team showed that this sense of national pride remains strong, despite all the sectarian strife and violence."
(University of Michigan News Service)

The Democratic majority in Congress is poised to throw away a critical victory. Hopefully they can get their heads out of the sand--or wherever it is they've put them--and support the Iraqi government through 2010.

(Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett)

True genius at the Project for the Old American Century

I got a big laugh moments ago when I checked the results for the sublovious poll--one of the longest-running polls ever ... maybe.

I'm finishing up a series at the Bad Blogs' Blood blog on the Project for the Old American Century, which is a site for those generally to the left on the political spectrum.

Over the last few days, I paid a visit to the the message board at POAC, and during introductions I mentioned that I had encountered the site through its "Counterspin" pages, where the POAC folks attempt to answer various "talking points." An argument about the "Counterspin" page ensued and I was fairly promptly banned from their message board (in spite of my traditionally courteous manner).

During that process, POACers followed a URL I provided back to Bad Blogs' Blood, and via that site (trusty profile, no doubt) found their way to this site ... and a couple of them voted in the poll. Two more votes for Bush misleading Americans about Iraq's responsibility for 9-11, even though right next to the poll I link to information that should prevent anybody except a loon from voting in the upper third of the poll choices.

Astonishingly, a total of 15 people have voted in strong agreement with the proposition that "President Bush caused a dramatic increase in the number of Americans who believe that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks," compared to just one who was uncertain and one other who had strong disagreement with the same statement.

Visitors: Don't forget to vote in the longest-running poll in the universe! Limited time only!

President Bush caused a dramatic increase in the number of Americans who believe that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks.

The poll is designed to measure the level of agreement with the above statement. I'm fairly itching to commence analysis of my completely unscientific poll. I think I'll continue collecting data at a snail's pace until the blog reaches its one-year anniversary. So, limited time only!

Click the link above or look for the box in the sidebar at right if you wish to participate.

Another poll casting doubt on the entrenched Democratic wisdom

With another grateful hat-tip to Powerline, check out these poll results collected through "Public Opinion Strategies."

Public Opinion Strategies* has released a survey [PDF file here] of likely voters’ attitudes toward the Iraq War that finds that most voters think the country is going in the wrong direction (67%) and President Bush is doing a poor job (60%), and that Iraq will never be a stable democracy (60%). No real surprises there, right?

Here are some pretty interesting numbers, though, given those and other indications** that the survey isn’t biased toward President Bush:

• 57% believe “The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism.”
• 57% “support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.
• 50% want our troops should stay and “do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country” while only 17% favor immediate withdrawal
• 56% believe “Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.”
• 53% believe “The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq.”

(James Joyner, Outside the Beltway)

This poll is better than the previous one I linked in at least one respect. Once can look at the .pdf file to see the questionnaire.
How random the sample, I cannot say.

Americans are against the war in Iraq?

Investor's Business Daily conducted a poll on the feeling of Americans for the Iraq War. To me, this poll seems consistent with polls taken near the time of the 2006 election. People were unhappy about the way the war was going, but not behind a strategy that would leave the U.S. worse off down the line.





There is no information about how the poll was conducted (other than the sample size), so this has to be taken somewhat tentatively.
I'd like to see a major polling outfit ask similar questions, however.




Hat tips to Powerline and Captain's Quarters which, as usual, are pretty much up on the latest.