An Interesting CNN Poll

Jack Kelly recently wrote about a poll showing dubya's approval rating (bad as it is) still above the approval rating of the US Congress.

Now CNN has come out with a poll that offers some intruiging details. Here's how Greg Sargent over at TPMCafe sums it up:

With approval of Congress dropping sharply in polls, we've been waiting for a survey that tries to gauge public attitudes towards Congress in a bit of detail -- such as, where do people fall on the performance of each party, for instance.

Now we have some new numbers from a new CNN poll that takes a few baby steps in this direction. The verdict? The public is pretty sour on the Dem leadership's performance -- but is still happy to have Dems in control, views the party favorably, and plans to reelect Dems in 2008. And the Republicans? Well, they're still in the soup. [emphasis added

Here are some details. It's a bit confusing to me but here's how one question is phrased:

Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them.

The politicians' names were then, I guess, presented in random order. The poll lays out the favorable/unfavorable numbers by party. The Republicans had a 36/53 favorable/unfavorable rating, while the Democrats had a 51/38 favorable/unfavorable rating. That's what it looks like to me.

On the question:

Do you think it is good for the country or bad for the country that the Democratic party is in control of Congress?

57% of those asked answered that it was good for the country that the Democrats are in control of the congress. Only 31% said bad.

About the Democratic leaders of the Congress (not the Congress as a whole), those asked gave a sobering 42/49% approval/disapproval score.

If I am reading the poll correctly, I think Sargent has it right. The bloom is off the rose, but the people are still happy (overall) that the Democrats control Congress.

Jack Kelly: workin' the Poles Polls

In his column today, J-Kel level of spin isn't as high as in some other columns (perhaps he's reading this blog-space - good for him!), though there is one (possible) glaring error. More on that later.

He begins:

In a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released Tuesday, 69 percent of those surveyed think things in this country "are seriously off on the wrong track." The "wrong track" numbers haven't been this high since the late 1970s. There were good reasons then for public discontent. The economy was stagnant, but inflation was soaring. The Watergate scandal and our defeat in Vietnam were fresh in the public mind.

Here's the Poll J-Kel was working, if you were curious to see it. I noticed that he doesn't support his argument in this paragraph with any poll data:

But today the stock market is hitting record highs; inflation and unemployment are near record lows. Our discontent is less with our circumstances than with our perception of our political leadership.

If you take a look at Question 11 of the poll, you might see why. Of those asked:

Q11. Would you say that you are better off or worse off financially than you were three years ago, or would you say that you are about the same financially as you were then?

The numbers are hardly overwhelming. Of everyone asked, 36% said they were "better off", 26% said they were "worse off" and 38% said about the same. So whether things are as good as Kelly says they are, the good news isn't trickling down to the rest of us.

Then he moves on to dubya and Congress.

President Bush's polling numbers have been plumbing the political depths for quite some time. But he's less unpopular than the Democratic leaders in Congress. Only 27 percent of those surveyed by the L.A. Times and Bloomberg approve of the job Congress has been doing. That's the lowest it's been in a decade.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, had an approval rating of 19 percent -- half that of much-maligned Vice President Dick Cheney. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had a more robust rating of 36 percent. But that's 11 points below Newt Gingrich's job approval rating at a comparable point in his tenure as speaker.

First off, let me say KUDOS to Jack Kelly for going with the correct "Democratic leaders in Congress" instead of the childish "Democrat leaders in Congress."

Gotta give credit where credit is due.

But this is where Jack starts to get a little messy. The poll data that he cites for Speaker Pelosi is NOT found in the first LA Times/Bloomberg poll he mentions, but in this one.

Not much of a big deal, it's still an LA Times/Bloomberg poll, but if you want people to trust that you're being completely factual, you have to get all your ducks in a row, Jack.

A larger issue is the poll data on Senate Leader Harry Reid. The entire column looks like it's based on the poll data released this week from the LA Times/Bloomberg folks, right? So why can't I find any mention of Harry Reid in either poll?

My search through this pdf file file for "Reid" gets no hits and my search through this pdf file for "Reid" also gets no hits. So where did Jack Kelly get the 19%?

Possibly from here. It's not an LA Times/Bloomberg poll, but a survey of 800 likely voters done by Rasmussen on June 4-7th. It even has the numbers on Vice-President Cheney.

The LA Times/Bloomberg poll he was citing asked all voters, then broke it down to registered voters and then Democrats, Republicans and so on. Again Rasmussen is a reliable polling firm, so there's no reason to doubt the validity of the number, but Jack Kelly should have at least mentioned the source of the data. In one case it was "All people polled" and in the other "Likely voters" surveyed - no matter how accurate the numbers are, some mention should have been made. While the argement isn't yet not apples and oranges, perhaps it's just "Macintosh" and "Red Delicious."

And Jack does do a bit of fancy dancing in the Pelosi/Gingrich numbers. Take a look at what he said, again:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had a more robust rating of 36 percent. But that's 11 points below Newt Gingrich's job approval rating at a comparable point in his tenure as speaker.

Actually, that's not what the poll says. The poll throws a curveball - asking people now what they remember of Gingrich then. Here's the analysis from the poll itself (page 7):

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, has a net negative rating – 41% to 37%. In a January Times/Bloomberg poll, Pelosi received an overall positive impression from the public, 34% to 21%. In comparing Pelosi to former Speaker and Republican Newt Gingrich, who was Speaker in the mid 1990’s, he received a 47% job approval rating, compared to 36% disapproving. But in his days as Speaker, Gingrich never got past 30% in overall favorable ratings.[emphasis added]

But again, Jack Kelly doesn't say that, does he?

With any Kelly column, there's always more to deconstruct, but let me end with some of the other poll data from both LA Times/Bloomberg poll (since it's been validated by Kelly, himself):

67% of those polled disapprove of the way Bush is handling things in Iraq
(only 21% approve) - Question 4

57% of those polled support setting a "timetable for withdrawal" for Iraq
(only 39% oppose) Question 45

64% of those polled support "setting benchmarks or goals for political
reforms in Iraq, and withdrawing U.S. troops if the Iraqi government fails to
meet the goals" (only 25% oppose) - Question 46

Happy Father's Day everybody!

Congressman Tim Murphy - on Pork

Recently I heard our favorite evidence taker-baker, Congressman Tim Murphy on one of the many conservative radio talk shows here in the Burgh.

He was complaining with the host about the current "Supplemental" making its way through the US House of Representatives. Complaining about the pork that's been added to the bill that just supposed to be supporting our troops in Iraq.

He and the host agreed: The contemptable politcs of it all! How dare the Democrat party play politics with the troops!

How indeed.

Ladies and gentlemen, I turn your attention to a previous supplemental bill, HR 1268 - Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005.

On 3/16/05, the bill passed the House by a vote of 388-43.

You'll notice that our friend Congressman Murphy is listed with the "yeas."

During his recent radio appearance (can a person really make an appearance on the radio??) Congressman Murphy was complaining, for example, about the milk subsidies that were tacked onto the Supplemental.

Yet in 2005 he voted for a Supplemental that included this:

SEC. 5104. The funds made available in section 786 of title VII of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005 as contained in division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447) may be applied to accounts of Alaska dairy farmers owed to the Secretary of Agriculture.

There were also provisions for off-channel sanctuaries for the Silvery Minnow:

SEC. 6014. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to perform such analyses and studies as needed to determine the viability of establishing an off-channel sanctuary for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. In conducting these studies, the Secretary shall take into consideration:

(1) providing off-channel, naturalistic habitat conditions for propagation, recruitment, and maintenance of Rio Grande silvery minnows; and
(2) minimizing the need for acquiring water or water rights to operate the sanctuary.

If the Secretary determines the project to be viable, the Secretary is further authorized to design and construct the sanctuary and to thereafter operate and maintain the sanctuary. The Secretary may enter into grant agreements, cooperative agreements, financial assistance agreements, interagency agreements, and contracts with Federal and non-Federal entities to carry out the purposes of this Act.

And, doncha know it, provisions for the an Information Center in Yellowstone National Park:

SEC. 6032. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the National Park Service is authorized to expend appropriated funds for the construction, operations and maintenance of an expansion to the West Yellowstone Visitor Information Center to be constructed for visitors to, and administration of, Yellowstone National Park.

Don't get me wrong. The issue here is not whether any of these are important. That is a completely separate question (and worthwhile, too!). The point is that Congressman Murphy voted for the pork then, and he's protesting the pork now. The Republicans were in charge then. The Democrats are in charge now.

Who's playing politics, Congressman?