A Stanford social psychologist claims his poll of 1,001 adults conducted in November 2010 shows that Republican candidates who take a “green” position on climate change gain far more votes from Democrat and Independent voters than they lose from Republican voters.
The “non-green” position included the statement that “climate science is junk science” and that “cap-and-trade is a job killer and damages our economy.”
The poll was funded by a September 2010 grant from the Obama administration’s National Science Foundation in the amount of $200,000.
Isn’t it nice that the Obama administration is trying to help Republicans get elected? Very post-partisan.
$200K for a poll of 1001 people. That is $200 per person polled! Also, this was a voice pull with an actual talk phone interview. On “social policy” polls there is usually a large spread between the results of a “robo poll” and a voice poll.
In a way a “robo poll” is like a secret ballot, you have plausible denial on what you did (someone pushed the phone buttons). With a voice poll you don’t know if you are being recorded and you don’t know if you are being scammed. Also, a robo-poll takes considerable programming while a live surveyor just talks. (Could it be someone scamming, phishing or play “gotcha”?
On the eve of a California gay marriage court vote a CNN poll on gay marriage suddenly went from around 30% to slightly more than 50% support. As I understand it the earlier CNN surveys were robo-polling and the 50+% one was voice.
‘Rhetoric’ has been defined as the art of persuading people to accept an idea regardless of whether there is any truth in it.
‘Pandering’ is the art of inducing people to violate their higher principles by appealing to their lower appetites.
‘Polling’ is a major topic of ‘How to Lie With Statistics.’
I see all three at work here.