There’s Value in Weird Questions From Pollsters

Public Policy Polling is well known for its periodic inclusion of off-the-wall survey questions. In its March national poll, for example, they asked whether Joe Biden could whup Donald Trump in a fistfight. (Answer: Democrats chose Biden and Republicans chose Trump.) But they also ask some questions that seem kind of batty at first glance but actually reveal something interesting. For example, here’s a question about the level of support for various candidates in a 2020 campaign against Trump:

There are two interesting things here. First, a lot of Democrats obviously have no idea who Stephanie Cliffords is (it’s Stormy Daniels’ real name) but would vote for her anyway. Second, Gillibrand and Harris are supported at the same rate. What this demonstrates is something that we all know: polling candidates this far ahead of the election is dumb. It’s based on nothing but name recognition and is essentially meaningless, something that this poll question demonstrates viscerally. Then there’s this:

This seems weird: Why would Trump supporters be less likely to think the sky is blue? Especially since they’re more likely to live in rural and suburban areas, where the sky really is blue? I can think of a few possibilities, but the real answer is probably that there’s no difference at all. Despite the official 3 percent margin of error, polls really have much higher margins of error. That 3 percent is just the statistical error, but there’s also error from bad sample design, question wording, question order, and a bunch of other stuff. A question like this brings the real margin of error to life.

 

We were built for times like these

Russian bots are impersonating us. Trump and his allies want to silence us. AI wants to (and does!) steal our content. The list goes on. But with 50 years of experience, we know we were built for this moment: We’re ready to keep diving deep and uncovering the truth, then getting that to you right here, completely accessible and never behind a paywall.

While our work is free to read, watch, and listen to online, it’s incredibly costly to make. Court documents, travel, research: It all adds up. Because we’re a nonprofit newsroom, we rely on reader support to fund our investigations. Will you stand with us in these extraordinary times, as headlines clamour for our attention and disinformation is rampant? We can’t get the truth out without you.

We were built for times like these

Russian bots are impersonating us. Trump and his allies want to silence us. AI wants to (and does!) steal our content. The list goes on. But with 50 years of experience, we know we were built for this moment: We’re ready to keep diving deep and uncovering the truth, then getting that to you right here, completely accessible and never behind a paywall.

While our work is free to read, watch, and listen to online, it’s incredibly costly to make. Court documents, travel, research: It all adds up. Because we’re a nonprofit newsroom, we rely on reader support to fund our investigations. Will you stand with us in these extraordinary times, as headlines clamour for our attention and disinformation is rampant? We can’t get the truth out without you.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate