Frank Newport reviews a recent dispute over interpreting health care polls.

Politifact examines opposition to health reform because it "doesn't go far enough."

Josh Kraushaar and James Hohmann say polls have "rarely played such a public role" as in the health reform debate

Public Opinion Strategies polls house districts in Democratic leadership districts and swing districts on health care.

Andy Barr reports on Democrats reactions to Republican polls.

Alex Bratty says the latest NBC/WSJ poll shows lack of confidence in Congress.

Jeremy Rosner and Matt Bennet think Obama is strongest on national security.

David Johnson says he should have disclosed a conflict in Strategic Vision's latest release.

Andrew Gelman adds to a Nate Silver post on biased questions.

Haaretz asks Israeli's is the find Obama fair (51%), friendly (18%) or hostile (21%); Time has more Obama's Israeli poll numbers.

And Christopher Walken answers the Census (via FlowingData).

Georgia

2010 Governor
41% Oxendine (R), 41% Barnes (D)
43% Deal (R), 40% Barnes (D)
42% Handel (R), 39% Barnes (D)
40% Barnes (D), 38% Johnson (R)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Karen Handel: 44 / 32
John Oxendine: 53 / 34
Nathan Deal: 39 / 30
Eric Johnson: 33 / 27
Roy Barnes: 44 / 43

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 44 / 54
Gov. Perdue: 54 / 43

Job Approval / Disapproval

California
Pres. Obama: 52 / 44
Sen. Feinstein: 41 / 49
Sen. Boxer: 40 / 50
Gov. Schwarzenegger: 17 / 81
(charts)

Kansas
Pres. Obama: 37 / 61
Sen. Brownback: 50 / 42
Sen. Roberts: 57 / 36
Gov. Parkinson: 44 / 41

Ohio
Pres. Obama: 42 / 52
Sen. Voinovich: 39 / 52
Sen. Brown: 42 / 46
Gov. Strickland: 40 / 54
(charts)

Oregon
Pres. Obama: 48 / 50
Sen. Wyden: 49 / 41
Sen. Merkley: 38 / 45
Gov. Kulongoski: 34 / 56

Washington State
Pres. Obama: 46 / 49
Sen. Murray: 42 / 45
Sen. Cantwell: 38 / 49
Gov. Gregoir: 31 / 65

National

Overall, given what you know about them, do you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by Congress and the Obama Administration?
48% Support, 53% Oppose (chart)

Obama Job Approval
46% Approve, 47% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 82 / 14 (chart)
Reps: 4 / 89 (chart)
Inds: 41 / 54 (chart)
Economy: 40 / 51 (chart)
Health care: 40 / 52 (chart)

Congressional Job Approval
9% Approve, 66% Disapprove (chart)

2010 House: Generic Ballot
45% Democrat, 38% Republican
Registered voters: 45% Republican, 43% Democrat (chart)

State of the Country
32% Right Direction, 53% Wrong Track (chart)

National

As of right now, do you generally support or generally oppose the health care proposals being discussed in Congress?
46% Support, 42% Oppose (chart)

Do you think _____ would be better off or worse off if the president and Congress passed health care reform, or don't you think it would make much difference?
You and your family: 35% Better, 32% Worse, 28% No difference
The country as a whole: 45% Better, 34% Worse, 14% No difference

If the president and Congress do pass health care reform, do you think that would make _____ better, worse or would it stay about the same?
The quality of your own health care: 28% better, 29% Worse, 36% Same
The cost of health care for you and your family: 31% Better, 32% Worse, 29% Same
Your ability to get and keep health insurance: 35% Better, 22% Worse, 36% Same

And what if the president and Congress DO NOT pass health care reform, and things stay as they are. Do you think each of the following will get better or worse over the next several years, or will it stay about the same?
The quality of your own health care: 10% Better, 31% Worse, 56% Same
The cost of health care for you and your family: 8% Better, 48% Worse, 40% Same
Your ability to get and keep health insurance: 10% Better, 32% Worse, 54% Same

Party ID
36% Democratic, 20% Republican, 35% independent (chart)

Kentucky

2010 Senate: Democratic Primary
47% Mongiardo, 31% Conway

2010 Senate: Republican Primary
40% Paul, 28% Grayson

2010 Senate
43% Grayson (R), 38% Mongiardo (D)
44% Grayson (R), 36% Conway (D)
46% Paul (R), 37% Mongiardo (D)
45% Paul (R), 39% Conway (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Trey Grayson: 53 / 24
Ran Paul: 55 / 25
Daniel Mongiardo: 45 / 41
Jack Conway: 44 / 40
Steve Beshear: 50 / 45
Mitch McConnell: 46 / 49
Jim Bunning: 33 / 56
Barack Obama: 39 / 57

National

Obama Job Approval
46% Approve, 48% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 80 / 15 (chart)
Reps: 12 / 84 (chart)
Inds: 47 / 45 (chart)

Congressional Job Approval
18% Approve, 76% Disapprove (chart)

Based on what you know about the health care reform legislation being considered right now, do you favor or oppose the plan?
35% Favor, 55% Oppose (chart)

Party ID
40% Democrat, 37% Republican, 18% independent (chart)

National

2012 President: Republican Primary
28% Romney, 24% Huckabee, 23% Palin, 11% Paul

National

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
37% Republican, 36% Democrat (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Barack Obama: 47 / 47 (chart)
Nancy Pelosi: 29 / 56
Harry Reid: 20 / 43

Job Approval / Disapproval
49% Approve, 47% Disapprove (chart)
Health Care: 41 / 55 (chart)

Do you favor or oppose the health care reform bill currently being considered by Congress?
40% Favor, 54% Oppose (chart)

National

Favorable / Unfavorable
Barack Obama: 53 / 41 (chart)
Nancy Pelosi: 37 / 55
Harry Reid: 27 / 66
Mitch McConnell: 21 / 63
John Boehner: 20 / 62
Democratic Party: 39 / 55
Republican Party: 30 / 66

State of the Country
38% Right Direction, 59% Wrong Track (chart)

Wisconsin

2010 Governor (trends)
46% Neumann (R), 42% Barrett (D)
48% Walker (R), 42% Barrett (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Mark Neumann: 53 / 27
Scott Walker: 55 / 28
Tom Barrett: 53 / 34

Instead of randomly selecting their respondents, the Chamber of Commerce sampled from voter lists, a practice The New York Times and many other media pollsters do not endorse because the lists are often outdated and are generally not representative -- they do not include unlisted telephone numbers, for example.

In other words, the New York Times claims it will not publish polls conducted using registration based list sampling (RBS).

As I am not familiar with the New York Times' "stringent standards" for publishing poll results, I was admittedly perplexed when I read about the New York Times' opposition to RBS polling. Why? Because I had seen them publish polls in the past that use RBS.

Just today, in fact, the Times published an RBS result in an a blog discussing Senator Barbara Boxer's bid for re-election:

'A new Field Poll shows that the three candidates hoping to unseat Senator Barbara Boxer have gained ground. Senator Boxer, who is in her third term, trails Tom Campbell, a former congressman, 44 to 43 percent, and leads Carly Fiorina, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, 45 to 44 percent.'

The Field Poll, one of the oldest and most widely respected polling firms in California, uses RBS technology "when conducting surveys of the state's registered voter population". A search of the New York Times' archive reveals 20 mentions of the Field Poll in the last 12 months.

The Field Poll is not the only firm to use RBS technology. The vaunted pre-caucus Iowa Poll conducted by Ann Selzer rode RBS to being the only poll to predict a Kerry/Edwards 1-2 finish in the 2004 Democratic Iowa Caucus, and it accurately projected Obama and Huckabee victories in the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. The New York Times has quoted Selzer's pre-caucus polls.

Of course, I would still be somewhat suspicious of the Chamber of Commerce sponsored polls, and Mandelbaum implies the Times is too. They are after all polls conducted by a Republican leaning firm for an organization against the current healthcare reform bill. But for the New York Times' to claim they never publish RBS polls is laughable.

Indeed, It appears that the Times accepts list based samples in some instances but not others. So what is the New York Times' standard for publishing RBS polls?

Florida

2010 Senate: Republican Primary
58% Rubio, 30% Crist, 12% undecided (chart)

2010 Senate: Democratic Primary
24% Meek, 21% Crist

2010 Governor: Republican Primary
47% McCollum, 9% Dockery (chart)

2010 Senate: General Election (trends)
45% Crist (R), 36% Meek (D) (chart)
41% Rubio (R), 40% Meek (D) (chart)
32% Rubio (R), 29% Crist (i), 27% Meek (D)
40% Rubio (R), 38% Crist (D)

2010 Governor: General Election (trends)
41% McCollum, 35% Sink (chart)
37% Sink, 15% Dockery

Favorable / Unfavorable
Kendrick Meek: 25 / 18
Charlie Crist: 44 / 45 (chart)
Marco Rubio: 29 / 36
Alex Sink: 27 / 24
Bill McCollum: 44 / 29
Paula Dockery: 12 / 7
Bill Nelson: 42 / 40 (chart)
George LeMieux: 17 / 38
Barack Obama: 47 / 49 (chart)

President Obama's recent appointment of Yale professor Edward Tufte to the independent commission charged with tracking stimulus funds underscores the growing importance of data visualization in both public policy and political debate.

Tufte is inarguably the modern era's leading authority on data visualization, the transformation of raw data into graphical form. These visuals - graphs, charts and other types of information graphics - are frequently responsible for remarkably stunning revelations and deep insights that may otherwise have been obscured among large and cumbersome spreadsheets or databases.

The federal stimulus is just that - an incomprehensibly enormous $787 billion piece of legislation being distributed across 50 states, 435 congressional districts, 28 federal agencies and over 160,000 individual projects. President Obama's challenge is to convincingly show the American public that their money is being well-spent.

Thanks to a neurological phenomenon called the pictorial superiority effect, the human brain is hardwired to find visualizations more compelling than a spreadsheet, speech or memo. So it's no wonder that Obama has turned to a data visualization guru for the monitoring of his administration's largest legislative accomplishment to date. Meaningful visualizations of stimulus data can make the project more transparent, accountable, and could ultimately even impact the legislation's perceived success.

Transparency, allowing the public to see the who, what, when and where behind stimulus funding, will help alleviate any perceptions of waste, inefficiency, or unfairness. Indeed, the most common criticisms of government spending are that it is unequally or unfairly distributed across communities, that it goes to unworthy projects, or that it simply isn't doing those things it was meant to do: stimulate the economy and create jobs. But states like California have already engaged with design firms to visualize the disbursement of stimulus funds, mapping dollars to projects and locations, in turn increasing voters' investment in the bill as they see its direct benefits to their community.

Data visualization can also make the federal stimulus more accountable, revealing fraud, abuse or even honest mistakes. A case in point: the public outcry over the recent revelation that stimulus funding seemed to go to congressional districts that didn't exist. This seemingly innocuous data entry error quickly became an anti-stimulus talking point, whereas a simple visualization of the data could have revealed the problem well ahead of its entry into the news cycle.

Finally, there is also great political advantage to effective visualizations of the Stimulus Act. Convincing voters of its merit will take more than declarative speeches and number-drenched spreadsheets, and the Obama administration knows this. Their appreciation for the political power of data visualization was on display last month when it released a graph of weekly job losses since December 2007. The bars, color-coded by presidential administration, tell a distinct, if not debatable, story about the stimulus' impact. The visualization took the internet by storm as pro-stimulus voters shared, linked, blogged and tweeted the image, and anti-stimulus voters denounced it as infographic propaganda, all the while scrambling to create their own charts telling their side of the story.

These chart wars are only going to become more and more common in political discourse. President Obama understands this acutely - and this was certainly the subtext in appointing Edward Tufte to the stimulus board.

Chris Cilizza says public indecision on health care reform is a "myth."

Alan Reifman compares two polls of swing districts on health care reform.

Reid Wilson digsdeeper into divergent PA polls

The International Association of Machinists finds low Obama approval among its members.

A pollster is testing Betsy McCaughey for NY Senate (via Smith).

Ipsos finds 91% of Hispanics plan to participate in the Census.

Joel Benenson talks to Time's Michael Scherer.

The Pew Research Center answers the burning question, "What does Pew stand for?"

Stephen Colbert answers the Census (via Sullivan).

They begin with a question that they have tracked since April:

From what you have heard about Barack Obama's health care plan, do you think his plan is a good idea or a bad idea? If you do not have an opinion either way, please just say so.

On the most recent survey, just 36% consider the plan a good idea (up from 31% in late January), 48% consider it a bad idea (up from 46%) and 16% either have no opinion or are unsure (down from 23%). This question, which prompts to say when they have "no opinion," also shows a slow steady decline over the past year in the percentage without an opinion, from 41% last April to just 16% now.

Then they follow up:

Do you think it would be better to pass Barack Obama's health care plan and make its changes to the health care system or to not pass this plan and keep the current health care system?

Here opinion divides evenly: 46% say pass and change, 45% do not pass and keep the current system, with the rest volunteering a response of "neither" (4%) or unsure (5%).

What is even more interesting is the pattern of the result when tabulated by party identification. The tabulations below (kindly provided by the NBC/WSJ pollsters) includes party "leaners" among the partisans, so the independent group represents the 15% of adults on their most recent survey that think of themselves as "strictly independent."

Republicans are solidly, consistently opposed to Obama's health reform bill. Four out of five (83%) think its a bad idea -- a number that has not changed since January -- and almost as many (79%) would rather not pass the plan and keep the status quo.

While a majority of Democrats favor the legislation, we see an 11-point gap between the number who think it's a good idea (64%) and those who prefer to pass the bill (75%). Among independents the gap is 19 points: Only 26% are convinced the bill is a good idea, but far more want to pass the bill and change the system (45%).

So while Republicans are uniformly opposed, many Democrats have doubts, even those who prefer to see the bill pass than to do nothing. For some, these doubts are about the lack of a public option or too much compromise, but for others, the doubts stem from their perceptions (right or wrong) about the bill's cost or the increased role of government (for more, see Nate's Silver's word clouds of the very helpful Gallup open-ended data).

The slight increase in support for reform measured by most surveys in recent weeks (the just released Pew Research Center poll being an apparent exception) comes mostly from Democrats. That pattern makes perfect sense, since the intramural disagreements among Democratic leaders have faded considerably in recent weeks. Consider Glenn Greenwald's summary:

For almost a full year, scores of progressive House members vowed -- publicly and unequivocally -- that they would never support a health care bill without a robust public option...Up until a few weeks ago, many progressive opinion leaders -- such as Moulitsas, Howard Dean, Keith Olbermann and many others -- were insisting that the Senate bill was worse than the status quo and should be defeated. But now? All of those progressives House members are doing exactly what they swore they would never do -- vote for a health care bill with no public option -- and virtually every progressive opinion leader is not only now supportive of the bill, but vehemently so.

The important point: Neither of these poll questions gets at the whole of public opinion on health care reform nor provides even a complete picture of the general impressions of the legislation. If you focus exclusively on the "good idea/bad idea" question (which, incidentally, now matches almost perfectly the Pew Research "favor or oppose" results released today), you miss that three quarters of Democrats and nearly half of independents prefer to move forward with this bill than remain locked in the status quo.

But if you focus exclusively on the pass-and-change/don't-pass-don't-change question, you miss the big doubts expressed by the vast majority of true independents and nearly a third of Democrats, and the huge gap in intensity of opinion on this subject that separates Republicans and Democrats.

Finally, I received two emails yesterday taking us to task for including the first NBC/WSJ question in our chart but "completely ignoring" the second. Here's one:

Right now, you're using the "good idea/bad idea" numbers from the NBC/WSJ poll today. However, the name of the graph on your website is "Favor" or "Oppose". If someone favors something, they would say pass it.

You should be using this metric or both metrics - not the "good idea/bad idea" metric by itself, which does not fit whatsover into your chart.

Our chart admittedly flaunts a bit of polling orthodoxy by combining results from different questions using different language and response categories. The more traditional approach would stop at the sort of apples-to-apples comparisons plotted in my post yesterday. So reasonable people will likely disagree with the questions we have chosen to include or exclude on the chart. If we dropped the good idea/bad idea result from the most recent NBC/WSJ poll, and replaced it with the pass & change/don't pass-don't change result, our overall trend estimates would narrow slightly (from 43.4% favor, 48.9% oppose to 44.7% favor, 48.5% oppose).

But I disagree with the argument that the second NBC/WSJ question is obviously closer to the standard "favor or oppose" question asked by other pollsters. It does ask if the respondent wants to pass the bill, which is straightforward, but it also frames the question in terms of change versus the status quo. How many Republican leaders have you heard state that they oppose the Democratic plan because they want to "keep the current health care system" as it is now?

Moreover, the most important purpose of the chart to track trends apparent across multiple polls, not to somehow magically derive the true levels of support and opposition from multiple polls. The NBC/WSJ poll has tracked their good idea/bad idea formulation for almost a year. Abruptly switching introduces some discontinuity. For better or worse, we will stick with this measure for NBC/WSJ unless and until they start tracking something else.

Wisconsin

2010 Senate (trends)
47% Thompson (R), 45% Feingold (D)
51% Feingold (D), 35% Westlake (R)
49% Feingold (D), 40% Wall (R)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Tommy Thompson: 59 / 39
Russ Feingold: 51 / 47 (chart)
Terrence Wall: 39 / 28
Jake Westlake: 34 / 26

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 52 / 48 (chart)
Gov. Doyle: 46 / 53 (chart)

National

2012 President
46% Obama, 44% Huckabee
49% Obama, 41% Palin
45% Obama, 34% Daniels
44% Obama, 44% Romney

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 47 / 48 (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Mike Huckabee: 31 / 36 (chart)
Sarah Palin: 36 / 50 (chart)
Mitch Daniels: 7 / 19
Mitt Romney: 32 / 39 (chart)

National

Suppose that your representative in Congress votes for the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Would that make you more likely or less likely to vote for your representative in Congress This November?
34% More likely, 50% Less likely

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?
45% Somewhat/Strongly Favor, 52% Somewhat/Strongly Oppose (chart)

Do you favor or oppose a single payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone?
33% Favor, 54% Oppose