So my advice to President Obama . . . Challenge Congress to pass a reform bill that requires all members to obtain their health insurance the same way as those without employer-provided health insurance -- through the newly created health care exchanges, rather than the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. The two systems are conceptually similar -- similar enough that the pledge could help sell voters on the benefits of the exchange itself.

"...it comes out there:"

[O]ne of the decisions Harry Reid had to make in reconciling the HELP Committee and Finance Committee was whether or not to require Members of Congress to purchase their insurance the same way everyone else does. The Finance Committee would have required all Members of Congress to give up their Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan and buy insurance through the new exchanges instead, while the HELP bill would allow them to keep their exclusive health care plans.

The final bill's out, and Reid chose to include the Finance Committee language. Straight form the bill text:

(d) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.

(i) REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

Heh.

Greg Sargent notes that NYC terror trial opposition tends to be old, white and Republican.

David Hill gives Obama's stock a "sell" rating.

Mark Mellman says voters oppose Congress making abortion decision.

John Petrocik charts Obama job approval for Resurgent Republic.

Alan Reifman calculates opposition to health care reform from the Left.

John Sides flags surprising opposition to the Opt-Out provision for the Public Option.

Nathaniel Persily reviews new survey data on "terror, torture and death."

Politico's Alex Isenstadt reports on reactions from Democratic party officials to setbacks with independents.

Noam Scheiber responds to Rasmussen and Schoen on deficit politics.

Nate Silver, Tom Schaller and Jim Geraghty ponder whether Sarah Palin will run for president.

James Vega thinks Obama's new Afghan strategy is not a "betrayal" of the Democratic base.

Chris Bowers finds the demographics of Democrats look more progressive than Blue Dog.

Tom Schaller handicaps the 2010 races for governor.

Teagan Goddard recaps coverage of his CQ/Roll Call polling panel.

The Pew Internet & American Life Project reports on teens and distracted driving.

Mike Mokrzycki assesses two surveys looking at who will pay for news.

Melissa DeCesare shares data on the power of Mom.

Doug Hoffman "Un-Concedes."

How will Frank Luntz top this (via Eldon)?

The point is, polling on issues is next to useless--especially on issues as emotionally complicated as wars and as technically complicated as health care reform. The only safe conclusion from these particular polls is this: the public has mixed feelings on Afghanistan and health care reform. Brilliant! I have mixed feelings, too. But that's not the way you'll see these played: the headlines will be: Public Opposes Health bill. Public Opposes War.

And the headlines will be ginormous. This is one of my biggest gripes with journalism as it is practiced, particularly on cable news: Polling numbers are "facts." They can be cited with absolute authority, sort of. And so they are given credence beyond all proportion to their actual importance or relevance. But they are not very truthy facts. The are imperfect impressions.

Thoughts anyone?

[Correction: I added "next to" back to the headline. Thanks to Mark L for catching my goof and apologies for the omission]. 

I directed the question (which begins at about the 1:00 mark) at Rasmussen and Jensen largely because their national surveys on presidential job approval and other issues are among the few that currently report results for likely voters or "voters" and because their reports provide little definition of those terms. The persistent and noticeable "house effect" in the Rasmussen results has led some to conclude that they are "polling a different country than other polling outfits."

I promise a longer post tomorrow summarizing my take on why Rasmussen is different, but since I'm running out of blogging time today, here are the verbatim answers from earlier today followed by a few comments. First, Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports:

First of all, we actually do have something in our daily presidential tracking poll that says that it's likely voters not adults, and we we do have a link to a page that explains something about the differences, maybe not as concisely or as articulate as I will say here...

There's a challenge to defining a likely voter. The process is a little different than in the week before an election for us than it is in two months before an election than it is in a year before an election. And to give a little history, normally if you would go do a sample of all adults, you go and interview whoever picks up the phone and you model your population sample to the population at large. When you begin to sample for likely voters you do it by asking a series of screening questions.

At this point in time, we use a fairly loose screening process, in the sense that we don't ask details about how certain you are to vote in a particular election next November. In fact, even the term "likely voters" is probably not the best term. I used to use the phrase "high propensity voters," because it was suggesting that these people who were most likely to show up in a typical mid-term election. We're not claiming this is a particular model of who will show up in 2010. When we used the phrase, "high propensity voters" -- I got a bunch of journalists who wrote back saying, "what does that mean?" I tried to explain it and they said, "oh you mean likely voters." So I finally just gave up.

Now for us [what] happens is that from this point in time, from now until Labor Day right before the election we will continue to use this model. These are people who are generally likely to show up in a mid-term election. When we get closer to the election, we add additional screens based on their interest in the election and their certainty of voting in this particular race and so the number does get more precise.

What does it mean in practical terms? Rasmussen Reports and Gallup are the only two polls out there with a daily tracking poll of the President's job approval. If you go back from January 20th on, most of the time you will see that Gallup's reported number is about three or four or five points higher than ours, because these are surveys and there is statistical noise. Sometimes the gap is bigger, sometimes its smaller. In fact there are some days when our number is a little bit higher than Gallup's. But typically, the gap between the adults and the likely voter sample is in the four or five point range.

The reason: Likely voters are less likely to include young adults, people who [as] Tom mentioned were very supportive of the President. They are less likely to include minority voters who are, again, very strongly supportive of this President. And so the gap is consistent.

Now I would explain that, at this point and time, it's a little like the difference between measuring something in inches or in meters, inches or in centimeters: the trends are the same in both cases, the implications are the same in both instances. And, by the way, the ultimate answers are that Republicans strongly disapprove of this President, Democrats strongly approve of this President, and independent voters have grown a little bit disenchanted, but they're not anywhere near the level of discontent that Republicans show. And that's true whether you measure it with likely voters or adults.

Next, Tom Jensen of PPP:

Well, I'll give a very concise answer. For our national polls, we're just pulling a list from Aristotle Incorporated of registered voters, period. We don't do any sort of likely voter sampling on our national polls. On our state level polls for 2010 races, we're polling lists of people who voted in the 2004, 2006 or 2008 general elections. If we were a live interviewer pollster that would be too liberal a sampling criteria, but we do automated polling and people who don't tend to vote in an election aren't going to answer an automated poll, so they just hang up. So we figure the 2008 wave voters we should be calling because some of them will come out in 2010, and those who will not, just hang up.

A few quick notes. First, very little of Rasmussen's explanation of his voter screen appears on the Rasmussen Reports methodology page (the one that's linked to from their daily presidential presidential tracking poll). Second, I'm still not quite clear on the question or questions that they currently use to screen for likely voters, although he implies that they ask a question about how often respondents typically vote. I understand that media pollsters often treat these screen questions like a proprietary "secret sauce," although the partisan pollsters that rely on screen questions, including Democracy Corps, Resurgent Republic and Public Opinion Strategies, typically include them in their filled-in questionnaires. Rasmussen Reports could help consumers of its data better understand "what country they are polling" if they did the same.

Finally, about Jensen's comment that "people who don't tend to vote in an election aren't going to answer an automated poll, so they just hang up:" He assumes that to be true -- and it's a perfectly reasonable assumption -- but I am not sure anyone has produced hard evidence yet that non-voters "just hang up." If they do, however, it calls into question the wisdom of assuming that an initial sample of adults called with an automated poll is really a sample of all adults (a question I've wondered about for years, even for pre-election surveys conducted with live interviewers).

The column quotes the pollsters at the three most prominent firms that conduct automated polling, SurveyUSA, Rasmussen Reports and Public Policy Polling (PPP).  Since I quoted each only briefly in the article, and since their comments were all far more extensive and on-the-record, I am sharing them here verbatim.

I asked each to respond to this passage of a polling review from former George W. Bush deputy chief of staff Karl Rove:

Automated polling firms like SurveyUSA and Rasmussen have drawn criticism in the health care debate for showing Americans significantly more opposed to reform than traditional pollsters who use human interviewers.

Yet on Tuesday, automated polling firms like Rasmussen were significantly more accurate than conventional competitors. Voters who stay on the phone to answer the questions of an automated pollster may more accurately represent the electorate in off-‐year elections when turnout is lower and only the most enthusiastic voters are likely to turn out. If so, Democrats who face re-‐election next year should start worrying--automated pollsters' results showing a majority of Americans opposed to health care reform may be the most prescient look at what lies in store for next year's midterms.

Scott Rasmussen, Rasmussen Reports

First, I am pleased that Karl Rove noted how "automated polling firms like Rasmussen were significantly more accurate than conventional competitors" in polling the New Jersey Governor's race.

Only part of that success can be attributed to the automated methodology. Much of it has to do with the way that we measured the support of nominal supporters of Daggett and undecided voters. Our survey model helped us project actual Daggett's vote total more closely than other firms.

As a result, I continue to believe that you can do a good automated poll or a good operator-assisted poll. You can also do a bad poll using either method. Automated systems clearly have an advantage when it comes to consistency in tracking polls, but there may be areas where operator-assisted polls have an advantage as well.

As for the health care debate, the methodology issue has little to do with it because all polls show a plurality or majority opposition to the health care plan working its way through Congress. On the Pollster.com site, the average results show 49.6% opposed and 41.8% in favor, a gap of just under 8 points. Our latest polling at Rasmussen Reports shows 45% in favor and 52% opposed, a 7 point gap.

I do believe Democrats should be concerned because the health care debate has become a lose-lose situation for them. But, it's not because automated polls show a different result. It's because all polls send the same message. The health care issue is complex and very challenging to measure. But, the overall messages from polling using both automated systems and operator-assisted approaches are quite similar. Most Americans are at least somewhat happy with their own coverage and quality of care. Anything that would force them to change is going to create political problems. Competition and choice are seen as good things. And, there is a strong desire to reduce the cost of health care along with a skepticism about the ability of our political process to accomplish that goal.

Jay Leve, SurveyUSA

Recorded-voice telephone polls are not inherently superior.

Recorded-voice telephone polls are not inherently inferior.

True: when asked yes/no questions about personal conduct - such as: "Do you have unprotected sex?" or "Do you drink alone?" - respondents who answer by pressing a button or checking a box report higher incidences than respondents who must "confess" to a human.

But: I don't think you can argue, on an issue as complicated as health-care, that mode trumps. I could draft two health-care questions today, and produce conflicting results tomorrow, one that shows support for reform, the other that shows opposition. And I could do that regardless of whether the research was conducted by US mail, mall intercepts, headset operators, professional announcers, or email.

Too many poll watchers are mode-fixated. Often, mode is the least of it.

Tom Jensen, Public Policy Polling (PPP):

IVR polls were more accurate than live interviewers in New Jersey and Virginia at calling the horse race. That does not mean IVR is superior to live interviewers on every kind of question that ever gets polled. It does mean that IVR polls should be taken as seriously as any other polls on most measures of public opinion- they deserve to be a part of the discussion. They should not be ignored on issues like health care and Obama's approval.

That said, I think Rasmussen's Republican friendly numbers on things like Obama's approval and health care are more a result of his polling likely voters, presumably for the midterm elections, than an IVR vs. live interviewer thing. We saw last Tuesday that GOP voters are a lot more fired up right now so it's not surprising they're more likely to pass an off year voter screen. We model our monthly national approval polls on a Presidential year electorate because of the 2012 horse race polling we do and we find Obama with numbers more similar to the live interviewer national pollsters than to Rasmussen's. That's a sampling issue rather than a mode issue.

There are good live interviewer polling outfits and bad ones. There are good IVR polling outfits and bad ones (particularly the sort of fly by night ones that aren't a consistent presence on the polling scene.) What I want to see is not for everyone to think that IVR polls are superior, but for people to judge individual polling companies on their actual merits and not how they conduct their interviews.

I'm not sure if that gets to the heart of what you're looking for and if you have any specific questions I'm happy to answer but those are my overall feelings- no individual poll should be treated as if it's the one and only accurate one but all polls with a track record of accuracy, so long as they're transparent about their methodology, deserve to be taken seriously.