Wisconsin solidly pro-choice, survey shows
This is the kind of poll that makes the anti-choice people even nuttier than usual, because it contradicts what they've been telling legislators for years.
When you ask Wisconsin residents the simple question, "On abortion, are you pro-life or pro-choice?" the response is overwhelmingly pro-choice.
Survey USA, which does polls in all 50 states, using random phone numbers, asked that question in mid-August of 577 adults.
Results for Wisconsin show a solid 57%-39% majority consider themselves pro-choice.
Every time there's a survey with these results, the anti-choice people issue a flood if press releases and statements claiming the poll is wrong, their own polls are better, and that Wisconsin is really anti-abortion.
Well, this poll even gave them the advantage in the question, using their own term, "pro-life." Of course, it doesn't test any of the other extreme language they have invented, like "partial birth abortion," to pry people away from their pro-choice attitudes. It just asks the question straight.
But the results show that people in almost every demographic are pro-choice. The only exceptions: 60% among Republicans say and 61% among conservatives say they are "pro-life."
It makes you wonder why these extremists have such clout in the legislature. It's because, like the National Rifle Association, they organize, threaten and bully legislators, who end up voting against the wishes of their constituents.
Nationally, Wisconsin ranked 17th of the 50 states in the percentage of pro-choice respondents. Vermont (!) was first, Utah last.
posted by xoff @ 8:39 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
XOff, very few poeple with a mathematical background would agree that seven percent is "overwhelmingly pro-choice" and that 577 people is a large enough random sample to make a generalization about the opinions of an entire state.
And most people with an English background would agree that using the term "pro-life" doesn't lend an advantage to either side. The question, as you wrote it, was completely neutral, as it should have been.
hmmm, back to stats class. first, "seven" percent... i must assume you meant 57%(back to editing class for third eye)...depending on the +/-, third eye could be correct in noting there may exist a smaller majority than mets the eye...however, the sample size is sufficient(getting the opinons of an entire state by not having to poll all of them is the entire idea).A larger sample size will not necessarily improve the stat. accuracy...type of data collection, and method of measurement would. even then, the difference may not be stat. significant.
Most political scientists would characterize 57% to 39% as a "solid" lead, although just shy of the 60% "rock-solid" threshold.
The reason that those of us who don't gaze wistfully at the Victorian definition of sexuality find the term "pro-life" to be misleading, expressing it in quotes (and then only when necessary) is because it's misleading and hypocritical. Most "pro-life" politicians are also pro-death penalty and pro-Iraq war, which is what those of us in the business refer to as hypocrisy.
At least Pope Benedict, as back-asswards as his thinking is, is consistently "pro-life" across the spectrum.
Really, "pro-life" activists and politicians are anti-choice, anti-freedom, anti-sex and anti-reality.
Well, if Scott Walker or Mark Green was leading Jim Doyle in a poll 57-39, would you think it was a solid lead?
For XOff:
Yes, but mostly because a challenger with that kind of a lead this far out would be a very strong number. Although, Feingold was at about 40% when put against a nameless challenger long before the election too.
For Diamond:
The similarity between putting a murderous thug to death and abortion is almost precisely equal to a rabbit dropping and a chocolate chip.
One sense may tell you that they are the same. Even a dimwit, when using all of their senses can discern the difference.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Neo is wrong; that sample size has to increase by about 300 before statistical theory can say we conducted a pretty accurate poll. Glad he brought up proper data collection too, because conducting a statewide poll by selecting random phone numbers isn't the most reliable method.
And Dave, "solid" isn't synonomous with "overwhelming". There's a difference. And if you want to argue statistics, the stances of a few pro-life politicians (many of them wingnuts) on the issues you brought up doesn't necessarily represent those of pro-life Wisconsinites as a whole. Conduct your own statistics-abiding poll on this and I think you'll find that out.
I personally don't care what Wisconsin as a whole thinks about this issue; I don't strongly identify with either side of it. What irks me is that a lot of political mouthpieces nowadays twist numbers and words in their arguments, present them as well-researched facts, and then pull whatever conclusion they like out of them. XOff's post covers all those bases.
As someone who has done campaigns and read polls for 20 years, let me assure you that a sample of 500 or even 400 is standard for a statewide poll. The biggest sample anyone uses is about 600.
Those numbers are quite reliable.
Score tally:
Thirdeye-O
Neo-1 and counting!
If only it were that easy. Considering that we care about a "solid majority" in this case, we need a decent level of precision (say 3 percent). For that kind of accuracy for a population of over 5.5 million, we need a sample of over 1000 people (look the formulas up yourself). And that's assuming that political beliefs don't vary greatly by factors like geography and population density, which we know is false. Mathematics over guesswork, unbiased investigation over ideologic hackery. No further discussion from me.
I'm the editor, so I always get the last word. National surveys, such as Gallup and Pew, use a sample of 1,000. Your methodology would suggest they need to survey something like 50,000 people to have accurate results. Clearly that is not true.
Post a Comment
<< Home