Stones Cry Out

Actually they are. I don't believe this is a push poll. In my estimation, the questions were fairer and presented more accurate information regarding the case in the preamble than the previous poll released 3/13. More on that later.

But, I will add something here that is purely anecdotal. Today I was sitting in my office prepping final drafts of documents for clients (HUD Consolidated Plan deadlines are looming) and I heard a conversation between three of my co-workers whose cubicles are situated just outside my office. Two things struck me: 1) How adamantly opposed they were to the actions taken by Congress; and 2) How little they knew about the facts of the case or even what Congress decided.

My co-workers are convinced that Terri is a "vegetable" who has been on "life support" for years against her wishes. They also think that Congress voted to reinsert the tube, again, against her wishes.

The conversation was both interesting and sad at the same time. My co-workers are educated (each has at least a Bachelor's, but one has a Master's degree) and since they talk current events regularly, in my estimation they are fairly informed compared to the average American (not to condescend).

So what does this say for the poll? Well, since it's anecdotal, absolutely nothing solid. But I think it may suggest a few things about the findings: 1) The public may not really understand the issues; and 2) the poll's use of the word "life support" may be pushing some respondents into supporting the removal of Terri's feeding tube.

Look, the margins here are huge and cross-cut party, age, and religious belief characteristics folks. Although some think use of "life support" in the poll question is solid evidence of a push poll, I don't buy it. If the question (see here) were revised as follows, "Schaivo suffered brain damage and has been on life support fed through a feeding tube for 15 years" I don't think it would have made much difference at all. But that's just my opinion.

May I suggest though that there may be a problem with the level of knowledge of the case among respondents, despite the news coverage and the survey preamble? Although "just under 6 in 10 Americans are closely following the Schiavo case, including 16 percent who've been following it very closely," I have to wonder what "following the story "closely" means. I'd be curious to read the data crosstabs by level of attention paid to the story. Is there a significant difference in opinion amongst those paying "very close" attention compared to those paying "somewhat close" attention? We don't know. The data is not presented by that metric. I raise this question because in light of my experience with my co-workers today.

Perhaps I should poll my co-workers in the morning with the same question used in the ABC poll. I suspect that they would respond that in the "somewhat closely" group given their lack of understanding of the facts, but also given the length of their discussion and the passion with which they expressed their opinions.

At any rate, here's another anecdote for you to consider. I heard Congressman David Drier on Hugh Hewitt today talking about the case. He said that as of last week he was against federal intervention on federalism grounds. But then he started learning the facts of the case and became involved and supportive of legislation for federal judicial review. Congressman Drier described how he had run into numerous constituents who questioned federal involvement and that he realized they really didn't understand the facts of the case or why the Congress was acting in a hugely bi-partisanship fashion (Unanimous voice vote on the Senate for example). He said that once he had a chance to explain to his constituents how he came to his decision, they were persuaded.

Why would a Congressman risk so much political capital on this issue if even a majority of conservatives (says the poll) are opposed to federal intervention? Why would Democratic members of Congress do so? There has to be internal polling on this subject on both sides of the aisle.

The ABC News poll tells us clearly that the public is heavily against removing her feeding tube and heavily against federal intervention. We do not know how much of those currently opposed are like my co-workers or like Congressman Drier's constituents and are ignorant of the facts of Terri's situation. Moreover, we don't know whether education on the subject would change responses any, but we could have a better idea if we knew the responses to the poll by level of attention paid to the story.

Polling organizations like ABC News are not supposed to educate people regarding the issues they are polling. If a large portion of the public is not well informed on a subject matter related to an area in which they already have solidly formed opinions (I wouldn't want to be on "life support" or a "vegetable," therefore I think Terri's tube should be removed and Congress should stay out of it), in most cases, three sentences of preamble will not be sufficient to illicit a respondents true opinion. I'm sure there are those who viewed the questions asked by ABC News as pushing respondents into pro-Schiavo and pro-Congress answers. That's what makes the design of survey instruments so difficult.