Why You Should Not Trust Polls

During my 30 years of consulting I designed, administered, and analyzed a variety of employee and customer surveys (polls).

 Surveying is an important and efficient method for collecting, organizing, and analyzing the input of hundreds and perhaps thousands of people. A well-designed survey will include demographic identifiers that can help you slice and dice the data. The Internet can capture, update, and report trends and findings in matter of seconds. 

 The quality of the survey results is impacted by a variety of snafus, some technical, others administrative. The most common and generic mistakes people make are:

·      Sampling.  The sample must mirror the population you are surveying. As a federal republic, we elect presidents on a state-by-state basis through the Electoral College, and not on a national referendum basis. That is why the total number of votes is trumped, no pun intended, by the cumulative results of the states. Most polls rely on fix-line phone calls. We know that millions of people have opted for the cellular route. There is no comprehensive phone listing for cell numbers. Therefore, it is easy to miss the input of folks who have chosen to abandon fix lines.

·      Wording. Questions need to be clear, concise, and free of desirability and double binding (two or questions in one).  This is a common problem. The words used must make sense to the respondent. Asking people to pass judgments on topics for which there is an expected (socially desirable) response leads to getting the answer you are fishing for. We saw this in the last election. Folks who supported Trump were not always willing to say so, afraid perhaps of social consequences. Asking questions with an “and” in the middle makes it tough to distinguish which of the two parts is the respondent answering. Asking folks to comment on a topic they know little about is also to be avoided.

·      Snapshots.  Surveys are snapshots in time, not the whole movie. When sequencing the snapshots, you might capture a trend, but not the final movie. There are events (October surprises, for example) that can alter the trend’s trajectory abruptly. We saw this phenomenon in action in last presidential election. On the 27^th of October Clinton was leading; on November 8^th Trump won. In the interim a variety of events took place that might have shifted enough people to the other side.

Defense Mechanisms

When the results of a survey (poll) are “hot” or “shocking”, you can anticipate one of three types of response:

·      Attack. People will criticize the questions, how they were framed or asked, or the context in which they were asked. Some will attack the credibility or the qualifications of the persons conducting the survey. Others will raise questions about the validity and/or reliability of the results. This response is typical of red-hot personalities.

·      Rationalization. People will intellectualize the findings, provide reasons for the results, and engage in what if explorations. Some will debate the statistics. It is an attempt to cool the results down in order to avoid its “hot” or controversial impact. This response is typical of cool-green personalities.

·      Whatever. A few will choose to go with the flow invoking the classical California defense mechanism of “whatever.” It is a nice way to avoid dealing with the controversy or hot potato. This response is typical of the “yellow or sunshine” personality.

Defense mechanisms are responses to a perceived threat. Unless data are cooled down, it will be hard to proceed to the “so-what” and problem-solving phase. We saw these factors in play after the 2016 presidential results. Polls predicted a certain outcome when in-fact another came out.

Mid-Term Elections

We will soon be voting for the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate. Every week or so we are presented with poll results.  It is hard to make sense of what they mean. Some experts tell us that it will be a vote for or against Trump. Others will remind you that they will reflect the local situation.

Historically, people vote their pocketbook. The proverbial question is: Are you better off now than you where two years ago? Many will answer this question through their self-interest lens.  Am I earning more? Is my stock portfolio doing better? Am I more secure in my job? Are there more and better job opportunities? And so on.  Others will answer based on their philosophical bent. Do I like Trump’s style and personality? Are we going in the right direction? Are our values being tarnished? And so on.

It is hard to predict which side will carry more weight: economics or personal values. Most folks do not like to change horses in the proverbial mid-stream. If they perceive the country moving in the right direction, they will vote for the status quo. If they perceive that they are worse off now than they were two years ago, they will vote for the opposition party. It will be hard to show that people are not as well off economically given the passage of the tax bill, a surging economy, and a historically low unemployment rate.

The other variable is the message. Is the message uplifting and one that speaks to the voter’s concerns and needs, or is it a message concocted by party extremists pushing an agenda with which the voter does not relate? You cannot be against everything. You have to be for something.

Interesting footnote. The Democrats who upset Republicans in Alabama, Pennsylvania, and other states in the past 2-3 months interim elections look and sound more Republican that the Republicans they replaced.

We are a divided country. Red in the middle, and Blue along the West Coast and the North East. Excesses on both sides of the aisle will surely affect the final result. We are a long way from October and possible surprises.  However, we can predict that one side will rejoice, and the other will cry foul.

The Coming Out of the Deep State

I watched with interest George Stephanopoulos’ interview of ex-FBI Director James Comey on ABC Sunday night. I was disappointed. I learned nothing new about Trump. However, I did learn much about Comey. He came across to me as a pompous, self-righteous and one-dimensional man.

Comey dispenses criticism liberally on Trump (to be expected), on former President Obama (for saying publicly twice that there is “no there-there” regarding the email investigation), on former Attorney General Lynch (for suggesting he use the term “matter” when referring to the Clinton's email investigation, for Loretta Lynch’s lack of transparency), and several others including current Attorney General Sessions.

He had no criticism for Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and others who under his watch are alleged to have engaged in actions intended to stop Trump by discrediting him. Like the fine lawyer he is, he cleverly used language to cast doubt on Trump’s actions by saying that Trump might have committed obstruction of justice. Not for a second, did Comey stop and took responsibility for the extent to which he might have contributed to the problem, other than admitting that he had leaked memos to friends who in turn leaked them to the New York Times, in violation of established FBI protocol.

My appetite whet, I embarked on a little research, thanks to the Internet. 

Most people have for some time suspected that behind the elected government there is a shadow government. It is the latter that stymies any legislation and regulation that conflict with the so-called career government employees' agenda and self-interest. It is the latter that resists change, and it is the latter than makes voters conclude that politicians say one thing, and do another.

Secret Societies

Ardent citizens have joined forces over the centuries to counterweigh the reach and role of government. One such group, the Masons, was instrumental in fueling the rebellion against the perceived exploitive rule of the British monarch over its North American colony.

Since the Middle Ages, people have joined fraternal organizations composed of folks sharing a common craft, its mythological origins, and its sacred rituals. Secret societies exist among Protestants, Catholics, and Jewish communities.

Opus Dei (the Work of God), for example, is the catholic society founded in Spain by Jose Maria Escrivia that has been instrumental over the centuries in protecting the Church’s interests in Latin America.

B’nai B’rith is the Jewish society promoting and supporting the State of Israel. 

Since their founding many societies have slowly morphed into benevolent civic organizations.

To keep outsiders out, secret societies employ passwords, handshakes, rituals, and other symbols to foil unwanted outside attention. Their names might now be perceived as innocuous but their original purpose remains crystal clear … to further members’ political and welfare interests.

The Deep State

The term has surfaced in our current political dialog “to describe influential decision making bodies within the government that are relatively permanent whose policies and long term objectives are unaffected by changing administrations.”

The Deep State draws its power from the national security and intelligence apparatus, where secrecy is a source of power. Over time it has morphed into a so-called 4^th branch of government that in many ways is autonomous from the executive branch. Many conspiracy theories surround the use of the term Deep State.

President Eisenhower was the first to call attention to this phenomenon when he alerted the nation about the danger posed by the military-industrial complex. He was afraid that the combination could lead the nation into unwise military adventures.

President Obama’s alleged lack of success in Afghanistan’s war was engineered by the defense and national security network. In fact, he was pushed into the 2009 “surge”. He also was unable to close the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp due to the perceived influence of the Deep State.

Currently, President Trump has accused intelligence and executive branch officials of leaking information and seeding confusion in the electorate regarding his policies. Anthropologist C. August Elliott describes the rise of the shallow state as “an America where public servants now function as tugboats guiding the President’s very leaky ship through the shallows, away from a potential shipwreck.”

The Deep State phenomenon is not unique to the U.S.  Similarities in Egypt and Turkey have surfaced recently in the press as a result of the rise of the Islamic Brotherhood in both Egypt and Turkey, and the resulting coup in Egypt by the military.

Many parallels can also be traced in Europe as elected politicians are stymied in their attempts to bring about change and reform. Large and powerful unions have joined the partnership with the Deep State to prevent what they consider a roll back of hard won collective bargaining gains. As a result, much needed changes languish to the detriment of the national interest.

Parallels

Some folks see the fingerprints of the Deep State in the revelations of the Peter Strzok-Lisa Page email exchange. Others see Comey’s book tour as another attempt at checkmating a president seen unworthy or illegitimate to hold office.

Many speculate that the mainstream media has been colluding (unnamed sources) with the Deep State in attacking President Trumps’ every move and action, and by failing to unveiling not a single redeeming value in his persona or leadership style.

Many accuse Democrat members of Congress of hurting the national interest by continually lambasting Trump with accusations of collusion with the Russians to win the election. Trump's defenders point out that not a single member of Trump’s team has yet been charged with collusion. Those who have been charged are accused with crimes either dating to misdeeds prior to the election or for not being candid with the FBI.

The existence of a shadow government run by career bureaucrats is indeed a red flag. The Deep State is not a monolith. Within there are many mini Deep States with different agendas, sinister motives, and party loyalties. Some wage passive resistance to efforts by opposing groups to scuttle legislation or by opposing specific programs.

Regardless of party affiliation, the existence and influence of the Deep State is the ultimate danger faced by our democracy. The American voter has elected none of these folks. Both parties should collaborate in purging these abusers of power …