O'Neil Perspective

Financial crisis?  Demonize the culprit financial institutions.  Haul executives before Congress.  Watch them squirm.  (Remind anyone of our response to the S&L crisis of the 1980s?).  But when the shouting is over, don't implement any reforms that would seriously impact the incomes or operations of the financial firms.

Gulf oil spill?   Urge the President to trash-talk the President of BP.  But all but ignore whether there has been any serious effort towards increasing alternative energy sources or even regulatory reform of drilling practices since the Exxon Valdez. 

To read the full article on the Huffington Post or to comment, click here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-o/same-old-same-old-wall-st_b_632539.html

The reputedly conservative voters of the State of Arizona voluntarily added to their tax burden by passing a 1% sales tax increase.  The margin of the vote was almost 2-to-1. 
 
The measure passed in all but one of Arizona's 15 counties (the sole exception was Mojave County, a small rural enclave in the northwest corner of the state). Indeed, in Republican-leaning Maricopa County  which comprises over 60% of the state's population, the measure passed in 99% of the county's precincts.
 
What accounts for this apparently incongruous result?  In fact, it is not at all unusual for the state's voters.   I dealt with this matter on the day after the election in a recent appearance on KAET/PBS's Horizon.  (Click for Video). 
 
Ok, that was after the fact. Care to check up on what I was on record as saying would happen beforethe election?  (Click here for KNXV Video)
 
The legislature resisted even putting this matter on the ballot. How could they  be so out of touch?  I dealt with this matter in a recent Huffington Post article.  Click here to see the analysis of why.

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

To: My friends in the local media

 

Question:  Which news organizations refuse a matter of news policy, to run the results of robo-polls (polls conducted without the use of a real live interviewer) such as Rasmussen?

Answer:  ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post.  They all have professional researchers on staff who have set standards for those organizations.

Question:  Which news organizations run these polls all the time?

Answer:  In my home town of Phoenix, that would include TV channels 3, 5, 10, 12, and 15 (not sure about KAET/Channel 8).  Also The Arizona Republic and The National Enquirer.

Ok, I made the last one up, but that is probably not much of a stretch given their journalistic standards.  Which company would you care to be in?

Why do we see a proliferation of robo-polls (such as Rasmussen and SurveyUSA)?  Because they are absolutely free to conduct.  You throw a bunch of phone numbers into a database and have a large volume of robo-calls made over an IP telephone and you can conduct the entire survey at virtually ZERO cost in 3-4 hours.  But no callbacks to those not at home (so samples over-represent those who never leave the house), no respondent selection within the household (your eight year old can answer if he can operate a touch-tone phone), no live interviewer (effects unknown, but note the reference to the eight year old).  And seldom more than a single question.  Imagine, journalists, that you were restricted in your interviews to asking a single question of your news sources.  And that they could only respond with a monosyllabic response.  How much insight would your articles have? But these polls are quick, and the price is right.  As a result, they are numerous--dwarfing the few legitimate polls that are out there.

Why do you not see very many legitimate polls?  A scientifically conducted poll has to be expertly designed and administered with real live trained and supervised interviewers.  This costs money.  Who is willing to actually pay money to conduct legitimate polls on topics of public interest?  Those with a vested interest in the outcomes (think: slanted questions designed to show that the public agrees with their positions).

Who should be interested in actually informing the public about what the public thinks about the important issues facing us?  I’d like to think this might include large multimillion dollar media organizations.  Yea, I know times are tough and news rooms are being cut back everywhere.  But I’d hate to think that the new standard (with apologies to the New York Times) is “All the News that’s Cheap to Get”.

I have been involved in designing, reporting, and analyzing public opinion research data for over 35 years.  Obviously, I share this interest in informing the public.  But my resources are just a tiny bit less than those of the combined resources of five major market TV stations and a dominant newspaper. So when you (local reporter) as me (as happens all the time): “Do we have a poll on XXX” I always think to myself, “Which of us works for a major metropolitan news organization?”  (Side note: since we are conversant with local and national trends having observed them for decades, we don’t have to have personally conducted a poll to have insight.  Indeed, the really important stuff is seldom the answer to today’s question du jour but rather insight from observing patterns in all of the available information).

But, I pose this question to every news director in town:  I know budgets are tight and journalists are being laid off all over town.  But, when was the last time we learned anything significant about the functioning of our community as the result of a helicopter picture?   And what is your budget for that helicopter?

Print this out and slip this under your news director/editor’s door.  But you might want to do so at night after everyone else has gone home.

(Note: Sad to see the demise of the Channel 8 Cronkite Poll: it was the best source of data on attitudes towards public issues that we had with any regularity.)

In the meantime, at least we don’t get polls from “Strategic Vision” a “national” firm whose poll results were widely reported in the media throughout the 2008 election.  Upon inquiry by the American Association for Public Opinion Research they were unable to produce a dataset to demonstrate that they had actually collected any data (http://www.aapor.org/ AAPOR_Raises_Objections_to_Actions_by_Strategic_Vision_LLC.htm). A little further investigation by others found that the firm’s alleged “Atlanta headquarters” were, in fact, a UPS Store mailbox and that the real “headquarters” were in a motel park in a rural community over two hours away.  They were offered a cash reward to name any field (interviewing) service they had hired to conduct actual interviews.  (See http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/). They never responded to that offer. But the numerous “polls” that had been widely reported in national media stopped coming.
 
Caveat emptor.


Michael J. O'Neil PhD

In the last several months, the Arizona Legislature not only passed the Arizona Immigration Law, but also the lifted restrictions on carrying concealed weapons,  and even a "birther bill" requiring Presidential candidates to produce a birth certificate to get on the ballot. 

The Arizona public, on the other hand, has passed by initiative, numerous tax increases mandating increased public spending in education and social services that the legislature had consistently refused to pass.  For years, the legislature would repeal or revise these initiatives to eviscerate their intent.  This pattern was resulted the successful "Voter Protection" citizen initiative which made it virtually impossible for the legislature to undermine the intent of voter-passed initiatives.

Given the international furor over the Immigration Law, it is ironic that this may be the only of these with widespread public support . . . .

How could there be such a disconnect between the legislature's perspective and that of the people who elected them?

There are some structural issues which do much to explain the disconnect . . .

See the remainder of the Article in today's Huffington Post by clicking here.

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

 

The short version: public attitudes are


I discussed these on a recent KTVK-TV segment of "Politics Unplugged".  I hope you find the observations interesting:

 

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

Much of the country is angry about multimillion dollar bonuses paid out to senior executives at Wall Street firms that accepted bailout funds from the federal government.

This is part of a broader discontentment about the extent to which the federal response to a very real financial crisis has been structured to benefit Wall Street more than Main Street. Many people believed government officials when they said that government support was necessary to save the financial system. But when aided firms turned around and passed out massive "business as usual" bonuses to senior executives of those firms, the public rightly smelled a rat.

For the rest of the article, or to comment:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-o/wall-street-bonuses-and-t_b_437562.html

 

Michael J. O'Neil PhD

Martha Coakley may have run a poor campaign, but she was also saddled with having to defend a healthcare plan that is poorly understood by the public and whose adherents have failed to effectively articulate its core aspects and benefits.

For the remainder of the article, click HERE to go to the full article on the  HuffingtonPost.  Please enter your comments there!

FYI: to see the referenced television clip, click HERE.

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

I wrote a letter to an old friend from Crabapple Cove, Maine.

To see the relevance of this to the raging discussion of The Public Option,  click:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-o/the-public-option_b_343724.html

and feel free to add your comments!

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

A beer summit won't solve this one.

The Arizona Legislature has been at an impasse over the budget for months. The debate is not over minutiae: Most Democratic legislators have fundamentally different and incompatible views of the role of government from most Republican legislators.

The consensus among the Republican majority is that state government is too big. Its solution is to "starve the beast." The Democratic position is that any fat that was once in state government has long since been excised and that further cuts will severely curtail vital services.

For the remainder of this Perspective piece published in Sunday's Arizona Republic, click this link:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/2009/08/08/20090808oneil09.html

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

I was thrilled to see the President invite Sgt. Crowley and Professor Gates to the White House for a beer.

While this conclave of three Alpha Males could become the temporary testosterone capital of the world, I have genuine optimism for what may transpire. The more I consider who all three of these men are, the more they strike me as big, principled men. The respective careers strongly suggest that each will really wish to do the right thing.

To see the rest, click on the link below to the Huffington Post article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-o/what-i-hope-a-fly-on-the_b_245063.html

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

How you react to the case of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley may tell you more about yourself than about the incident itself.

(click to go to the entire article published in today's HuffingtonPost):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-o/the-gatescrowley-rorschac_b_244109.html


....and please Comment!
 
 
Michael J. O'Neil PhD

What does the testimony of a Presidential nominee to a nonpolitical federal statistical agency tell you about the strategic approach of the Obama administration? If you observe how it fits a pattern, it tells you quite a bit.

Click here for the remainder of the article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-o/census-pick-illustrates-b_b_215847.html

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

A personal insight from almost thirty years ago sheds light on a Supreme Court nominee's qualifications. . .

Many years ago, I was elected foreman of a jury in a civil case. My experience taught me the greater collective wisdom we get when diverse perspectives are brought to bear on a legal judgment. I was, at the time, a professor in my late twenties. The jury was a diverse lot. There was one particular moment in the course of jury deliberation...
(click to go to the entire article published in today's HuffingtonPost):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-o/diversity-perspective-and_b_213085.html

....and please Comment!
 
 
Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

I was a guest on the McMahon Group last week on KTAR.  Pat always provokes an interesting discussion.  If you'd like to hear it, click here.

 

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

My take on the first hundred days of the Obama Presidency, as broadcast this morning on ABC15 TV.

Click here to view.

 

Cheers,

Michael J. O'Neil, PhD

• Main
• Archives
• Albums
• Links
• Admin

«	July 2010					»
Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

• Wall Street and Big Oil: The Illusion of Reform
• “Conservative” Arizona Voters Vote for Increase in Sales Tax -- Why?
• Pollster reflects on Polls: Why the Worst Polls Get Reported the Most
• The Arizona Immigration Law: Some Things You Probably Didn’t Know About Arizona Politics
• Obamacare?
• Wall Street Bonuses and Tax Equity: A Modest Proposal for the State of the Union
• Health Care Reform: Losing the Message War
• The Public Option
• How Much Government Do We Want?
• What I Hope a Fly on the Wall in the White House Would Hear

• General [41]

• RSS 0.90
• RSS 1.0
• RSS 2.0
• Atom