Poll Flippery

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Ezra Klein writes today about a Washington Post poll asking people if they support the idea of requiring people to get health insurance.  56% say yes, 41% say no.

But wait!  If you tell the opposers that low-income families will get assistance buying health insurance, 34% of them flip to supporting the idea:

In other words, a solid majority supports the individual mandate. And a third of the opponents become supporters if they learn that there will be subsidies for people who can’t afford insurance. I’m sure you can fashion attacks that scare people about this provision, but advocates aren’t struggling against an underlying philosophical objection to the basic principle.

I have an assignment for an ambitious young PhD candidate with some free time on her hands.  I’ve seen poll results like this a million times, and when you add some additional detail you always get a certain number of people to flip sides.  I’m pretty sure you could quote a couple of lines from Jabberwocky, ask an “in that case” followup question, and get a fair number of people to change their minds.  So what I’d like to know is: what’s the average flip rate?  Obviously this depends on a lot of things, so maybe it’s more than just a single number, but I guess I’d like a single number anyway.  Basically, when I see something like this I’d like to have a general idea of whether the flip rate is just the usual flip rate for everything or if it’s actually bigger than usual (and therefore more meaningful).  It’s sort of like wanting to know if a wage increase is bigger than inflation.  It tells me whether there’s really any kind of real-world increase at all.

Of course, maybe someone has already done this research.  If that’s the case, maybe some bloggily-inclined political science type would like to enlighten us about it?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest