There’s Value in Weird Questions From Pollsters

Public Policy Polling is well known for its periodic inclusion of off-the-wall survey questions. In its March national poll, for example, they asked whether Joe Biden could whup Donald Trump in a fistfight. (Answer: Democrats chose Biden and Republicans chose Trump.) But they also ask some questions that seem kind of batty at first glance but actually reveal something interesting. For example, here’s a question about the level of support for various candidates in a 2020 campaign against Trump:

There are two interesting things here. First, a lot of Democrats obviously have no idea who Stephanie Cliffords is (it’s Stormy Daniels’ real name) but would vote for her anyway. Second, Gillibrand and Harris are supported at the same rate. What this demonstrates is something that we all know: polling candidates this far ahead of the election is dumb. It’s based on nothing but name recognition and is essentially meaningless, something that this poll question demonstrates viscerally. Then there’s this:

This seems weird: Why would Trump supporters be less likely to think the sky is blue? Especially since they’re more likely to live in rural and suburban areas, where the sky really is blue? I can think of a few possibilities, but the real answer is probably that there’s no difference at all. Despite the official 3 percent margin of error, polls really have much higher margins of error. That 3 percent is just the statistical error, but there’s also error from bad sample design, question wording, question order, and a bunch of other stuff. A question like this brings the real margin of error to life.



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