In a front page
article in today’s Washington Times, the headline
reads, “GOP on Losing Side of Birth Control — 30% of Party Back
Obama’s Stance.”
The Washington Times is now working with Mr. John
Zogby’s polling firm, JZ Analytics, to conduct polls and publicize
their results. Thus, there is some self-interest on the part of the
Washington Times in publicizing his polls.
Let’s assume the poll is correct, that 30% of likely
Republican voters (in a small sample of 500) disagree with the
proposition that the debate over Obama’s contraception mandate is
about religious liberty, and accept Obama’s characterization of the
issue as about women’s rights. On the basis of those numbers alone,
Mr. Zogby advises Republican candidates to “Drop this baby right
now. Drop it. This is not a winner.”
But where’s the context? What, for instance, is the
threshold by which a particular issue should be dropped by a
candidate? In the same article, Mr. Zogby points to 18.3% who agree
that “stricter enforcement of immigration laws is the wrong
policy.” Nothing in the article indicates if Mr. Zogby has any
advice based on this 18.3%.
Let’s flip the question. If 30% of likely
Democratic voters said that Obama’s contraception mandate
was about religious liberty, would that meet Mr. Zogby’s numerical
threshold to advise all Democratic candidates to drop the issue
because it’s a loser? I think not. I think he would want to know
what the independents think. Thus, if 70% of Republicans and if,
for example, 30% of Democrats and 60% of independents agreed that
it was an issue of conscience, then it would be a winner for
Republican candidates.
Take a further step back for the still bigger context.
Every politician knows that every time he or she stakes out a
position, he or she loses voters. There’s a strong incentive to
take absolutely no positions. But some positions on some issues
must be taken. Voters, individually and in the aggregate, will
favor some issues and oppose others, and they will change their
views over time in response to a number of things, including
hearing the arguments of the candidates, and advertisements. On
issue 1, there may be 5% of likely Republicans opposed. On issue 2,
there may be 15%. On issue 3, there may be 40%. Candidates mix and
match these. Is there a numerical minimum on an issue that no
candidate should ever buck? Clearly, Mr. Zogby thinks that 30% (if
not less) is such a number.
Take a further step back. What historical basis would
there be for adopting such a numerical threshold? For example, in
the 1980 election, what did the polls say on various issues between
Reagan and Carter? Did Reagan espouse any position that, while 30%
of likely Republican voters disagree with him, he still won on that
issue on election day? Is Mr. Zogby willing to say that no
candidate for president (or Senate or House) has every won election
if he or she asserted a position that was contrary to the views of
30% or greater of his or her Party?
Since Mr. Zogby’s advice is based on a raw poll number
without any context, it is worthless. It was not worthy of
inclusion in any newspaper, much less on the front page.
