AP/GfK: Flawed And Conservative Survey Company Reports Only 26% Support ObamaCare

As I watched a segment of MSNBC’s Now w/ ALEX WAGNER hosted by fill-in Luke Russert I saw and heard a horrific piece of data embed in a great report about the ACA.

While I posted the 6:27 minute segment below, allow me to post three screen shots that specifically drew my attention and an associated flash of scorn. The last screenshot was a “show-stopper” because it appeared to line-up the opposite of current reports about support for the ACA.

We see the existential, the obvious and expected lag for the failed initial website roll out. After that we see significant enrollment trend lining right along with CBO projections. Also clearly illustrated is the “human spike” everyone expected as the enrollment deadline drew (or draws near).

Quick look at enrollment for January policy coverage and the imminent March, 31st deadline for April 1, 2014 coverage. No surprise there!

And, there-in lies my problem! AP/GfK via an online survey of just over 1,012 adults, reports only 26% of respondents “support” The ACA (AKA ObamaCare). Not only are the AP/GfK findings out whack with other surveys, GfK has questionable survey practices. I will explore my point in a bit and just before the embedded of Luke Russert’s segment based on the AP/GfK findings. Let me remind the embed segment has a far greater and productive message as it is titled “data that matters.” Yet, I seriously question use of the AP/GfK data to develop the segment, despite the report’s recent release. 

Yesterday, AP/GfK ran a lead story that included the following excerpt. Bold font highlighted by The Pardu.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Public support for President Barack Obama’s health care law is languishing at its lowest level since passage of the landmark legislation four years ago, according to a new poll. The Associated Press-GfK survey finds that 26 percent of Americans support the Affordable Care Act. Read more linked via title AP/GfK MAR 28 AP-GfK Poll: Obama’s health care fails to gain support; Americans expect fixes, not repeal Excerpt The poll found that much of the slippage for the health care law over the last four years has come from a drop in support, not an increase in opposition. In April of 2010, soon after the law passed, 50 percent of Americans said they were opposed to it, while 39 percent were in favor. Ten percent were on the fence. Now, just 26 percent say they are in favor, a drop of 13 percentage points. Forty-three percent say they are opposed, a drop of 7 percentage points since that poll four years ago. But the number who neither support nor oppose the law has tripled, to 30 percent. The 26 percent in favor in the AP-GfK poll is not significantly different from the 27 percent registered in January and December. The AP-GfK Poll was conducted March 20-24 using KnowledgePanel, GfK’s probability-based online panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. It involved online interviews with 1,012 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points for all respondents. Respondents were first selected randomly using phone or mail survey methods and were later interviewed online. People selected for KnowledgePanel who didn’t otherwise have access to the Internet were provided with the ability to access the Internet at no cost to them. Read more

__________________________________________________________________________

Let’s take a look at AP/GfK to provide perspective on the 26% who “support” the ACA. My past experience with AP/GfK was along this line. As we approached the 2012 General Election, I ran across this headline:

“Majority Harbor Prejudice towards blacks.”  

Read more after the break below

Now, why do you think such a headline would attract my interest? May I suggest,  if you are a normal person with any interest beyond sitting each day watching six different TV judge shows, or flipping between various mindless reality shows (including various derivatives of talent panel contests), the headline should have piqued your interest.

My askance and curiosity took me a few steps farther.  The following is an except from a piece I wrote after reading the October 2012 headline posted above. The TPI AP/GfK piece is long. Out of respect for your time and possible lack of deep interest in the genesis of the headline, I am posting a Awesome Screenshot Capture & Annotate image below the table box (below). 

TPI (October 2012) If you never ever review poll data, you have to give a look at the AP/GfK Poll  data released just a few days before the November 6th Elections. The poll’s major tickler was, a “Majority harbor prejudice towards blacks”.   [See Link above]

Page 33 of the Growth for Knowledge (GfK) poll reads like this:

The TPI Link provided in the table will take you to even more startling and ridiculous survey findings related to perceptions of candidate religion. The 1,071 survey respondents (predominately white and from the South) seem to have been comprised of a potential respondent pool stacked for achievement of desired results. The headline: “Majority harbor prejudice towards blacks,” was both indicative of what many should consider flawed survey administration via GfK, and indicative of the dangers of subsequent headlining via media or political operatives.

Now for the Russert, NOW W/Alex Wagner, segment. It is a good story, once you pass through the first 1:50 seconds which include suspect survey findings from the very “suspect” Growth for Knowledge (GfK).

http://on.msnbc.com/P9rQIH

Despite the good ACA segment, I believe it necessary to provide additional perspective on a polling authority that will surely receive wide quoting from the Right and conservative pundits as we move into next week.

The Washington Post 

Excerpt

But more than two-thirds distrust polls conducted by political parties or candidates and automated telephone surveys. Media polls fall in the middle, with somewhat more distrusting than trusting.  Note: the “News media” category below.

Nate Silver looked at which polls scored best coming out of the 2012 elections. His review also included look and reporting of poll bias. If you look about midway through the imagine below you will find AP/GfK; you will quickly notice the AP/GfK poll has a strong bias to the Republican Party. You may also notice GfK uses the very survey methodology shown by Silver as biased towards the Republican Party with moderate margins of error.

The New York Times 538 Blog  

“Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race”Excerpt

We can also extend the analysis to consider the 90 polling firms that conducted at least one likely voter poll in the final three weeks of the campaign. One should probably not read too much into the results for the individual firms that issued just one or two polls, which is not a sufficient sample size to measure reliability. However, a look at this broader collective group of pollsters, and the techniques they use, may tell us something about which methods are most effective.

You Gov Dot Com

Figure 1 below shows the point estimates (and reported margins of error) for final national polls from different polling organizations for the Obama share of the national major party vote. The final YouGov poll, released on Sunday November 4, based on 36,472 interviews of likely voters between October 31 and November 3, had Obama at 48.5 percent, Romney at 46.5 percent, other candidates at 2.3 percent, and the remaining 2.7 percent of voters undecided. This translates into a 51.1 percent share of the national major party vote for Obama. As of this writing, the Associated Press reports that the Obama share of the national two party vote was 51.0 percent, so the YouGov estimate had an error of less than 0.1 percent. Two other polling organizations also pegged the Obama lead at two percent.

A few words about AP/GfK. As I sought information about AP/GfK, I ran across quite a few survey/poll authorities that employ survey takers and some pay the respondents on a per survey basis.  I suppose I was naive enough to think political polling took place predominately on random sampling by land line or cell phone. My knowledge of online “for pay” survey was at the level of nil; I did not know. I was also not aware that some survey firms actually have their “members’ (as they call them), identified by profiles that includes information related to family size, rent or own home, race, gender, religion and social economic groupings.

While visiting one survey company website, I saw a comment complaint from a family respondent who complained about others in the household receiving multiple survey opportunities while stating they appeared cut-out of survey opportunities. 

I understand many companies and political organizations use focus groups and they do so extensively. So, my surprise at for fee survey taker, again, was embarrassingly naive and downright ignorant. A question from the revelation, “How difficult would it be to discern the inclinations of the survey and adjust answers to facilitate more calls or online opportunities?” Could contribute to a busy Pay Pal account since at least one authority stated they affect pay via Pay Pal.

We have knowledge GfK is a for fee polling (gift points – small dollars) authority. I also found GfK has an invitation or coded survey application process, See the image that follows. Please excuse the fuzzy screenshot.

http://join.knpanel.com/join.html

Back to MSNBC and other media that are using the AP/GfK survey results. Commerce is commerce; viewers listeners and readers are objects to acquire revenue. I get all of that. If they media is going to use, what seems a very biased survey authority like GfK, why not include a broadcast or written disclaimer. The perfect example is CNN. 

When CNN reports on the Pew and Quinnipiac survey results you hear this: “Left leaning.” why not give the quoted poll source perspective that is readily available via a couple hours of research?

I should out of fairness state, ” I have never heard any host on CNN refer to Rasmussen” as “leaning Right.”

Polls are critical to the American political process. Americans are not heavy viewers of news and we probably do not read enough for our own good.  Polls provide perspective on public sentiment. Public sentiment is constantly and effectively manipulated by the poli/social Right. Why would anyone believe surveys are not a tool or strategy item for Right-wing operatives?  

If you think I am off-base with this piece consider a few final points.

Why do you think Karl Rove literally freaked out the night of the Obama defeat of Mitt Romney? Rove’s survey results and political data organization acumen was flawed, while Obama’s via the Narwhal Project was impeccable.  

Why do you think Romney never developed a concession speech? He knew via polling he had the eliciting won!

Why would AP/GfK even publish a pre-2012 poll results that led to headlines: “Majority harbour prejudice towards lacks.” Especially, after conducting a poll via online methodology with over almost 70% of survey takers white and from the US South?

Final question. Do you seriously believe the AP/GfK results showing only 26% of 1,012 respondents “support” the ACA?

UPDATE January 19, 2014: Rand Paul Steps Into A World Of Provable Lie

UPDATE:  Washington Post The Fact Checker…How did Rand Paul’s son end-up on Medicaid?

As we suggested in our piece of last week, the prospect of Paul’s son and automatic enrollment in Medicaid is as remote as Rand Paul avoiding plagiarism.

The Fact Checker did not outright declare Pinocchio (s) based on what is available for review (today); the article reads with the same level of suspicion we keyboard a week ago.

Linked

We restate our commitment to what we perceive as a Rand Paul lie!
________________________________

Start your viewing at the 7:33 minute mark. unless you wish to sit through seven minutes of the most dishonest and self-aggrandizement idiot in the US Senate. We know of Paul’s pathological tendency to lie, plagiarize and simply to make stuff-up If you ever wonder why at times he rambles and stumbles through answers or comments. We suggest he stumbles and rambles because for a split-second he doesn’t have a ready lie to lay on the listeners and viewers.

ABC’s Interview

Related transcript excerpt

….Your opposition to obamacare has been no secret, but i understand now that the issue has also become personal for you, is it true you had trouble signing up for obamacare and you’re not sure your family is covered?  

At this point I’m unsure. The other day I tried to get my son signed up through the Kentucky exchange. I have here my son’s medicaid card.  

We didn’t try to get him medicaid. I’m trying to pay for his insurance. They automatically enrolled him in medicaid.  

For a month they wouldn’t talk to us because they weren’t sure he existed. He had to go down to welfare office, prove his existence. Next thing we know we get a medicaid card.  

I’m trying to pay for insurance and can’t pay for it and I’m uncertain now whether I’m enrolled d. C. And/or Kentucky. And it’s a mess. I keep getting an error code every time I go in, it won’t let me edit my policy to try to make sure that my family is covered. This is an unfolding disaster.  

That I don’t think gets better any time soon.

Breitbart Dot Com went here with a title slant that was susceptible to backlash from Paul’s obvious lying while setting on ABC this past Sunday.

Rand Paul’s Son Enrolled in Medicaid by Clueless Obamacare Officials

Breitbart 1:07 minutes

As I watched Lawrence O’Donnell broadcast of the Paul’s remarks, my mind was filled with, “There is something seriously wrong with his story. The information seemed false and I have heard no other such reports. Why would such a mix-up conveniently hit one of the ACA’s major chief opponents (and one of the US Senate’s most dishonest people)?”

Mother Jones probed Paul’s claims and found the Senator followed suit with his standard practice of stretching he truth to the point of out-right lying. One additional point. Is there a medical diagnosis for the affliction that has beset GOP politicians who invoke their families or involved their families in outright lies and visual subterfuge? The only term that comes to out non-medical minds is: pathological liar. 

Merriam-Webster

Definition of PATHOLOGICAL LIAR: an individual who habitually tells lies so exaggerated or bizarre that they are suggestive of mental disorder

Where is the veracity and playing fair in the GOP?

We ask you to think back to the Paul Ryan (cameras in tow) invasion of a food pantry mere weeks before the 2012 General Election. We use the word “invasion” because the director of the pantry eventually spoke frankly about Ryan’s arrival with no previous warning, prior permission or pantry invitation. Rand Paul’s lies via use of his son, is deplorable, yet totally not a surprise. The salient point, is the Ryan family feigned cleaning pots and kitchen utensils. Problem is, all photo shoot items were previously cleaned and properly stored around the pantry. The entire invasion was a photo and film camera opportunity and no more (with his wife and kids as active actors).

Patrick Caldwell, Mother Jones reporter, followed-up on the ABC broadcast as would most good and competent journalist. Unlike, Breitbart Dot Com (who employees no real journalist) and other Right-wing media, via contacting a Kentucky official. Caldwell sought details about Paul’s claims. If you saw the Lawrence O’Donnell, The Last Word,  segment last night, you know that Paul’s and his Seante team have not returned calls to O”Donnell’s researchers. We wonder why?

We are running a redundant video minute of the ABC interview. One reason for the redundant posting is our way of ensuring that Breitbart did not pull a James O’Keeffe strategic editing of the segment. 

Mother Jones 

http://youtu.be/azk_714dsLo

If you did not read the linked Mother Jones piece above, we offer a synopsis.

Paul, a chief opponent of the ACA, had apparently enrolled his family and claims one son was inadvertently enrolled in a program they did not desire. We find the scenario very intriguing. How difficult would it be for the previously proven dishonest Paul to simply claim, “Oh we filled out the wrong form!” If it is discovered he actually enrolled the kid in Medicaid? It wouldn’t be very difficult and for a man with a lesser set of values regarding veracity, not a big hill to claim. “Oh we made a mistake.” But, think deeper, medical enrollment records are sealed and protected under HIPPA, so if there was enrollment treachery, it may never come up for public scrutiny.  Of course, we should not assume Paul is being honest regarding the entire matter.

Basically, Rand Paul indicted his son was automatically enrolled in Medicaid. He even brandished (from distance) a small card, we assume was to serve as evidence of the improper enrollment. 

Paul commented.

“We didn’t try to get him Medicaid…They automatically enrolled him in Medicaid,” Paul said. “For a month they wouldn’t talk to us because they said they weren’t sure he existed. He had to go down to the welfare office, prove his existence, then, next thing we know, we get a Medicaid card.”

The Senator did not stop at that point, He stepped into the twilight zone and a universally and effectively shelved his comments as hyperbole.  

“Most of the people in Kentucky are getting automatically enrolled in Medicaid.”

According to Caldwell, a conversation with a Kentucky state health official shed light on Pauls’ astronomical journey into hyperbole and zaniness. A conversation with Jill Midkiff, communications director of Kentucky’s health department, yielded clear disavowal of Paul;s claims. Disavowal based on the actual structure of KYNET enrollment tools.

 “We’re not automatically enrolling people,” Midkiff explains. “People have to actually go and apply.” 

Caldwell sums-up the matter as expected, Paul is lying or Paul is perpetrating a bit of a scam for political advantage.

Midkiff couldn’t discuss the Paul family’s specific troubles due to confidentiality laws. But her general description of the state’s exchange clearly contradicts Paul’s story. When a Kentuckian visits Kynect, the state’s health insurance website, she’s asked to provide basic information about herself—age, location, income, number of dependents, etc.—to determine whether she qualifies for the Medicaid expansion or other insurance subsidies. The website is designed to encourage people who are eligible for Medicaid to apply, but it doesn’t force anyone onto the Medicaid rolls. The applicant would still have to actively choose to enroll in a specific Medicaid plan.

The Paul story seems as fishy as his attempt to hide is lack of support for Civil Rights laws via fumbling utterances when caught on camera with Rachel Maddow. Paul doesn’t seem to be gifted with an ability to apply deep cognitive processes towards any issues. He also appears a the benefactor of a tea party surge in 2010 to secure a six years seat in the US senate and he doesn’t posses the requisite mental acuity to legislate. So, he traipses around stumbling through interviews and if this episode is endemic continues to exercise a trait so often lacking in the US Congress: honesty.