Jul
19
Disconnect
July 19, 2010 | 4 Comments
There must be something in the water here that my body has developed an immunity for:
Overall, the 1,011 people surveyed nationally have a very pessimistic take on the direction of the country.
Only 27 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction, compared with 61 percent who think the nation is on the wrong track. Likewise, when asked whether the national economy is heading down the right or wrong track, just 24 percent chose the right track, compared with65 percent for the wrong track.
Yet among the 227 Washington elites polled, more think the country is on the right track, 49 percent, than the wrong track, 45 percent. On the economy, 44 percent of elites think the country is on the right track, compared with 46 percent who believe it is not.
To qualify as a Washington elite for the poll, respondents must live within the D.C. metro area, earn more than $75,000 per year, have at least a college degree and be involved in the political process or work on key political issues or policy decisions.
There’s a simple explanation for all this: people that live here have had their bodies taken over by alien pod people – it would certainly explain the way they drive. I just practice constant vigilance. But I’m keeping my eye out.
Comments
4 Comments so far
I think all the credit goes to your wonderful wife who keeps you so grounded with her humble pragmatic nature.
Serious Question:
Do you think the polling questions began with asking the potential responder whether they are a member of the “Washington Elite?”
I would think that there are an awful lot of people who make more than $75000 a year and have a college degree in D.C. Hell, most of our HQ staff would qualify. The definition of persons who are “involved in the political process or work on key political issues or policy decisions” strikes me as impossibly vague too.
It made me laugh to think of how that conversation would have to go:
Caller (“C”) – Mr. McGillicutty?
McGillicutty (“M”) – No, I’m Bob. My father is “Mr. McGillicutty.”
C – Mr. McGillicutty, I’m conducting a poll for the Pointless Numbers Institute. Do you have a moment?
M – Well… I suppose so. What is the poll about?
C – We are conducting a poll to gather statistics on how Americans feel about the direction of the country. You should know that we are entirely non-partisan – in the sense that we will use the numbers to spin a pre-approved narrative for a report that we have already written but that doesn’t come down clearly one way or the other on the future of the present congress or administration.
M – Sure! I’d love to spend my time answering your questions. I don’t know if you know this or not, but I AM a member of the Washington Elite.
C – Really?!! Well that is really good news because the last twenty people that I called were not elite. They were – how shall I say this – decidedly “common.” You make more than $75,000 then?
M – I sure do. In fact I regularly post receipts in my investments of more than a million. Of course, my tax returns show $40,000. You understand. I still qualify as “elite” by your poll don’t I?
C – Oh, yes sir! Washington “cheat” and Washington “elite” kind of go hand in hand…
(Shared laugh.)
C – But seriously… You have a college degree too I assume?
M – Yes. Of course. I’m a lawyer, don’t you know. I even went to Yale so you might say I’m doubly elite.
C – Splendid! Should I presume that you are also involved in crafting policy matters and/or work on “key political issues?”
M – Well, I work for a firm that crafts language for bills that covers the hidden agendas of our high-paying clients. You know, the sort of surprising language that only comes out months or years later when someone actually gets around to reading these things…
C – Excellent! You are certainly the most qualified Washington Elite I’ve called tonight. Can I begin the questions then?..
The definition of persons who are “involved in the political process or work on key political issues or policy decisions” strikes me as impossibly vague too.
That is the synopsis of their fourth criteria. It may have been operationalized with specificity. Perhaps they used the Congressional Staff Directory and like reference books to generate their sample. Alternatively, they may have asked if the subject was employed on the staff of Congress, or for a political party, or for an advocacy group, or for a policy shop, or in a discretionary appointment in a federal agency. I think questions about education levels are fairly standard in polls. People with some experience with this sort of thing have told me you run into resistance when you start asking about income or when you make the questionnaire too long.
They were not polling the ‘Washington Elite’ but rank-and-file wonks. It is quite conceivable that the ‘elite’ designation was slapped on by a sloppy reporter, not the originators of the survey or those conducting it.
I see the term ‘elite’ was used by a publicist working for the originator of the poll and by a pollster who supplied a quotation for the press release.
Most of the responses reported are fairly unsurprising given the location (a large metropolis outside the South with a workforce predominantly composed of public employees)) and the specs on education & such.