The NYT is reporting the same story and numbers this morning.

Hey Bob, instead of your website inviting me to sign in when I want to post a comment, it invites me to sign out even though I have not signed in. Any thoughts on this?

I checked out the raw polling data last night and was also troubled by the misleading analysis that the Post provided, as well as language in the actual questions that can only be described as tortured (i.e., question 24: "Which comes closer to the way you feel: government reform of the nation's health care system (is necessary to control costs and expand coverage), or government action on health care (will do more harm than good)?"-- Ugh!)

Also troubling, what was in all those questions which were not released with this data. Those which the Post is "holding for future release"? There were 8 of them all together, and according to the data released by the Post, they came between the section on Obama's/Congress' performance, etc., and the questions on health care reform. Before I judge how accurate this poll even can be, I'd like to know what these questions were.

[Bob, I'm having the same log in issues. Basically, I have to attempt to post before it will give me the option to sign in.]

Comment function's working just fine for me...

Bob, two things this morning: (1) regarding this post, I think what we're seeing is Beltway Village in the "bargaining" stage of grief for the death of health care as we know it. Lindsey Graham is still stuck in "denial." (2) Taking a page from the "billionaires," we need to start referring to the status quo as "wealthcare." Words are power!

I am also experiencing the login problems, along the lines of how Clancy described them. I use FireFox, and I know that the current release (v. 3.5) is full of bugs. I've wondered if the two phenomenon are related, as they seem to share a common point of inception (for me at least - I didn't use to have the login problem).

Nate Silver addresses this poll, and (in part) faults it along the lines of Bob's criticism. His take questions the use of the phrase "government sponsored as being open to a misinterpretation of the government being involved in the actual process of delivering health care, as opposed to the previous question which uses the phrase "government run insurance plan".

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/when-you-assume-you-make-mess-out-of.html

Eric, thanks for the reference back to Silver. I remember now that he discussed the poll language just a week or two ago.

If it matters for the log in issues, I'm using Google Chrome.

Hi Clancy. (I'm assuming you're the 'Clancy' from TPC.)

About polling on this issue: I get the strong feeling that a majority of people have simply not gone out of their way to educate themselves, to even a nominal extent, on the details of this legislation. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that, until a year ago I was part of that group.

When you poll a population sample about how they intend to vote in an upcoming election you get a more-or-less (as per the margin or error) accurate picture of the eventual result, because the answer provided by the respondent directly plays into the matter being polled.

When it comes to something like the public option, and taking into account the relative ignorance of the polled sample, it seems that chances are fairly good that you're going to strongly influence the response you get by how you phrase and juxtapose your questions (and that's been pointed out here by others).

At one point Nate Silver wrote that he felt the Quinnipiac poll did the best job of phrasing it's questions regarding the PO, and their poll showed 69% of voters favoring a government run insurance plan.

I wonder who constructs these polls, and to what extent their bias (if it exists) plays a part in how they choose to word their questions.

Bob: I need help understanding. I've been paying attention, yet what I'm hearing from the likes of the pundits and Lawrence O'Donnell has me confused. For the last three weeks, O'Donnell seems to be on the opposition side. In Obama's speech on Wednesday, O'Donnell reported that Obama killed the public option and proclaimed that he was adopting the Max Baucus bill. I didn't hear that, and I've even re-read the speech looking for that part. Also, this morning on Scarborough's show, Lawrence O said that Obama's "plan" will put a 35% tax on all cadillac plans (which he defined as those worth more than $8,000) which would effectively cut benefits to subscribers by that same percentage. Can you explain?

stacib, I'd like to step in and explain O'Donnell's comments over the last few weeks: he's a process nerd with a well-known Senate Finance Committee bias. O'Donnell worked for years as he was a long-time staffer of Sen. Patrick Leahy, and served as Chief of Staff for the Senate Finance Cmte. from 1993-1995. In short, due to his work on the committee, O'Donnell is of the opinion that nothing gets done unless that cmte. wants it to get done. As Baucus is the current chair, he sees Baucus' plan as the most likely to pass. For what it's worth, he also has a senate bias, stating numerous times that the House "always caves" to the senate.

O'Donnell is just extremely cynical on this subject. He has been a nay-sayer for months now. If ultimately he was correct, so be it, but until he is proven correct he's really not helping.

Most of the opppositiong to the Public Option either:
A - Dont know what it is
B - Oppose it just because its the president's plan

What I would like to see are the results of a poll that asked responders how they felt about a public option, but only describing the attributes of such a plan:

-no profits
-no stockholders to appease
-no CEOs being paid millions
-97% of monies collected actually going to pay for healthcare.

Don't say government run. Don't say public option.

I'm guessing the results would be surprising.

Thanks, Clancy. I know that O'Donnell was COS in the Senate, and I'm also aware of his part in trying to get healthcare through with the Clintons and what a failure that one ended up being. I was actually wondering if he's experiencing a bit of jealousy since this administration seems quite a bit closer to getting a bill passed -- and a fairly decent bill at that. It's kinda sad really this piss and vinegar position he seems to have taken lately. I didn't expect his to be a happy face, but he now seems to be in a perpetual funk anytime healthcare is brought up.