Compliments to Andy Metzger of CommonwealthMagazine on Fact Checking New Poll on Voter Tax Attitudes, his story today on Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance’s “poll.” The story includes information that a professional political analyst would see and serves the lay reader very well.
Let’s get into the good stuff.
A group that generally sees eye-to-eye with Republican politicians in Massachusetts publicized a poll Wednesday that might suggest dismal support for Gov. Charlie Baker’s tax proposals.
The poll indicated most of the voters in districts represented by the most powerful lawmakers on Beacon Hill think the Republican governor should “hold the line” on taxes and spending. The poll’s questions, however, were worded in a way that seemed designed to influence the response.
“might suggest” and “seemed designed to influence the response.” Exactly. Readers, proceed with caution, something seems fishy here.
The survey was sponsored by the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, a non-profit aligned with the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, an officially non-partisan organization that has traditionally helped Republican politicians in Massachusetts and keeps its financing sources secret.
“keeps its financing sources secret.” My heart skipped a beat. That should be in absolutely every story about MassFiscal and its sister organization.
Btw, the poll was only conducted in the districts of legislative leadership of both parties, who did not get where they are by taking polls like this seriously. Those opposed might want to try out the arguments MFA made, and those in support of the governor’s proposal will want to prepare to combat them. It’s hard to tell how effective the arguments are though, because MFA didn’t bother with a control group.
While the governor’s proposal could and probably would have an impact on housing costs, the size of that impact is difficult to quantify. Also, the poll question did not spell out that the governor’s proposal would fund programs to combat climate change.
Right. Unlike the chum spread by MFA’s spokesperson Paul Craney, the impact of Baker’s proposal is actually difficult to assess. And MFA did not provide respondents with the governor’s argument – climate change. That might have influenced the responses.
Metzger goes on to add texture to MFA’s incomplete arguments about the state tax burden here. Bravo. Onward:
The results were weighted to account for a dearth of Democrats who responded to the phone survey, meaning the responses from Democrats who did participate were given more weight.
How do you under sample Democrats in Massachusetts? That may indicate a deeper problem because the Republican firm that conducted the poll is a voter contact operation, not a survey research firm. The bio of the GOP operative who performed the “poll” mentions survey research in his background but not prominently, and there is no indication that he has any formal training in survey research methods. “Weighting” is a technique used by professional survey researchers but there are times it is even tricky for them, never mind an amateur.
I hope to see more of this kind of treatment of groups like MassFiscal. Bravo, Mr. Metzger!