4.6 Evaluating Public Opinion Data

The Role of Public Opinion 

Public opinion plays a critical role in shaping the political landscape in the United States. The opinions of individuals can directly impact the outcome of elections and policy debates by affecting the decisions of elected officials and policymakers.

One of the key reasons why public opinion is a source of political influence is that elected officials and policymakers often use public opinion to gauge their constituents' views. In a democratic system like the United States, elected officials are expected to represent the views of their constituents, and they often use public opinion polls to determine the public's stance on important issues. Suppose a majority of individuals support a certain issue or candidate. In that case, elected officials may be more likely to align their positions with the views of the public in order to stay in tune with their constituents.

Another reason why public opinion is a source of political influence is that it can shape the national discourse and drive the direction of policy debates. Public opinion can influence what issues are considered essential and which issues are given priority by elected officials and policymakers. For example, if many individuals express concern about a specific issue, such as gun control or healthcare, elected officials and policymakers may be more likely to prioritize this issue and take steps to address it.

Additionally, public opinion can also impact the outcome of elections by influencing the views and decisions of voters. Political candidates often use public opinion polls to determine where they stand in relation to their opponents, and they may use the results of these polls to shape their campaign strategies. Furthermore, public opinion can also affect the behavior of voters, as individuals are often more likely to vote for candidates or support issues that align with their own views.

Finally, public opinion is a source of political influence because it can affect the legitimacy of political decisions. When many individuals support a specific issue or candidate, elected officials and policymakers may be more likely to see this support as a mandate, and they may be more willing to take bold action to address the issue. Conversely, if many individuals oppose a specific issue or candidate, elected officials and policymakers may be more hesitant to take action, as they may see this opposition as a lack of legitimacy.

During the evaluation of a survey, scientists have to identify some aspects: 

1. Intensity: refers to the strength of an individual's feelings towards a specific issue or candidate. Intensity measures how strongly individuals feel about a particular issue or candidate. This helps to identify the level of commitment and passion individuals have towards a specific issue or candidate, which can better indicate their likelihood to act on their views. Evaluating intensity can help to identify the key drivers of public opinion, such as personal values, experiences, or socioeconomic status. Understanding the motivations behind an individual's views can provide valuable insights into the public's opinion and can inform policy decisions and political campaigns. Intensity can help to measure the impact of events and campaigns on public opinion. For example, if political campaign results in a significant increase in the level of intensity among individuals, it can indicate that the campaign has successfully engaged and motivated voters.

2. Manifest Opinion: this shows a widely shared opinion about an issue. Evaluating manifest belief allows researchers to understand how people present themselves and the issues that are important to them, which can provide valuable insights into the underlying attitudes and motivations of the public. Evaluating manifest opinion can provide valuable insights into how people perceive the policies and their potential impact on their lives, which can inform decision-makers on the effectiveness of the policies. Evaluating manifest opinion can also provide insights into the level of trust and confidence that the public has in government and political institutions. Understanding public attitudes towards these institutions are critical for evaluating the overall health of the political system and the level of public engagement.

3. Salience - an Individual’s measure of how a particular issue affects them. By evaluating salience, researchers can understand which issues are most important to people and which problems are not on their radar. This information can be used by policymakers and politicians to prioritize their efforts and allocate resources accordingly. Policy decisions are often informed by public opinion data. By evaluating salience, researchers can understand which issues are most important to people and which policies are most likely to impact their lives. This information can inform policy decisions and ensure that policies are representative of the views of the public. Public opinion data is often used to inform political campaigns and guide political strategy. By evaluating salience, political candidates can understand which issues are most important to voters and shape their messages and platforms accordingly. Evaluating salience can also provide valuable insights into the level of public engagement with the political process. Understanding which issues are most important to people can help researchers and political leaders to understand the level of public engagement and interest in the political system.

Realibilty and Veracity of Public Opinion Data

The reliability and veracity of public opinion data can significantly affect the relationship between scientific polling and elections and policy debates in several ways:

1. Informing political decisions: Scientific polling is used to gather data about public opinion on various issues and inform political decisions. This data can be used by policymakers to make decisions representative of the public's views. However, if the data is unreliable or not verifiable, it can lead to misguided policy decisions. For example, if a poll shows that most people support a particular policy, but the data is unreliable or not verifiable, policymakers may make decisions based on this incorrect information. This can result in policies that are not representative of the public's views and are not in line with their needs and priorities.

2. Shaping political discourse: Public opinion data can also be used to shape the political discourse and inform the development of political messages and strategies. For example, if a poll shows that most people are concerned about a particular issue, politicians may prioritize it in their campaigns and political discourse. However, if the data is unreliable or not verifiable, it can result in a distorted view of the public's views and priorities. This can lead to political discourse that is not representative of the public's views and can shape public opinion in a way that is not reflective of reality.

3. Influencing elections: Public opinion data can be used to inform election campaigns and shape political strategy. For example, if a poll shows that most people support a particular candidate, that candidate may use this information to shape their campaign strategy. However, if the data is unreliable or not verifiable, it can result in misguided campaign strategies that do not accurately reflect the views and priorities of voters. This can significantly impact election outcomes and the representation of the public's views in government.

4. Public trust: The reliability and veracity of public opinion data is important for maintaining public trust in the political system. If the public perceives that the data is unreliable or not verifiable, it can result in a loss of trust in government and political institutions. This can impact the level of public engagement and participation in the political process. For example, if the public believes that the data is unreliable, they may be less likely to participate in the political process, vote in elections, or engage with political institutions.

5. Evidence-based policymaking: Scientific polling is often used to inform evidence-based policymaking. Evidence-based policymaking involves using data and research to inform policy decisions. However, if the data is unreliable or not verifiable, it can result in policies that are not based on sound evidence or that do not accurately reflect the views of the public. For example, if a policy is informed by unreliable or unverifiable data, it may not address the real needs and concerns of the public, and may not have the desired impact.

Several factors also influence the accuracy of data: late deciding, nonresponse bias, and lack of disclosure.

1. Late deciding: refers to voters who make their decision close to the election day, and can be difficult to capture in public opinion polls. This can result in inaccurate predictions if the polls do not account for late deciders, which may significantly impact the election outcome.

2. Nonresponse bias: occurs when certain groups of people are more likely to refuse to participate in a survey, leading to a skewed sample of respondents. For example, if people who are politically disengaged or have low levels of education are less likely to respond to a survey, the results may not accurately represent the views of the general population.

3. Lack of disclosure: refers to when pollsters do not fully disclose the details of their methods and data, making it difficult to assess the validity of the results. This can lead to concerns about the accuracy of the data and the potential for bias in the results.

Illustrative Examples

1. Carter-Reagen Election (1980): The evaluation of public opinion data was a critical factor in the Carter-Reagan election of 1980. Public opinion polls played a crucial role in shaping the political discourse and informing Jimmy Carter's and Ronald Reagan's election strategies.

In the lead-up to the election, public opinion polls showed a significant shift in favor of Reagan. Polls indicated that the American public was dissatisfied with Carter's handling of the economy and foreign policy, particularly the Iran hostage crisis. The Reagan campaign used this data to shape its political message and focus on the issues that resonated with voters. Reagan successfully positioned himself as a strong, decisive leader who would restore America's confidence and prosperity.

On the other hand, the Carter campaign faced a difficult challenge in reversing the negative public perception of his presidency. Despite his efforts to address the public's concerns, Carter could not shift the public's views and overcome Reagan's lead in the polls.

The accurate evaluation of public opinion data was important in shaping the political discourse and informing the election strategies of both candidates. The Reagan campaign used the data to successfully focus on the issues that resonated with voters and positioned themselves as the stronger candidate. On the other hand, Carter's campaign was hampered by his inability to shift public opinion and overcome the negative perceptions of his presidency.

In the end, Reagan won a decisive victory in the election, with a margin of nearly ten percentage points in the popular vote. The evaluation of public opinion data played a critical role in shaping the election outcome and helping Reagan secure the presidency.

2. Obama-Romney Election (2012): In the lead-up to the election, public opinion polls showed a close race between the two candidates, with a small advantage for President Obama. The polls indicated that the American public was divided on key issues such as the economy, healthcare, and foreign policy. Both campaigns used this data to shape their political messages and focus on the issues that resonated with voters.

The Obama campaign used the data to highlight their successes in recovering from the 2008 financial crisis and implementing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. They also emphasized the president's foreign policy successes. On the other hand, the Romney campaign used the data to focus on the slow economic recovery and high unemployment rate, and positioned themselves as the candidate who would bring the change that Americans were looking for.

The accurate evaluation of public opinion data was important in shaping the political discourse and informing the election strategies of both candidates. The data helped both campaigns focus on the most important issues to voters and position themselves in a favorable light.

In the end, President Obama was re-elected with a margin of nearly four percentage points in the popular vote. The evaluation of public opinion data played a critical role in shaping the outcome of the election and helping Obama secure a second term in office.

3. Clinton-Trump Election (2016): In the lead-up to the election, public opinion polls showed Clinton with a substantial lead over Trump. However, as the election approached, the polls began to tighten, and many experts and analysts were caught off guard by the outcome of the election.

The Clinton campaign relied heavily on the data from public opinion polls and used it to inform their strategy and messaging. They highlighted Trump's lack of political experience and controversial comments and positioned Clinton as the more experienced and qualified candidate. However, this strategy did not resonate with some voters who felt disenchanted with the political establishment and were drawn to Trump's outsider status and promises to shake up the system.

On the other hand, the Trump campaign used the data from public opinion polls to focus on the issues that resonated with their core supporters, such as immigration, trade, and economic discontent. They also successfully mobilized a large base of voters who felt neglected by the political establishment and were drawn to Trump's promises to bring change to Washington.

In the end, Trump won a surprising victory in the election, with a narrow margin in several key states that tipped the Electoral College in his favor. The evaluation of public opinion data played a critical role in shaping the outcome of the election, but in this case, the data failed to accurately predict the outcome, and many analysts and experts were caught off guard.