Opinion

Polls, lies, damned lies and statistics

Photo of Lanny Davis
Lanny Davis
Former Special Counsel to President Clinton
  • See All Articles
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Bio

      Lanny Davis

      Lanny J. Davis counsels individuals, corporations and government contractors, and those under congressional scrutiny, on crisis management and legal issues by developing legal, media and legislative strategies that are designed to best produce a successful result for the client. He has experience in securities fraud and SEC investigations as well, and has found that utilizing such an integrated legal/media/lobbying approach can lead to quicker and less expensive settlements or even successfully litigated outcomes. Senior officials of public companies have also hired Lanny and his crisis group to defend themselves successfully against "short and distort" attacks and other market manipulations. For 25 years prior to 1996, before his tenure as special counsel to President Clinton, Lanny was a commercial, antitrust, government contracts and False Claims Act litigator (both in defense as well as plaintiff). He has argued numerous appellate cases in the U.S. courts of appeals.

      In June 2005, President Bush appointed Lanny to serve on the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 2005 Intelligence Reform Act. In that capacity, he received the highest level security clearances so that he could be fully briefed and "read in" to the various anti-terrorist surveillance and financial tracking programs at the highest classified level. From 1996 to 1998, Lanny served as special counsel to the president in the White House and was a spokesperson for the president and the White House on matters concerning campaign finance investigations and other legal issues. Lanny has participated in national, state and local politics for almost 30 years. He has served three terms (1980 to 1992) on the Democratic National Committee representing the state of Maryland, and during that period he served on the DNC Executive Committee and as chairman of the Eastern Region Caucus. In Montgomery County, Maryland, he served as chairman of the Washington Suburban Transit Commission.

      Lanny has authored several books and lectured throughout the United States and Europe on various political issues. Between 1990 and 1996, Lanny was a bimonthly commentator on Maryland politics for WAMU-88.5/FM, a Washington, D.C. local affiliate of National Public Radio. He has been a regular television commentator and has been a political and legal analyst for MSNBC, CNN, Fox Cable, CNBC and network TV news programs. He has published numerous op-ed/analysis pieces in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, he Washington Post and other national publications.

      Lanny graduated from Yale Law School, where he won the prestigious Thurman Arnold Moot Court prize and served on the Yale Law Journal. A graduate of Yale University, Lanny served as chairman of the Yale Daily News.

      Lanny is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and Connecticut and before the Supreme Court of the United States and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Throughout the world of political reporters and pundits, the blogosphere and social media — left, right and center — the conventional wisdom was impressive: Obama’s negative ads on Bain Capital and outsourcing were working in the 12 battleground states where they were exclusively running.

First, two weeks ago, came the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, which triggered an avalanche of reporting reinforcing the themes that the Obama negative ads were hurting Romney and helping Obama big time. The national results were a statistical dead heat (47 percent Obama, 44 percent Romney). But in the 12 battlegrounds — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin — where Obama has spent tens of millions on negative ads since April, Obama was ahead 50 percent to 42.

The Journal/NBC poll also showed that in the battleground states, Romney suffered a net increase of 11 percent in negative attitudes toward his business experience — from late May (36 percent favorable to 36 percent unfavorable) to late June (30 percent favorable, minus 6 percent, to 41 percent unfavorable, plus 5 percent). The cause reported by the Journal and NBC: the Obama negative ads.

But not so fast.

Voters were asked in the national survey whether they would feel more or less positive toward a businessman who managed a company that specialized in restructuring and selling companies. To anyone watching Obama’s TV ads — which were seen by most of the country on either TV or the Internet — those words could only describe Bain Capital. The answer between January 2012, before the negative ads ran, and June, after they ran, was no change at all (from minus 6 percent in January to minus 5 percent in June).

In addition, I could find no disclosure in the reporting of the Journal/NBC poll of the subsample total number of voters surveyed in the 12 battleground states. The total surveyed nationally was just 819 registered voters — with a fairly large plus-minus margin of error of 3.4 percent. It is therefore possible that the number of voters surveyed in the subsample among 12 battlegrounds was a fraction of 819 — meaning a considerably higher margin of error, which could make the 50-42 percent “lead” for Obama in the battlegrounds statistically meaningless.

USA Today’s Susan Page reported that among the 1,200 voters surveyed in the 12 battlegrounds, 8 percent of that total, or 96 voters surveyed, said they “changed” their minds because of the ads, from one candidate to the other. Of those who changed, 76 percent (of the 8 percent, or 73 voters across 12 states) said they switched to Obama, and 16 percent (23 voters across 12 states) said they switched to Romney. Page described this data as evidence that Obama’s negative ads were the “clear” winner.

That’s not so clear to me.

First, the subsample is very small — 8 percent of the total sample of 1,500, or 96 people spread out over 12 states — even though the 5:1 change ratio favoring Obama is statistically significant.

Second, to conclude the ads “caused” the change, it is required to have a control group, i.e., the same number of voters surveyed who have not seen the ads. For example, if the results among that control group show the same or similar percentage of changes favoring Obama, that would negate the inference that the ads “caused” the change. Without a control group, you simply cannot be sure of the cause.

Third, in April, a USA Today/Gallup poll in battleground states showed Obama ahead 51 percent to 42. But in this late-June sample, the results were Obama, 47 percent, to Romney at 45 percent. In other words, after Obama spent an estimated $68 million or more over Romney in the battlegrounds on negative ads during this time period, Obama lost a net 7 percent.