NY Times US Chamber Polls for Opposition on Health Care

[Guest guest]

_http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/the-chamber-polls-for-opposition-o

n-health-care/_

(http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/the-chamber-polls-for-opposition-on-he\

alth-care/)

The Chamber Polls for Opposition on Health Care

By _ROBB MANDELBAUM_

(http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/author/robb-mandelbaum/)

We know that the _U.S. Chamber of Commerce_

(http://www.uschamber.com/default) will spend millions on _advertising_

(http://employersforahealthyeconomy.com/Business_Coalition_Releases_New_Ad) to

try to stop the Democrats’

final push on health care — $10 million in the last two weeks ago or so,

_according_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/health/policy/15health.html) to

our colleague Jeff Zeleny. But this week, the organization that calls itself

“the largest small business lobby†deployed another, more subtle weapon

from its arsenal: the poll.

On Monday, the Chamber _announced_

(http://uschamber.com/press/releases/2010/march/100315_polls.htm) the results

of voter surveys it commissioned in

10 swing Congressional districts currently held by Democratic legislators.

The polls were carefully targeted. Six of the legislators _voted_

(http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/887) against the

original

health care bill in the House back in November, and four voted for it. Four of

the representatives are still undecided on the current bill, according to

a _whip count_

(http://thehill.com/homenews/house/85693-whip-watch-the-hills-survey-of-house-de\

ms-positions-on-healthcare-) by The Hill. (Five are

disposed to no, and one to yes.)

According to the Chamber’s polls, the legislators’ constituents are not

nearly so divided. In all the districts, the polls found large majorities

opposed to the current bill. And the findings come with an implicit threat:

voters are more likely to support their representative if he or she votes

against it.

That is about all The Agenda can say about the substance of the poll,

however. As regular readers _know_

(http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/more-polls-partisanship-and-the-small-\

business-majority/) , polls, especially

those by interest groups, must meet stringent standards (_pdf_

(http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/pollingstandards.pdf) ) before we

can

publish their results. These polls don’t. Instead of randomly selecting their

respondents, the Chamber of Commerce sampled from voter lists, a practice The

New York Times and many other media pollsters do not endorse because the

lists are often outdated and are generally not representative — they do not

include unlisted telephone numbers, for example. Moreover, the firm that

conducted the surveys, _Ayres, McHenry & Associates_

(http://www.ayresmchenry.com/) , identifies itself as a partisan

(Republican-leaning) firm._*_

(http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/the-chamber-polls-for-opposition-on-he\

a

lth-care/#note)

(Back in July, when we faced the problem of interest-group polling in the

case of health care surveys by the _Small Business Majority_

(http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/small-business-majority/) , The Agenda

assured angry

readers, “A poll conducted by, say, the National Federation of Independent

Business or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce . . . would face the same scrutiny.â€

Now one has.)

So the question The Agenda will concern itself with is how much local news

coverage did the Chamber’s gambit win. After an exhaustive consultation

with Google, we conclude: not that much. In Nevada’s 3rd District,

represented

by November aye-voter _Dina Titus_ (http://titus.house.gov/) , The Las

Vegas Review-Journal published a long _article_

(http://www.lvrj.com/news/chamber-poll--voters-favor-titus-changing-health-bill-\

vote-to-no-88091037.html)

about the poll. (Ms. Titus is undecided, according to The Review-Journal

and The Hill.)

The poll also was _covered_

(http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20100316/LOVELAND0102/303160009/1192/loveland\

/Another+poll+shows+majority+of+4th+Congress

ional+District+voters+oppose+Democrats++health+plan) by The Fort

Coloradoan. Representative (and former _small businesswoman_

(http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/talking-health-care-with-two-entrepren\

eurs-in-cong

ress/) ) _Betsy Markey_ (http://betsymarkey.house.gov/) originally voted

no; she is now undecided.

In Arizona’s 8th District, The Arizona Daily Star in Tucson mentioned the

poll in an _article_

(http://www.azstarnet.com/news/science/health-med-fit/article_2e2b523c-2c37-58e7\

-87dd-a7ae534f8122.html) reporting that the Chamber

’s target, _le Giffords_ (http://giffords.house.gov/) , “appear

to be moving closer to the ‘aye’ side of the ledger.†(She supported the

bill last November.)

Elsewhere, the polls don’t seem to have made much of a ripple. The other

districts targeted by the Chamber were:

•Florida’s 2nd District (_ Boyd_ (http://boyd.house.gov/) originally

voted no).

•New York’s 24th District (_ Arcuri_ (http://arcuri.house.gov/)

originally voted yes).

•North Carolina’s 8th District (_Larry Kissell_

(http://kissell.house.gov/) originally voted no).

•Ohio’s 1st District (_Steve Driehaus_ (http://driehaus.house.gov/)

originally voted yes).

•Pennsylvania’s 4th District (_ Altmire_

(http://www.altmire.house.gov/) originally voted no).

•Texas’s 17th District (_Chet _ (http://edwards.house.gov/)

originally voted no).

•Virginia’s 2nd District (_Glenn Nye_ (http://nye.house.gov/) originally

voted no).

Correction

An earlier version of this post misidentified the North Carolina Democrat

whose district was a target of the Chamber of Commerce polling effort. It

was Representative Larry Kissell of the 8th District, not Representative Bob

Etheridge of the 2nd District. As a result of the error, the tallies of

the initial health-care votes and current leanings of the 10 representatives

whose districts were polled were also incorrect. And the Chamber did not,

as the post initially suggested, mischaracterize Mr. Etheridge’s vote.

*Other polls, which do meet Times standards, have shown opponents leading

supporters by narrower margins.