Connect with us

Newsweek/Daily Beast Poll On Angry Americans: Fact, Fiction, Or Fraud?

Published

on

This week you’ll read a great deal about the latest Newsweek/Daily Beast poll (also, embedded below,) titled, “America the Angry,” “Angry Americans,” “Anger In America,” or even, “Anger In America: Could The Arab Spring Happen In The U.S.?” And you should immediately discount it as a work of, if not fiction, then arrogant media wrangling. This, surely, is what Sarah Palin means when she says, “the lamestream media’s gotcha journalism,” right? Shame on you, Newsweek/Daily Beast Editor Tina Brown and shame on you, Douglas Schoen, author of the article and presumably the one responsible for the so-called “poll.”

By the way, the title, “Anger In America: Could The Arab Spring Happen In The U.S.?” comes from reading the URL of the page the “poll” is published on. Obviously, given all the different names, it looks like some Newsweek/Daily Beast editor was just dying to grab some Google traffic off of “anger,” angry,” “America,” and “Americans” keyword searches, with “Arab spring” thrown in for good measure.

Schoen introduces his “poll” by setting you up with the “fact” that “reality is beginning to break down Americans’ normally optimistic attitude. Three-quarters of our respondents think the country is on the wrong track. A majority say the anxiety wrought by this recession has caused relationship problems and sleep deficiency. Two-thirds even report being angry at God,” Schoen claims.

I say “Schoen claims,” because while he writes in his Daily Beast article, “two-thirds even report being angry at God,” somehow that “fact” doesn’t even show in his “polling data” he embeds on the site (also, below.) Curious, no?

Schoen, to be fair, is a political analyst for Fox News, and got his start in his extensive polling career working for Dick Morris in high school. Schoen also is a founding partner in the political polling firm of Penn, Schoen & Berland. And (big surprise!) Schoen just wrote a book with Scott Rasmussen (as in the notoriously right-wing slanted Rasmussen polls that the Tea Party and Fox News love so much) titled, “Mad As Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System.” Schoen did not respond to a request for comment on this article Sunday evening.

All this said, a couple of points first you probably already know about polls.

First, any reliable pollster will publish the complete results of a poll.

Second, any reliable nationwide survey generally will poll at least one thousand respondents, especially if it is a broad poll where anyone who answers the phone — if that’s the contact method they used — is a fit respondent.

Third, any reliable nationwide poll will publish not only the answers to the poll, but the exact questions asked, with any variations, and in what order asked.

Fourth, any reliable nationwide poll will publish complete methodology, including who they polled. Americans? Likely voters? Registered voters? Age ranges. Political affiliations. Sometimes religious affiliations…

Fifth, any reliable nationwide poll generally will reach an odd number of respondents. 600, for example, is a strange number to reach, especially over a period of four or five days.

Sixth, any reliable nationwide poll will tell you how they got responses: telephone? Landline? cellular?Email? Internet?…

I suppose I could go on, but all I need to do at this point is to tell you that the latest Newsweek/Daily Beast poll on “Angry Americans” does none of the above.

All Doug Schoen (again, presumably the one responsible for the poll,) does is offer some nice graphics (actually, not really even that nice, but they are in color!) and frame the results without telling you the question. Nice work if you can get it.

Schoen’s “poll” says “This survey was conducted with a representative sample of 600 American adults across the country on April 29th – May 1st, 2011.” What is “a representative sample of 600 American adults?” He doesn’t say.

Schoen claims, “By almost four-to-one, Americans say government is not solving our economic problems.” Really? Is government supposed to solve our economic problems? What was the question asked that brought Schoen to this realization? I don’t know, do you? How was it phrased? Who answered it?

Schoen says, “Respondents say our economy is not delivering the jobs we need by 81% to 12%.” News? Not at all. But the number spread there looks great! (Makes it sound like a lot of Americans are really pissed! That should get The Daily Beast a lot of hits!)

Schoen’s polls proclaims, “while Americans are very concerned about the economic and fiscal issues facing the country, they do not feel that neither President Obama nor the Republicans are addressing these issues.” Huh? So, Americans do feel Obama and the Republicans are addressing these issues? Who writes like that? And what Republicans? House? Senate? Local? State? And why don’t we know how Americans feel about Democrats? What was the question, Mr. Schoen?

Schoen continues: “They say Obama does not have a real plan to cut the deficit, 55% to 33%, and that he does not have a real plan to cut spending, 46% to 42%.” So, 42% of Americans believe Obama does have a plan to cut spending, is that what this says? That’s actually pretty impressive.

More: An actual question! “Do you think that Obama has a real plan to cut the deficit, or does he not have a real plan?” Wait. I take that back. That was a question? Doug, you picked up the phone (well, I assume these people were contacted by phone, and this isn’t some World Net Daily online poll…) and asked 600 people, “Do you think that Obama has a real plan to cut the deficit, or does he not have a real plan?” I amazed they answered and didn’t hang up on you.

Gotta love that “real plan” language, implying there is a fake plan that maybe Obama has…

Did anyone ask these 600 people if the deficit was important? What order did this question come? What questions did you ask before it? Were they, “Is the deficit out of control and responsible for the huge and unprecedented unemployment numbers we are seeing under President Obama after two years in office?” Was there a question in the poll about Obama’s birth certificate too? I wouldn’t be surprised…

Schoen writes, “Given that Americans are concerned about the country’s economic issues and feel that neither party is adequately addressing these issues, it makes sense that they feel frustrated and upset.” How do we know this? Where’s the data? And when have Americans not been “concerned about the country’s economic issues,” and when have Americans not felt “frustrated and upset?”

Schoen continues: “Over half (52%) say their personal economic situation makes them nervous. 48% say it makes them anxious, 44% say it makes them upset, and 30% say it makes them angry.” Really? Is this normal? Can you compare it to a year ago, a month ago? A decade ago?

How about this priceless example of putting words in people’s’ mouths?

“Generally speaking, does your personal economic situation make you nervous, anxious, upset, angry?” (Based on the graphic, we assume this was the question, but have no way of knowing because Schoen did not publish the question or the order of questions.)

How about including, “happy,” “hopeful,” “enthusiastic,” “calm?” Could Schoen lead the jury any more that this?

Or let’s look at this one: “70% of Americans are nervous about their retirement because of their personal economic situation,” and “45% are nervous about being able to put their children through college, 31% are nervous about starting a family, and 29% are nervous about being able to afford to buy a home.”

So of course we know that all 600 of Schoen’s respondents have two or more children, based on the answer to the unidentified question. Oh wait, but then we see that some of them haven’t started families yet… And do they even want to? Look at the home-buying portion and make your own deduction. Do 81% of Schoen’s respondents already own a home? Do they want to?

Schoen “finds” that 42% of Americans answered “no,” to the question, “Would you say that you feel stagnated in terms of your income?” I’m amazed it was that low. Who doesn’t feel “stagnated in terms of your income?” This is America! “More, more, more!” is our rallying cry!

But seriously, again, that’s an actual question? Leading, much? Same goes for Schoen’s “Do you feel like you don’t make enough money to live your life the way you want to?” Amazing that only 44% said “yes.” What’s more amazing is the way the data is presented: “54% disagree.” Really? That means that a majority of Americans — despite being asked a leading question, in a poll clearly designed to obtain negative responses — feel that they do make enough money to live their lives the way they want to!” Given the level of unemployment, underemployment, and people on welfare and food stamps, that’s news! But they way it’s presented is simply sleazy and shameful.

How about, “27% say their family’s economic situation has impacted their health, and 26% of those married say it has impacted their marriage”? So, were all 600 married? How many are married? What percent? We have no idea.

Let’s look at this one: “Of those who say they are angry about their personal economic situation, 13% say their anger has impacted their sex life. 78% say it has not.” America the angry? Really? only 13% of Americans say money — assuming lack thereof — is negatively impacting their sex life? This is America! Americans are pissed whenever anything gets in between them and sex! 13%? The title of this “poll” should be, “America — getting enough, thank you very  much.”

There’s this little thing called journalism that is under attack in America. Journalism, and facts, and fairness. Let’s be honest. I’m about as liberal as they come. Despite the fact that Schoen is a political analyst for Fox News, Schoen, has worked for many Democrats. Schoen, you should know, was named Pollster of the Year in 1996 by the American Association of Political Consultants.

I could easily parrot this study and write about something else an hour from now. But what America thinks is really, really important to me. Presenting facts and reality properly and accurately is really, really important to me. Thst’s why Sarah Palin sends me into a tailspin. So does Fox.

Perhaps Americans are really just angry about being lied to, and having “facts” presented with such slant and arrogance that they are not meaningless but so meaningful as to tell people what to think, not what they are thinking?

Like I said, there’s this little thing called journalism. It’s a little too near and dear to my heart to let it suffer any more without my speaking out once in a while. Doug Schoen, this “poll” is irresponsible and in my opinion, has zero credibility. And Tina Brown, shame on you! Hand in your press pass — you just lost all rights to it.

Angry Americans FINAL

http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=57045221&access_key=key-ybj0jbcto8msou7arql&page=1&viewMode=list

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘New MAGA Slush Fund’ Could Hand Trump Coalition ‘Cut of the Spoils’: Columnist

Published

on

President Donald Trump reportedly may drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in a settlement handing him control of a $1.7 billion “MAGA slush fund” to compensate victims of government abuse, according to The New Republic‘s Greg Sargent, who calls it a “Shakedown.”

Citing an ABC News report, Sargent explains that the proposed settlement “would create a ‘commission’ with ‘total authority’ to settle ‘claims’ brought by those who allege such weaponization. Per ABC, this not only includes the insurrectionists; it could even settle purported claims by ‘entities associated with President Trump himself.’ By all indications it would operate with little-to-no congressional oversight.”

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told Sargent it is “a shocking new betrayal of the Constitution.”

This “new MAGA slush fund,” Sargent says, would come from an existing Justice Department fund that has strict controls, including transparency requirements. But “Trump would wield quasi-direct control” over the $1.7 billion, including being able to fire commission members “without cause,” and “it wouldn’t be required to disclose its decision-making involving who gets awarded compensation.”

Raskin told Sargent, the “Judgment Fund exists to settle valid judgments against the United States government.”

Raskin said that Trump and his allies are “trying to take money from the Judgment Fund while eliminating any controls and oversight” and put it under Trump’s “direct unilateral control.”

Because Congress did not set up any fund like this it could be unconstitutional.

“Congress never would have passed a $1.7 billion slush fund for his friends—this is completely outside of our constitutional framework,” Raskin said. He called it “an outrageous desecration of congressional power of the purse.”

Raskin also noted that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment prohibits government from assuming any “obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

So if Trump wants to use the $1.7 billion to compensate the January 6 rioters, he will be “using federal taxpayer dollars to compensate people who participated in insurrection,” according to Raskin.

Trump and his lawyers “are figuring out a way to refund the January 6 militia, presumably to get them ready for the next round of battle,” Raskin said.

“So at bottom,” Sargent concludes, “payments from this fund might ultimately serve as a form of coalition management: They’ll keep large swaths of his coalition persuaded that a win for Trump, no matter how illicit or ill-gotten, is a win for them. That his corruption isn’t just in his own interests, but in theirs, too. Because, after all, they’re getting a cut of the spoils.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

CNN Analyst Stunned Bottom Has ‘Completely Fallen Out’ For Trump

Published

on

CNN analyst Harry Enten is stunned at how far President Donald Trump’s approval rating has fallen, especially among Latino voters.

“The bottom has completely fallen out when it comes to Donald Trump and Latino voters,” Enten said on Friday.

“What a different world,” he exclaimed. “Oy vey, if I’m the president of the United States, because just take a look here.”

Trump won a “record share” of Latino voters for a “Republican presidential nominee, 46 percent of the vote,” Enten said, “going all the way back since we had the advent of exit polls back in 1972.”

Trump’s job approval rating, in an average of CNN polls, is 28 percent — “an 18 point drop,” Enten explained.

Latino voters from 2024 “have abandoned him with the utmost, just, dislike of what he is doing so far — just 28 percent, a drop of 18 points.”

And with Latino men, Enten said, “Oh, my goodness gracious.”

Trump is at -41 points, a “movement of 51 points, a shift away from the president of the United States.”

“Again, the bottom has just completely fallen out, and, of course, when you look across that political map, there are so many races that will be involving a lot of Latino voters, and when you see numbers like this, I just go, ‘Uh oh,’ if I am a Republican running for Congress,” he said.

Enten also said that one of the reasons Trump had “record performance with Latinos back in 2024, was because the issue of the economy. They trusted Donald Trump by a three-point margin against Kamala Harris.”

But his net approval on the economy now? “Minus 46 points.”

“No wonder the bottom has fallen out with Latino voters and Latino men in particular,” he added.

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Alito Refuses to Recuse From Supreme Court Case Despite Stock Ownership in Industry

Published

on

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is refusing to recuse himself from a major climate case despite owning stock in several energy companies, although none in the two that are parties in the lawsuit the court will hear next term.

Citing his energy stock ownership, liberal groups have been calling for the conservative justice to recuse, and they have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate Alito’s involvement, NBC News reports. But the Supreme Court says Alito is not obligated to do so.

“Justice Alito does not have a financial interest in any party” involved in the case, a court spokesperson told NBC News in a statement. The court’s legal counsel advised that “his recusal is not required.”

ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy are fighting to have dismissed a lawsuit involving damages for climate harms, NBC News reports.

Justices are not required to recuse unless they have a direct conflict, such as specific stock ownership, a personal relationship, or a history with the case prior to their appointment to the Supreme Court.

In their letter, the liberal groups say that justices should recuse if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” by an “unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances.”

The liberal groups also say they have “deep concerns” about Alito’s “inconsistent history of recusals from cases from which he should be compelled to recuse under long-standing federal law.” They cite “his substantial holdings in individual oil and gas companies and other personal ties.”

They point to what they call Alito’s “irregular recusal practice in oil and gas industry-related cases,” saying that it is “undermining public confidence in the impartiality of the Court.”

NBC notes that “in 2023, Alito did recuse himself when the court turned away an appeal from the companies in the Colorado case.” That same day, “the court rejected appeals in similar cases involving other companies, including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. Alito also did not participate in those cases.”

But the court’s spokesperson said that Alito was “inadvertently recused” from the Colorado case.

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.