draft blog post reporting on survey

[Micah Sifry]

All:

Here's a draft blog post reporting on the survey we launched last Wednesday. We had something like a 35% open rate and 13% click through rate, which is really strong. More than 2300 people (out of 17571 emailed) took the survey. This is a very good sign of internal strength.

Please give me any comments about the draft post. I'm planning to post it Sunday evening.

Micah
- - - - -

Supporters of Demand Question Time are a very politically active, passionate, liberal-leaning group that is ready to push Washington in all kinds of creative ways to get the President and both parties talking to each other in a direct way. Those are the takeaways of the survey we did last week of the first 17,500 people to sign the Demand Question Time petition. Frankly, I've been blown away by how many people took the time to not only take the survey--2,338 responses and counting, a whopping 13.3% response rate--but also by the comments and suggestions people gave us. Not only have there been nearly 100 comments here on the blog, we got well over 2,000 written responses to our questions about why people were supporting Question Time.

In the interests of transparency, I'm pasting in the full survey report below. But here are the two major conclusions I think we should focus on:

First, our little movement has some real muscle. Not only do we have the ability to get media attention for the Question Time idea, we have thousands of people who are ready to call their Members of Congress, write letters to the editor, get on the phone with supporters from a different political party to jointly call their elected representatives, and so on. That's a real vote of confidence in what we're doing and we're going to follow up soon with some calls to action along those lines:

<blockquote>Call my representatives in Congress to ask them if they support Question Time:   72.71%
Write a letter to the editor: 46.27%
Get on the phone with another Question Time supporter from a different party than my own and then call our representatives together:     24.28%
Donate money to pay for advertising: 20.66%
Help spread the word by tabling or sign-holding/waving/posting: 19.04%
Make an online video: 6.33%</blockquote>

The second obvious highlight of the survey, and one that frankly surprised some of us on the steering committee, is how much the survey responses tilt towards the left. Asked what political party "you identify with," respondents said:

<blockquote>Democrat:    60.52%
independent: 24.73%
None of the above: 5.12%
Republican: 4.34%
Green: 2.02%
Libertarian: 1.89%
I'd rather not say: 1.38%
</blockquote>

Some of us think this could be just because the petition got early attention from the Huffington Post, a liberal site. Others think it may be because liberals supposedly prefer "kumbaya"-why-can't-we-all-get-along politics more than conservatives. And others think it's because conservatives may feel that the original, spontaneous Question Time session between President Obama and the House Republican caucus helped Obama more than the Republicans, and therefore are wary of making the encounter a regular event.

We don't know whether any of these conclusions are right (and certainly don't mind you adding your two cents to the discussion), but whatever the reasons, we're convinced that Question Time won't succeed as a movement unless it flies with two wings, equally balanced. That's why our steering committee and core group of signers is evenly divided between right and left (with a smattering of uncategorizables). So, here's what we hope you will do:

<strong>If you have a friend, a relative, a co-worker who is a Republican or a conservative or a rightwinger of any stripe, ask them to sign the Demand Question Time petition. Liberals, get in touch with that uncle who you usually never talk to at Thanksgiving. Conservatives, talk to your pals. Let's grow our base of support so we're balanced. If we want the President and the opposing party to engage in regular dialogue, we have to do it too.</strong>

The full survey is below:
1. How old are you?
Summary Value     Percent %
18-29     31.66%
50-64     25.48%
30-39     18.23%
40-49     12.27%
65 and up     11.15%
Under 18     0.99%
I'd rather not say    0.21%

2. If you identify with a political party, are you:
Summary Value     Percent %
Democrat     60.52%
independent     24.73%
None of the above     5.12%
Republican     4.34%
Green     2.02%
Libertarian     1.89%
I'd rather not say     1.38%

3. Check which political labels describe you best (you may choose more than one):
Summary Value     Percent %
liberal     55.67%
progressive     54.51%
moderate     30.22%
independent     25.97%
libertarian     13.84%
populist     8.90%
conservative     7.48%
apolitical     1.98%
tea party     1.93%
I'd rather not say     0.69%

4. Are you registered to vote?
Summary Value     Percent %
Yes     96.69%
No    2.61%
I'd rather not say     0.48%
Don't know     0.22%

5. Did you vote in the 2008 election?
Summary Value     Percent %
Yes     93.58%
No     5.99%
I'd rather not say 0.43%

6. Are you planning to vote in the 2010 election?
Summary Value     Percent %
Yes     93.50%
Don't know 4.09%
No     2.07%
I'd rather not say 0.34%

7. Which, if any, of the following activities are you interested in taking in support of Question Time? (Check as many as apply.)
Summary Value     Percent %
Call my representatives in Congress to ask them if they support Question Time     72.71%
Write a letter to the editor 46.27%
Get on the phone with another Question Time supporter from a different party than my own and then call our representatives together 24.28%
Donate money to pay for advertising 20.66%
Help spread the word by tabling or sign-holding/waving/posting 19.04%
Make an online video 6.33%

--
http://www.personaldemocracy.com
http://www.techpresident.com
http://micah.sifry.com
http://www.twitter.com/mlsif

[Jon Henke]

Looks good.

_________
Jon Henke

---

From: Micah Sifry <msi...@gmail.com>

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:57:18 -0500

To: QuestionTime USA<question...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: draft blog post reporting on survey

[David Corn]

I agree. Thanks, Micah. 

David Corn

Office: 202-347-7958

Cell: 301-379-3282

Washington bureau chief

Mother Jones

Winner of the 2008 National Magazine Award for General Excellence

[Clay Shirky]

> Democrat:    60.52%
> independent: 24.73%
> None of the above: 5.12%
> Republican: 4.34%
> Green: 2.02%
> Libertarian: 1.89%
> I'd rather not say: 1.38%

> We don't know whether any of these conclusions are right (and certainly

> don't mind you adding your two cents to the discussion),

My two cents is that we have no way of answering this question without
random polling. How much would a +/-5% poll cost?

Also, strategically, I think the independent votes opinion matters
more than Dems or Repubs. In a pure 2-party system (which is to say
ideologically distinct entities who divide the electorate), there's
little gain in bi-partisanship. Now, though, with independents and the
weakly affiliated swinging elections, understanding how those groups
feel may be more important than understanding how strong Rs and Ds
feel.

-c

[Micah Sifry]

If you break out the independent group, it also tilts to the left, though about 22% also identify as conservative and about 10% as libertarian. So, it's a good bet that we've got some Republican-leaners or ex-Republicans in there.

But I think the best explanation for the tilt is in how the petition started. Remember, we were featured in Politico and then on the front page of the Huffington Post for most of the first day. We also got covered by MSNBC (including Hardball) and NPR. These are all outlets whose audiences lean left. So, the bias is from where we first got coverage.

As for polling the whole list...I don't think anyone here wants to spend the money (we're talking probably $20K or more, especially as we don't have people's phone numbers). And frankly, it's most important to know the make-up of the people who actually seem interested in participating; taking a survey obviously being a good filter for that intent.

[Jon Henke]

We certainly wouldn't want to commission a survey just for this, but what about incorporating a question about this into an existing survey? Perhaps (though, admittedly, there's some risk in this) the regular Kos-sponsored survey?

_________
Jon Henke

---

From: Micah Sifry <msi...@gmail.com>

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:21:59 -0500

To: <question...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: draft blog post reporting on survey

[Glenn Reynolds]

Looks fine to me, though I don't really understand the left-tilt as it's the sort of thing I think my readers would like.  (Maybe my readers tilt left more than I think?  Beats me.) 

[Leslie]

Friends, the movement is still perceived to come from the left. The balance could be reached if you pushed harder on talk radio.

That said, I agree if you want to use survey results it would best to add a question or 2 on an omnibus survey, etc. 

If you pursue this route, do you have an idea what specific questions would you ask? 

[Clay Shirky]

Glenn, I think your audience may skew libertarian, at a guess.

-c

On Feb 21, 2010 11:36 AM, "Glenn Reynolds" <glenn.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks fine to me, though I don't really understand the left-tilt as it's the sort of thing I think my readers would like.  (Maybe my readers tilt left more than I think?  Beats me.) 

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Jon Henke <jonh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> We certainly wouldn't w...

[Glenn Reynolds]

Well, that's my take, too, I'd just expect more enthusiasm for this venture from 'em than I've seen.

[da...@aol.com]

Maybe we could stipulate that Ron Paul would get to moderate question time.

-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Reynolds <glenn.r...@gmail.com>
To: question...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2010 11:59 am
Subject: Re: draft blog post reporting on survey

[Micah Sifry]

Any other ideas on how to increase the uptake from the right side of the aisle? I like Leslie's suggestion that we get on talk radio, for one. I suspect we need a fresh peg for that, which could be drafting off the WH health care "summit" in the way that David Corn suggested earlier, i.e., "this is why we need a regular Question Time, not an agenda-driven one-time event"...

[da...@aol.com]

Any of our on-the-right comrades have close connections to conservative radio show hosts? Would be interesting if we could get any prominent conservative talker to talk up QT--or just feature one of its conservative endorsers. Does Smerconish have much of an audience? Does he count as conservative these days? Maybe not much. I know him.
David

[Clay Shirky]

Although I'm too centrist to be able to talk knowledgeably about Glenn
Beck, his recent complaint that R members of Congress are
insufficiently true to their principles might make him a proponent for
QT.

-c

[Jon Henke]

I don't know how eager our friends on the Left would be to do something like this, but the "Health Care Summit" on Thursday is going to be a major news hook, controversy sells and the Right will probably be eager to criticize the summit.  We could issue a statement expressing regret that the White House and Congress missed an opportunity to have a genuine, candid conversation like we've outlined.   

Again, I don't know if the left side of DQT will want to appear critical of this summit, but it is an opportunity to (a) jump into a major news story, (b) explain what we're calling for and how the summit differs from what we're calling for, and (c) generate a little goodwill with the Right.

It would break a few eggs.  It's just a question of whether people think we'd be making an omelet or a mess.

-------------

Jon Henke

(202) 595-4323

[da...@aol.com]

I'm never shy about breaking eggs. I just wonder if we want to get into the business of releasing statements. I raise the question without having a strong belief--yet. Once you start doing that, do you establish expectations for issuing future statements. I see nothing wrong with members of the coalition jumping on this event to make our collective point for QT. That would be utterly great. But should we be releasing statemets? Perhaps more important, will we get any attention for doing so? All that said, I believe it won't be a problem to issue a statement about the summit saying an opportunity was missed without bashing the summit and looking as if we're taking sides.
DC

=

[Micah Sifry]

Jon et al:

Do we know for sure that the summit is going to be a failure? And by that, I don't mean, a failure in the sense of not producing a compromise, bipartisan health care bill...I mean a failure in terms of our hope for genuine dialogue between the President and the opposition party. I agree that the foreshadowing and jockeying now under way certainly is setting this event up for conventional failure--the cameras will roll and everyone will stick carefully to script. But what if that isn't the case? Live TV is a funny thing, which is why we all watch the presidential debates.

So, my suggestion is that we watch closely and see what happens, and then try to strike while the iron is hot, IF we sense a useful intervention to be made. That could be a statement regretting a missed opportunity for real dialogue because the White House set the terms so tightly as to preclude a genuine encounter (and thus why we need regular Question Time)...or it could be a statement hailing both sides for stepping out of their planned scripted roles and doing something useful (that needs to be repeated regularly, aka Question Time).

Micah

[Harold Pollack]

That's exactly right.

*******

[Michael Turk]

Count Rep. McCotter has a dissenting voice on the usefulness of the Summit exercise.

http://www.redstate.com/rep_thaddeus_mccotter/2010/02/23/the-crisis-of-consent-republicans-must-not-abet-obama%E2%80%99s-shamwow-summit/