Douglas Schoen, of the firm Penn Schoen Berland www.psbresearch.com, a pollster for Micheal Bloomberg, published an article 10/18/11 in the Wall Street Journal at this URL
http://online.wsj.com/...
which pretends to be scientific. Schoen also makes statements that are not even relevant with the poll discussed and the entire article is a slur against Occupy Wall Street and a false warning that Obama should distance himself from OWS. This article is an insult to the intelligence of every person who reads it and a slur against science and scientific method. It is a dark shadow cast over every member of every scientific community. I want to shine some light.
NOTE: my comments are in double parentheses (()).
"Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion."
((A single person, mingling in a large crowd, self selecting people to interview is not a scientifically randomized poll. It is a grossly biased poll slanted by the person selecting which people to interview and further slanted by the body language and tone of voice and word selections used by the interviewer. To randomize the poll, the pollster could give a numbered survey sheet to every person in the crowd and use a randomiser program to select which survey sheets to include or number each person in the crowd and let the randomizer select which persons to interview. No mention is made of the "systematic" process used to randomize the selection of persons yet the term systematic random sample is used to pretend science. I must also ask what significance the 198 persons interviewed has and, more precisely, how they were selected and how well they represent the total number of people in the park on that day at that time.))
President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election.
((This statement has no relevance with the poll, the poll results do not support it, it expresses only the opinion of the author. Why is it the lead statement?))
"the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters"
((This must be opinion because nothing within the data supports it.))
"The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies"
((Again, no support within the data; certainly a deliberate misrepresentation.))
"Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America""
((This statement cannot be made even if the data supported it. We have to ask unemployed America whether or not OWS represents them.))
"and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence."
((The questionnaire was broad and the data actually displays ideological diversity and diverse concerns. Maybe the pollster found it difficult to find a right wing or religious right voter in the OWS crowd that day at that time. The term unrepresentative cannot be used here because the "electorate" has not been polled. Civil disobedience has been popular since Gandhi and it means things like occupying a public space without a permit or permission. I have not yet heard even one person supporting OWS advocate the use of violence. I must wait to see the questionnaire and the raw data before I can report on this. I can question why, if it was, in the questionaire.))
"Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda."
((Because Schoen, of a different measure, claimed that 3% was a large majority
The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).
((when persons not counted in the standard unemplyment rate are added back in, the national rate is close to 17% and I am not sure of why this measure was part of the poll. It actually speaks well for the attendees, most of whom are employed.))
"What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth,"
((In the data: opposition to free-market capitalism (3%) and support for radical redistribution of wealth (4%). If 3% and 4% of a population can represent the majority of the population, we don't need scientific methods. Just go interview a few people and say what you want.))
"intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas."
((35% of people interviewed said they want to influence the democratic party like the tea party influenced the republican party. 30% said they were frustrated over the influence of corporate and special interests. 21% are frustrated over partisanship. 15% joblessness. 7% corruption. Keeping jobs here for american workers and not outsourcing them does not require protectionist measures. I have to wait for the data to say more.))
"Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost."
((the matter of cost was not included in the poll questionaire and the 65% might be another misrepresentation since 3% or 4% constitute a large portion when the author wants to express a negative.))
I fault Arielle Alter Confino for conducting a sham poll. I fault Douglas Schoen for presenting what he knew was a sham poll as a scientifically conducted poll and for writing an article to slur OWS and to insert unrelated opinions, equally poor or false in foundation in a manner that has cast a dark shadow over himself and Penn Schoen Berland. I fault the Wall Street Journal for publishing an article which any eye can see is slanted by bias and suspect of motive.
I fault Schoen for, what I consider, telling lies.
Steven R. Brungard
steve@religion-of-one.org