It is certainly not a stretch of the imagination to believe many Americans disapprove of Congress’ and the President’s attempts to save Terri Schiavo’s life by creating Legislation allowing the Federal Courts to complete a de novo review of the evidence. Indeed, recent polling indicates that a majority of Americans are against the government’s involvement in the Schiavo case.

But before I get into how that polling could have been manipulated, allow me to tell you my thoughts on polling in general. First of all, I have never been polled by any of the major polling authorities. Nor have I ever spoken to someone who has participated in one of these polls. Other than Zogby’s online poll, I know of no one who shares my conservative ideology that has been asked to participate in major polling data. Perhaps it is just a coincidence; I still find it odd that I have never met anyone who has taken part in any of the major media polls.

So how can I be sure the polls are fair or even take place at all? I can’t. The only explanation I can come up with is that the major polling authorities got their hands on “liberals only” phone books.

There are other problems in the polls you and I read regularly. Not just anyone can conduct a poll. Despite the fact one needs only a phone line and telephone directory to conduct a poll, only major media outlets and left-wing think tanks seem to be able to get their polls recognized nationally. Therefore, each polling outfit can choose to word the poll questions anyway they like. Despite what you may assume, there is no quality control department for political polls.

I told you earlier I would reveal how the Terri Schiavo case polling could have been manipulated to produce a particular result. A recent ABC News poll purported that fully 63% of those polled support the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin oppose a law mandating federal review of her case. But it was reported by the weblog Captain’s Quarters that the way the polling questions were worded may have played a role in the lopsided results that and other simularly worded polls produced. One of the questions was asked like this:

Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday.

What’s your opinion on this case - do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube? Do you support/oppose it strongly or somewhat?

This questioning assumes that everyone realizes that a simple feeding tube constitutes “life support” and that Terri Schiavo’s condition is, without a doubt, “irreversible”. In fact, most people assume life support involves machines that breathe or pump the heart of the patient, not a device that assists in providing nutrition. Worth noting is that the constant drooling normally associated with persons unable to swallow (because they are in a vegetative state) is not evident Terri’s case. A better (or alternate) way to ask the question would be like this:

Terri Schiavo is severely brain damaged and has been fed and hydrated through a tube for the last 12 years. Her parents claim that rehabilitation that could allow her to eat and drink without the tube has been denied her by her husband Michael Schiavo. Knowing that Terri’s parents have indicated they wish to care for Terri and pay all her expenses, do you agree that her feeding tube should be removed so that she can starve to death over a period of one to two weeks?

What’s your opinion on this case - do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube? Do you support/oppose it strongly or somewhat?

Sometimes the validity of polling data may be called into question when the polling authority is found to have ties to an organization that has a “horse in the race” of the circumstances that are being polled. There has recently been a lot of controversy surrounding the partisan connections between a left-wing activist group and the mainstream polling authority Pew Research. As SoCalPundit.com recently revealed, there is a strong link between Pew Research’s parent organization, Pew Charitable Trusts and the left-wing activism group, The Tides Foundation. These polling groups almost never reveal these ties but rather require inquiring readers to shuffle through dozens of web pages to find the organizations that fund their efforts.

Sometimes the MSM (mainstream media) simply quotes polls out of context. The MSM has been reporting that President Bush’s intention to include private investment accounts in a larger package to save Social Security is wholly and undoubtedly unpopular. Take for instance a recent Washington Post-ABC News Poll. That poll found that 35% of respondents approved of the way President Bush has been handling Social Security to 56% that disapproved. The poll’s companion article trumpeted:

Barely a third of the public approves of the way President Bush is dealing with Social Security and a majority says the more they hear about Bush's plan to reform the giant retirement system, the less they like it, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Indeed, the poll did find that the majority of respondents did indicate that they disliked the President’s handling of reforming Social Security. But what that statement (and the rest of the article) failed to tell you was that the President has proposed adding “personal investment accounts” and has asked Democrats and others to offer other solutions to fix the ailing safety net. At this point, that is the entire scope of the president’s work on this subject. But the results change when respondents are asked about Bush’s plan on private accounts, the only reform President Bush himself has offered:

Would you support or oppose a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market?

Respondents who were asked this question approved of the option 56% to 41% who opposed it. Don’t you think the data on the private accounts is more relevant than what respondents think about Bush’s work on Social Security? After all, it is the private accounts that Democrats are against and Republicans are for.

Many factors can play a role in skewing polls in favor of one position or another. When and with whom as well as by whom the polls are taken are certainly the most obvious variants. Most of us that study polling as a part of our political watching usually use a combination of polls to gauge sentiment on one issue or another. More often than not though, polls are the tool of those that produce them.