In politics, we’re all ‘poll dancers’

Bill Knight column for 3-5, 6 or 7, 2020                   

After Super Tuesday’s primaries in 14 states, Democrats abroad and the American Samoa territory, some may think it’s all over but the cheating.

One wonders, however, whether innumerable polls thus far have made a difference – or will in the next eight months.

In 1984, remember, polls said Walter Mondale would defeat Ronald Reagan, but the Minnesota Democrat lost 49 states. And in 2008, Barack Obama was forecast to win the New Hampshire primary, where Hillary Clinton won.

Meanwhile, before this year’s early primaries, polls said Joe Biden led Democratic candidates with 26%, followed by Bernie Sanders’ 21, Elizabeth Warren’s 15 and Pete Buttigieg’s 6. That was followed by a Quinnipiac polling of head-to-head showdowns between Democratic candidates and President Trump that showed Mike Bloomberg beating Trump 51-42, barely ahead of Sanders’ 51-43 and the rest far behind.

What the…?

Polls aspire to measure public opinion but they’re mere snapshots of slices of time, and it’s a long time until some Democrat attains 1,991 pledged convention delegates (or 2,375.5 delegates if a second ballot is needed – when party leaders can put their thumbs on the scale), much less November 3.

“There is still a lot of good polling in news media reports,” said the late Andrew Kohut of Pew Research Center, “but its value is diminished by trends.

“Polling is being used by the press less as a check on the conventional wisdom about voter opinion, and more as a way of underscoring the running story line with numbers,” he continued. “Polls, and some pollsters, have become part of the tabloidization of political reporting. And more and more polls are being conducted on a judgmental rather than on a systematic basis.”

Why should polls have such an outsized influence on the Republic? And why hasn’t the press abandoned the horse-race approach to offer voters substance on issues and character?

“News is no longer what the candidates are doing, but what other people think of candidates and the candidates’ reactions to the polls,” commented Bloomsburg University professor and columnist Walt Brasch.  “The media then devote more of their news coverage to people who are ahead in the polls.”

Nate Silver, whose FiveThirtyEight predictions are widely respected, criticizes lousy media coverage and bad analysis. Silver focused on combining various solid pollsters to more accurately forecast the 2008 and 2012 elections. (Silver concedes he underestimated Donald Trump in 2016, but he still gave him a 29% chance, much more than most prognosticators. Silver was on the mark for the 2018 mid-term elections.)

He complains that most media anointed Biden as front-runner and recognized Kamala Harris as a formidable challenger, before his disappointing performances and her leaving the race.

“There’s a bias toward believing in explanations that involve secrecy or things happening that are hidden,” Silver said in The Atlantic this month.

Also, some polling comes from partisan forces: candidates or consultants, industry or other interest groups, etc., making results biased by what questions are asked and who’s asked.

“The polling agencies with the least interest in the outcome of the election always perform the best,” said Virginia Miori, of the Business Intelligence & Analytics program at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia.

Further, good polls can be pricey and face new problems, such as fewer land lines and more robocalls that people ignore, plus difficulties in detecting late surges at the grassroots and a “social desirability” tendency for respondents to say what they think is socially acceptable instead of their real opinion.

“Consider blue-collar workers versus white-collar workers,” Miori added. “They’re available at different times of the day.”

Pew recently reported that pols’ response rates have gone from 36% in 1997 to 6% today.

Still, there are reliable, qualified pollsters, including Associated Press/GfK, Gallup, Harris, Pew and Roper, plus the pollingreport.com compilation.

Meanwhile, here are 10 questions voters (and reporters) should ask: Who conducted the poll? Who paid for it? How was it conducted? Were participants chosen randomly or another way? Who answered the questions? How many responded? Were they compensated? What questions were asked? Can conclusions be generalized to the whole population? What’s the margin of error?

Answers could help inform voters avoid an error at the ballot box.

Recommended reading: “Polling and the Public: What Every Citizen Should Know,” by Herbert Asher; “The Voter's Guide to Election Polls” by Paul Lavrakas and Michael Traugott; and “A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper” by John Allen Paulos.

Many drinking-water systems contaminated: study

Bill Knight column for 3-2, 3 or 4, 2020       

Illinois may not have the worst contamination of PFAS “forever chemicals,” according to a new study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), but the toxic compounds are present in water systems and groundwater in Bloomington, Chicago, Galesburg, Peoria and the Quad Cities, and state Attorney General Kwame Raoul and the legislature recognize the danger, and some are pressing for reforms.

New tests confirm that drinking water in dozens of U.S. cities contain PFAS at levels above what independent experts consider safe.

“PFAS” is short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Their chemicals are in products like nonstick pans, waterproof jackets, firefighting foam and some personal-care items like sunscreens and shampoos.

“Results confirm that the number of Americans exposed to PFAS from contaminated tap water has been dramatically underestimated by previous studies, both from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and EWG’s own research,” the report says. “Scientists now believe PFAS is likely detectable in all major water supplies in the U.S.”

The region’s major water-system operator, Illinois American, says they don’t have any locations providing water with results that exceed the EPA’s health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for key PFAS.

Illinois American Water External Affairs Manager Karen Cotton said that the company has collected samples for PFAS compounds “to have a better understanding of our water quality and to be prepared at such time as EPA take action on these additional compounds.”

However, that federal Maximum Contaminant Level of 70 ppt is too high, according to independent studies suggesting PFAS are dangerous at lower levels. EWG considers only concentrations of 1 part per trillion or lower to be safe.

PFAS are called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down but build up in animals’ blood and organs. Exposure increases risks of cancer, harms fetal development, and reduces vaccines’ effectiveness.

“PFAS pose a serious health threat to our communities,” Raoul said. “Federal legislation and financial assistance are urgently needed to fight this contamination and give residents peace of mind.”

Raoul and 21 other state attorneys general urged Congress to pass legislation to aid states in addressing the public-health threat of such toxic chemicals.

Also State Rep. Will Guzzardi (D-Chicago) this winter introduced a measure reforming Maximum Contaminant Levels, and it’s in the Rules Committee.

EWG’s samples, collected from 44 locations in 31 states and the District of Columbia through December, were analyzed by an accredited independent laboratory for 30 different PFAS.

Commercial production of PFAS started in the 1940s; in the ’50s 3M began using them in products to repel water, resist heat, etc. For decades, companies using PFAS concealed evidence that the chemicals were hazardous.

The EPA was alerted to the problem in 2001 but in almost 20 years hasn’t set an enforceable, nationwide legal limit. In 2016, the EPA issued a national health advisory for both compounds and established the non-enforceable limit of 70 ppt.

“I think the fact that EPA only has a [health advisory] speaks volumes to the issue in terms of the lack of federal leadership,” said EWG toxicologist Dave Andrews.

Despite the revelations, President Trump and his GOP oppose regulations to cut exposure to PFAS. House Democrats recently passed the PFAS Action Act of 2019 (HR 535), which would direct the EPA to establish better standards for drinking water and require polluters to assist in cleanup.

Twenty-four Republicans supported it, but all five GOP Congressmen from Illinois voted against it.

The bill is expected to stall in the GOP-controlled Senate, and “if H.R. 535 were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill,” the White House said.

Instead, Trump’s EPA is implementing a PFAS “action plan” that environmental groups say does little to address widespread contamination.

 “Policymakers should set science-based drinking water standards for PFAS in tap water, reduce ongoing PFAS discharges into water supplies, end non-essential uses of PFAS, require reporting of ongoing PFAS discharges into water supplies, ensure that PFAS wastes are properly disposed of, and expand PFAS monitoring,” EWG says.

Coping with this contamination may be difficult and expensive because municipal water systems must be updated with new filters to remove the chemicals. Treatment options to remove PFAS include reverse osmosis, ion-exchanged, and granular activated carbon (GAC), the most common.

“The PFAS issue is one of the most rapidly changing landscapes in drinking water contamination,” Illinois American’s Cotton says. “American Water has invested time and effort on our own independent research, as well as engaging with other experts in the field to understand PFAS occurrence, fate and transport in the environment. We are also actively assessing treatment technologies that can effectively remove PFAS from drinking water, because we believe that investment in research is critical for addressing this issue.”

Governments budgets don’t budge on real priorities

Bill Knight column for 2-27, 28 or 29, 2020 

Since budgets are plans, not commitments, they’ve always seemed like BS.

However, as shown by the federal budget proposed by President Trump and Illinois’ budget presented by Gov. Pritzker, they can reveal priorities even when implementation is in question.

Pritzker’s $42 billion proposal connects state education funding to the Fair Tax question on November’s ballot, creating uncertainty for schools. If the progressive-taxation measure passes, Illinois will meet its evidence-based funding of $350 million to school districts; if it fails, the state will apparently renege and spend $200 million.

That shows the Fair Tax is Pritzker’s main concern. But such sleight-of-hand (or, arguably, hostage-taking) is compassionate and sensible compared to the White House’s sinister budget.

Trump’s $4.8 trillion plan is an all-time high but still cuts $2 trillion, mostly in safety-net programs, and would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt in four years. It cuts social aid but boosts Pentagon spending, including a buildup of the nuclear arsenal, with the military up some 8%, about $780 billion more.

“Trump’s budget proposal is unforgivable,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat. “Instead of helping working-class Americans and people with pre-existing conditions, he’s demanding billions for his border wall and slashing critical programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”

On Feb. 10, Trump said he’s “not touching Social Security,” but days later Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin admitted “it’s a reduction in the rate of increase,” which caused Alex Lawson of the Social Security Works advocacy group to comment, “Only a true creature of Wall Street could try telling people that even though they are getting less money it isn’t ‘really’ a cut.”

It also slashes food stamps and health care for the disabled and poor (Medicaid, set for a $700 billion cut over 10 years).

Of course, the budget starts the appropriations process, but it’s a document not voted on by Congress, which will debate and create their own budget.

“Congress doesn’t pay attention to the President’s budget exercise,” Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi told Politico. “Presidents’ budgets are a reflection of administration priorities. They are just a list of suggestions.”

Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Richard Neal said, “There is absolutely no chance of his ruthless cuts to critical programs ever becoming law.”

So: It won’t pass as-is. However, Americans should be alarmed anyway because it indicates future targets of executive orders, federal agency action or court rulings.

Hints of Trump’s bull’s-eyes are in cuts to federal funds for states’ disadvantaged K-12 students; to Education Department staff and spending (7.8%); student loan assistance; plus ending the public-service loan program that forgives federal student loans for police, teachers, government employees and others after 10 years of public service.

Also, it extends for a decade the expiring 2017 tax cuts that mostly benefited corporations and the rich, costing the country $1.4 trillion in future revenue.

“There always seems to be plenty of money for millionaires and big corporations but never enough money to do anything for working people,” said AFL-CIO deputy policy director Kelly Ross.

The budget cuts $8.6 billion from Housing and Urban Development, including affordable housing initiatives and, separately, gutting Agriculture’s rural housing programs; cuts 26.5% of the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget and ends about 50 EPA programs; and reduces the Energy department 8.1%.

For workers, it trims federal employees’ scheduled raise from 2.5% to 1% while forcing them to pay 1% more to their pensions,; cuts the Labor department 10.7% and its National Labor Relations Board 10%; and further jeopardizes the U.S. Postal Service, causing American Postal Workers Union president Mark Dimondstein to say, “It doubles down on the [White House] Task Force proposals which would deteriorate the mail, lead to the loss of thousands of jobs, and set the Post Office up to be sold to the highest bidder.”

Writing for the Center for Rural Strategies, journalist Joe Belden said, “The bottom line? Another draconian proposal, the third in a row from the Trump budget writers, would decimate many rural and other domestic programs,” said Joe Belden, “Fortunately, Congress has the last word, and in the past, both Republican- and Democratic-led Congresses have rejected such cuts.”

People should still worry. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden said Trump’s budget is “a perfect snapshot of this administration’s policies robbing working families to pay off special interests and those at the top.”