tofias dot net

Frank Bruni on corporate America’s sensitivity to public opinion on gay rights:

In addition to Starbucks, Microsoft and Amazon spoke up for same-sex marriage. All have surely taken note of several polls over the last year suggesting - for the first time - that a slight majority of Americans supports it. All have no doubt taken even greater note of a generational divide. In a Gallup poll, 70 percent of people in the 18-to-34 age range favored same-sex marriage, while only 39 percent of people 55 and older did.

More so than politicians, corporations play the long game, trying to engender loyalty for decades to come, and they’re famously fixated on consumers in their 20s and 30s.

If you hate junk charts and you hate Flash. Don’t click on this link. Seriously. Unless you want to get all angry.

On “top political priorities” see the 2006 edition of Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America by Morris P. Fiorina, Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy Pope (especially chapter 8).

On crazy dynamic pie charts that don’t facilitate comparison? Why why why? Please don’t. Make it stop. It burns.

(Source: GOOD)

So says John Sides of the Monkey Cage and he has the data to back up the claim.

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press on the the public’s ability to identify the leader of the Republican Party (via Political Wire).

Ezra Klein asks if healthcare reform is popular – and it is if you ask people about their support for many of the components of the reform, but not so much if you ask people to stick their thumb up or down to the whole thing.

I think it’s easy to chalk up these sorts of survey results to the common variability and stupid human tricks we often see with polling. However, I think a good portion of the blame has to go to Obama and the Democrats for failing to market this bill with morality and as a series of regulatory changes (see Canes-Wrone and de Marchi 2002) and allowing the GOP to frame the discussion as a question over the size of government. It’s much too easy to maintain a status quo policy by maligning leviathan and the Democrats let their opponents do just that.

Link via Seth Masket who is quickly becoming one of my favorite bloggers.

More and better said on Ezra K. from frequent co-author and good friend of the log, Michael Ensley:

A big bill leaves too much room for doubt, attack. They took the wrong lesson away from 1993-94. The problem for Clinton was not getting Congress involved early. The problem was setting a modest, focused, and clear bill. We are going to make it better by doing X. Instead they were all over the map. By trying to do a comprehensive overhaul you open up to many avenues. Maybe he had to keep to campaign promises. But why not start by delivering something simple. A health insurance reform bill based on mandates and eliminating discrimination based on pre-existing health conditions.

I’ve frequently espoused the Congress-wasn’t-involved-early-enough story while explaining 1994. But I think Ensley is right, the tack taken in both instances was too sprawling to appeal to an inattentive electorate.