Hi Stan, thanks for being with us this evening, I’ll start us off with a question. Your book highlights the importance of democratic politicians’ engagement with public opinion. Why is it, do you think, that so many in the journalistic establishment tend to equate “real leadership” with the defiance of public opinion?

Stanley, Welcome to the Lake.

Matt, Thank you very much for Hosting today’s Book Salon.

Very interesting question that I ponder, as it frustrates me. I’m continually impressed with voters, how discerning and much wisdom is there, but media and elites disparage them — and leaders who take their relationship with people seriously.

I think strong leadership is not defiance of people, it is about finding a way to engage with them and impact what government does.

Thanks so much for being here Stan.

Looking back over the last election cycle and knowing what you know now, are there any questions you would have asked that you didn’t? Trends that you didn’t pick up?

Greenberg is at pains to dispel the image of the pollster as “the Rasputin-like consultant” who “assumes a hidden control over the political leader,”

You can’t fool me, I’ve seen “The Candidate.”

Matt,

it was George Bush and Dick Cheney who most often said we will not be led by polls and said, so what, when two thirds of the country thought it was a mistake. They labeled themselves as “strong leaders.”

Jane,
Trends in the last election that missed. First, I thought Hillary would be the candidate — as a start. But 2008 was an affirmation of the 2006 earthquake — so this election had a framework. The polling was very steady for the last almost two months

Stan, I think that’s true, but I’m also thinking of John McCain, who was idolized by the media for the same sort of thing.

The Candidate a
nd popular culture paint a picture of all-powerful consultants, with candidates weak and manipulated. What stands out in my book is the core strengths and beliefs of these leaders. They had a purpose. They also wanted to win, so this is more complex, but these leaders are well developed characters.

Good afternoon Matt and Stanley and welcome to FDL.

Stanley, I have not had an opportunity to read your book but this from the intro:

In an era when high-profile celebrity consultants such as Dick Morris and Frank Luntz declare “the end of big political projects, big issues, or strong party affiliations,” Greenberg still believes in big ideas, and in the ability of politicians and the public to engage with those ideas.

Did you ever have to deal with Morris? Seems to me, he has been pushing the “pollster as Svengali” theme for years as his way of puffing his importance.

How do we counter the Morris types who like to claim the credit for intelligent moves based on polling but never want the blame when their polling blows up in their faces?

Matt. Interesting on McCain. You are right. That was his persona — the guy willing to stand up to his own party. Actually, one of the surprises was how predictably conservative and Republican a campaign he ran. That was my surprise. I thought he would challenge for independents. He never escaped his base.

As a technical note, there is a “Reply” button in the lower right of comments so you can reply specifically to the comment.

Ah, Dick Morris. Yes, we have met from time to time and do describe him in the book, as the guy in the movie who wants to get credit for the hit. Willing to go further than anybody else to win. I first met him in Clinton’s last race for governor and then, in the White House. I replaced him in the first meeting and he replaced me in the last.

You are right, they feed off a sense of special powers.

Got it

As someone named Stanley Greenberg who works closely with powerful people, do you ever get accused of being part of an evil Zionist conspiracy?

Stan, as someone with an interest in Middle East politics, I particularly enjoyed the chapter on your work with Ehud Barak in 1998-99. Noting the difference between American and Israeli elections, you wrote that “In Israel, the most fundamental questions of Israelis’ existence and character, things Americans settled at the time of the Civil War, remained unresolved…Politics was about the country’s borders, its frontiers and destiny. It was about who was allowed to be Jewish who was a citizen, whether the Arab minority is a fifth column or equal citizens.”

The recent Israeli elections indicate that these questions are still very much alive. I’m interested in your views on those, especially on the rise of rightist politician Avgidor Lieberman, who seems to have successfully discerned and engaged the public mood in ways that you write about, though in a far more negative way than I’m sure many of us would like to see.

Interesting question. Not that explicitly, but I’m very conscious of being American, but also Jewish and think about the role that Jewish advisors played in both medieval and pre-modern Europe.

In the Vienna mayor’s race, the neo-fascist candidate ran his campaign against me — the influence of the “East Coast” — read, New York Jewish finance. That was very explicit and he changed my names at rallies. I was working for a Social Democratic candidate who pushed back in his final rally, attack Haider and defended my work for him and Vienna.

So, I’m conscious of this issue.

Matt,
While every leader is fascinating — particularly Mandela — I say in the book that I learned more about my own profession, about people and about politics being about big things — from Ehud Barak and Israel. The issues are so fundamental and also, the citizenry can weigh an argument and move to what was an unimaginable position — like, dividing Jerusalem — if they decide it is the right moment and they can trust the leader who is offering this big choice.

The focus groups are so intense and emotional.

The election does indeed leave big questions on the table and this government could be immobilized by the extreme parties, particularly Lieberman. But also, I’ve learned that Ehud Barak could move people to rethink Jerusalem; and Israelis look back on Ben Gurion, Begin and Rabin — and see leaders that asked big sacrifices for a vision. So, I would not rule out that Netanyahu could make surprising concessions. He does not want conflict with the new American president.

Stanley,
How do you work with the candidates to formulate the quesitons that are polled? Do you come in with general ideas then winnow them down or do you take the candidates’ questions then re-formulate them to remove (or add) any anticipated bias?

Do you ever have to explain to the candidate specific examples of how question wording can affect the results? And then run the same poll using different versions of the same question to show the way the results can be skewed?

Very insightful question. I look at the process of writing the first questionnaire for a candidate as an exercise to concentrate the mind — force choices, think hard about why you are running, identifying the strongest arguments for or against your candidacy. Usually, people to defer on question order. The problem comes on messages and attacks. When I polled in Clinton’s first campaign in 1992, Clinton would try to rewrite the questions — making the arguments for himself more robust and for the opponent, shorter and less interesting. The bias would have had him win each argument — and likes to get A’s on every test.

I have tried experiments where I aske questions in different order. For President Clinton, his approval was lower when asked at the beginning and higher if we asked later. Later they would compare to other people and think more of him. The opposite was true of Bush. His approval was higher in the beginning of the survey — and lower if respondents scored him later, when comparing to other leaders

Stanley, in Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker puff piece on your roommate, he quotes you explaining that Emanuel “doesn’t mind bad publicity. It’s part of his cachet, it’s part of why he’s able to be effective.” Good observation! But it seems that the only kind of “bad publicity” he embraces is the kind he makes up himself and gets flacks like Lizza to trumpet for him.

How come you let him crash at your place instead of encouraging him to get his own apartment or something? Do you and Congresswoman DeLauro like having him around?

Thanks, Stan. I didn’t so much mean the candidate but the message. I remember Matt Stoller saying to me once before the campaign really got going, and apropos of no particular race, that we just weren’t finding the right message. I’m wondering where the popularity of the bipartisan/”change” message first appeared, and if it grew out of the response from a specific demographic? i.e., did it first become popular with younger voters and then spread to people who had more exposure to politics and a higher tolerance for partisanship? Or maybe the other way around? In other words, who influenced who?

Mr. Greenberg. Welcome. What’s your favorite Big Dog story?

Rahm is the closest of friends and we are delighted that he’s comfortable hanging here. And you don’t think I’m going to take the bait and answer your question? Stan

Nah… I was just jokin’ around.

He kids because he loves.

Yeah, Jane knows me too well. It’s that– and because I’m just back from a week in San Miguel de Allende and haven’t recovered from all that tequila yet. In the small amount of time I spent with Rahm I can certainly see how much fun he must be to hang around with. Does he want to go back to Congress after his new job is over? Does he ever mention that around the house. I won’t tell anyone if it’s a secret.

Jane,

I’m very influenced by a political scientist who wrote that who ever decides what the fights about wins. Candidates dominate when they understand the period, the change people are looking for and offer a message and goal that matters to people. They pose a choice for the election and that get people fired up, engaged and changes the coalitions.

Obama ran on change versus Washington experience and Hillary tried to run on experience (ready day one) — and lost. Obama controlled what the fight was about. I think Obama instinctively wants to run against partisan polarization (and presumably for bi-partisan). But the financial crisis starting September 15, forced him to change message focused centrally on teh economy. And by McCain attacking Obama as a socialist who wanted to tax the rich, the battle was joined. Oddly, they offered the same choice — and Obama moved well ahead. So, that’s where the energy is — though voters certainly want to get past gridlock, partisan polarization and special corruption. That is not the same as bi-partisan

Howie. If it’s just us, then I’ll let you know. He really wants to know why he doesn’t get chocolates on his pillow — that’s ironic,

Along with that, what did Labor become the washed up party it is today? How did Israeli politics descend into how many “fars” could be put before “right” to describe a party’s position.

For me, Netanyahu is pure and simple a Jewish fascist. Yet the New York Times is trying to portray him as a “pragmatist” just as an extremist like Sharon suddenly became a centrist.

Interesting analysis. I think people (including myself) confused message with tactics — knowing full well that Republicans would do exactly what they did when approached in a spirit of “bipartisanship,” we assumed it was dishonest to pretend that they wouldn’t. We also felt that people blamed Bush for the nation’s problems, and that running against the Republican brand would be a success. But people seemed to want to hear something broader and more expansive than that.

I hear what you’re saying about Obama defining what the fight was about, but I guess I’ll try to refine my question a bit more — did that happen just on the strength of his own personal qualities as a candidate? Or if you look back over your polling at the time, did he tap into something that you could connect it to later?

Hugh, I can’t go there on Netanyahu being a Jewish fascist. I can tell you that in my book I write that when I had tea with Mrs. Rabin — she said simply, that “Bibi’ had murdered my husband — talking about the incitement at Likud rallies. But remember, it was Netanyahu that gave up 13 percent of the territory involving Nablus. He is a pragmatist. He apparently accepted a withdrawal from the Golan Heights to make a Syrian agreement possible. And he does not want to come into conflict with President Obama. Lieberman is a racist — and raising issues that are very dangerous for Israel.

Labor is a long story. But I’ll go there if you want

Before we get all gushy over Ehud Barak, let’s remember that he is the current Defense Minister and he along with Livni and Olmert backed the recent assault on the civilian population of Gaza that killed 1300 and wounded 5000 and that he and they did this mostly to improve (unsuccessfully) their chances in the recent election.

Jane. I think you are right about the confusion of message and tactics. A message can be a tactic. Is it embedded in a larger vision or purpose? I think the question of transcending partisanship is a big idea and gets at something that I did see in the polls. At the end of the 2006 election, there was so much negativism in the advertising, we found that candidates who closed at the end with a desire to work with anybody to effect big change, particularly energy independence, increased their electoral position. That is a tactic, but it picks up on something in the atmosphere. They think candidates will say lots of good things, but can’t really get it done, because they will be blocked by special interests and leaders just for their own party.

I think in Obama’s case, alot had to do with his who identity and personality and life. He had an inclusive style that said he could overcome divisions — or at least address problems in new ways because of his style. It was measurable and we measured it and his ability to unite was a factor in his vote.

Hugh, Well I will avoid being gushy about Barak, though I think you see that I wrote that in the context of how bold he was. Also note that while he restored the capacity of the IDF after Lebanon, he was the last one to supporting sending in the troops, the first to accept the French cease fire offer, and the first to support negotiations with the Egyptians. Both Livni and Olmert opposed reaching an agreement through Syria. Not gushy, just a sense that he understands the cost in this kind of war.

I meant, through Egypt.

When you say “we measured it,” how? I guess what I’m trying to get at is — we operate on a sort of “water cooler” model of information dispersal, which says if you can influence political junkies who hang out at blogs they are opinion leaders who change how others in their communities think. But this message seemed to work in reverse, picking up people outside the political conversation and engaging them in it, and that in turn influenced opinion leaders.

Or do I have that totally backwards?

How reliable vs. right leaning is a Rasumssen Poll?

Hugh, I can’t go there on Netanyahu being a Jewish fascist.

Why not? Are you saying that there is no such thing? Or would you say that Lieberman is but Netanyahu isn’t? And if you did how would you distinguish between the two?

As for Netanyahu on the Golan, this is from a puff piece on him yesterday in the Times:

Whether he would be willing to remove Israeli settlements, however, or give up enough territory to satisfy the Palestinians remain open questions, as does whether he could return the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for a peace accord. He has said no a number of times, and again last week, arguing for Golan’s strategic value.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02…..038;st=cse

From the post:

Watching and learning from polls enables leaders to better engage the public in a broader political conversation, to more fully understand the concerns of the governed, and to develop narratives that speak to those concerns.

There’s a fine line between using polls to better engage the public and letting the polls drive policy. What do you see as the difference between the two, and how does one defend themselves against charges of “governing by pollster”?

And some polls are just completely fake:

Former Pollster Pleads Guilty to Fabricating Results

Tracy Costin, the former owner of polling company DataUSA Inc., entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to commit mail fraud for fabricating the results of polls the company conduct on behalf of, among others, President Bush in 2004.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.c…..lster.html

Not backwards but maybe a different dynamic. For me, there is this big black box on how things penetrate, though when you have a focus group today, the conversation is entirely different. People talk about going to sites, picking up rumors on line, going to fact-check sites, etc. They have a lot of control over the video they watch and how they watch the news and events. Still, it is pretty imprecise.

What I measured was two different closes to the campaign, simulated in a survey — and the vote shifted to the candidate who wanted to transcend the partisan polarization.

Earlier in the election, I measure big ways to define the election, and unity versus division was quite weak relative to definitions that centered on making the economy work for all versus the few. These words aren’t precise, but I have tried to measure the impact of this framing.

Am I still missing it?

I’m a little reluctant to respond, as there are good sites for monitoring and assessing the different polls. There are whole issues about use of IVR — voice recognition polls — and the jury is out.

I’m a guy who tends to go with the moving average of the polls — and not trust any particular poll — though the NBC/Wall Street Journal and ABC/Washington Post are quite good. Still, the average was right on the actual election result this time, 7.3 point margin, I think.

he was the last one to supporting sending in the troops

But the point is that he did support an attack on a civilian population. This is rather typical of the Israelis. They go in and shoot up the place and then expect the international community to call them off. The rationales for the attack on Gaza varied from destroying Hamas to stopping missile attacks to teaching “them” a lesson. There was no discernible strategic goal other than collective punishment which is a war crime. Barak should have qualms.

Hugh. Look. I’m strongly opposed to Netanyahu and Likud. Continued settlements or stalemate in the peace process could lead to accelerating violence that makes life even more intolerable in Gaza and the West Bank. I believe that Israeli being an occupier undermines Israel as a democratic society and the growing alienation of Israeli Arabs is a grave problem that nearly all Jewish parties have contributed to. That said, when Barak ran for prime minister, he declared a number of “red lines,” including never dividing Jerusalem. But he made the most sweeping proposal that pushed the issue to a new place. Of course, Netanyahu said never on Syria, but that’s what he said last time and he sent Lauder as an emissary. I’m not sanguine about Netanyahu, but just don’t assume the campaign rhetoric represents the reality afterwards.

Stanley,
What is it like in dealing with polling for countries like south Africa compared to polling in the US?

Welcome to Al Jazeera.

Peter. I guess I’m saying, look, all the political leaders are complicated and imperfect. But if we look at our leaders who have been successful or bold in times of change, you have leaders who have built a special bond with people. President Lincoln was very solicitous of public opinion — had “opinion baths,” in his words — listening to people coming through the White House. With his goal of preserving the union, being solicitous of different sentiments was critical. Look at President Roosevelt who used his bond to force change in the country, but also worked hard to educate and move voters — using fireside chats to build support for helping Britain. He polled before and after to see if effective.

So, by writing this book, I’ve come to respect these leaders who are building a bond. They rarely follow the public on policy. They try to sustain support to get things done and they are frequently, educative — trying to get people to move to a new place.

Mandela attended focus groups and was intensely interested in public opinion. He felt he could be a better leader if he really understood what they are thinking, feeling and bringing to politics.

And exposed. If you follow polling now on Pollster.com or other sites, it is very clear that it is hard to play that game now. Polls are compared to the other polls and displayed graphically when an outlier. So, things are changing.

I’m not sanguine about Netanyahu, but just don’t assume the campaign rhetoric represents the reality afterwards.

Yes, but we do have a record versus rhetoric to compare with him. He picked apart the Oslo Accords as Prime Minister (1996-1999). I always found this especially egregious. Israel has often said that it had no dependable partner for peace but when it wanted to, it reneged on Oslo. And Netanyahu resigned from Sharon’s government precisely over the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

Before you made it sound like some major concession that Netanyahu “gave up” 13 percent of the West Bank. But if you look at the bantustans in the West Bank or the recent assault on Gaza, Israel never gave up effective control of any of these areas.

Hugh. I’m sure he has qualms and was the most reluctant to send in ground troops. Stepping back, Israel should have been much bolder over the last year in trying to ease conditions in the West Bank and create incentives for building toward a two-state solution. I understand why Israel felt they had to respond to the thousands of rockets — and so did Hamas, which is why they wage this kind of warfare.

Welcome to Al Jazeera.

Yes, because it is outside the mainstream to think that Palestinians are people or should have any human rights.

Most people would be surprised to hear that in some respects it is easier to poll there then in the US. Here, there are fewer and fewer landlines. Interviewing has to include cell and often on-line polling. With so many refusals, I’m still a little astonished that the polling is still proving pretty accurate.

Now, in South Africa, you interview face-to-face. Cooperation rate is over 90 percent. But it is very costly. Interviewing in nine languages and going door to door over a very large country. During the first election, the violence in KwaZulu Natal meant that we could not poll in certain regions.

What is also surprising is how sophisticated ordinary voters are about their lives, politicians and whether they are bringing change. I don’t know how the information gets through, but they can’t be spun. The changes have to be real.

Citizen Raven:

Where you been Freebird?

Let’s not let an otherwise great conversation devolve.

I actually agree with most of what you just said.

Hugh. I’m sure he has qualms and was the most reluctant to send in ground troops.

So the bombing was OK? I’m sorry to belabor this but you seem kind of slippery on it. It is just Israel should have been bolder to ease conditions in Gaza (and for that matter in the West Bank). But the point is they didn’t. Israel is the occupying power. It is pre-eminent. This is not about boldness. It is about responsibility. Israel demands responsibility of others but as the recent elections show none from itself.

Hey Petrocelli wants to talk to you about some ticker meds he’s on to. I been layin low but there was a good thread yesterday.

I’m not talking to you.

As this Book Salon comes to an end,

Stanley, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon discussing your new book and politics with us.

Matt, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.

Everyone, if you haven’t bought Stanley’s new book, here is a link.

Thanks all.

I was trying to make a bigger point. Israel should have been moving boldly to reach an agreement with the PA and improving conditions where there are leaders not supporting sending rockets into Israel. I don’t want to say bombing is “okay,” but most the civilian casualties came after ground troops went in.

Matt,

Thanks. Really engaging and now I’m hooked. Stan

Thanks very much, Stan.

Thanks for the afternoon Stanley.

On a different subject, Clinton when he was President seemed remarkably tuned in to the public mood (at least after his first year). This was true even after he left. But with Hillary’s run, he seemed to have developed a much tinnier ear. Do you think that this is in part because he is less tied into polling?

Now too with the recession/depression, there has been a lot more looking back at what went on in the 90s with him and his Treasury Secretaries Rubin and Summers. So while he had absolutely brilliant job creation numbers, his team also did the deregulation that made the meltdown inevitable.

Yes, thanks for coming. I don’t agree with you but I respect your willingness to share what you think.

Citizen Stanley Greenberg:

I think that you have discovered the boundaries of trust here on FDL Brother Greenberg…most of us are very skeptical of anyone who has engaged with “the enemy” (like Netanyahu) and still attempts an “objective” description of their political behavior. I really respect and appreciate your answers to our questions here and am, for the most part heartened by what I hear from you. However, I am disappointed at your reluctance to acknowlege Netanyahu’s relationship to Israeli fascism and your generosity in evaluating Rahm…I am reminded of a lot of folks in 2000 who were especially generous in their evaluation of George W Bush and their desire to have a beer with ‘im.

Citizen Raven:

OK, as long as ya still got a secure perimeter I won’t worry aboutcha…I’ll look for Petrocelli though my “problem” is NOT cardiac but pulmonary…and what was the thread that engaged ya yesterday, I had the family in here for dinner and didn’t get invoved after noon.

Nothing in this conversation approached the naivete of wanting to drink with W; Come on…

Citizen RevBev:

PuhLEEZE…go look at Stan’s discription of the playful “Rahm”…he wouldn’t go NEAR sharing his close observatiohns of the bastard.

It was the book salon about the Nam.

Here’s part of the note concerning you

My friend is India is a M.D. and has developed a Flower Essence Extract for cleaning the Arteries and strengthening the Heart.

Citizen Raven:

Yo…I jest glanced at the Post and your comments…sorry I missed it but I’m real reluctant to engage with the “atrocities” obsession of some unless it gets close to the “holier than thou- blame the grunts and spare the generals” thesis that gets run around here a lot.

Like we’ve talked about before, most folks will never understand and when they start makin’ moral judgements they mistake their assholes for their vocal cords…The book in question looks like a good one though maybe I will lift my moratorium on this topic and get the book.

Somewhere near the end someone wanted to know how they could get MORE info. I asked “what for” but then noted that not everyone knew the real deal so I guess it might have some value. I can say I think the author knew what was up. FIDO I guess.