Muskie in ’70

Legacy blog posts The 2006 Race

Mickey Kaus kindly linked to my post last Friday on the relatively high ratings of Hillary Clinton by rank-and-file Democrats, but added: "I’d still like to see Edmund Muskie’s approval ratings in 1970, just for comparison’s sake." 

Fair enough.  Here you go:  In a Gallup poll of 3,489 adults conducted in January 1970, 63% of US adults said they "liked" Muskie, 15% said they "disliked" Muskie and 22% did not answer.   I do not have a cross-tab of those results by party identification, but what we have supports Kaus’ rhetorical point:  High early polling numbers – either in favorable ratings or vote preference — do not guarantee anyone a party nomination. A little over a year after this survey, George McGovern mobilized anti-war sentiment to defeat Muskie in the Democratic primaries.  That’s a caveat worthy of emphasis. 

However, MP should probably put his "explainer" hat on for a moment and warn readers against comparing Gallup’s 35-year-old measure too closely with the more recent ratings of Clinton and others.   Putting aside all the differences in the popular and political culture, the 1970 Gallup poll was conducted in person (not on the telephone), it asked whether respondents "liked" or "disliked" public figures (rather than whether their impression was "favorable" or "unfavorable") and asked respondents to answer with numbers rather than words.  The 1970 Gallup interviewers showed respondents a card with a scale that had labels on the endpoints.  The numbers ranged from +5 (like very much) to -5 (dislike very much).  The results I wrote about last week were based on questions that asked whether their impression is "very favorable," "mostly favorable," "mostly unfavorable" or "very unfavorable" (that is the Pew Research Center language; the Diageo/Hotline poll uses the word "somewhat" rather than "mostly"). 

Experimental academic research shows that on otherwise identically worded questions, rating scales using both positive and negative numbers (-5 to +5) get significantly more positive responses than ratings scales that run from 0 to 10.   In one study published in Public Opinion Quarterly (Schwarz et. al. 1991), the average positive rating rose from 63% with a 0 to 10 scale to 85% using a -5 to +5 scale.  How results from a -5 to +5 scale would compare to a question using word labels only, I cannot say.  But these results warn us to be careful about making face value comparisons of such ratings. 

But as long as we have the "way back" machine open, here is another question from that same 1970 Gallup survey whose language is far more comparable to one asked more recently:

In view of the developments since we entered the fighting in Vietnam, do you think the U.S. made a mistake sending troops to fight in Vietnam?
       
52% yes
       
29% no
       
19% no opinion/no answer

Gallup now tracks an almost identically worded question regarding Iraq (the results are from their most recent survey, conducted December 16-18, 2005):

In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?

52% yes

46% no

2% unsure

And of course, less than two years after the 1970 survey, President Richard Nixon was reelected, defeating George McGovern by a 61% to 38% margin.

UPDATE:  Here are links to the Gallup data from January 1970 which will only work for those with a Gallup.com subscription:  the questions on Muskie, Vietnam and the full poll

Gallup asked the like-dislike question about Edmund Muskie again several times before the 1972 primaries and Muskie grew even more popular.  The results were 73%-16% ( like dislike)  in May 1970, 75%-15% in October 1970 and 77%-15% in February 1972

Mark Blumenthal

Mark Blumenthal is political pollster with deep and varied experience across survey research, campaigns, and media. The original "Mystery Pollster" and co-creator of Pollster.com, he explains complex concepts to a multitude of audiences and how data informs politics and decision-making. A researcher and consultant who crafts effective questions and identifies innovative solutions to deliver results. An award winning political journalist who brings insights and crafts compelling narratives from chaotic data.