Nice distinction between permissive and directive opinion.

But is the phrasing, "Would you be upset by ____" really the best? That seems appropriate for issues of war and peace, but it seems strong for, say, budgetary policy.

How about, "Would it bother you if ___"?

What other wordings have you considered for the followup question and how do you work out their relative strengths?

This idea of directive vs. permissive is about the dumbest thing I've heard all year. What evidence is there that people who hold a "permissive" opinion won't vote based in part on that opinion, or that people who hold a "directive" opinion will vote based on that opinion?

Eh, "Pétoche" (http://www.koztoujours.fr), c'est drôlement chouette de sympa de garder le MESSAGE que je dois faire passer à cette GROSSE TACHE qui vit, là-haut, sous les combles, LE MANIAQUE DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ, qui aboie quand on lui parle et se tient toujours au garde à vous prêt à obéir, le MESSAGE étant : " ELLE... A DIT : "CALTEZ, VOLAILLES !" .
Merci pour ce fabuleux espace démocratique du chien (énième couplet)

Eh, "Pétoche" (http://www.koztoujours.fr), c'est drôlement chouette de sympa de garder le MESSAGE que je dois faire passer à cette GROSSE TACHE qui vit, là-haut, sous les combles, LE MANIAQUE DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ, qui aboie quand on lui parle et se tient toujours au garde à vous prêt à obéir, le MESSAGE étant : " ELLE... A DIT : "CALTEZ, VOLAILLES !" .
Merci pour ce fabuleux espace démocratique du chien (énième couplet)
http://www.paxatagore.org/dotclear2

Mr. Moore gives us much to consider. It seems polls have become more like tools of the manipulators rather than conveying what we think.

As I am a "polling" junky from the Sonoran Desert, the solidity of any response is supremely important. Take, for example, two weeks ago, the Behavior Research Corporation here in Phoenix, released their Rocky Mountain Poll in which they found that 79% of the Chicanos supported the candidacy of Obama, while 11% endorsed the McCain campaign, and the remaining were distributed among the Undecided, Nader and Barr.

And within the context of Charlie Black and for his suggesting that McCain received 77% of the Hispanic vote in his re-election bid of 4 years ago, equated such support for McCain in this election cycle and thusly, McCain would fare well among the Hispanics. Obviously, Black has now found himself out and to wit, he was "blowing smoke" of the funny kind at anyone willing to listen to him. In contrast, Chicanos are not listening anymore to McCain, and especially Black, but then Black is pretty much irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. And why McCain would listen to Black other than for addressing a financial need, is beyond my understanding.

Therefore, the Chicano vote in Arizona is indeed solid for Obama, and yet, the top down media outlets will not do much of an in-depth study to find the cause as to the "why".

Note: Chicanos find it to be an egregious behavior for any candidate for public office to embark on a campaign of "anyone but Bush" and regardless if that party affiliation is either Democratic or Republican. Consequently, Chicano's recognized that McCain got "punked" by Bush and his zealots in South Carolina in 2000, and thusly, felt that McCain richly deserved and out of fairness, another opportunity. So, it is now up to McCain to demonstrate both his Honor, Integrity, and his Humility, and if not, he will never achieve the Oval Office despite his long-held ambition. Historically, McCain has never listened to the Chicano community here in the Sonoran Desert, but he will hear the "vote"--loud and clear. And lest I forget, the African American and the Native American voters are upwards of 90% opposed to McCain.

Jaango

"I assume that they would be upset enough to try to change the objectionable policy, even if only by eventually voting against political leaders who supported it."

This is an absurdly minor thing to pick up on, but doesn't the above formulation run the risk of suggesting directive opposition to policy A is an overriding consideration at the ballot box? Which surely is not the case.

Or is that genuinely what you mean? If I object to what the hypothetical President Obama does whilst in office, are my two choices "permissive" opposition or voting Republican?

In fairness, I can't find any alternative way to define the distinction to make it more realistic. But that doesn't alter my uneasiness with the definition as it stands.

How about, "Would it bother you if ___"?

How about using, "How will you react if the opposite is chosen?"

A. support the opposition party.
B. support the party in power.
C. support a third party.
D. support armed insurrection.
E. immigrate to better country.
F. Don't know

Your posts keep reminding me of this old West Wing exchange:

Josh: No one who's ever said they wanted bipartisanship has ever meant it. But the people are speaking. Because 68 percent think we give too much in foreign aid, and 59 percent think it should be cut.

Will: You like that stat.

Josh: I do.

Will: Why?

Josh: Because nine percent think it's too high and shouldn't be cut! Nine percent of respondents couldn't get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for I have utterly no idea what you're talking about; please, God, don't ask for my input.

The thing is, I don't think there's much wrong with a lot of people not really knowing/caring about whatever the pollsters are asking about that day--but it has always seemed nuts to me that these forced results are reported as if they're meaningful. And there's nothing more disingenguous than the standard "snapshot" disclaimer. The only way to make that analogy work, in many cases, would be to add the caveat that no one has bothered to focus the camera.

Usually pollsters refuse to find out how much people know, because widespread ignorance of the issue could undermine the rationale for the poll itself.

Yes, "10% support, 20% oppose, 50% don't care and 70% don't know squat" probably isn't going to make headlines. So what is the rationale? Create a news bite? Affect public opinion? Affect policy making? ...? It would be nice if you'd address that directly.

The implication of the directive vs. permissive dichotomy is that political leadership is a crucial element in American democracy — a fact that seems to get lost in the flurry of superficial polls.

Agree, otherwise "leadership" is nothing more than finding out which way the heard is going and sprinting to get in front. Do you think the political leadership doesn't understand that or that it has become a significant problem?

Any poll that refers to Gitmo as a "Prison" rather than as a Concentration Camp is not a neutral poll. The bias is inherent in the wording.

Close the bastard.

This is pretty awesome stuff.

I really wish Kevin had more people pop in, I sorta missed that ^-^

The American political leadership, bipartisan, is careful to ensure public opinions are of the permissive type. Since many pollsters' clients belong to this group, it is in their market interest to employ polling techniques that characterize public opinion as permissive.