Are young American voters becoming increasingly progressive? That’s what Campus Progress, a liberal activist group, is arguing in their newest study, “The Progressive Generation.” The reports’ authors, David Madland and Amanda Logan, base their analyses on the General Social Survey (GSS), the National Election Study (NES) and Pew Research Center data.
Defining the “Millennial Generation” as Americans age 18-29, they conclude that this group:
– believes the government should ensure them good jobs and fair wages (45%);
– believes that the government should provide more services (61%);
– is less likely to perceive the government as wasteful (51%).
In addition, they connect this generation to a higher appreciation for government services such as
– unions;
– public schools;
– and social security.
“On many economic issues, Millennials are more progressive than any previous generation,” they write, claiming that this new demographic will likely keep its progressive values as it ages and shift the future political climate toward more socialist practices. They dismiss the idea that voters become more conservative as they age as “an overly simplified and often incorrect assumption,” and little more than a “stereotype.”
The problem is, Logan and Madland’s analysis is based on shoddy methodology and their NES data has a very small sample size of around 225 voters. When Accuracy in Academia asked Scott Rasmussen whether a sample size between 150 and 350 was scientifically sound, he responded “Practically speaking, I would never do that.” Rasmussen is the President of RasmussenReports, a respected public opinion polling firm and the top polling site for both the 2004 and 2006 election cycles.
AIA has identified the following errors within the CP report:
– consolidating categories to exaggerate results,
– omitting pertinent information,
– claiming trends where none exist,
– standard error as high as 14.6%
– inconsistencies in measuring,
– not actually providing the data upon which conclusions are based,
– not listing the confidence level.
Most errors spanned five of the eight categories and can be recognized by those with only a basic background in research methods. Yet the authors claim grand significance for their questionable findings, arguing that the survey results “clearly indicate the strong progressive leanings of Millennials today, and the likelihood these trends will endure over the coming decades.”
While our critique is restricted to the study’s extensive use of NES data, Campus Progress’ touting of faulty data based on non-representative samples calls into question its scholarship and professional ethics.
Our Analysis
Statistics is not an exact science. In fact, polls are often estimates. Statisticians have developed a concept called “margin of error” which indicates the range within which study results are considered reliable. For example, if a poll places President Bush’s support at 40% but indicates a standard error of 3%, then Bush’s approval rating likely lies between 37% and 43%. (Double the standard error to calculate the margin of error).
AIA’s analysis used a 99th percentile confidence threshold—a stringent scientific standard to ensure that results will be accurate 99 out of 100 times.
Universal Healthcare:
Standard error for subsets in this category ranged from 3.5% to 14.6%, an average of 7%. The CP study’s authors also list the possible answers for this question as supporting a government insurance plan, preferring private insurance, or having a “neutral” opinion. Actual questions were placed on a 7-point scale from 1 (universal healthcare) to 7 (completely private insurance).
The NES question was phrased so as to suggest that a “7” would oppose all forms of government health insurance. “Others feel that all medical expenses should be paid by individuals through private insurance plans like Blue Cross or other company paid plans,” reads the description. Arguably, those respondents indicating a mid-level response (46.3%) preferred a composite private/public healthcare policy—not necessarily universal healthcare.
Government Should Increase Services:
The study’s authors list support for increased government services at 61%, where our analysis comes out to 46.9%. Standard error ranged 2% to 10.1% within the categories, an average 7.7%.
Is Government Efficient?:
Under the heading “Government can perform efficiently,” the authors argue that Millennials “are far less likely to think that the government wastes tax dollars,” with only 49% indicating that the government wastes “a lot.” They omit, however, that 49.4% of Millennials believe that government wastes “some” money. Only 2.9% of Millennials believe that the government “doesn’t waste very much.” The CP phraseology is misleading because it overlooks that 97% of respondents believe that the government is wasteful.
Standard error was between 6.5% and 11.2% in these categories, an average of 9.6%.
Social Security and Federal Funding for Education:
Logan and Madland dismiss young voters’ support for privatized social security as a lifecycle phenomenon but then fail to apply this same standard to federal funding for public education. (Hint: the cost of public education falls more heavily on older voters because it is often funded by property taxes. Younger voters become more familiar with these costs as they begin to purchase homes and land). The 2004 NES results show high levels of support for increased federal education spending among all age groups and is therefore not a uniquely “Millennial” trait.
Labor Unions and Changing Perceptions of Big Business:
CP claims that there is a systematic difference between age groups and over time in these groups, but the most dramatic changes they can list are about 4% (labor unions) and 6% (big business). Given the large margins of error found in other categories, and the small sample size, it is hard to argue for a pattern based on essentially similar numbers.
Bethany Stotts is a Staff Writer at Accuracy in Academia.
