Margie Omero’s Open Letter to Pollsters Seeks to Control Gun Control Debate

Margie Omero [above] is a Democratic pollster and president of Momentum Analysis. She’s well-up on the dark art of creating a poll that delivers the results her client seeks. And Marge is pissed off that her competitors keep publishing poll results which show that most Americans don’t support gun control. So the Big O has written an open letter for the Huffington Post exhorting her colleagues to go all George Orwell and literally change the “terms” of the “gun control debate.” It’s a clever piece of writing that educates by example; ceding the right to keep (but not bear) arms and calling The Mayors Against Illegal Guns a “bi-partisan group.” In the interests of keeping our enemies closer, make the jump for Omero’s slick sickness . . .

“These days, the gun debate is not about whether one has the right to own a gun, but about how to balance those existing rights against the need to prevent gun violence. But while the debate has changed, polling questions have not. Pew released some tracking this week showing movement to the left on gay marriage, along with movement to the right on guns. However, the Pew question on “gun control,” whose wording goes back about twenty years, is both over-broad and an anachronism. And many outlets use similar language . . .

(Disclosure: my firm, Momentum Analysis, has done numerous projects for the bipartisan group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. You can read my previous posts on guns here and here, and on my work for the group here, here and here.)

Gun “Control” is an anachronism. Look at the exact wording of the Pew question: “What do you think is more important — to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?” This question uses the language of the gun lobby (rights), not the language of those working for stronger gun laws (safety). And it pits a right versus simply “control” for its own sake.

I don’t assume nefarious motives on Pew’s part. When this question was first written, “control” was indeed part of the gun debate vernacular. But it is no longer. Using the word “control” is a poor description of that side’s position. (While the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was once called Handgun Control, Inc., the group hasn’t had` “control” in its name in over ten years.)

What if there was decades of tracking of something like “what do you think is more important — to protect the rights of gun owners, or to protect the safety of everyone from gun violence?” Results would, to be sure, be different from the current question.

“Gun control” is overly broad. What do respondents think of when asked whether they support “gun control”? Are they thinking about a ban on all guns, including hunting rifles? Or are they thinking about preventing people accused of domestic violence from getting a gun at a gun show without a background check and then bringing that gun across state lines? We simply don’t know. Not that a broad question on attitudes toward gun laws can’t be useful, but we should simply understand its limitations.

By comparison, a gay marriage question is more straightforward. While there are, of course, nuances to the gay marriage debate (a civil union alternative, recognition by other states, etc.), we can be reasonably sure all participants are responding to roughly the same concept. A question about “gun control” could mean just about anything.

All outlets could use a gun question rewrite. Pew is not the only polling outlet using outdated language. CBS, ABC/Washington Post, Time Magazine, and Gallup all have used the word “control” in their recent national surveys. In many of these questions, the word “control” can easily be cut, such as in the ABC/Washington Post question, “Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country?” However, I prefer a three-way question about whether laws should be made stronger, weaker, or “kept the same.” Gallup, NBC/WSJ, CBS/NYT, and Time Magazine have all asked a three-way question, although the latter two, again, include the word “control.” (The Polling Report has a good collection of gun questions across outlets.)

But pollsters should also follow-up a broad question with questions about specific, relevant proposals up for debate. Gallup, as I wrote here, continues to ask decades-old questions on a handgun ban, producing headlines like this one. Many other outlets, such as ABC/Washington Post and CBS, continue to test handgun bans and high-capacity magazine bans that are simply not part of the legislative debate. As ourpolling has shown, huge numbers support recent proposals to strengthen gun laws by requiring background checks for all gun purchases, or allowing states to decide concealed gun permit requirements laws for themselves.

For some time, Americans have recognized private gun ownership as a right; the debate is now about how (or whether!) to keep guns out of dangerous hands. Polling outlets should reflect this change by adjusting their broad question, and adding (or changing) their specific proposal questions. By not revisiting their question language, polling outlets are actually influencing the debate by suggesting there is less support for stronger gun laws than actually exists.”

Definitely Orwellian. DoublePlusUngood.

When the left dominated nearly all media, they could easily get away with this changing of definitions and words in order to get what they wanted by manipulation and deceit. With the new media, it is not so easy for them to deceive the voting public.

Of course we could just pass laws making it illegal to use guns to assault, murder, or manslaughter.

That would work, right? Criminals don’t break laws, do they?

Of course we could just pass laws making it illegal to use guns to assault, murder, or manslaughter.

That would work, right? Criminals don’t break laws, do they?

I’m actually almost glad the left refuses to drop gun control as an objective. It is a sure loser that has undoubtedly cost them many elections.

It is a bit hard to understand since, the left doesn’t actually care sbout violence. Perhaps they should just come clean and explain that they cannot impose their will on the rest of us until they have disarmed us.

Is there any Democratic female pollster who isn’t a lying bitch with Orwellian genetics?

Redundant question, isn’t it?

The communists taught them well, didn’t they? Thanks Saul Alinsky, David Axelrod, and Joseph Stalin.

” literally change the “terms” of the “gun control debate.” “

Warning: he who controls the meaning of the words controls the outcome of the debate. And liberals, by definition, live in a world of plastic and unilaterally beneficial definitions.

However, I prefer a three-way question about whether laws should be made stronger, weaker, or “kept the same.”

I actually agree with the hoplophobe commie on this one. On most polls the choices are "we need more infringement" and "the level of infringement we have now is JUST RIGHT". Why is it assumed that all the laws that are in place now are correct and proper, if the absence of new laws is open for discussion???

...how to balance those existing rights against the need to prevent gun violence.

Real simple lady - you don't mess with inalienable rights. Period. There is no "balance" no changing the debate. An inalienable right is an inalienable right. Done. Sheesh, I've had a couple of drinks while making dinner and I get this. How can a supposedly educated (and sober) person miss this?

...it pits a right versus simply “control” for its own sake.

Exactly. IT IS A RIGHT. End of {expletive} story. You may not "control" it. You're welcome to try, you won't like the result.

You’re so right - another great example of this is the Left’s new bullying media crusade to ban the word “illegal” as it relates to immigration, calling it hate speech because “words are bullets” and “no human being is illegal”.

These people have unmitigated gall and are creating a true Bizarro World, led by BHO, to replace our republic.

If I understand you correctly, you are stating that some folks talk like ten cent millionaires. If that is the case I AGREE with you 110%. Few people MASTER the language they speak so there fore Plato and his ilk dazzled the public with explicite choice of words to the point where you have to take a college course to desifer their meanings. Having said that I'll augment your post.

Mr. Farago, respectfully, you'd be much better off if you would communicate to the masses with much less glamour. Many of our beloved "FREEPERS" are in fact, quite intelligent but we have some that are not as much as. KISS (keep it simple stupid). Our beloved country has nowhere else to go except uppity. God Bless you marktwain and ALL "FREEPERS",,,, from a brother in arms!!!! Semper Fi

For some time, Americans have recognized private gun ownership as a right; the debate is now about how (or whether!) to keep guns out of dangerous hands.

I think the vast majority of Americans have figured out two immutable truths regarding keeping guns out of dangerous hands:

1) You cannot do it (witness Britain), and

2) The best way to deal with guns in dangerous hands is to also have guns in law-abiding hands when the need arises. And the way you do that is through legalizing concealed carry.

These days, the gun debate is not about whether one has the right to own a gun, but about how to balance those existing rights against the need to prevent gun violence.

First of all, the gun debate is no longer about the right to own a gun because those on the left side of the debate lost. They ALWAYS wanted to make it illegal to own a gun. So now they pretend that political beat-down never happened. And second, the George Zimmerman case aptly demonstrates why those on the left simply aren't serious about preventing gun violence, and instead are trying to breathe life into their comatose gun-control agenda. They are marching in hoodies about a comparatively rare incident of a hispanic man shooting a black thug in self-defense - and working overtime to make sure the facts of the case are muddied.

While ignoring the heaps of bodies of black men killed by other black men - the murders that dominate the body count in cities around the country.

You can't have an honest debate when one side has utterly no interest in honesty.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.