What the surveys may be saying differently

There is only one conclusion that may be drawn from the latest Pulse Asia survey that says 88 percent of Filipinos support the anti-illegal drug war of the government even as 73 percent of them believe extrajudicial killings are happening in relation to that war. And it is that, as Senator Panfilo Lacson said, people may have resigned to the fact that such killings are a necessary part of that war.

It is a conclusion that seems to bolster a belief that factors other than extrajudicial killings may have been responsible for the drop in President Duterte's net satisfaction ratings in an earlier SWS survey, from 66 percent to 48 percent. Critics of the president pointed to EJKs as the culprit in the drop in ratings of Duterte in the SWS survey. But the Pulse Asia survey now says it may not exactly be the case.

Not only does the PulseAsia survey show continued and unequivocal support for Duterte in the most controversial aspect of his governance but more importantly it tends to completely negate the SWS survey itself. That is because there is no other way to read the Pulse Asia survey other than that if you support Duterte in his war on drugs where EJKs are acknowledged, then you still must be in support of his governance.

With this aspect of the surveys given new light, it is now entirely and perfectly possible to read the nosedive in Duterte's satisfaction ratings in the SWS surveys as the result of something else, and not necessarily his aggressive war on drugs in general, and EJKs in particular. It is now possible that the drop in SWS satisfaction ratings could be the result of, say, his tendency to be foul-mouthed.

Most everybody would agree that not everyone can take foul language as part of the normal official discourse, especially if it is an official as high ranking as a president who spews expletives as abundantly as Duterte does. One may take it for granted that something as simple as words can matter in something as serious as rating a president. But stranger things have happened, so it would not be a surprise if people can actually be turned off by a word enough to turn down a president.

This assessment could be wrong, of course. But it is a far more plausible explanation than what anyone might attempt in trying to reconcile the divergent results of the SWS and Pulse Asia surveys. That is, if you believe in surveys, and more specifically in the two surveys. Never mind that one went this way and one the other. But if you don't believe in surveys, then the two different results only proves why you don't believe in the first place.