2008 looms large. Another national election, another chance to have our voices heard. As soon as we know what we think. What we want. Who we want to give us what we want for four years. Lord knows we need a change. Some of us know exactly who and what we want. Barack Obama. Most others, however, don’t have a clue. It’s all so confusing during primary season. Too many choices. Like a huge menu in a Chinese restaurant: nine or ten entrees in Column A, at least that many in Column B. What are we in the mood for?
Thank God for polls. We see ’em, hear ’em, read ’em every day. They tell us who’s in, who’s out, who’s sinking faster than Dubya in a vat of truth serum. If most people support, say, Giuliani over McCain or Clinton over Obama, we don’t have to think too hard. Or read much. Or learn a thing. Most people must be right. We can simply hop on the bandwagon. Only trouble is, we don’t know who those most people are. None of us ever gets polled. I can tell you, with all sincerity, I feel left out.
Or I did. Until the second week in July. It was, at last, my turn. Mine. I was polled by the kind folks at Rasmussen Reports. They’ve been tracking political races for over a decade. They are, they tell me, very accurate. I am, of course, thrilled. I like accuracy. And I get to be one of the esteemed most people crowd. Neat. Chalk one very, very smart most person up for Obama.
I take a deep breath, get my trigger finger poised to press #1 or #2 on my touchtone. My nostrils flare like a racehorse. I am ready to roll. First I have to answer all the usual stuff: my age, sex, party of choice, race, income. Then the fun begins…
“Press #1 if you feel the country is on the right track. Press #2 if you feel we’re off course.” That one’s easy. We’re more than off course, honey, we’re off the map. I press #2.
Now it gets complicated.
“Hillary Clinton chose to stay with her husband despite his infidelity. Does this make you more likely to vote for her (press #1) or less likely to vote for her (press #2)?” I’m stuck. There’s no “If you don’t give a rat’s patootie what she decided to do about her marriage, press #3” option. I would never choose not to vote for her over her decision about her marriage, but I am an Obama supporter… I press #2, but I feel a little guilty about it.
It gets worse.
“If Dick Cheney needed a kidney and asked you for one of yours, would you say ‘Yes’ (press #1) or ‘No’ (press #2)?” There’s no “If you’re committed to using both of your kidneys for the forseeable future but would humanely advise him to drink more water and offer to pray for him, press #3” option. Truth is, I can’t stand that guy. I might whack him one if I got the chance, but I wouldn’t kill him. I’m a really nice woman. I attend church regularly. I hesitate, but I press #2. At worst, I’m passive-aggressive. If he dies, he dies. Besides, there’s always dialysis. He’s made enough Haliburton money on his pet war to pay for it.
I’m beginning to have my doubts about this polling and accuracy business. I imagine hearing this next: “Would you rather shoot yourself in the head (press #1) or vote Republican in 2008 (press #2)?” My trigger finger is getting sweaty.
Then this:
“Are you afraid of circus clowns? Press #1 for ‘Yes’, press #2 for ‘No.'” What the–? What do circus clowns have to do with elections? Did I miss something on The Situation Room or Hardball or Keith Olbermann? Or is there a bona fide phobia involved here? I press #2; the best thing–at the circus–is a good clown. But I worry about it.
And I’m done. It’s over. They thank me and disconnect. I Google “psychology: fear of clowns” to figure out what my answer meant. The news is not good. There is a phobia. Seems the exaggerated-happy-face clown who smiles while he beats up a smaller clown or kicks a dog scares some folks silly. You never know what evil lurks behind that big, red, happy smile.
The only candidate mentioned in the poll was Hillary Clinton. The only issue, her marriage. The only Republican mentioned was Dick Cheney–well, Cheney’s kidney. And the clown? I’m still not sure about him. I think, maybe, he’s that scary guy in the Oval Office now.
There’s a lesson to be learned here. You can’t trust polls. One wrong answer in the Rasmussen Poll and I skewed the results. I should have pressed #1. I’m terrified of clowns.
Great article! Don’t quite understand the questions they asked you….but, what I’d really like to know is how they report the answers. As a former psychology student I am trying to come up with something but I can’t!!!!
Scary….
The last question is supposed to be a truth-verification question…
IE: approximately 8% of people suffer from phobias. Amongst those, clown phobia is fairly common.
So if more than 8% people answer yes to that question, the survey results are null and void, as people were not answering the survey honestly.
At least, that’s the theory. However, the others questions are equally hokey. On psychological terms, the entire survey is weak at best. IE: it doesn’t acquire enough information about anyone to be valid.
Pollingreport.com shows questions and % responses, but any of the surveys where the total surveyed does not exceed 1,000 should be considered unreliable. You can tell how many were surveyed by looking at N=###.
Most will report something around 500. Not enough of a substiantial body to give a proper reflection of the American peoples’ leanings.
On pollingreport.com, only NBC, CBS, and the AP asked enough people to get viable answers.
NBC asked Democrats AND non-Democrats who stated they would be voting in the Democratic primary, so their results should be most accurate.
CBS only asked what they refer to as “Democratic primary voters,” hence should be considered less accurate. This may not include non-Democrats who will switch their party affiliation come primary time.
The AP only asked Democrats and leaners, so should also be considered less accurate for the same reason.
Amongst all the polling groups, only NBC shows any significant legitimacy. Even then, it is only one polling group, and if they are polling their viewers and readers, it still may not be reflective of the American population.
I am ultimately dissatisfied and saddened by the polling efforts of the media and polling groups. They could be getting more accurate information, but for whatever reason choose not to.
Just checking.
The best way to determine where these candidates are as far as suport is to watch the number of people who turnout to hear them speak at these rallies, how much money they are raising, and how many supporters that they have.
These polls will never be an accurate representation of how early supporters of a particular candidate feels. And, these polls can influence someone to vote for someone that they don’t really want to vote for. For example, if someone is undecided, and yet most of the national polls say that Hillary Clinton is way ahead of Obama and Edwards in these polls, some of these undecideds may choose to go with her. Not because they think that she is the best candidate, but only because these polls say that she is on top.
Also, there seems to be a lot more national polling going on these days than the early state polls. I think that that may be because Hillary is not way ahead of Obama or Edwards in those (with the exception of Florida). In the other 4 early states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina), Barack Obama is either ahead of Hillary (and Edwards) or in a virtual tie with the both of them.
Meaning, that if polling is going to be done, there should be much more focus on the polls from these 5 early states as opposed to national polls, which really don’t mean much at this stage of the campaign. And, even when the Feb. 5th states do start to vote, their votes will more than likely be based heavily upon how these candidates did in the first 5 earlier state. Which makes the first 5 earlier states all the more important!
I’m surprised to hear this. It is a real shame.
That’s why I’m not interested in polls.
Thanks for sharing.
This is hilarious, in a disturbing sort of way. I’ve bookmarked it as ammo for next time somebody points me to a poll to prove their point!
~~Cheryl
I am not surprised to know that there is much cheating. For some people that do not have any decency, honesty nor integrity like the Clintons and his friends, cheating to the maximum is the way they think they can finally deceive the voters. Let us not be manipulated by the polls. As long as we see many people actually as we have seen around candidates that are popular, we must not let them confuse us nor change our mind about who we support. Clinton will not be the candidate if we can have faith and trust those who make the decision to nominate honestly to the candidate that this country needs, first, otherwise we must find ways to let our views heard, specially by the Clintons who had no blood in their veins any more. It is outrages what they and their friends are doing with the polls. It looked suspicious. It was very obvious when Hillary had the nerve, cynicism, and arrogance to accept that she accepted compromised money by few people who benefit the most. In all these years they all have become more corrupt that we expect. Experience under these circumstances does not count. I hope many more people start seeing through the amount of corruption that this couple have gone through to get where they are, just to serve the needs of those who make them rich and powerful. It is clear that Hillary does not care about us, the normal voters who this time will not be manipulated with all that she is trying to do along with her dirty campaign.
Hillary Clinton has yet to prove she is the “change” candidate, which is why she is now attacking Barack Obama.