What does a young, thirty-something Hispanic Democrat think about the issues of the day? Just ask an old, fifty-something White Republican.
I've waited almost 50 years to write this article.
Like my experience with jury duty, knowing that I'd never get picked once I filled out the potential jurors questionnaire, I consigned myself to the realization that I'll never be polled by a national opinion research organization to state my beliefs on public policy matters. Educated people who ask questions about the judicial process aren't likely to be viewed as "good jurors" by defense and prosecution attorneys alike, just like being affiliated with the wrong kind of political party or belief system will shortchange your opportunity to participate in a public opinion poll.
Sure, my family was actually a mini-Nielsen home once (keeping a written log on our TV viewing habits for a week), and by the luck of the draw my household was selected for a full-blown U.S. Census anal exam back in the 1990s. But the big time had always eluded me — the chance to state my opinion on political matters as one of the couple hundred or so representative voices of the entire adult population.
If I've learned one thing in life, it's to never say never. It took almost half a century, but that opportunity finally came this past weekend when one of the big 3 polling organizations gave me ten minutes to spout off on everything from Obama's job as president-in-waiting, to global warming, to tax policy and abortion.
The call was a series of voice-activated mechanized prompts rather than a live human being, and at first I thought it was one of those annoying "do not hang up; we want to lower your credit card interest rate" pitches I've been getting lately. But then I heard the magic words identifying the polling organization and bingo, I was primed and ready to spend as much time on the phone as they wanted.
Before I get into the details of this little exchange, you might be asking yourself "why me, why now?" I suppose that after waiting almost five decades anyone's odds can improve. But like buying a new car that was made on a Wednesday rather than on hangover-Monday or TGI Friday, I've always thought there was something I could do to improve my odds. And I did just that this summer when I registered as a Democrat to help muck up the presidential primary in my state, and then consciously chose not to re-register as a Republican for the general election.
It isn't, like the news media has speculated about so many people like me who changed our party affiliations, that I've been pulled into the magnificence of the Democrat Party aura and/or am just too damn lazy (and too unconcerned about politics in general) to abandon my new Democrat buddies. Rather, as I explained to my incredulous family and friends when I decided to remain a Democrat, knowing a bit about how things actually work in politics, I know that Democrats are always over-represented in every poll by the unbiased, objective, national press which contracts for these studies to help promote their lie of the day, er, I mean to tell us all how the country hates Republicans and conservatives, er, I mean give us an unvarnished look at the truth of the matter.
This is why the New York Times and others could state confidently that Barack Obama would win the election by double digits, and the Republicans would lose between 30 and 40 seats in the House in 2008. So, Barack didn't win by as big a margin as these polls indicated, and the Republican Party bloodbath wasn't as severe as predicted. These are, as Al Gore is fond of saying when one asks him to actually prove the existence of man-made global warming, "just details." But, they were good enough to help poison the atmosphere for Republicans, and as the Tingle-Meister Chris Matthews professed, the media's job is to make sure that the Democrat candidates get elected; and once elected, stay popular enough to govern.
There are, obviously, a few respectable pollsters out there who don't fit this mold, but since I'm still officially a registered Democrat, I'm permitted to make my points with sweeping generalizations. In doing this I'm just adhering to the Liberal Democrat credo, as expressed throughout my Looney Liberal Chronicles:
What I say today is only valid insofar as it supports my present arguments. If I need to change my reasoning tomorrow to support a contradictory position, it's unfair to bring up my past position, because that is no longer relevant. Instead of relying on some consistent, definable criteria, I evaluate everything based on my own subjective notion of "fairness." I can apply one set of criteria to judging elections, another set of criteria to international relations, and yet another to a different situation. Thus, any decision I arrive at is reasonable, accurate, and "fair," because it only has to be consistent insofar as that particular situation, since in the final analysis it's merely a subjective evaluation on my part anyway. "Fairness", logic and reason are simply aspects of the process that supports the outcome I desire.
By remaining a Democrat, I felt that my odds of getting polled would increase, and lo and behold the call finally came. If I was a Republican receiving this call, I would have answered the preliminary questions accurately and honestly. White male, over 50, with adult children no longer living in the household, etc. But being a registered Democrat — and understanding that I was most likely called because I was a registered Democrat — I felt that I had a bit more latitude with the questions I was asked. Truth, you know, is a subjective thing anyway, and like, it's more important to get my point across than answer some disembodied mechanized voice honestly, and so, well, you know, I did what any good Democrat would do in my situation.
I lied.
I became a Hispanic male, aged 30-39, with underage children still living at home. I thought about being black for a moment, but then I remembered that almost all blacks voted for the O-man, so there wasn't much room for mischief there. The Dems think they own the women's vote too, so it was tempting to change genders. But to be perfectly honest with you, after living in a household full of women, I still have no clue how they think, so I passed on that opportunity. For all I knew giving random, contradictory answers might actually have the opposite effect of arguing against the impression I wanted to create with my answers. (Note to any women reading this essay: it's a joke. Have a sense of humor.)
So, I kept my original sexual status and orientation, but thought that the opinion of an Hispanic male would be rather tantalizing. Not just any run-of-the-mill Hispanic, mind you — a Protestant one. Somewhere in the recesses of my mind I remembered that protestant Hispanics were a significant number of voters in what one assumes to be a traditionally Catholic demographic. I didn't choose to be evangelical because, well, everyone knows just how unbelievable it is to talk about a highly religious Democrat. The essence to a good political scam is to make it at least marginally believable, and as "everyone knows" (another standard for evaluating things I've recently learned from talking with Liberals and Democrats), fundamentalists are in brainwashed-lock step with the evil Republican Party.
My identity was now firmly set, so it was time for the fun part. There were about 30 questions in all. I didn't have a pen and paper handy, but here's what I told the automated questioner as best I can remember.
To begin with, I indicated (by punching the appropriate buttons) that I went to church no more than once a month (ergo, I'm not some fanatic who takes this believing in God thing to a ridiculous level like the Republicans do; I just do it like any good Democrat — enough to hedge my bet in case I find out there actually is a God once I die, and like Lucy with Ricky, find myself with some ‘splainin to do). Also, I indicated that I voted in the 2008 presidential election, and in several elections before that. Thus, I'm not only in the correct demographic, I'm in the correct demographic with an opinion that actually matters.
Now came the actual issues. I had to give the Democrats some credit for some things occasionally, like healthcare and abortion. Again, a good scam can't wander too far away from conventional wisdom and still maintain its credibility. So, in addition to saying that the Dems cared more about healthcare than the Republicans, I gave the Democrats very high marks for protecting a woman's right to kill her unborn baby. If this seems like a severely missed opportunity for someone like me who is strongly opposed to abortion, remember that it's the Supreme Court that is the determining factor here. Obama is going to nominate ultra-libs anyway who, fortunately, will most likely replace some other retiring ultra-libs, thus making it a wash politically. (Had McCain prevailed we might have gotten at least a moderate on the High Court, but that didn't happen, which just goes to show once again that elections do have consequences.) So, to maintain my street-cred as a genuine Democrat, I too had to promote the pro-choice bilge that a 19-week, 6-day, 23-hour, 59-minute developing fetus is just a tumor with a heart beat, but at 20 weeks it magically becomes human.
As the survey progressed, I had to decide which points I wanted to get across. The War in Iraq was mentioned, but I decided to give the economy a higher concern than — and this is a direct quote — "fighting terrorism and promoting national security." First of all, what real Democrat would answer differently? And second, there was more immediacy today in economic issues than the War on Terror, which Bush has successfully prosecuted. Islamic radicalism won't rise to a concern again until Obama capriciously pulls us out of the Middle East (angering the Right) or breaks his campaign promise and keeps us in Iraq and Afghanistan well past his ever-shifting deadlines (angering the Left), or we get attacked on domestic soil and a bunch of innocent Americans are slaughtered, in which case it will all be Bush's fault.
So, I answered the following questions this way:
1. Who will do a better job of providing healthcare? Democrats
2. Which party has the better position on abortion? Democrats
3. Who is doing a better job of taking care of the economy? Republicans
4. Should we raise taxes? No
5. How good a job is Obama doing so far? Horrible
6. Is global warming a real problem? No
7. Is global warming caused by man or nature? Nature
There were a couple of other specific questions built around these general themes. I can't remember everything I was asked, but these were the main issues. Taken as a whole, my answers allowed me to offer the following generalized opinion.
§ Although I am a regularly-voting Democrat who voted for Obama (I don't remember if this direct question was asked, or it just came through in my stated preference for "Democrats"), Obama is a disappointment already.
§ The Dems will do a better job of providing healthcare and killing unborn babies (no contradiction here — I am a Democrat), but they suck at fixing the economy.
§ I'm a Hispanic male, so I most likely work for a living. Since I've repeatedly voted I'm probably not an illegal alien, so I don't want my taxes raised to support a bunch of deadbeats. But I do want my neighbors to pay for my healthcare (again, no contradiction here — I am a Democrat).
§ And finally, enough with this man-made global warming crap. It snowed in Houston on Friday, and it isn't even Christmas yet! I don't want my tax dollars going to "fix" a problem that nature created. As a Democrat, we have enough to worry about in finding ways to protect a mother's right to kill her unborn baby, and making sure I have all the free healthcare I want. And besides, even Democrats aren't all dumb enough to rally against global warming when we'd freeze our butts off doing so.
And so the call ended. I had a chance to make my voice heard, and I did it in a way that my answers could not be ignored. Concede points to establish credibility, then go for the jugular on the issues that matter most to you — and are the ones that can actually result in immediate policy changes.
The lesson of this little charade is obvious to all. While I'm sure not everyone who answers the phone is as anal retentive as I am, you still might want to ask yourself the question "just how many other disgruntled politicos are there out there doing the same thing — lying their proverbial heads off to a pollster?"
Far more than you suspect I think. Just remember all this the next time someone cites you a poll to support their opinion.
Wow! I've been a registered democrat for almost 40 years. No one's ever polled me!
I was talking to a democrat friend and Obama supporter just before the election. He asked if I'd "come around to the Big 'O' yet?" I said, "NO!" Then I explained. Most of the country is fed up with Bush. Even most of our mutual republican friends are fed up with Bush. (My democrat friend agreed.) And so, this election is a referendum on the current president and the party he represents, rather than being about specific issues and what's best for our country. Bush president = economy bad. War bad = Bush president. Bush president = rich get richer, poor get poorer. Bush president = country divided more than ever. Obama = the exact opposite. Therefore, he must surely be "The One" and "The Way!"
Obama was against the Iraq War. Bush started it, and prosecuted it poorly. Bush said he'd govern with compassionate conservatism and as a "uniter." He did neither. The economy tanked under Bush. Obama has a "plan" to get America working again. Bush is a conservative republican, Obama a liberal democrat. And perhaps most important, Bush mangles words and comes across as a complete dufus. Obama is a young, handsome, incredibly gifted speaker who certainly knows what he's talking about. The pendulum swings from one extreme to the other.
After much struggle and soul-searching. (I am a democrat, afterall.) I cast my vote for McCain based solely upon the wisdom of Lao Tzu: "Thus, the sage avoids extremes: indulgence and complaceny."
John: Please spare us the revisionist history. You can't blame Bush for not "uniting" the nation when the Looney Left (with the MSM's support) claims he's an illegitimate president who lied about WMD using the same intelligence Clinton and Congress did to justify regime change in Iraq, and opposed everything he did because he did it. [Suddenly, after 8 years of demanding that we close Gitmo immediately, the NY Times now thinks that Obama should think it through to preserve his options]. As for being clean and articulate (Biden’s words), most demagogues are, which proves what?
All this, of course, has nothing to do with the subject of the essay, but once again serves to illustrate that when given a topic, the Left has no ability to address the issue other than to toss in a bunch of platitudes about tangential objects.
Phil,
I wasn't attempting to revise history. Just pointing out the "reasoning" (I'm being sarcastic) of many of my democratic friends. In truth, I witnessed no reasoning. What I saw in my friends who supported Obama was exactly as Sean Hannity described it on one of his pre-election radio shows. Something like "They walk out of these Obama rallies with glazed eyes, arms outstretched, chanting 'Obama … Obama …' They're like the pod people from Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Bingo! I can't tell you how hard I laughed!
It's the same with polls. I was a poll junkie in the weeks leading up to the election. And not because I believed any were accurate. Polls always have an entertainment value, at least. I'd love to be polled! I'd probably toy with the pollsters just as you did.
John: We do agree on the entertainment value! And at least you voted for Sarah Palin (that's how I rationalized my vote for McCain), so you can't be all bad :)
Take care, Phil
Funny though … how both sides quote polls when it serves their interest.
Phil
I got onour site!
Great article,as usual. Interesting to see if any poling organization picks it up & “refutes’ it.
I never get polled either, but I don’t usually answer phone calls from unrecognizable addresses.
I was polled, by a visit to my house by one of the best-known, long-lived national polling organizations after the 1980 Election when I was living in Queens, NY.
The pollster asked a lot of questions, including those which would identify my political/party leanings, all of which I answered straight. I found the poll full of leading questions, which the pollsters say they never ask. Let’s attribute it to my over-exuberant nature.
But, at some point (actually, very quickly), the question of Christian Evangelicals (my term) came up in a series of not too disguised questions. OK, typical I guess, but the choice of answers in this multiple-choice exercise was disturbing. For instance, the choices were on a “one-to-five basis”, with choice one being “somewhat concerned” & choice five being “extremely concerned”, when I was asked to describe my feelings about these people, I said “OK, stop, this fails Stats 101, something to the effect that one must be given a fairly representative set of choices.”
A “ten-thousand yard stare” followed from the question man. He said nothing & despite my legal training (let the other guy answer your point before expanding your point & giving him a chance to carp at details & avoid the clear point), I decided to speak up. I said
“Look, how about choice six "I am not at all concerned about these people/groups"? Stare. I went on: "C'mon, these folks/groups don’t 'concern' me, to use your phrase, anymore than similar groups like Banai-Brith concern me. Furthermore, if you want to suggest that these evangelicals/fundamentalists (or whatever term his polling organization was characterizing them as) are something to be ‘concerned about’, then I suggest that they were doing quietly whatever they do until secular progressive evangelicals/fundamentalists, whom I’m ‘extremely concerned about’, by the way, began imposing secular progressive positions on them."
He said “What? I don’t understand your reference to Banai-Brith”. More stares back & forth. Again, despite my legal training, I again spoke first indicating that I was sure that in his training, he was warned never to raise his eyebrows, much less argue with a poll-ee even if the poll-ee talked about moon men & that this interview was over.
I think the results of the poll were used by the MSM to prove that a vast majority of the American people were concerned about Jerry Farwell & Pat Robertson.
Funny, I don't think the poll had a question about whether I was concerned about Jesus!
Make that "your site"
Sorry
Phil
I'm glad you did what you did, but if I ever get a call from a pollster, I'm gonna throw my two shoes at the phone & shout “This is a farewell kiss, you dogs!”
Inwood:
This is kind of long, and was part of the first essay I wrote about Global Warming back in 20076, but it speaks to your point:
I had a conversation with an acquaintance of mine not too long ago about the legacy of Pope John Paul II. This man was not Catholic, but he admired the pope (as did I) for the positive role he played in human affairs. Religion aside, he said that John Paul II was a great man who was universally admired, and as evidence he cited the fact that “at his funeral, most people in St. Peter’s Square weren’t even Catholic. They simply came to pay their respects to a truly great man.”
I could see that his sentiments were genuine, and I wasn’t trying to pick a fight about an inconsequential matter, but I was very intrigued about his statement regarding the crowds in St. Peter’s Square. So I asked him, “How do you know that?”
“What?” came the puzzled reply.
“How do you know that most people in St. Peter’s Square weren’t Catholic?”
He thought for a moment, then said, “Well, that’s what the commentator on TV said.”
So I asked, “How did he know that?”
My friend was a little taken aback. He’s an intelligent, highly educated person — not some bible-thumping fundamentalist who speaks in tongues, has a gun rack bolted to the back of his pickup truck, and votes Republican. He isn’t given to making wild pronouncements about politics or culture, and may even be a Democrat for all I know, though he seemed a little too sincere and consistent in his beliefs to tar him with that accusation. No, by all accounts he’s the kind of guy you’d take at his word and not think any more about it, so it caught him off guard when I continued to challenge the credibility of his information.
He thought for a moment longer and replied, “I suppose he, or someone on his staff, spoke to some of the people in the square.”
“How many people?” I persisted. “There were over 100,000 people in St. Peter’s Square, not to mention the crowd spilling out into the adjoining streets. Do you think he interviewed 10, 20, 200, a thousand? Was it a scientific study with random samples, or just the people along the edge he could get closest to?”
My friend thought again, this time long and hard, and finally said “I don’t know. I doubt if it was more than a handful of people, and I don’t think it was a scientific study.”
“So why did you believe him?”
His answer, in essence, consisted of two parts. The TV commentator was a respected figure. There was no reason to believe that he didn’t have a solid foundation upon which to base his conclusions — whatever they might be. And, the notion of John Paul II as a universal figure rather than simply a Catholic religious leader was perfectly consistent with his own preconception of the pope. Therefore the statement made sense. It seemed reasonable, at least on the surface, and it came from an authoritative source, so there was no reason to doubt it.
The truth is, there was no way short of a scientific study based on a randomly selected, statistically-valid sample of the crowd that this statement could be proven. It may have been true, or it may not have been. There was simply no way of knowing.
But there were no disclaimers accompanying the commentator’s statement to indicate that it was merely an opinion. In the words of the famous Greek philosopher Anonymous, opinions are like the exit point of the human body’s alimentary canal; everyone has one. Instead of a learned judgment based on all the relevant pieces of information, it should be characterized for what it really was: complete conjecture disguised as fact.
It’s my belief that honest people with good intentions fall into this same intellectual trap when buying-into the hyperbole of the Left on man’s supposed responsibility for global warming. Unlike the alarmists who advocate this theory — and who, I contend, deliberately manipulate or misinterpret data to promote their positions — these people have a sincere desire to protect the environment. They are willing to change any personal “destructive” behavior that is said to harm the environment, and will support policies that will supposedly repair this damage. They don’t question the underlying assumptions that the activists use to draw their conclusions, and they accept at face value the often draconian solutions these activists maintain are the minimum requirement for sound environmental policy.
Why is this? Why would otherwise rational, intelligent people accept the notion that a car’s exhaust is heating the Earth to a dangerous level, but never once ask how this conclusion was derived, whether there are other factors that better account for this phenomenon, or whether the Earth is really warming at a rapid rate — or getting hotter at all?
The answer, I believe, can be traced to our shared value system, which provides a common frame of reference to address these and other issues. It is the shorthand, connect-the-dot reasoning we all engage in to navigate through daily life. Critical thought is only needed when the matter at hand is something unique, and we’ve been talking about – and worrying about — global climate change for at least 40 years.
These values and reference points are not bestowed upon us at birth, like Moses receiving the Holy Tablets. Rather, they are taught to, absorbed by, and reinforced within each individual through a life-long process that begins with our earliest years and extends throughout the remainder of our life. For example, we’re all taught from an early age that the environment is fragile. As children we write school papers on this subject and participate in community projects to “save the environment.” When we get older, we get our news from journalism school graduates who show us pictures of melting ice caps or drought-stricken farmland and talk about the importance of driving hybrid cars, practicing resource conservation, and signing the Kyoto Treaty.
As adults we happily segment our garbage to cut-down on environmental pollution, and set our thermometers at uncomfortably high or low levels to “save energy” — thereby reducing the nasty, dirty fossil fuel emissions needed to produce our electricity. The world, and our role in it, is put clearly in focus, as are the notions of “good” or “bad” behavior regarding our treatment of the environment.
This common frame of reference allows us, as a group, to make certain judgments that are universally accepted. Windmills are good. Solar energy is better. Conservation is best. The internal combustion engine, to quote Al Gore, is an example of man seeking to “artificially enhance our capacity to acquire what we need from the earth . . . at the direct expense of the earth’s ability to provide naturally what we are seeking.” By manufacturing “millions of internal combustion engines [that] automate the conversion of oxygen to CO2, we interfere with the earth’s ability to cleanse itself of the impurities that are normally removed from the atmosphere.”
No one laughs at the main theme of this passage which presumes to know intrinsically — just like the idiot savant — what man “needs” from the Earth, and what is an “artificial enhance[ment of his] capability” to acquire natural resources “at the direct expense of the earth’s ability to provide naturally what we are seeking.” No further justification is required to support these value-laden judgments, because they’re not seen as expressing anything controversial. They’re just obvious statements about obvious matters that are plainly obvious to any thoughtful, thinking individual.
From this basis it’s a logical conclusion that cars are “interfering” with the natural state of affairs of Mother Earth, which leads to an equally obvious policy objective to deal with this cancer. As for the finite-supply of fossil fuels that are mined, drilled, and otherwise gouged from the Earth to feed these poison-producing internal combustion engines, they serve only one purpose: to make Dick Cheney richer, and help George Bush justify an illegal, immoral war against Saddam Hussein whom we’re all glad is out of power, even though Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction and ought to be impeached.
Because our schools, celebrities, TV anchorpersons and other opinion leaders accept these observations as fact, who are we to disagree? Since 1975 (my earliest memory on this subject) I’ve been told repeatedly that the world is running out of oil. There’s only so much dead-dinosaur juice in the ground, and it will all be gone in 20 years or less. Thirty years later, the same 20 year prediction is still being made. If we don’t switch to hybrid cars, solar powered electricity, or wind-driven generators, we’ll use up all the world’s oil by 2030, or 2040, or 2050, or [pick a date] sometime in the near future.
And when all the oil is gone, and coal is too dirty to burn, and nuclear power is too unsafe to produce, where will we be? Ergo, we need to start changing our lifestyles NOW!
At no point in this conventional-wisdom analysis does anyone stop and say, “but wouldn’t there be plenty of oil if we’re willing to pay $100 a barrel to recover it?”
The Earth isn’t running out of oil. It’s running out of easily-acquired $20 dollar a barrel oil. There’s plenty of oil off the shores of California and Florida, in Alaska, Mexico, the Middle East, the North Sea, Russia, and a whole bunch of other places in the world, including oil locked in shale. It’s harder to get, and therefore more expensive to acquire. But it’s there.
This doesn’t argue against practicing conservation or pursuing alternative means of energy production. A solar power car would be great — if there’s a strong enough market demand to justify the billions of dollars of research and development needed to expedite its arrival. Windmills are a fantastic source of cheap, clean energy, unless they happen to spoil Ted Kennedy’s oceanfront view, at which point good old fashioned gas guzzling cars will do just fine.
If Al Gore’s prescription for responsible environmental management makes sense, he should be able to propose it without the intellectual legerdemain of over-hyped, value-laden judgments disguised as impartial analysis. It’s one thing to illustrate a point with a dramatic example. It’s quite another to have the example itself stand as a substitute for any further thinking about the matter. If the issue is real, the evidence will support it.
But to get the evidence, one first has to collect all the relevant data. When dealing with an issue as monumental as global climate change, 10, 20, 50, even a 100 year “trend” is nothing more than the blink of an eye in geological terms. If global warming actually exists, and further, if man is the principle cause of its existence, there should be clear, convincing evidence of this before we begin substantially rearranging important chunks of our current way of life. Why spend thousands of dollars to place your house on stilts so it won’t be flooded if you’re living in the middle of a desert? Such an expenditure may be perfectly reasonable for those homes along Gulf Coast beaches. But before I dip into my life savings to retrofit my house, I’d like to see a little evidence that central Utah is about to get inundated with water.
When confronted with this question, the typical answer we get from the Protectors of the Planet is that we can’t afford to wait until all the data is in. By then it will be too late, so we must act now! That’s why it was so important in the 1970s to take strong measures against a fast-approaching ice age — that is, until global warming became the problem. So, now we’re told that we need to work just as quickly in 2006 to stop the warming of the earth, except recent studies have indicated that we may be in for a mini-ice age after all.
However, the possibility that Britain and France might freeze doesn’t automatically mean that we’re off the hook for global warming. Concerned scientists have assured us that the Earth is going to simultaneously heat and cool because of global warming, which will produce glaciers and deserts at the same time. So if a drought doesn’t get you, frostbite will.
At least we don’t have to pick and choose our environmental disasters any more! Instead of having to decide between rising temperatures or ice-age conditions, the new improved global warming theory can accommodate both. And as an added bonus, there’s no need to look any farther than ourselves to both identify the problem and find the solution. Man is the reason that all of this happening; not the sun, the Earth’s rotation, or any naturally-occurring cyclical phenomenon.
And man — if he’s willing to take Al Gore’s advice, follow the prescriptions of the New York Times, and listen to the informed pleadings of Ted Danson and other Hollywood celebrities — can fix his mistakes. That is, if he’s willing to make dramatic changes in his current lifestyle, and pay the proper amount of taxes to the right elected officials who will tell him what to do and how to do it for all the right reasons.
***
And so, there was no option #6, because — and this is the point — in his world there IS NO option #6. It doesn't fit the template "everyone knows" is the way things are.
9 and counting!
I always lie on polls, but then there is most likly some lib out there canceling my vote with his lies, so it doesn't really matter.
I know this comment isn't woth much. I just did it to get in on the other 100 comments.
Ivan — There's an old expression in Washington. "Everything's been said, but not everyone has had a chance to say it yet." Your comments are always welcome. Phil
Phil
Unscience in polls, from Althouse Blog
Monday, December 08, 2008
McCain Wins Wal-Mart Shoppers, But Obama Prevailed at Target, Macy's, Costco & JC Penney."
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1649
McCain also got Sears and Kohl's. And Obama got Nieman Marcus and Bloomingdale's. Make of it what you will.
Are you defined by a store? The poll subjects had to pick one store from a list.
Edit of a comment:
It’s the 2008 version of the "Bradley Effect": many people who “voted” in favor of the other stores misled pollsters because they were ashamed to admit that they shopped at Wal-Mart.
Inwood
What about Home Depot or any of our favorite Bait & Tackle shops? We could also look at beer-gardens, Bars, Pubs, and speak easys. My favorite is The Dew Drop Inn. The one in Grayling, Michigan has a nice Jackalope head mount hanging on the wall.
Ivan
OK, I'll play the game, but only if you follow my serious point about polls, which is that my choices have to go from zero to infinity whether it's five choices, 10, or 100. Ya see, I have zero interest in Bait & Tackle shops.
My serious point in citing this silly poll question is a simple one: in my opinion, admittedly based on anecdotal evidence, most men don't like shopping & don't have a favorite store & since this poll makes them choose one, it's bogus insofar as it attempts to relate either of the candidates to shopping preferences. It's like Barbara Walter's tree question.
Phil's answer to me about my 1980 experience is correct. The pollsters were surprised that an amiable dunce (in the memorable phrase of Tip O'Neil who based his foreign policy in Latin America on the aspirations of his sister, a nun; but I digress), an affable Irishman, an actor, had beaten a Democrat after the Dems had overthrown the evil Republicans only four years earlier. They thought & they thought & came to the conclusion that something sinster had to be the cause, Their bogeyman was: The Religious Right (Boo, Hiss).
See, these religious (that very word discrediting them)people came from somewhere like Rabelais' Chaneph, the island of religious hypocrites, unholy water swallowers, paternoster mumblers, chaplet jugglers, & sham saints who lived by begging. (See: Pantagruel, iv. 63, 64.) So to any reasonable pollster doing his/her job, any sensible person would have to have some, repeat some, concern about these people, if one can call them people, just as you assume that I must have some interest in a Bait & Tackle shop.
So they left no room for zero concern about these freaks in 1980s Polling land, even though that approach flunks Stats 101, not to mention Logic 101.
Inwood
Maybe I didn't explain clearly. I thought I was supporting your thesis and just making a joke of polls. It seems that the Zogby poll heavily favors females, thereby my reference to B&T shops.
Ivan
Sorry. Missed your joke. Just read it over &, yes, it’s obvious that you’re sending up Zogby.
Oh, well gave me a chance to get off some steam & make a pedantic reference to Rabelais!
Inwood
PS Met my wife in The Dew Drop Inn in Spring Lake (The Irish Riviera) on the Jersey Shore. She hates shopping. And stupid polls directed at women!
Same automated poll given to Señor Philippe Joaquin (Hispanic, male, age-45, catholic)
1. Who will do a better job of providing healthcare? Democrats, made it so we can’t be denied services.
2. Which party has the better position on abortion? Republicans, we Hispanics want big families.
3. Who is doing a better job of taking care of the economy? Democrats – no stinking background checks on jobs.
4. Should we raise taxes? Sure, I’m not paying any.
5. How good a job is Obama doing so far? Great, my whole family is set to cross the border the day he takes office.
6. Is global warming a real problem? Not really. It needs some warming up here (Mexico’s a lot warmer).
7. Is global warming caused by man or nature? Man. Now if you’ll excuse me, I got to go pick up my F-350. I just got it modified for towing my 200hp, 35ft cabin cruiser.
***
Same automated poll given to Ms. Phyllis Jackson (white, female, age-58, Unitarian)
1. Who does a better job of providing healthcare? Doctors
2. Which party has the better position on abortion? Planned-Parenthood
3. Who is doing a better job of taking care of the economy? My broker
4. Should we raise taxes? Yes, it’s the patriotic thing to do.
5. How good a job is Obama doing so far? He’s so much cuter than that old coot McCain.
6. Is global-warming a real problem? Yes, I hate driving in snow.
7. Is global-warming caused by man or nature? There’s a difference?
***
Same automated poll given to Mr. Phil Jackson (black, male, age-50, black liberation church)
1. Who does a better job of providing healthcare? Obama
2. Which party has the better position on abortion? Obama
3. Who is doing a better job of taking care of the economy? Obama
4. Should we raise taxes? Yes, if Obama say so.
5. How good a job is Obama doing so far? You making sum crack ‘bout Obama?
6. Is global warming a real problem? Was-up with that?
7. Is global warming caused by man or nature? White-people caused it.
***
Same automated poll given to Mr. Philip Jason (white, male, age-27, Jewish)
1. Who does a better job of providing healthcare? Democrats, Republicans just don’t care people are dying.
2. Which party has the better position on abortion? Labor, ah … Democrat
3. Who is doing a better job of taking care of the economy? Paulson and Democrats
4. Should we raise taxes? How else are we going to pay for government?
5. How good a job is Obama doing so far? Okay I guess, but I do wish he’d say something nice about Israel.
6. Is global warming a real problem? We have to take action now or we’re going to lose the polar bears, NYC and my grandma’s retirement home in Florida will be wiped out; war, famine, plague, reality TV, the end of civilization as we know it …
7. Is global warming caused by man or nature? It’s caused by SUV’s and the rape of the planet
***
Same automated poll given to Mr. Achmed Jasmanian (undisclosed, male, age-36, Muslim)
1. Who does a better job of providing healthcare? Republicans – they don’t steal all my money to give to useless street bums.
2. Which party has the better position on abortion? Republicans. Democrats are godless infidel whores who defile manhood and murder the unborn sons (subtext – would be okay if they just wanted to abort useless girls).
3. Who is doing a better job of taking care of the economy? Republicans. At least, I don’t have to pay them so much protection to avoid deportation and keep my convenience-store open. Anyway, that’s not why I vote Democrat. I vote Democrat because stupid Republican didn’t want me here. At least, not without waiting my turn.
4. Should we raise taxes? No, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice …?
5. How good a job is Obama doing so far? Stupid American! He hasn’t done anything yet!
6. Is global warming a real problem? You godless infidels crack me down!
7. Is global warming caused by man or nature? Why are you asking me same stupid question? Are you trying to trick me into giving different answer? Mama, send Osama more money. He’s right these stupid kuffar need to die. [slams phone down]
Inwood,
Regarding the Zogby poll. Interestingly, Zogby neglects to give us an overall analysis of this sampling, preferring to emphasize the difference between Walmart shoppers and Target shoppers (as though we did not already know of this split). If you multiply each store's sample percentage by %voters for each candidate and then sum each candidate's results across all stores, you get Obama 45% v McCain 39% of all retail shoppers polled. This is a narrower gap than the more suggestive Target/Cosco/Penny gap. There is a missing 15% of Zogby polled voters about which we know nothing but can assume a similar distribution. Possibly these are people so rich or elitist they'd never shop retail, though I think the Neiman Marcus category would suit them. Or, they may be 'equal-opportunity' shoppers without any preference.
Bob: I think you've started a one man cottage industry!
By the way, a funny note on Zogby. He was my next door neighbor in a suburb of Utica NY back in the mid-60's to mid 70s. I think he might be a year or two younger than me, because I didn't have anything to do with him back then. But it is a small world.