|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lies, Damned Lies, and Polling Statistics |
|---|
| 'Obama Wins' was the convenient gestation of a media template from Iowa, and it was wrong |
|
This is Dark Cloud on Wednesday, January 09, 2008. A friend sent me this URL to take a test to see which presidential candidate most corresponded to my views. It surprised me. I came closest to Barack Obama, with 81% correspondent views. Then, inexplicably, to Mike Gravel, with 80%. Then, to Bill Richardson, with 77%. I would have scored a lot higher with Obama but I am against capital punishment and he is for it. Sorta. I’m for it as well but we have not devised a fair and sure manner of ascertaining guilt, and until that is fixed, I’m against its implementation. If I had been called by a polling company and asked whether I was for or against capital punishment, answering yes or no would not accurately reflect my views. Not when lain upon the Procrustian Bed of a poll taker’s template. I mention this because Hillary Clinton had a solid, if not overwhelming victory in New Hampshire last night over Barack Obama, despite polls showing Obama about ten percentage points up. This means they were about 13 percentage points wrong, which is, in pollster terms, a nuclear meltdown. Such a fiasco was this for polltakers that they’re trying desperately to explain their incompetence today and will for the foreseeable future. It makes sense when you realize that polls are paid for by subjective groups desiring a result which can be announced to move people towards that conclusion, and to do so requires them to foresee the competencies and intelligence of the public. That anything actually accurate emerges is coincidence, not scientific surety. Previous to taking the presidential preference test, I thought I was a Clinton supporter, although she does not emotionally grab me the way her husband can still. She’s exceedingly competent, and her eight years as a Senator shows she can work the Democratic city and the highly Republican north of the state and be popular in both places, no small feat. She works well on tasks, will work with anyone to get stuff done, and by and large has won over virtually everyone she has toiled with. Even Republicans and those who hate her, for their own reasons, say she is by far the most knowledgeable debater in either party so far, hands down. I mention these templates a lot, but here is an example of why media should not be allowed to use the clichés of language or camera angle or emotional script without being held up to scorn. Look at the conclusions drawn from the Iowa caucuses of last week. First, Huckabee – a genuine ignorant man - did not win because of his exciting purity and message. He won because there is no way in hell Evangelical Christians would vote for a Mormon in bulk. Obama won solely because this was the only Iowa primary held in January, not in March. Ergo, lots of first time college age kids home from school and able to participate. This in January in Iowa, so let’s not waste time imagining many activity alternatives. Still, Obama and I are nearly simpatico, but he comes across to me as arrogant with no executive experience to speak of. Clinton ran a large law firm, handled national cases, had to have learned from her husband’s White House, and rose almost immediately to the front ranks of the Senate, to which she has been elected twice. I know lawyers who tell me Obama was the best law professor they have ever heard, and that Republicans affiliated with the University of Chicago, where he taught, say he is the best politician and one of the best public speakers they’ve ever heard. I can believe and accept all of that, along with his obvious high intelligence, and still be hesitant. One reason is I am suspicious of Republicans, who will face a complete repudiation of their recent rule if Clinton is elected, representing as she does all they supposedly hate. They may not fear Obama and feel the country simply won’t elect a black man President, because god knows most of them would not since Nixon’s Southern Strategy brought all the bigots into the Big Tent. In this they are wrong, but they are willing to risk it because, frankly, they fear women and sex more than they do the black man who is, at least, a man. Modern society has bent gender differences and shattered the accepted values of what Alpha malehood is, the aspiration of so many. It’s tough enough to realize nerds like Bill Gates rule. It will be a major blow to our many unstable men if Hillary Clinton is elected above such cardboard poseurs of virility as Romney and Giuliani and Thompson. It also makes Hillary Clinton far more likely to be stalked than Obama, and more likely to be killed than any other President elected in our lifetime should she win. Misogyny transcends all races, religions, and societies: it’s everywhere. The fear and hate Clinton inspires in men and women is because she upsets their value system and calls them out. You want a level playing field where anyone can win? Or one where everyone still knows their place. Bush ignored Powell and Rice is a complete and clueless failure, but served Bush’s purpose, and I suspect many Republicans want Obama because it’s not so humiliating losing to a man. Losing a wrestling match being pinned by a woman is too much. |
| Post your views and reviews on The Boulder Lout Forum. |