What is the true significance of political polls?

[dfgrbac]

Or (I could ask) any polls for that matter?

I am sure political scientists would disagree with me in what I am about to say. But consider the following.

If you have been paying attention, you have recently heard of embedded reporters in the Iraq war. Do you believe this gives you a true picture of war? The reporters travel with the troops and are highly protected by them; they become a part of the military unit. They take pictures of our projectiles flying off to kill the (presumed) enemy, but no one sees what actually happens on the other end. Does it hit the enemy forces? Does it hit a civilian village? Our military refuses to estimate the number of casualties, especially civilian casualties. Makes for a nice clean war, does it not? Well, guess what - war isn't clean!

Actually, this is not the first embedding we have experienced, although it may be the first openly recognized. Our culture is loaded with embedding. It has concepts embedded in our thinking by our educational and other institutions. The idea that polls actually do something worthwhile for democracy is an embedded concept. We just accept the concept without question.

What polls actually accomplish is the defeat of democracy - a nice subtle trick for and by the Empire. Polls guide our thinking away from concepts that are dangerous to the Empire.

True democracy requires a secret ballot to test and gage the thinking of the population. If anyone knows what someone else voted, they could change their vote by the influence of that knowledge. If a poll says one candidate is way behind the others, many voters will say, "Well, what's the use of voting for him (or her)? We might as well vote for the poll leader who (says he) best represents our ideals." But, with no polls to guide them, and no knowledge about the leaning of the general population, the voters are free to choose whatever candidate they truly believe is the best choice based on the candidate's statements on the issues!

Much is made of the accuracy of polling techniques (usually + - 3%). But no one tests the validity of the questions in the poll. There are a million ways poll questions could be formed to lead the poll results in the direction desired. This process has been fined tuned to an extent few understand - except the experts in propaganda.

As I mentioned in other posts, the media is doing all it can to prevent the rise of a popular candidate who would be dangerous to the Empire. It is amazing how they can dismiss a candidate with a poll that only tests a small percentage of the population. What's worse, the early polls happen before most of the population even starts thinking about the election. When they start looking into the choices, they find the major candidates have already been selected by the polls. The media pollsters seem to be dismissing Dennis Kucinich harder than anyone, and they have tried with Howard Dean. But I believe the Empire is not "as afraid" of Howard Dean as they are of Dennis Kucinich. This is the reason you hear more about Dean.

In the coming Primary, don't consider any polls in your decision. With an open mind, make the best choice for the country that you can on the merits of the candidate's stance on the issues. Issues, that's what's important! Ignore polls!

In the above link, Ted Koppel told Kucinich that the Kucinich campaign had little money (although Dennis said $4 million is not nothing), and was even lower in the polls. Well, hursh my mouth! Shame on me for considering voting for Kucinich! See how they dismiss democracy with their jabs?

Remember, we make the polls! The polls don't make us!

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. That even in this day and age, there are people who are willing

to engage in telephone conversations with strangers.

[adadem]

2. LOL, how true

I'd love to see a report on how often the polls were wrong vs how many times they were right.

[arikara]

3. Polls are like the selectively chosen 10 second sound byte

They never show the complete issue and are completely useless other than as a form of propaganda. That's my opinion.

I always lie when polled, especially in the demographic section. They think I'm a 110 year old native american man who lives in Beverly Hills and am a highly paid high tech executive.

[Padraig18]

4. They are 'snapshots'

They capture opinion at a given point in time, only. They are more useful when they are 'tracking polls' that follow the same group about the same issues over time.

[Lady President]

5. They're powerful

I completely agree with you that polls should be ignored and are not very accurate. However, they are powerful for a couple reasons:

First, there are a lot of people who are fairweather fans and seem to need to be a "winner." These are the same people who cheered for the Cowboys, then the Bears, then the 49ers, then the Packers~~ you get the idea. If they see a poll that says a candidate is leading by a large margin, they vote for that person. They want to be on the winning side. This scares me because the media is going to show a million polls with Bush far ahead of our nominee.

Second, some people simply don't have confidence in their own opinions. They'll figure if everyone else likes Candidate X, then he must be the best.

[dfgrbac]

6. You bet they're powerful - powerful propaganda!

And the Empire knows how to use them to greatest advantage.

We, the people, need to realize that we are being duped! I hope the general population will wake up in time!

[rock]

7. I'll restate what I see as a simple explanation

If the poll is for public consumption then it's cooked; it's purpose is to persuade you; this is what the person paying for the poll wants.

If the poll is for private consumption then it must be scientically accurate. This is what the person paying for the poll wants.

Poll-takers know their clientele. Note: if you hear the results of a poll that you didn't pay for, then it's a public poll.

[dfgrbac]

8. Good point!

You made a very good and legitimate point, Rock!

[ThirdWheelLegend]

9. DUer's all cheered DK that night against Koppel.. yet

Yet within a day the front page of General Discussion once again became flooded with polls and whose wooden stick was bigger.

I guess we don't live and learn.


TWL

[JohnKleeb]

10. we'll learn after the shocka in Iowa :)

I shall hope :). Polls dont always mean the truth, after all Reagan was expected to lose to Carter in the '80 GE and FDR was in 1936 and FDR won by a great margin. Now I am not saying that DK will win in Iowa but prepare for a suprise :).

[Lil Kim]

11. Polls are significant if

your numbers are high. Otherwise, they're insignificant.

[Lil Kim]

12. Oh, one other thing.

That Kucinich has got to be one of the dorkiest looking candidates ever. And I'm only half joking when I say this. Whether you like it or not, looks play a factor in elections and I bet his Q rating doesn't even register. Here's some for others: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110004303